>> understanding that developers are having to do a lot of give in the city, everyone says they are getting what they are getting but evidently, this project has been going on since 2014. it did not happen overnight. i do have a question. we will probably,, if it is not memorialized that the p.d.r. stay in perpetuity, have you heard of keeping it in one large space rather than -- what would your input be on that? >> it was not necessarily an issue with subdividing it and smaller spaces being contractors contrary to the code. there is no use sized issues that i would see at hand here but i can take a second look at it. to that point too, what i meant to add as well, we have a public process for a reason. this project, while it may not

be the level that the appellant would like to see, there have been improvements. we have a project that was seeking more exceptions and is now more in compliant and it does have p.d.r. components. the project has improved over time and it speaks to the process. thank you. >> let's just clarify. i don't think the planning code has anything against subdivisions. >> we do have various size requirements. >> unless it is specifically stated in the motion. as an example, what you did with the supermarket inclusion and stuff like that. >> i don't think there is any issue with subdividing -- subdividing it but i will take another look at the district. >> one last question. since this project was approved, how are the state density increases working with our local

ordinances? i know the state is much more accepting of larger density packages. additional floors. >> what is not known as the state density law really predates a locked lot. it goes back to the leas seventies -- late seventies of the density bonus program and has been amended since then. that is something that someone would have to opt into and they have not chosen to opt into that program. >> i think that is 35% and 22 additional floors. >> there are more floors and more units. some cases can dilute the affordability. >> exactly. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners commissioners, is this matter submitted? >> would like to start? >> i will. as many of you aren't long-term residents of the city, so my.

it is very tough to see the process that our city is going through and the affordability that we are enduring and that our kids and may be we can't afford to live in our own city anymore. but when you look at projects like this and there is no displacement, they're not evicting tenants, they played by the rules for the most part, and unfortunately, not everyone will get what they want. but they have exceeded everything that they were supposed to do. in my opinion, i'm not willing to send this back. the only thing i would recommend or suggest would be that the p.d.r. space that we memorialized that. so they can't turn it into a coffee shop. that is what my take is. >> i agree.

>> question for mr sanchez. these are the findings from the planning commission. but did we see the actual motion >> you should have received a copy of the motion. i can put it on the overhead. it does contain the findings as well as the conditions of approval in the last several pages of the document. >> i did not see within that, the document within the p.d.r. >> neither did i. the project sponsor stated it was a condition of approval and may be they can elaborate on that. it is exhibit a which is begetting page 26 of the motion. that is where the conditions of approval are. it is certainly part of the project description but as it has been applied, unless there

are specific conditions, they can then make changes in the future in compliance with the zoning. >> it begins on page 26. it is exhibit a. many of these conditions have some that are specific to this. i didn't see anything. again it would be quicker and easier if they would make an address. >> sure. i will at, former zoning administrator sanchez? what i was talking about is, not to get too more wonky here, by the section 312 notification that is required if this project were to change from p.d.r. to

any other use and what that means is, and i'm sure mitch or george mr sanchez knows the rules better than i do, but notice gets sent out to registered neighborhood groups of people within 300 feet of the site about what the proposed change of use. and then there is a right to take that to the planning commission as a discretionary review. >> you have been presenting that the p.d.r. and now you are saying you guys come back out of that? >> no. how about this. i understand where the concern is coming from and you heard it from the family that they will come back. this basis p.d.r. it is entitled as p.d.r. we have to go through a public process to do anything that would make it anything other than p.d.r. and i believe that you guys will close the door on evening having the opportunity for something to slip through

the cracks so you won't fight this anymore. >> still zoning administrator scott sanchez. >> so would special restrictions to be the best way to handle this or do you recommend an alternative? >> the notice of special restrictions is to document on the title of the property the restrictions that are imposed. the most important thing is the condition that it exists. i've never -- they said it was a condition of approval. they could change the use and it would need to go through any necessary code requirements and 312 does require notice of changes of use. >> but that is different. you have an entitled use,, you are not allowed to change it.

