funding transaction. the goal is to present some information that the state wants to be sure it's communicated to you in the public. true interest cost is all in, 3.13%. finance charge of the loan, cost of issuance, estimated to be $817,000. amount of the proceeds received is the loan, amount of $699 million. and the all-in costs, including principle and interest repayment is a little over $1.3 billion. the documents with you today is the sfpuc describing the loan terms and the agreement between sfpuc and the trustee. our trustee is u.s. bank. december rubing contractual

loan, repayment and redemptions. the next two slides are, again, standard slides that we include when we're talking about financing transactions with you. i will not go through the details directly. you can read them at your convenience. i do want to make a point that the financing transaction is not a public offering of securities as is the case when we issue revenue bonds. this was a direct placement transaction between sfpuc and e.p.a. there is no public offering in the form of political official statement. so it will be posted on-line and will share it when ready.

the schedule is noted today, requesting your review and approval of this item. we're scheduled to close later this week on friday in washington, d.c. deputy general manager will be flying out to attend that closing, along with some of the folks from my team as well as alexander ganell from infrastructure. it's been a large team effort and we're excited to be able to close on this transaction. we've included the other dates, so you are familiar with that. you approved the wastewater bond transaction. and we're scheduled to close on the wastewater sale and receive

that on august 6. and the recommended action for you today is to approve the loan agreement and delegate to the general manager authorization to execute and deliver the final documents, as needed. i'm happy to take any questions. >> president kwon: commissioners? >> i move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: before we vote, any public comment on item 13? with that, all in favor? opposed? it's approved. terrific work. next item, number 14, please. >> clerk: authorize general manager to execute a second memorandum of understanding with the city of daly city for groundwater storage and recovery project for an amount not to exceed $435,000 with a duration

not to exceed two years. >> steve ritchie. this is a second m.o.u. it's to continue payments for consulting services, which is part of the groundwater storage recover rag project network of wells and for groundwater modelling services not to exceed $435,000. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> move the item. >> second. >> president kwon: before we vote, any public comment? all in favor? opposed? it's approved. next item, 15, please. >> clerk: approve the selection of moffatt and nichol-ags joint venture award pro-0092, not to exceed $3,750,000 and duration of five years. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. cathy how. this item is before you today because we have one proposer on the project, but we're confident that the proposer meets the minimum qualifications and, in fact, exceeds them. we did public outreach. it's for erosion control of lake merc merced. they've had previous contracts with the port related to waterfront protection of assets. >> commissioner moran: is moffatt and nichol on one end and a.g.s. the other? >> yes. >> commissioner moran: are they independently capable of bidding on the work? >> they are, but they chose to

joint venture. >> commissioner moran: in the process of doing that, they had no other competition? >> pardon me? >> commissioner moran: there was no other competing bid? >> correct. >> commissioner moran: do we have the authority -- do we review joint venture proposals like that? do we have the right to approve or disapprove? if this is a strategy for eliminating competition, that's something we should care about. >> we can't tell them they can't joint venture. that's their -- that's the consultant's prerogative whether they want to come in as a joint venture or not. >> if i could restate your question slightly. you are asking if we have the authority to say that we will not entertain joint ventures, it has to be a single entity

proposing on the project? >> commissioner moran: no. there are legitimate uses for joint ventures. >> i understand that. >> commissioner moran: if it's part of your portfolio that doesn't meet a certain need and you need a partner, that's reasonable. and it's a nice way of building ownership interest for smaller firms. so there's a lot of good reasons for the joint venture stuff. it also appears to me that there is opportunity for limiting competition and that's something we should care about. i'm not sure what the strategy is that we should follow on that, but i would like to hear about that. >> that's sounds great. i think we'll formulate a question and give it to our city attorney. >> commissioner moran: thank you. >> president kwon: any questions? any public comment on this item? do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> president kwon: all in favor?

opposed? approved. next item, please. >> clerk: item 16 authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a purchase and sale agreement with alameda county to sell approximately 5,484-square-foot road easement and an approximately 22,548-square-foot slope easement to be designated portion of calaveras road and sfpuc. >> i move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment? all in favor? opposed? it's moved. >> clerk: item 17, approve cleanpowersf integrated resource plan compliance filing and authorize to the general manager submission to i.r.p. compliance

filing. >> president kwon: welcome back. >> we're seeking your approval of the integrated rye source plan or i.r.p. compliance filing attached to agenda item and to authorize the g.m. to submit the i.r.p. to the california public utilities commission by its august 1 deadline. senate bill 350 required programs like cleanpowersf to prepare and file an i.r.p. an i.r.p. is a plan that efrm -- shows how affordable rates and meeting other environmental goals. it requires that electric energy providers file individual i.r.p.s every two years with the first to be filed this august.

