>> let me remind all of us to turn off our cellular phones during these proceedings. katharin moore? sugaya? antonini? ron miguel? gwyneth borden. olague is expected in an hour. the first item is proposed for a continuance. this is case 2011. 64, 4312 connected it straight -- connecticut's street. further on the calendar, item

number 10, case 2011.098. the request for the conditional use authorization. we are asking that this item be continued to november 3, 2011 to allow for the jewish holiday. because this is on the regular calendar, i recommend that you wait until the call of the item for those who may come later today for this item, so they will be aware that this is being continued. i am not aware of any other item being proposed for a continuance. >> is there any public comment on items with the continuance? public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya? >> i move to item one. >> i will move to continue item

one. >> the motion on the floor is for the continuance of item one until august 2011. -- from august 2011. thank you, commissioners, this has been continued as proposed. you are now on the consent calendar and item #2 makes up the consent calendar. this will be decided by a single roll call vote. there will be no public discussion of the item unless a member of the staff requests. the item will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a second item at this or future hearing. this is case 2011. 0779q to convert the garage building into residential

condominiums within the residential low density district. following public comment, which would automatically remove the item from the consent calendar, this item is in your hands. >> is there any public comment about this item on the consent calendar. >> i vote to approve this item. >> the motion on the floor is for approval. on the motion, commissioner anthony. >> commissioner miguel. this has been approved. are there any commission matters? >> a few comments, i had a meeting this week from representatives of live nation in regards to masonic auditorium, that will be coming

before us in one form, fairly soon. and i wanted to it knowledge, i do not know if anyone has asked for an adjournment in memory of steven jobs and al davis. fellow commissioners, because these individuals are both self- made individuals and show the fact that america is a land of opportunity. and if you work hard and save your money and you have an idea and you believe in this idea, you can do well and this is the case here, today in this country. the third item, if any of you have been watching the baseball playoffs, you notice the

pictures in detroit showing for the field and america part near each other. and if you followed recent history in the united states, detroit and st. louis have been the most economically challenged cities in the country, having lost large members of their population and they're able to put together the ability to create these facilities and create a spirit of community and this was evident in detroit. it had been a long time for them on the football field and as far as baseball is concerned but there is more to it than just the facilities. we take a lesson from of -- some of these other facilities with capital projects that benefit the cities. and finally, i get mailings at

my dental office because i am and a property owner there, of projects in this vicinity. these are not items that would necessarily come before us. they're basically items that have been sent for the permit process and the 312 notifications, because property owners have to get this. there is a situation where i lived -- were looked at the design for a particular street and it was in addition to a third floor. most of them already have third floors, with two over the garage. the others were added in the style of the rest of the house. it looks like a pillbox on the top of here. i asked why this was this way. i ask why this does not look like the rest of this, like the mission revival?

with the tile roof, and part of this edition. that is the way they did this the first time. but the staff, i don't know if this was historical were planning, they said to modify this to make it look different from the rest of the house. this is a policy we have to discuss in the future. what are we going to revise the staff, as to how to handle these instances where people are making in addition to their own homes. we're not talking about historical rated structures. people want to make an addition to their homes. can they make this contextual? i am not sure that we need to schedule anything today but this is a conversation we need to have in the future to see how the commissioners feel about this because obviously, this is being done at a staff level.

commissioner borden? >> tomorrow, from 4:00 until 8:00, we have a couple of blocks of art by urban solutions, an organization that works with small businesses in the lower fillmore, they help them work on their business plan. this will showcase the amazing businesses across sixth street. this is between market and howard, and artists will be showing their work. the businesses will be open to walk in. and discover all of these vibrant businesses. i recommend for you to come out and join us. this will show what a local organization can do to revitalize the neighborhood and how we can help this organization.

>> commissioner moore? >> commmissioner moore: i would like to comment on an e-mail about file 747, with improvements for small business and landscaping qualifications, a proposed ordinance by supervisor chiu. i am concerned about receiving this, even for a consider his age -- consideration. for years, all possible, reasonable codes have addressed this, and this particular draft, out this draft could fall on its face, not only in doing the burden for small business owners, unduly challenging historic preservation, occurring

at a time when going full bore on this kind of change in ordnance is in no one's interest. i am not yet aware of how the staff will work on this, and this is normally very astute. they will work with the group to provide a push back and challenge. i want to give my concerns based on what has happened with the city's strong attempts to be in compliance with ada, given that we look at a city where many buildings fall into having been built before this was the law, having to catch up with the old and new. i will watch this very carefully and hope that the supervisors and everyone else who will work on this will engage every possible means to