>> the approval is not for -- there is no condition of approval. they didn't need to seek project authorization for the fact that it is p.d.r. there is no conditional use authorization for a certain use. it is not like this is a restaurant see you. this is a large project authorization. they can do whatever is allowed under the zoning. >> unless the planning commission specifically included that as a condition of their approval. from the discussion and the history, it appears that was a fairly important element. >> i agree. the commission did not impose that. if the board would have proposed that condition, then the only thing to change the condition

would be to come back to the boards for seeking that change. is a condition opposed by the board that can only be undone by the board. >> and frank will still probably be here for another century. [laughter] >> apologies. >> if we are done, i am willing to take a stab at a motion. as it denied the appeal with condition or accept the appeal? >> grants the appeal on the condition that the p.d.r. space is required to stay p.d.r. and there will be a special restriction that the use is not changed. >> on what basis? >> it appears that was the agreed or meaning by the commission.

>> it is a p.d.r. use in compliance with the underlining zoning district. so there is not like a fish factory there. not all p.d.r. uses will be allowed. >> i said that, right? good. i'm just clarifying. >> it is your first night. it is okay. >> your mike. >> you need to find that he abused his discretion by failing to approve that. >> we will just say he errored. >> but they would have to err in their interpretation of the code >> failure to add those conditions into the approval. >> so they abused their discretion? all right. i will do my best. we have a motion from

commissioner honda to grant the appeal and revise the section 29 large project authorization to require that the current p.d.r. space remain in effect and as memorialized in the specialty that restrictions need to be recorded on the property on the basis that the planning commission erred. is that fine? >> can i make one suggestion that it be the proposed. it is not the current p.d.r. space it is the proposed p.d.r. space. >> the proposed p.d.r. space. >> and we have to add the language that the d.a. said. that the p.d.r. use is otherwise underlined. >> the proposed p.d.r. space and

-- [laughter] >> you are losing me here. >> you are doing really well, director. >> that was good. it is just that the proposed p.d.r. space, as allowed under the zoning that it doesn't -- >> as allowed under zoning. >> i will try again. >> can i ask -- >> you can. change the word of effect to permit with regard to the p.d.r. space. in perpetuity.

>> the way it reads to me is that the first time around, at the very least, it should sustain as p.d.r. i think it was the intent of the commissioner to have that p.d.r. space permanent. and in perpetuity. >> okay. on that motion. [roll call]

>> that motion carries. thank you. that concludes the hearing. >> meeting is adjourned..

>> my name is naomi kelly the single-story for the 775 i started with the city and county in 1996 working for the newly elected mayor willie brown, jr. not only the chief of staff a woman but many policy advisors that were advising him everyday their supportive and nourished and sponsored united states and excited about the future. >> my name is is jack listen and the executive director of a phil randolph institution our goal to have two pathways to sustaining a family here in san francisco and your union jobs are stroen to do that i have this huge way to work with the

community members and i think i found my calling i started in 1996 working for willie brown, jr. i worked in he's mayor's office of housing in the western edition and left 3 years went to law school of san francisco state university and mayor brown asked me to be the director of the taxicab commission and through the process i very much card by the contracting process and asked me townhouse the city purchaser and worked with me and i became the deputy administrator and . >> having trouble struggling to make ends meet folks will not understand what importance of voting is so we decided to develop our workforce development services after a

couple of years offering pathways to sustainable jobs. >> (clapping.) >> we've gotten to a place to have the folks come back and have the discussion even if participation and makes sense we do public services but we also really build strong communities when i started this job my sons were 2 and 5 now 9 and 6 i think so the need to be able to take a call from the principal of school i think that brings a whole new appreciation to being understanding of the work life balance. >> (clapping.) >> i have a very good team around me we're leader in the country when it comes to paid and retail and furiously the affordable-care act passed by 3079 we were did leaders for the healthcare and we're in support of of the women

and support. >> in my industry i feel that is male dominated a huge struggle to get my foot in the door and i feel as though that definitely needs to change this year needs to be more opportunities for i don't know women to do what tell me dream i feel that is important for us to create a in fact, network of support to young people young women can further their dreams and most interested in making sure they have the full and whatever they need to make that achieveable. >> education is important i releases it at my time of san mateo high ii come back to the university of san francisco law school and the fact i passed the bar will open up many more doors because i feel a curve ball or