the sfpuc obtained a firm, technical advisors to conduct analysis and support the development of the draft report for cleanpowersf. that was provided to you as a communication item. we'll come back to you with a more detailed presentation and discussion of the draft i.r.p. in the next couple of months. the analysis conducted to date has been designed to help cleanpowersf make informed procurement decisions as full enrollment is completed and identify resources and actions required to meet state mandates in city and county renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets. the cases featured different mixes of resources, pred

predominantly solar and wind as well as local resources as well. we focused on wind and solar as the dominant resources analyzed because they stand out as the most cost effective over the i.r.p. planning horizon. under each case analyzed, all existing state and city energy supply requirements and goals are met. case five in particular with higher wind energy and local resource mix represents the lowest cost portfolio. as since we believe it best meets the goals for cleanpowersf and meets the requirements for submission. the filing attached to this action item reflects the use of

this case. the submission on this case represents the beginning of an ongoing, long-term planning process at the cpuc. while the cpuc will be required to use this as a pathway to energy and climate goals, cleanpowersf is not bound by the resources or locations of resources that the plan identifies. the city can update its plan and provide it during the next i.r.p. cycle the i.r.p. will be updated as needed to reflect changing market and technology conditions as well as policy directives from the commission, mayor and board of supervisors. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you have. >> president kwon: any questions? okay. any public comment on this item?

yes, ma'am. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm i'm michelle pierce, environmental justice organization. i'm particularly concerned with this draft i.r.p. this draft i.r.p.

>> i would really like to encourage some more converted effort to speak directly to community residents, citizens on the ground, with this issue, to make sure that we, in fact, benefit from this plan, especially considering that the new plant, the updated plant, which is half a block from my house, i live on phillips and newcome is capturing and burning methane, which bay view hunters point spent 30 years giving the pg&e plants that burn methane

out of our neighborhoods. since we're going to be more highly impacted by that piece, we would like to also see what some of the benefits in the i.r.p. plan are to help reduce that burden on our neighborhood and our communities specifically. thank you very much. i'll be bugging you. >> thank you. you answered my question. i wasn't initially understanding what the mechanism would be for concentrating the impact on your neighborhood. i think you address nad and i t. i see you were talking. thank you for coming and bringing this matter to us. >> any other public comment? i think we had a motion and a second, is that right? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> it is approved. so we are not going into closed session. there's no closed session today. and so i am going to move to the

end and the other new commission business. i will note again, august 14th, that meeting is canceled. is there any public comments on new business? meeting is adjourned, thank you, everyone, for your time.

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks

projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be

alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone

takes this so be proud of taking ann [roll call] >> clerk: we expect commissioner hillis to be out and commissioner fong to be in shortly. first up, cases for continuance, 2018-001243cua, proposed continuance to august 23, 2018. item 2, 2014-002541dva, india basin development agreement project, proposed continuance to

august 23, 2018. i would like to be clear, the continuance is related to the development portion only. the project itself will be heard today as outlined on the agenda. so it's one piece of that. items 3a and b for 2017-016476cua and ofa, 420 taylor street, continuance until september 27, 2018. and item 4, 2016-000378cua, 1600 jackson street. proposed to continue until september 27, 2018. 5a and b, 2007-00127ocua and

var, until october 6, 2018. 2017-0032299-drp, withdrawn. under regular calendar, 2017-014841cua, 655 alvarado street, a request to 21 to august 30, 2018. item 20, 2009, 0880drp, discretionary review request has been withdrawn.

