in terms of staff time, one project was a major out liar for many reasons. and if you exclude that one project, we averaged a total of 46 hours of staff time, with all three divisions within a design review team. what this translates to is that the average cost for processing this was $4,461. and we charge 4419. we feel good about those numbers. this is credited to the environmental review fee. those are kind of the quantitative numbers with the ppa process so far. we reached out to the staff and

the sponsors who have been part of this to get feedback to see what was working and what was not working, and from the staff, the reviews were generally positive. most people agree the concept is good and is worth doing. any process where you are coordinating for were more planners early on like this, there were some comments about the internal processing and assignment were handled. we wanted to work on the procedures to make them as efficient and as good as possible. some of the projects that have been filed, it is easier for them to assign projects because they have a better idea about what the project this. this is a sign that this will make the overall review more efficient.

we did not get a whole lot of sponsor feedback. we can speculate as to why. some of the comments were that they are happy that, 11 out of 12 were within the 60-day time limit and they were also happy to have all of this information in writing. the procedural road map lets them know every entitlement that they will need any thing that we can give them, we let them know upfront so they can plan the whole review. we did hear that some people did not like the fact that they had to wait until this was issued before the environmental application. we want this to be ready to go when the application is filed. the effectiveness is hard to gauge right now because this is

one component of the overall revised government review process and it is hard to gauge the value until there are projects that have gone through the process which will probably be a year or so out before we get projects that have been all the way through this process. based on this review, the core components and the time line, they seem inappropriate and they continue the program as of this, and we continue to work with the staff and the sponsors to deal with little things to make the projects more efficient. we will keep moving forward. >> we will open this up for public comment at this time. >> i am linda chapman from knob hill.

this says about the backbone businesses that seem to be so desirable, but i heard 1800 van ness. >> it is not general public comment. we're talking about the item that was just heard. action plan and update informational presentation. >> i appreciate the staff report and the program, but what i want to talk about is using the same brain power to deal with something else that is basically the same. we grandfathered a lot of projects in the eastern neighborhood and they are slowly coming through. the notices are very stale. i will rattle off a couple of

addresses that have a problem because they had no application and nobody knew about these projects. 49 julien, which is coming in a couple of weeks. 525 howard. washington, which only filed a see you application -- a cu application. some thought should be given by the staff, by the senior staff, about how to straighten out all of these projects that have the case numbers that are still pending, if this is subject to an environmental review that is steered for the environmental exemption. this gets put into storage. they're not even in the

department. and there needs to be some thought, taking off the difficult stuff. all of these grandfathered projects, this is this -- the se contract. on the third extension. the projects like 525 howard. if the building has bought and served two times, nobody noticed this five years ago. we want to deal with the messy stuff. this is coming through. this was at the board of appeals last night. this is going to be a big one and this eventually gets here.

i don't know how many more extensions that there will be. >> is there additional public comment on this item? commissioner -- >> i am in strong support of the proposal and this comes to a first recording for us. and what i feel is that you are reporting -- this puts a strong emphasis on labor time, but this leaves me a little bit off on the quantitative issues of how you plan this substance for the ppa. i in your last comment, the use feedback to make the internal procedures more effective, what do you mean by this and what

exactly is the nature of this feedback and what is the nature of the questions that you have asked? this is reporting on the scorecards. this goes into the substance of what these issues are. this is what we should be aware of. but how many of these projects went over to real applications? this is and how ultimately the project will fare, and what the sponsors and applicants learn from you if you were guiding them in the very early talk about the project. the proof is in the pudding but i don't know what these projects are, and what did you experience

yourself? they were really on target with this one and they got what we were saying. in addition to that, and this is my own personal interest, i would like a replay in those sessions to really get a feeling on what challenges and what guidance, and what kind of advice you are offering so that i can more fully stand with you in supporting this process rather than just getting a scorecard report. this is the description you were giving today. commissioner borden: what kind of issues did you identify in this process that may not have been identified otherwise?

people share with the biggest issues that they have seen, and were you able to advise the project sponsors with community outreach efforts that the neighborhood may have issues with. this is the nature and the spirit of these conversations. >> i will start with asking -- answering some of commissioner moore's questions. the issue with coordination, partially has to do with the fact that we were also using, we developed internet-related software to allow for the coordination to have been through the department. there is a certain training or learning curve component to this. this is one area that was raised. we're instituting a system to rotate the responsibility of

having one planner with the coordinated efforts and this is, this is putting new systems and to play, kind of, this kind of issue, not something that we see as an inherent problem in the process. we have seen the applications coming in to environmental planning first. we have seen three or four projects coming in, and as he mentioned, they have been much easier to assign to planners because i have a much better idea of how much time only to be involved, how many planners we have available and what kind of experience is likely to result with the information in this letter. we have also had sponsors able to initiate the process with the

technical studies. some of this information has to deal with what kind of studies or information will be needed. so this is something that has been able to work more effectively as a result of this information. >> if i can just add to this, the real issue is we don't know the full effect yet because the projects have not gone through the process yet, but the hope is that the total review time will be shortened and the review process will be much more efficient by we don't know yet because this has only been six months. >> it has definitely made the assignment project more effective. this has been something that i found more successful than had

been hoped. in terms of the kind of feedback, all of these letters are online that have been produced, and the sponsor and the public are able to review them, and when cory discussed the procedural road map, we are trying to provide feedback on the kinds of reviews and the permitting that would be needed, and some feedback on the design and zoning-related issues that may be of concern. and raising the flags with issues about parking, and this kind of information. and we don't have a record of projects coming back to us. people have 18 months to come back with the project after the ppa.