an where you can in the way can't get down why is this in my way we have to figure out a solution how to move forward we can't let adversity throw in th ♪ >> about two years ago now i had my first child. and i thought when i come back, you know, i'm going to get back in the swing of things and i'll find a spot. and it wasn't really that way when i got back to work. that's what really got me to think about the challenges that new mothers face when they come back to work. ♪ >> when it comes to innovative

ideas and policies, san francisco is known to pave the way, fighting for social justice or advocating for the environment, our city serves as the example and leader many times over. and this year, it leads the nation again, but for a new reason. being the most supportive city of nursing mothers in the work place. >> i was inspired to work on legislation to help moms return to work, one of my legislative aids had a baby while working in the office and when she returned we had luckily just converted a bathroom at city hall into a lactation room. she was pumping a couple times a day and had it not been for the room around the hallway, i don't know if she could have continued to provide breast milk for her baby. not all returning mothers have the same access, even though there's existing state laws on the issues. >> these moms usually work in

low paying jobs and returning to work sooner and they don't feel well-supported at work. >> we started out by having legislation to mandate that all city offices and departments have accommodations for mothers to return to work and lactate. but this year we passed legislation for private companies to have lactation policies for all new moms returning to work. >> with the newcome -- accommodations, moms should have those to return back to work. >> what are legislation? >> we wanted to make it applicable to all, we created a set of standards that can be achievable by everyone. >> do you have a few minutes today to give us a quick tour. >> i would love to. let's go. >> this is such an inviting

space. what makes this a lactation room? >> as legislation requires it has the minimum standards, a seat, a surface to place your breast on, a clean space that doesn't have toxic chemicals or storage or anything like that. and we have electricity, we have plenty of outlets for pumps, for fridge. the things that make it a little extra, the fridge is in the room. and the sink is in the room. our legislation does require a fridge and sink nearby but it's all right in here. you can wash your pump and put your milk away and you don't have to put it in a fridge that you share with co-workers. >> the new standards will be applied to all businesses and places of employment in san francisco. but are they achievable for the smaller employers in the city? >> i think small businesses rightfully have some concerns about providing lactation accommodations for employees,

however we left a lot of leeway in the legislation to account for small businesses that may have small footprints. for example, we don't mandate that you have a lactation room, but rather lactation space. in city hall we have a lactation pod here open to the public. ♪ ♪ >> so the more we can change, especially in government offices, the more we can support women. >> i think for the work place to really offer support and encouragement for pumping and breast feeding mothers is necessary. >> what is most important about the legislation is that number one, we require that an employer have a lactation policy in place and then have a conversation with a new hire as well as an employee who requests parental leave.

otherwise a lot of times moms don't feel comfortable asking their boss for lactation accommodations. really it's hard to go back to the office after you have become a mom, you're leaving your heart outside of your body. when you can provide your child food from your body and know you're connecting with them in that way, i know it means a lot to a mommy motionlely and physically to be able to do that. and businesses and employers can just provide a space. if they don't have a room, they can provide a small space that is private and free from intrusion to help moms pump and that will attract moms to working in san francisco. >> if you want more information visit sfdph.org/breastfeedingatwork. ♪ ♪

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be

considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on.

well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000,

and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from

grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website ák>> will be members of the pubfi9ill be members of the madam secretary please call the first item. order'cp &c% of firsthsh businessñiñiñr is item one roll. name. [roll+6zçó call]çóñi-9ñiçóñii the next order of business isñr the nextxd regularly scheduled meeting will beñr held on novemi cityñi hallñiñr roomñrt( 416.

please beñi advised thatñi theñi ringing of use of cell phones meeting. please beçó advised that theñr r may order theçóçóñi removal fro meeting%jázp any person responsible for ringing orñrçó e of cellñiñiçó phone or pagerñi electronic device.ñi announcement ofñiñirtime allotme comment.cntñi please beokñr advised a member i minutes to make publicñi commens on eachñi agm.p& itenr unless e( xd secretary.vaelc @&c% 3ñi is itemçó at a previous closedçó sessionñr meeting if any. there are noñrçó reportableñrñi. theçóñr next orderñi of businesó fá there areñi noñii] matter unfin% business. %@five.lpess is itemñiq