i did have two speaker cards for india basin, but i wanted to make sure that you will only be able to speak to the continuance of the development agreement and, as i mentioned earlier, the project itself will be considered today. >> hi. i'm georgia shudish. i was here about 655 alvarado. i had prepared remarks. and it said, that they wanted to send this to you and didn't want to deal with this. so i'm confused as to now why the president of the building commission wants to continue this project. it should not be continued. it's been continued once before. we're all here today. barry vereti is the neighbor who is impacted. she doesn't want it continued. her family is here many they've

taken off from work. it would be nice to know precisely why president mccarthy wants it continued, especially since they dealt with it may 16 and they sent it back to you. i don't know if you watched the hearing, but i don't feel there should be a continuance. >> i think staff, the director has an answer. we'll hear the rest of the public comment on consent calendar and then you may get an answer. >> okay. >> i have speaker guards for neola ganz and joyce armstrong. >> good afternoon. i'm mary fereti, 651 alvarado street. i appreciate if you could hear it today. i don't want it continued. i came last time and it was continued. it's really taking a toll on me and i would like it taken care

of, please. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i, too, am the owner of 651 alvarado street. i don't want a continuance. i, too, am a city employee. i haven't been here in the past. i apologize. i took time off today. i would like it resolved. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, vice president melgar, commissioners. jeremy paul, commenting on the request for continuance on india basin, item 2. it's a bit of a mystery to the neighborhood and the community why this portion of the application would be separated off. there will be plenty of people in attendance today to testify

as to their concerns and how this application fails to meet their concerns. at the very least, i would ask that staff or someone would inform the community why this had to be separated out and how it benefits the community for it to be separated out. it seems to me there's a lot of mystery with the way this application has been handled and the way that information has flowed on this and a lot of people are unsettled by it. >> i can solve that mystery quickly. there was a notification error that prohibits it being considered with the rest of the project today. >> why didn't it continue the entire mat sner >> it was only on the d.a., not the rest of the project. d.a.s have very specific requirements and it was not met when the notice went out. >> in which case, i would

suggest it's unfair to the community to have to come back yet again for another comment on the same case. thank you. >> thank you. any other public speakers on the continuance calendar? okay. >> on alvarado street, i received the call this morning that relaid the request from president mccarthy. the request for continuance was put forward because the building inspection commission is scheduled to hear a report from the staff on this project at their august 15 meeting. and they have requested that you delay your consideration of this project until that report is submitted to them and their comments are submitted so we can incorporate their report and comments into our report to you on the project. in which case, we are -- given that timing, we're suggesting a continuance to august 30. >> okay.

commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i would hope that chief inspector o'reardon can explain what he has learned. >> yes. i believe he will come on august 30. >> commissioner richards: i move to continue all items as proposed. >> including 17? >> very good, commissioners. [roll call vote] >> and continue 5b to october 4. consent calendar considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate

discussion unless the commission or public or staff so requested. at which point, it will be removed and considered a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 7, 2018-006200cua, 100 church street, and item 8, 2018-008376cua, 2011 mission street. i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment? public item is closed. >> move to approved 7 and 8. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. to approve 7 and 8 -- [roll call vote] so moved. that passes 6-0 and places item

9 under commission matters. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards: i wanted to mention something i read in "the new york times," looking at driverless cars. autonomous will cost less than uber and travel faster than cars stuck in traffic are years away. they talk about the driverless cars and indianapolis, detroit and nashville, opponents say that buses and trains will seem antiquated. it turned t.o.d. on its head,

because we had a zoning proposal based on transit order development. someone said, don't go to lightrail system. a partner with venture firm says, we don't understand the economics of self-driving cars because we haven't experienced them. i get nervous when city planners are making technology bets because none of us know where this is going. and someone from cato said, i expect by 2030 most transit agencies will be zombie agencies that exist to collect taxes from people to pay down their debt. lastly, a voice of reason, somebody said, let's talk about what we can predict. the problem of the city is a problem of sharing space. in 2100, the problem will still be sharing space. so it was a good article. i suggest people read it because it made me think. lastly, i wanted to congratulate commissioner fong, commissioner johnson, commissioner moore, for

passing rules 3-0 each on their renominations. one of the items that i was questioned on by supervisor yee involves family housing and what does the definition of family housing and he indicated that the supervisors passed a resolution to ask the planning commission to come up with a definition. i was unaware of that, but i promised him that we would put it on our action items list. so we don't want him to take his vote back come next week if he doesn't see i'm doing that. we had one last week, i think it was a ted egan redo, to talk about the economy, because we're hearing rumblings about where we are on the economic cycle. that would be informative. thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, announcements. >> i'm doing everything i can to keep the planning department from becoming a zombie agency.

