do the other departments have the same capability. >> we have provided disinformation to the other departments.

>> i don't know if this is stuff you can determine based on this information. in district 6, i guess it showed it's one of the highest rates of poverty, in d-6. i'd like to know what the profile is of those who are living in poverty. >> that is something we should be able to do. i think district 6 is of special importance toy;v us, as well, because this is where most of the growth has been. but before that growth, there was a population that existed. we'd like to see5rt more about w it has changed given the type of housing that has been÷bq: builz we hope to be able to look more

closely into -- one of the drill-downs we'd like to do in the future. president olague: and i was wondering about the filipino population in the south of market area because i know that manila town is, you know, they're trying to establish that there so it's historically been a place of residence for filipino residents and i was wondering if there's a way of isolating information about tha- group from the numbers, because i imagine it might be mixed in with those. >> at this time we are able to use only so many variables and also i guess there's the question of privacylkv and there might be somexdm that might not go down to that level but we can isolate a profile for the filipino population but we may not be able to, like, get a

profile for a specific area, but there should be some way of getting an idea of what the profile is, what has changed. president olague: i'm curious. yeah, also, the latino population declined in district 9 and i'd like to understand a little bit more, the profile of those who left to get a sense of . >> we may not be able to say the why but actually we may be able to show some of the characteristics that may give us an inkling. president olague: i have only two more questions. someone asked me, i guess there was some place in the report where it showed 11% represented

other languages and so someone wanted to know if there's a way of breaking that down. does that include russian? you don't have do that now. >> we actually have provided information to the public library. they were especially interested in language isolation so the information on what the languages that are spoken in the city, that was provided. we do have thata' information d the -- the public library is probably the first department that specifically asked for that information. and we were able to provide it to them. president olague: finally, i guess, as it relates to the aging populations in the city, i was wondering what the income level is of those that we see

aging in our city. working with some seniors on housing issues, it just, i'm concerned that the city is ill-equipped to contend this on some level. >> i think that would be also on our list, a profile of the poor where, they are, how poor, what are their needs, you know, who makes up the poor. president olague: i know they're doing needs assessments through the department of aging and adult services but i think this is a little bit different in that just trying to get a sense of, because obviously when people go from working and employment to retirement it does sometimes in some instances it does shift their income obviously so i'm just wondering if i can get a picture of.íç th. and that's it. thank you.é commissioner fong?

commissioner fong: there are so many questions that come to mind. we've been here since 10:30. fair -- or for us to email questions. president olague: sure, absolutely. commissioner fong: not as a directive but as a guideline if the same question comes up twice. >> we would appreciate feedback and priorities that you believe we should. president olague: definitely. commissioner fong: not a directive but a commonality. thank you./,z president olague: yes. thanks for all of your work with us mr. olson >> placing this is item 9, inclusionary housing program. >> i have a revised resolution and memo, as well.

>> good evening, president olague and members of the commission, kate conner, planning department staff. there are two specific areas of policy that are proposed for implementation. the first comprised of all projects entitled prior to january 24,qqñ 2011, which was e last time the affordable housing program was revised. the second portion applies to all projects. the first portion of the policy is to enable the zoning administrator to modify the method of compliance to the affordable housing program. this portion of the policy is only applicable to rental projects that want to switch to payment of the affordable housing fee. the timing of this modification could occur any time between planning department or commission approval and issuance of the first construction

document. an affidavit that the project is currently a rental project would have to be submitted to the planning department in order to be eligible for the modification project entitled after january 24, 2011, are currently permitted to make those modifications under planning plg code section 415.5. the approval and implementation of this policy would allow the zoning administrator to modify projects titled prior to january 24, 2011, resulting in f development projects. this clause was added to the the palmer legal decision. by making this clause applicable to all projects, not just those approved after january 24, 2011, the affordable housing program can be in compliance with state law. the second areanb of policy z!m project hasr$o(uq" the affordable housing fee as method of compliance and has been approved as such, these projects