matterçóñr of new businessñi cor supportq andñrñiñiçó regularçó q first consent agenpiz 5a,ñr regi meeting#gñ september 18, 2018.ñá madamçóñi ckfwi9ñçóñrñi >> chair mondejar: do you have any speakerlpñrxdf'páiñiñrñi cai hearing no further question,ñiñi will closeçó public comments. i'll turn to my commissionñi members for comments ande1 questions. iñr need a motion to approve thi minutes.çó÷ moved by commissioner rosalesxdr andjfçó secondedñiçóçó byçóçóñrg uhjhp'd commissioner scott.ñiñr please callçóñi theçó roll.t%-[f

andhsq oneñiñr absent.çóçó >> motion carries. please call íhñr next item.ñi >> the next orderçóxd of busineó agendañi itemñiñi 5b,ht authora ñç!:) @&c @&c% urbanñiñi analyticsñiçóñi l.l.ci related to taxñiñiñrñiñi allocad bonds,ñrñiñr secondary disclosue obliuavion andñrñrñrñr otherçó r 9ññrñiñr analysis notñiçó toñiñiñi exceedñ)iw3ñrñrçó $82,500. resolution numberxd[omy 41-20i rdió

>> good afternoon madam chair mondejar and members of the commission. this contract is primarily dedicated -- really two parts to it.

continued to disclosure and bond-related tax analysis. primary part is the continuing disclosure. each year we have to file sec mandated report for each of our separate credits. this report requires reproduction of all the key tables in the original offering documents. as you've looked, that's pretty extensive. as we have those prepared in the official statement by an outside consultant, which has been urban analytics and they've become experts on various complex credits, we have them prepare the tables for our secondary market disclosure. the bond-related tax analysis has to do with things that just may come up.

we may have a situation where laws change and a new credit is invented. we need to understand how -- what would that mean in terms of support we could have in interim event which affected our tax base. we would need to analyze the impact in order to disclose to bondholders. since we basically -- all bonds are supported by tax revenues, we really need to have someone on hand in case any of these situations come up. the oci, purchasing policy provides that we can make a selection from established city pool or panel. in this case, the office of public finance and the city established a fiscal consultant pool on march 7, 2018.

we selected urban analytics from that pool based on the criteria of their knowledge and experience with ocii credit and excellent service history. urban analytics is also a san francisco l.b.e. and s.b.e. next slide shows not to exceed budget. parts of this are locked. first item 45,000 reflects $2500 for each report, six reports three years. the next one, $7500 is an allowance for an additional report if a new credit should emerge we would have to do an

additional report. that would cover three years. that's contingent. we don't know that would happen. the third category is a broad category of bond-related tax analysis. this covers three years and rather not have to come back and if they w we need to respond quickly we need to have an expert. contract runs through december 21, 2021. the reason for that ending is our annual reports are due in december. it makes sense to end it there. with that, i will conclude and ask for any questions. >> thank you. madam secretary, do we have any speaker cards? >> no speaker cards. >> chair mondejar: i will close public comment and turn to fellow commissioners for

questions. commissioner singh. >> president singh: this is $82,500. >> that is the entire amount of the contract for oil. for all three years. okay, thank you. >> this is for three-year agreement. i need a motion. please take roll call. thank you for your presentation. >> please announce your vote

when i call your name. [roll call] the vote is 4 ayes and 1 absent the next order of business is agenda item 5c, conditionally authorizing the conversion of 25 off street residential parking spaces in an existing building containing 315 parking spaces at 185 channel street to provide accessory parking for a neighborhood serving grocery use, proposed for the site, approving an amendment to the basic concept schematic design approved resolution number 61-2011 and approving a variance south design for development.

>> this item before you is with regards to block two which was completed back in 2014. it's a market rate building. had one for one parking. it is underutilized. they would like to convert some of the residential units to use of the supermarket coming in, at least up to five to allow them to be more efficient. with that, i'll turn it over to gretchen heckman to present on this item. >> good afternoon madam chair mondejar, commissioners. as executive director mentioned, i'm gretchen heckman as

development specialist at ocii. i'm here to present on item 5c which is request for conditional approval of the conversion 25 off street residential parking spaces at 185 channel street block two to provide accessory parking for a neighborhood serving grocery tenants who lease the ground floor retail space on the site. in order to facilitate this parking conversion, the commission must approve an amendment to the basic concept and schematic design for this site originally approved in 201. i will be presenting on behalf of the building owner u.d.r. and behalf of the future retail tenant requested this parking conversion, gus's community market. the block 2 site is located at one of the gateways to mission