i have one item to report. regarding a story about a project at 4527 20th street. this article was posted on monday regarding the demolition of a single-family home at that site. the demolition occurred in october last year. and in the article, it was alleged that the property owner began to demolish the building exceeding the scope of work for a permit they obtained for dry rot repair in the issuance of the emergency order because the work contributed to the site becoming an active slide. and this is not correct. the property owner obtained a permit, but did contact d.b.i. with concerns with the retaining wall. in june, they performed multiple site visits and issued an emergency order due to imminent site hazard and landslide risk. in august, the planning department approved the demo

work. when there's an emergency order, both departments have to approve it. as a condition of approval, studied the building survey, which to document the building because it was listed as a potential historic resource. upon completion of the photo study, the building was demolished in october under the direction of d.b.i. it's our understanding, that the socket site article was written without any consultation to either department and d.b.i. has reached out to correct the error in the report. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> clerk: item 11, review of past events at board of supervisors and board of appeals and there was no historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, aaron starr, legislative affairs. at land use, supervisor safai and tang's ordinance to amend

312 controls 1 their districts the committee heard this and continued it one week. the committee voted to forward to the full board with positive recommendation. the committee heard supervisor safai ordinance to allow catering in restaurants and it was continued. the committee voted to forward to the full board with positive recommendations. the committee heard supervisor stefani's ordinance that would allow existing massage establishments to legalize in union area, which it has been prohibited in that district. heard it on the 15th, and included an 18-month timeline to legalize the massage development use. and, two, to specify only current massage businesses can

yield themselves of this. at land use committee hearing, supervisor stefani made a notion to incorporate both modifications and made a motion until july 31. next, co-corrections ordinance to improve the readability of the code. you heard it april 19 of this year and recommended approval with modifications. all of the modifications were included in the draft we sent to the board. at land use, there was no public comment. the committee voted to forward the item as a committee report to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, the committee heard your proposed ordinance that would allow limited nonconforming uses to stay open until midnight. you heard this item on april 19 of this year and voted to recommend approval. there was no public comment, but the committee asked about any

public comment that was had at the planning commission. forwarded the item with a positive recommendization. finally, central soma, supervisor kim proposed 16 amendments, in addition to 48 amendments from the previous week. some will require rereferral back to planning. a few highlights include the housing sustainability district to allow projects to provide the entirety of affordable housing on site and to support p.d.r. businesses facing displacement and amendments to more flex in the for proposed residential tower at 636 4th street. that was continued until september 10. at the full board this week, supervisor tang's ordinance on accessory dwelling units and homesf 2.0 continued to july 31

because a supervisor was absent. and cannabis -- prohibition on cannabis retail and dispensaries in chinatown was continued until august 31 because tang and fewer were absent. landmark designation for 601 3rd street catering uses for limited restaurants, the 312 relaxation in district 4 and 11, and code corrections ordinance passed first read. and then we had one introduction that i'm aware of to prohibed cafeteria and office uses. it will come to you for comment. for of our commissioners passed rules and will be voted on next week at the board.

>> clerk: no report for board of appeals. to be clear, item 20 was withdrawn for 2100 mission street. 21 for 1503 francisco will be heard today. commissioners, that places us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public can address the commission on matters that are in the jurisdiction unless it's an agenda item. each member of the public can address the commission for up to 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> congratulations. i guess you could call yourselves the fab-four. the interior was really beautiful. it's a loss to san francisco.

this is a project building that -- i will preface my remarks that it's rm1 zoning. it got approved in -- hello, sfgov, can i have the overhead? it got a revision from the planning department for the site permit. there it is. there's the original building. here it is during the work. this is the rear of it. here it is now, just prior to the staging, which has taken place and it's now for sale at 4 1/2 at one point, a revision to

the ground floor and here's the original plan by the 311. there was no d.r. and they were small units. they can only approve what is before them. they wanted a stair unit up there. and there's a closet there and the stairway is up the closet and over the closet and there's a washer and dryer. here's a detail of it, so you can see it better. there's the entrance from the garage. there's the stairway going up. over the kroz th-- closet. it hit the market and here's the plans. here's the garage. here's the main entrance to the unit.