will be permitted to modify their compliance method by selecting the on site ownership alternative with zoning administrator approval. this would have to happen prior to issuance of first construction document. this switch was previously allowed under planning code section 315.4 buttaç was removed when the revised affordable housing program went into effect on january 24, 2011. the department is seeking to administratively allow the same type of modification of zoning administrator approval through the second part of this policy before you today. please note that while the department is requesting that the commission allow the zoning administrator to modifyñr these conditions, he will reserve the ability to determine the modification to not be performed administratively and must be reviewed by the commission at a public hearing. lastly, since the staff report was sent to the commission, there have been changes made to the memo and the draft

commission. the most significant change is to the portion of the draft policy. the original version that went out in the packet stated that that portion only applied to projects entitled after january 24, 2011. that has been modified to include all projects. a revised memo of resolution has been passed out in addition to to track changes of the version. this v9 i'm available for any questions. vice president miguel: is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: maybe you could go over that one more time for just -- or maybe i can ask you some questions and see if i have it, because there have been modifications from the policy. so now we're considering before and after collectively, is that right, on the policy? >> on the second portion of the policy. commissioner antonini: portion two was moving from fee to

would apply regardless. >> correct. commissioner antonini: we'll allow the z.a. to do that which makes sense and first part was go from rental to fee and that's different if it's before january 24, 2011, or after. you have to do it after. >> right. commissioner antonini: and you're allowed to do that movement before. >> that's what this policy does. commissioner antonini: got it. i move to approve, i guess, or recommend, unless there's any discussion. vice president miguel: i'll second that vice president miguel: on the motion to adopt the$,$ policy, commissioners -- [roll call vote motion passed unanimously] vice president miguel: that motion passed unanimously 4-0

and will place us on item 10. for case no. 2011.0296c at 2196 third street, request for conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners, cory teague, staff. project site is at 2196 third street. the project was originally approved on may 2, 2002, by the planning commission and it includes 18 dwelling units, three ground floor commercial units and 23 parking spaces. the building is a corner lot and street. the project actually recently finished construction and received its certificate of occupancy on june 24, 2010. the project proposes to modify conditions of the original approval motion to allow the two existing on-site affordable dwelling units to convert from rental to ownership units.

regarding public comment for this case, the department received a letter of support for this project from the mayor's office of housing as well as a letter of support from an owner-occupant in the subject building. the department is recommending approval with conditions based on the following, that due to the recent legal cases in california regarding affordable housing, the planning code currently does not permit on-site affordable unit to be rental units unless it meets specific criteria. according to the mayor's office of housing, rental units and ownership buildings are not preferred from a lending standpoint because owners in such difficulties can -- buildings can find difficulty in refinancing when there are too many units. additionally, the mixed use project approved originally was already constructed. the modifications will not impact the physical characteristics of the project. commissioner moore brought to my

attention today the fact that when the project originally went forward, they did have the ability to mix between rental and ownership units and the fact that many condo developments limit the amount of rented units within the building generally to 20%. i'm available for any questions you have. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening. tia catllano representing harry lowe. as corey mentioned, we're asking for a small change in the approval of conditions for a project that's already built and in large part is already occupied. even with the; y a prior policy item, we-w still probably couldn't go to the zoning administrator for this change as it doesn't fit that fact pattern but i think fact pattern here is a little bit unique so that i don't think you're going to get another one of these requests largely due to the age of this project as well as the inclusionary program

timing. theprogram was approved in may 2002. it happened just few days before the current inclusionary program became effective so there was no b.m.r. requirement but there was a policy and not only did the project comply with the actual policy, it also complied with the b. m.r. requirements so two of the 18 units in the project were designated as b. m.r. units, corresponding with the requirements also since the project was approved before the co-requirement, the commission required there be on-site units and we have no objection to the units being on-site. they're there and have been designated but the commission also required in the approval motion that the b.m.r. units be rental. as of today, that inconsistent with not only your policies but

those of the mayor's office of housing but also the code. today, mayor's office of housing requires that if you have a for-sale project and also the b.m.r. units on site must be for sale and vice versa. i honestly don't know why the condition was placed on the motion. i tried getting copies of the tapes for that hearing but wasn't successful and i understand those are no longer available so we can only guess why it happened but it is there. bottom line, we have a project building with 18 units where two of the units have been units. we'd like to get them sold and occupied as quickly as possible and most of the other units have been sold and occupied. having the two b.m.r. units as rental units, i want the rest of the building is for sale,xd reay doesn't match today with a lot of things, doesn't match with policies or the code or the palmer circumstances so you have