bay south. the building houses 315 market rate apartment units and 315 residential parking spaces. representing one ot to one rati. it holds 8100 square feet of ground floor retail space. before i go into detail, on today's request, i will go through block 2's development history. the development plan for block 2 was initially secured through the commission's approval of the major phase document for ]s 2 through 7 and 13 in 2005. it was approved by udr who created design for the block which was later approved by the commission in 2011. the -- it included 315 off street residential parking spaces and 8100 square feet of

ground floor retail. in 2014, the building finished construction and in 2016, the first ground floor retail tenant, the market hall, boutique grocery open, opened its doors. a year later, market hall left the ground floor space creating an opportunity for gus's community market to consider and eventually move forward with leasing that space. as part of the evaluation, gus's community market has requested that 25 of the 315 residential parking spaces be set aside for its customers use only. now that we've gone through the history, i have a few slides that will give you a visual representation of block 2's retail space. first slide shows the ground floor retail space from the viewpoint of channel street and fourth street. this slide thoughs the -- shows

the entry to the building. i'll now give contacts to staff's recommendation to allow for this conversion of the 25 parking spaces from residential to retail use. as mentioned earlier, the parking ratio at block 2 is one residential parking space for every residential unit. under that one for one ratio, the parking at block 2 has seen low rate of utilization. since 2014 the parking spaces have been offered to block 2 residents at rental rates consistent with other rental properties in mission bay. even so, less than half of households have opted into this parking leaving about 160 spaces sitting vacant in the garage. this occurrence has showne showt the one to one is too high and unused parking should be able to be repurposed to another use would be affect -- without

affecting quality of life. there are approximately 160 spaces vacant in the block 2 parking garage, there's a capability use for 25 of them. this request is relevant to today's meeting because gus's community market hopes to open their doors in mission bay before the year end. with those 25 spaces available to their customers. in order to allow for the 25 parking spaces, the commission must approve a variance to the design for development document which limits the parking spaces to 16 spaces, 9 fewer than gus's request. the 16 pace -- in addition to the design for the development variance, the conversion requires an amendment to the block schematic design which purposed the 315 parking spaces residential use only.

ocii staff recommends granting the schematic design amendment and the variance of the design for development guidelines with certain conditions. under these conditions, following an approval, the building owner, udr, will come up with a plan to restrict the use of the 25 parking spaces for gus's customers only and will develop a plan to monitor access to the garage so a own sure the safety of block two residents.

before coming to the commission today, ocii staff brought this item to the mission bay which was briefed in october. the c.a.c. communicated a strong interest in meeting gus's request for the 25 parking spaces and voted to move this item to commission for approval. ocii staff has determined that the parking conversion will be considered exempt from ceqa under section 1503 of that statute. upon commission approval of this item, the block 2 building owner, u.d.r. will work on a plan and use restrictions for the 25 retail parking spaces in order to meet its condition of approval. the future block 2 ground floor retail tenant gus's community market, will continue to work towards opening its doors to the community by the end of the

year. finally, the vacant parking spaces remaining after this 25-space conversion will be evaluated. u.d.r. and ocii staff will develop a proposal for utilization of the remaining parking spaces and we hope to be back before the commission in the 1st quarter of 2019 to present this proposal. this concludes my presentation and before we move to questions, i will also introduce a few block 2 parties present at today's meeting. meagan jennings is here representing the building open otheowneru.d.r. and one of gus's sons and co-o co-owner is present. they're happy to answer questions. >> before we do anything, do you have any speaker cards madam secretary? >> no speaker cards.