here's the stairway going up and now the washer and dryer and the closet are on the side and the doors are open. it's being market the as a single-family home. surprise. i certainly think it needs to be looked at in terms of demo policy, but it's rm-1 and one big unit, legally two. i don't know what will happen. i hope at some point you will consider adjusting the demo calcs, because i think it was squishy when you look at the numbers and progression of the work. thank you, have a great day. and congratulations. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm brooke clark, n.b. action. sometimes georgia and i agree. i do think it's -- shouldn't be allowed to condense into a

single-family home. we should do things to block that from happening. last week, we were talking about a duplex that i referred to as missing middle. i was going to say, i don't think it will come in at middle income. i wanted to clarify about the competing -- not really competing ideas, but congruent ideas of missing middle or middle housing. if i can have the overhead. so what is missing middle? can we do the overhead? so missing middle is a technical term for housing that is neither single-family homes nor up to mid rise. it's the duplex to a 50-unit building that's wider. four stories is often what it's

thought of. it's the bread and butter we used to build a lot but make difficult to produce across the area and especially in the bay area. it used to go in into single-family homes but made it illegal because we had one kind of housing zoning. and it's a gentle infill. the other term is a richmond special, where there what be a construction type, wood frame, that doesn't have the steel construction, where it's more expensive. we toss these terms around a lot it's also important to think about middle-income housing. so it's -- lost the overhead. planning department did that amazing story of study about middle income. overhead. great. about how we're losing middle

income people. because we stopped using different kinds of housing next to one another, we end up with less integrated neighborhoods. so this is a photographer taking picture of a neighborhood in north beach that has single-family homes next to giant, oh, my gosh, terrifying, apartment buildings, next to middle housing. and it turns out it's cool to look at. it's all missing middle housing. it is the most likely to be lived in by middle income people. so how do we make sure that this housing gets built. it's something that the neighbors hate. it's too small to generate a lot of energy and money behind the mega projects, where people do a large push out, but this is the stuff that's easy to approve.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. todd david, san francisco housing coalition. congratulations to commissioner moore, richards, johnson and fong to be reappointed. looking forward to spending more time with you guys here. so not surprised that only commissioner richards said something really interesting yesterday talking about a spur report that talked about 25,000 vacant homes in san francisco. i think it was a couple of years old. of course, i was interested in this and i called over to spur and asked about the report. and so i think it would be worthwhile for spur to do another presentation because their comment to me was, this is misunderstood. there are 9,000 housing units that we don't know what is going

on with them. the other units were either for sale or rent. so it was that -- they said of the 9,000, we just don't know sf they're vacant or not. if there is 9,000 units, it's not insignificant, but it's not 25,000. so just thought as we're talking about numbers and data and that stuff, really important that we get this information correct. so that was really it. and once again, thank you for bringing up an expecting issue and looking forward to continuing the conversations. thanks. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, jeremy paul. i would like to also congratulate the commissioners for their reappointment. you guys put in a lot of time and a lot of dedication and it's much appreciated by the community, even if you don't notice. so i want to thank you for your

service. i want to give you another installment of my continuing series of cannabis updates, on cannabis retail in the neighborhoods. the office of cannabis has released five approved applicants to the planning department that they say are now qualified for processing as they are conditional use cases. i don't know if any of those five or many of those five are contested in the neighborhoods, or if there are competing applicants. so that will be interesting to see how that plays out. i have been involved in several neighborhood outreach meetings and talked to people in communities that will have neighborhood cannabis retail.

and a lot of the turnout has been strong. at each of them, there's been more than two dozen people showing up to discuss it. and a lot of the commentary has been unexpected and interesting. for instance, there's been a lot of interest in who are the applicants and where is the money coming from? and that's not something that we typically see in conditional use applications, but this issue seems to have a particular resonance in the neighborhood, where neighborhood cannabis is coming in. people want to know who the operators are, where they're from, and what they're doing. i do hope that the department formulates a policy on presenting to you the other applicants that are vying for a particular location within a particular 600-foot radius, at the time that the first applicants that are subject to

that competition come forward. i would hate to see it turn into a mess of a hearing if you have several different applicants showing up to oppose a particular applicant that is before you. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other speakers for public comment? with that, oh, one more. >> good afternoon, president hillis, fellow commissioners. i'm speaking about number 2. i live up in hunters point. i'm a carpenter. and i'm in support of this project. >> i'm sorry, are you speaking to an item that's on the agenda? >> the continuance. >> we've already had public comment on the continuance. >> oh, did you? >> yes. >> sorry.