in your packets a couple of letters from shandra akins from the mayor's office of housing supporting our request and indicating their preference that these units be sold. so we're simply just asking amendment to those couple conditions that they relate to the rental restriction and allow us to sell the on-site units as quickly as possible. so i'd be happy to answer any questions you have and i want to thank you for your attention not only today but also for the past seven years as this is my last thyme -- time i'm before you as i'm moving back to my native country. i appreciate the many hearings i've been here. thank you so much. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner miguel? vice president miguel: i move approval with continues. >> -- conditions. >> on the motion to approve with

conditions, commissioners -- [roll call vote was taken and motion passed unanimously] president olague: it was nice working with you. what city are you moving to? safe journeys, as they say. we can go to the next item. >> that places us on item 11, case no. 2011.0639t, clent and geary neighborhood commercial district controls. >> good evening, commissioners. the proposed ordinance before you has been introduced by supervisor eric mar. the supervisor is here to address you but#d before he doe, he has asked that i summarize the proposal and our department'shp÷ recommendations. then the supervisor will address you with his response and some let you know about some modifications he intends to introduce.

the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to adjust four issues. first, it would allow eating and drinking uses as principally permitted units on inner and outer n.c.d.'s but only if the total street frontage dedicated to these uses does not exceed 30% and is conditionally permitted uses when over that threshold, remove the prohibition on large fast food restaurants and create a prohibition on formula retail pet supply stores and formula retail eating and drinking establishments in the geary boulevard fast food subdistrict. it would make video stores a principally permitted use on the ground floor in the n.c.d. 3 inner clementaá outer clement commercial districts and permit a height increase up to five feet on the active ground floor uses in the n.c.d. along geary from scott street to 28th avenue. so let's discuss the restaurant

controls first. the department is generally in support of the proposal to restaurant -- i'm sorry, to loosen controls on eating and drinking establishments but we would propose a slightly different method than the tipping controls that are being proceeds. the tipping controls as i'm spribbing them would -- describing would change as to whether something was permitted principally or require a conditional use authorization depending on the concentration levels. currently, the inner clement district allows three restaurants and then only by conditional use authorization. as of today, you have approved two of those three restaurants. the current controls would allow one more restaurant to be xermted by c.u. the department recommends modifying the supervisor's proposal to allow one more restaurant to be principally permitted instead of conditionally sethat -- so that would provide loosening of restaurant controls.

the report discusses the current concentration levels and difficulties with instituting these tipping controls that alter the approval process depending on the concentration levels. given that we currently believe that the concentration levels for restaurants on the inner clement to be at or over 30%, we would recommend loosening the principally permitted and additional ones would be permitted only by c.u. when you found they were appropriate. the department further recommends allowing new eating and drinking facilities only by c.e.u. in the outer clement district. as these establishments are currently prohibited in the outer clement, the concentration levels are unknown.֎@ however, it would allow them by c.u., that would be allow a loosening of the controls and it would allow you to use your discretion. regarding the proposal to allow a five-foot height bonus for active ground floor uses, the sequoia analysis of this portion

of the proposalxd is still under public comment. as noted in the report, this portion of the ordinance requires a g.r.e. whereas the rest of the ordinance has been reviewed and approved. the public comment period would allow this commission to consider the active use ground floor bonus on or after july 28. due to the ceqa needs of this portion of the ordinance, no approval action can be taken on this portion today. therefore, staff needs to alter the resolution before you so that the five had the foot height bonus for the geary s.u.d. is removed from whatever recommendation you would later make. the department believes that the proposed changes to the controls to video stores is appropriate. we should probably spend the most time discussing the proposed changes to the geary boulevard fast food subdistrict which is likely what the public comment will focus on later today. this proposal for the geary