fully understand the implications. >> commissioner borden: ? commissioner borden: i did not understand the context for this has been proposed but they have issues with people who file lawsuits against small-business owners for access issues, but maybe we could have a conversation on the topic to understand this legislation. >> i also received this memo, and i am concern, having been a small business property owner in a neighborhood commercial district for well over 25 years. i thought that we were getting out of this. i will stop there, but i do believe the conversation should take place. also, during the last week, i

have had conversations regarding the project at van ness avenue, some extensive conversations regarding legislation that may be going through on student housing, which will also be coming to us as well as continuing conversations with the number of people on changes in article 7. commissioner more? >> could you please address what the commission is planning to do instead of having the small business commission and the subgroup of this body meet with each other because we're pushing forward with scheduling a public hearing, on the subject of formula of retail and small businesses, except for? >> my understanding regarding

that is that the parameters of this discussion have to be established first, and i don't think that there is a full agreement on these parameters between planning and small- business commission at the moment. but there aren't tensions with both commissions to have this discussion take place. >> without having this discussion, we are the legislative body on this and we could create feedback from the small business commission, in order to have as broad a discussion as possible. >> whether or not this is a joint hearing or the hearing that is here, this is what is in the air at the moment. >> i hope that we will not continue this out next year. because this is a complex issue.

commissioner sugaya: just to continue, i would be interested in not so much the issues themselves, about small business, but more in terms of the process and why there cannot be a couple of working committees to sort of flash this out first. i understand if there are, there would be the possibility that would have to be a public meeting at some -- of some sort announced, but i think there are enough representatives here who would volunteer for this and it could work here. i don't know about the small business commission. >> this is a distinct possibility. >> i think that you could get a lot more done than having the whole commission.

>> thank you, commissioners. we will return to the calendar now. the board of supervisors and the board of appeals, and the commission -- that did not meet this week. >> a couple of brief announcements. i am happy to report that the planning department and the department of building inspection have signed a contract for the permit tracking system, and this is moving forward into the actual work of creating this system. we do believe it will take 80 months-24 months to have this totally implemented but -- 18 months-24 months to have this totally implemented. i will be out of town unexpectedly for a family funeral, so i will be leaving town on saturday. and kelly will be in charge of

the department. i also have a short board of appeals report. the board of supervisors did not meet this week. there was no land use committee for full board of supervisors because of the holiday. the board of appeals did meet last night and there was one item that may be of interest. on june 9, he revoked the entitlement of 212 square feet for the project, and this was filed in 1984, reauthorize in 1999 and they never commenced construction. if you recall, the -- the project sponsor did not attend but they did appeal of the planning commission's decision. it was scheduled for august 10 of this year but they did not file an appeal brief.

the board of appeals rescheduled this item to last night. they did not file the appeal brief and did not attend the hearing. the board voted to uphold your decision. the project sponsor has 10 days to require a request for a rehearing. and that concludes my report. >> just to make a quick comment, if they file for a rehearing, they will probably get this. this is based on whether there is new evidence. >> commissioners, we're still under the director's report, the informational presentation on the action plan update. >> i am joined by the rest of

the ppa team. sarah jones and matt snyder and david lindsey. we're here for a brief update on the ppa process. we said after six months we would review how things are going and let you know how this was. a little bit of background, the preliminary project assessments was one component, may be the newest component of a larger, revise development review process, where we try to make this process more efficient in general. the specifics are that they are essentially an opportunity for the department and the project's sponsors to coordinate on medium projects early in the process.

and projects cannot even file the applications until this is issued. we can tackle a lot of issues overall. and there are also additional less tangible benefits to the department and the staff in terms of coordination and efficiency, and for the community in general because hopefully this will result in better projects overall. we want to turn around the letters within 60 days, designed to be theme-neutral, because this is credited to the environmental review for the associated project. if there is an attempt to make this seem neutral in the course of the government review. after six months, we initiated

this on february 1 and we had seven months of data that we looked at. in terms of the volume of what was fired, -- filed, we had 20 in a seven-month period, and this is manageable, within the work load. we tried to get every letter out within 60 days, and we have to deal with issues of coordinating for different planners, or more, and you deal with getting the applications in, with coordination and refinement, and 60 days was the time line we landed on. it turns out that out of the 12 ppa that were issued, 11 of them were issued within 60 days and the average time is 55 days with only oneje