>> okay. thank you. >> commissioner richards: so i think in the housing affordability strategy, having another look at the vacant units given it's been four years would be a really interesting thing. i don't recall whether it was legal units or in-law units we don't know about. so it could be different. but rents have gone up significantly since 2014 so maybe some of those 9,000 or 10,000 have been rented out. i would love to see that. thanks. >> to the gentleman that wanted to speak under public comment, that project will be considered later on the agenda, where you will have an opportunity to address the project. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, we can move on to regular calendar for item 12,

2018-007347pca, ocean avenue. >> we have someone from supervisor yee's office here to speak on the item. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and welcome back and congratulations on your reappointments. the ocean avenue district has been going through a lot of changes. we're seeing a lot of activity and mixed use development and a lot of it is because of the worker of community members. many of the staff are here today. what they brought to our attention is the concern that we have a number of vacancies on the avenue and with a lot of the new developments coming on site, it's more lucrative for a property manager or developer to open up the spaces for health

services. while they do serve the neighborhood, we want to see more vibrancy and active storefronts. so the proposal we have today is balanced. we're asking for the commission to consider having health services be a conditional use on the ground floor and on the second floor. sometimes medical services can pick it up. and it does not do well for the growing neighborhood corridor that we're trying to bring more foot traffic to. we're doing a lot of work on beautification and i think the direction that ocean avenue is going would really fit with the vision that we're seeing. and i do recognize that having restrictive controls can be -- have an opposite effect, in which people don't want to come to the corridor and activate the storefronts. so i do want to recognize that. we're exploring a similar pilot

to streamline the permit process use for desired businesses, so that's something that we're working on so we can encourage other businesses to come on the corridor. with that, i will leave it to the staff to report. and i really hope that you will consider this proposal. thank you. >> thank you. >> again, commissioners, audrey butkus, planning staff. this would amend the planning code to require additional use authorization for health services on the ground floor and permit it above ground floor in the ocean avenue nctd. the ocean avenue nctd has fast-moving traffic. they've worked with the city to improve facades, plant trees, widen the sidewalks and create a

pedestrian-friendly environment. this vacancy rate is considered to be healthy range 5% to 10%. the nctd in december, 2017, was 7 out of 157 storefronts. this includes chiropractors, podiatrists and dentists office. health service uses do not foster this on the ground floor to the extent that eating establishments do. in an nctd that has struggled to maintain an active pedestrian corridor, can serve to diminish the vibrancy of the district. it can be relied upon to assure that any health service uses are appropriate for the nctd.

this concludes staff presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear public comment on this item. anyone want to give public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm dan weaver, the e.d. of the ocean avenue association. we've asked supervisor yee to move this forward. we support it. we think it's a good thing for the neighborhood, where we're trying to keep the small businesses and yet grow the number of businesses that people find useful in the neighborhood. i should also mention that this process will give the information, including the

c.b.d., some advance warning of what's coming next in a particular storefront, rather than not knowing until it's done. we lost two retail spaces to a law office, fairly large law office, without any kind of process through planning and as a result, they still don't know who we are. can't quite track down who the head of the office is. and it would be nice to know what's going on before it happens. this is a process that i think would allow that for medical office and medical facilities. thank you. >> thank you, mr. weaver. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is neil ballard. and i also work for the ocean avenue association. thanks for hearing this item. this is, i think, would be a

positive change for the current rules on ocean and what kind of businesses are wanting to move in. we have seen a lot of interest from these companies, especially medical services see a vibrant commercial corridor like ocean avenue and they rightfully think this is a great place that our patients would like to come to and avail of our services here. we have our mix of small businesses, restaurants, cafes, of places that people want to contribute to that pedestrian environment that the staff presentation got into a little bit. so to have spaces on the second floor for medical uses ideally the way we would like to see things.

this is asking for conditional use on the ground floor, so it's not ruling out, you know, in certain iterations project by project. the right use could be for the most part having this to give a little balance and give the neighborhood some control would be really what we're asking for and would be a positive development, as i said. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other speakers on this item? with that, public item is now closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'm delighted to see this come forward. it's 10 years that we've carefully looked at ocean avenue. mr. weaver has been in front of us before speaking for small increments of change and improvements, which we've supported. this is perfect timing. it doesn't mean that we can, given everything else, not

support it with a look at where it is and what it is. i'm in full support and commend the supervisor for bringing this forward right now and hope we approve it and i make a motion that we do approve it. >> second. >> clerk: seeing no further comment, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter. on that motion -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes than us will ly -- unanimously, 6-0. this places us on 13a. 13b is not necessary. for 2018-006177map. abolish legislated setbacks on 19th avenue. this is only a zoning map