subdistrict is two-fold. first, it would remove the prohibition on large fast food restaurants and second, it would create a new prohibition on formula retail pet supply stores and restaurants. the department supports removing the prohibition on large fast food restaurants. the commission has recently opined, controlling large chain fast food restaurants was difficult and inconsistent prior to the formula retail controls instituted initially in 2004. now that we have formula retail commission has the opportunity to consider each formula retail establishments, including restaurants, at a public hearing. this more accurately captures the community concerns than the existing definition of large fast food restaurants which currently captures and therefore prohibits many local and independent restaurants. the department considered the prohibition on formula retail

pet supply stores and believes this portion of the ordinance should be removed. the commission has recently considered proposals to add formula retail pet supply stores under the existing controls which do require a c.u. hearing. it seems that the existing controls which allow you to use your discretion of each proposal and consider it on its own merits is appropriate, as this process allows for either an approval or disapproval as specific conditions warrant. supervisor mar would like to ordinance and his response to our recommendation. supervisor mar: before i point to the prop i have here and ask anne mariet!f to help me out, i wanted to thank you for your perseverance and i guess it's amazing that you could sit through the meeting so long. i've been watching in my office for many hours so far and watch

the range of stuff that you've been through but i really appreciate the attention. my name is eric mar and represent the richmond district on the san francisco board of supervisors and i think the only person in the room who might be a better expert is ron miguel about the richmond district. this ordinance they hope you will support today has come from many meetings with small business leaders, especially pet supply store leaders, but also many other small business folks in the richmond district and throughout thenm+ city. we're trying to create a vibrant neighborhood, revitalize the neighborhood in the richmond district, enhance the diverse fabric of the richmond district which is what i think brings a lot of people into the district from newcomers and old-timers and we want to maintain the unique character of our neighborhood. we don't want it to be a suburban strip mall of a neighborhood but a diverse, beautiful neighborhood that brings people from all over the world and also the legislation

is not targeting any one company, it's really about supporting a more livable community and we're working together with many groups to do that. i wanted to first thank my staffer myrna melgar for putting so many hours and taking the lead on this legislation, meeting with so many people and the work of anne marie rogers and many of the planning staff and tom radulivic from livable city, as well, they offered many insights and the small business commission, a couple of nights ago, that gave us unanimous support, as well. the legislation has gone through a number of changes and i'll introduce the number of projected amendments based on the planning staff's recommendation and our principal and ultimate objective has been about supporting small businesses in our neighborhood especially those that are locally owned and neighborhood serving and to encourage economic activityñi and vibrancy on geary boulevard and clement street. i wanted to use this prop and that prop now to show visually a

little bit more of what areas we're dealing with. thanks, anne marie. this is your own planning map and i wanted to show that the richmond district is very diverse, stretching from usf near masonic all the way to ocean beach bounded by the presidio on the north and includes golden gate park. i wanted to point out that the geary boulevard corridor is& key lifeline to the neighborhood and much of this legislation is dealing with the geary boulevard corridor and there's -- i used to do this at san francisco state all the time as a teach in ethics studies but one point of interest is the formula retail store that's proposed, it's a formula retail store proposed for 18th and geary right there where that's the red, white and blue ribbon.

distance from that formula retail proposed site. there's two key stores they want people to people to keep their eyes on and one, it's the place i get my cat food, cat scratchingm po, less than half a mile away. there's also another pet supply store that's really close, they're walking distance. about a mile away is pet's corner run by a young couple that just opened it recently and then there's drew's canine corner right here, very close to the one mile area and then there's a couple of other aquarium stores around the corner from where i live on balboa or the 5th avenue aquarium and pet supply type and parking lot over here. it's -- barking lot over here. it's a district with a number of businesses like that. i came to richmond because it was the new china town in 1984.

some came because it was little russia and it's that diverse fabric many of us are trying to protect with this ordinance and bring up to date some of the zoning rules that seem archaic, even calling it a fast food subdistrict is puzzling to me. i also wanted to say that the pet food express was recently approved last year on the corner of california and pirsidio, very close to my district and i want us to keep in mind that that's one otherb8@ formula retail that was approved recently so our aim here in our ordinance is to recognize and honor the importance of businesses on these two streets and to utilize the legislative process. it's within our police powers to protect the public's interests to update zoning controls that preserve our district's commercial vitality and the vitality of the commercial district and activity in richmond is essential to our residents and the whole ty