mondeja >> chair mondejar: it's quiet today. i will close public item. i will now turn to commission members for comments and questions. >> commissioner ransom-scott: i had the opportunity to see the site. i'm happy you're coming to district 10. other side of that those parking places are going to be welcomed. i found out just recently our smart and final community grocery store is closing as of november. so that means there will be more of the community residents in district 10 looking for community grocery stores because we only ar -- we only have the e in that area beside the super

save which is small. it's welcomed. i'm excited about it coming to district 10. >> chair mondejar: this is in addict 10? >> it's district 6. it's up the road from district 10. >> commissioner ransom-scott: i. >> it's easily accessible by the community line and other modes of transit. >> chair mondejar: commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: do we know why market hall left? >> we don't know exactly why. i would assume for numerous reasons. i don't want to elaborate on those reasons. >> commissioner rosales: i'm

interested in the thinking of grocery stores. >> i don't know exactly why either. i do know the community felt the price point was very high. they expressed concern about the market. they thought the price point was pretty high. just too expensive. >> good afternoon. meagan jennings. i will just add, i heard from my client the developer, u.d.r., that market hall is going for a captive audience in terms of capturing people who are in the immediate vicinity. that's part of why they didn't ask for use of the parking for

retail use. they frankly were limited in finding that audience. gus's is pursuing a different model in the price point and the customer base they trying to engage with. i represent u.d.r. the building owner. >> chair mondejar: thank you. >> commissioner rosales: that was one question that validated my assumption. i'm happy to support this request. i'm a customer of gus's market. i think when it went in, it was a great addition to the neighborhood. i see folks from not just the immediate neighborhood but people like me that drive. there's always the need no matter where you are. especially if you got a lot of groceries to carry.

you feed that amenity. only thing i would like to hear, maybe this is not the right time, what is it that incentivizes gus to come to the neighborhood? would that be appropriate question? >> chair mondejar: since gus is here and u.d.r. is here if they're willing to respond to your question -- >> good afternoon commissioners we have really had our eyes set on this part of the city because how we feel it's underserved. a proximity. we feel we can come in and add little bit more of a diverse offering to the neighborhood. that's one of the items.

when we put community in our name, we feel like the demographic is so broad in that neighborhood, we feel we can serve everybody. >> thank you. r >> commissioner rosales: safeway was the only other grocery? >> entirely. only other grocery store if the redevelopment plan area. >> commissioner rosales: are you going to have enough space? that's good. >> commissioner singh: what is the market rate? what do you offer for particulatmarketrate? >> market rate for the parking

spaces? the rates varied from about $300 a month to $350. that's in line with everyone else's pricing in mission bay. >> commissioner singh: how much it cost for parking? >> to clarify currently, the parking is only available to residents on a monthly basis. they rent the space for the entire month at a rate of $300 to $350. currently there's no -- you can't just drive in and park there for an hour. >> commissioner singh: [indisce] >> they've done the analysis month over month. consistently, the parking utilization has been under 50%

for quite some time. >> chair mondejar: all the units are market rate in the building? >> that's correct. >> chair mondejar: how many units.1qxf >> 315. >> chair mondejar: that's why you have one on one parking spaces and only 50% are utilized or rented? >> consistentlyless than 50%. >> you allotted 25 spaces 19 for gus's. what about the other? 135 and 140 empty real estate? >> sure. i'm glad you asked. the 25 spaces for gus's is obviously the first component. u.d.r. is speaking approval for it, they are the tenant going in

now as a grocery use. they do have particular needs for parking to have a successful business. more broadly, u.d.r. has been in discussions with ocii staff about utilizing some additional portion of the garage. that's not before you today. but it is something we're going to be coming back to you with, hopefully within a couple of months to talk about other ways that portions of the parking garage can be used in service of other businesses in the area. >> chair mondejar: that's good to know. how old is the building? >> it was completed in 2014. >> chair mondejar: you have about 50% vacancy rate. i hope we can utilize some of those spaces for retail.

thank you. love your offerings and your pricing. commissioner scott. you have a question? >> commissioner ransom-scott: i think it was answered. we will have to pay for the spaces for shopping? >> no. to clarify the parking rates, those are the rates that are in effect for residential uses. my understanding -- there's no charge for the retail parking. when we come back to you and have discussions, there may be some paid components to support other retail uses. that doesn't relate to gus's.

>> commissioner ransom-scott: t. >> chair mondejar: that's good to know you don't have to pay for parking. as long as you don't stay all day or more than three hours. thank you so much for responding. do i have a motion to approve? >> i move. >> chair mondejar: motioned by commissioner rosales and seconded by commissioner singh and scott. please take the roll call. [roll call] the vote is 4 ayes and 1 absent. >> chair mondejar: motion carries. thank you for being hero and responding to our questions. thank you gus's for coming to our