this was submitted at this stage, and the environmental review. we only have a few projects to go with. >> commissioner? >> this is an excellent system, and we suggest that the move even further and suggest something that is unrealistic but perhaps these larger projects, there could be a memo to show the early renderings of what was going on, a quick look at this and perhaps, just so we are aware of this. the advantage here is that by having this early look, we could save the project sponsors and the city's a lot of money, because i can name a few projects where we went through very extensive reviews at the commission level, adding to the

amount of time and cost. this came out very nicely, the new design. we went through a lot on van ness, which, as i understand -- there is a smaller project on 1910 california. i am not saying that the staff cannot help them with the design. this gets changed at the commission level. the public would also be noticed and there would be times when we have in plants with preliminary hearings, before this goes into the environmental to have a look at this, and this would be

served as a notice, not replacing the legally requirement and the other notices. this would be a heads up to the public that this is coming forward. this is revenue-neutral, which makes a lot of sense and i would ask you to look into this thing if this is possible. and certainly not everything would require further action but the commissioners will have a chance to look at this and as i mentioned in earlier remarks, if they see something that is out of line or have serious questions, that will let their feelings be known at an early stage. >> thank you. >> not seeing any other names in the line. are you ready to move forward? >> we are now at general public comment. there is a 15-minute time limit

and the public may address you on items of interest to the public. this is with the exception of the agenda items that may only be addressed with the consent calendar. each member of the public may address you for up to fifth -- up to 3 minutes and a whole category has a 15 minute time limit. >> we would like to open this for general public comment? >> i am here for knob hill. i would like to address van ness instead. i have tried to contact your planner about this, and he never called me back, time after time. and i tried to reach the developer. this week, i heard from the

developer. we have the middle neighbors, and david chu. he is a supervisor who is supposed to deal with this, if he gets this on appeal. this is in the committee that was open. we heard about this and a couple of people said that they want the house and on site. i said that there are reasons not to put this their in terms of the fact that people who get low income housing in this project cannot afford to keep

this. there are over $5 billion there that could go into the affordable housing fund and the designated. the mayor's office said that they want to do this, subject to being able to get the funding. they have a plan and they have analyzed this. david baker has given his services so far. what a perfect place to put this money. the same thing happened on pacific. we could have used it for that. the methodist church wanted affordable housing but could not find a developer. they were trapped in a lawsuit. dennis is waiting for this information that came to your department. certainly, a planner have this. the concept that they have is very similar to what the

director said. he wanted to see the current developer do this. this is a reason not to prematurely this side and the other is the design. your staff to the good design of a medical office building to make this consistent with the plan for van ness. there are buildings around there of a very particular style. just like the situation down by the medical office building. this is not appropriate for people to retire into privacy. >> members of the commission, i would like to speak briefly about item that you may have seen about the value of lead certified project. putting so much emphasis on

whether or not they have solar panels, but not the price of the housing. we know that as income goes up, transparency goes down. if you are talking about the hills in millennium, or the real extreme in washington, where this is $2.5 million and go to $2.8 million. many of those people did not travel the way that we do, they travel by private jet. i call this the jet fuel burn rate. a friend of mine is a private pilot who has his clients, and he told me the kinds of planes that they fly. he told me that the average to fly from new york to san francisco is 11 hours, 400 gallons an hour, and let's

assume that someone does this 1.5 times per month, this is 6,600 gallons of jet fuel per month, and let's say five of the 165 people have a private jet. they will burn 80,000 gallons of jet fuel each year. did i do this right? five of them will burn 400,000 gallons of jet fuel. the question i asked is how many light bulbs as it take to make up for 8 million gallons of jet fuel? how many solar panels as it take? the bigger issue is something i talked about recently, with the housing-board. you have to see all of the processes before you. what will solve the housing price and what will exacerbate things. you have to find that this is

necessary and desirable. the environmental impact is off the charts. do you want to burn 8 million gallons of jet fuel so someone can have a second home they come to once a month? and if you do this in the case of washington, there will be others for the waterfront, you need to know the overwhelming public purpose. i think it makes the series. . who lives in this housing is more important than how many the solar panels that this has. this is to be a primary consideration, with the affordable housing. that's the point i want to make today, thank you. >> if there is no additional public comment, public comment is closed. >> we will start the regular calendar and take item eight out

of order. in no. 8 is case 2008, the western community plan, with the presentation. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission. if you could give me one moment to get this loaded up, you saw me trying to do this earlier.

>> good afternoon, members of the commission. i am the senior planner with the planning department's staff. if all goes well, we're here to talk about the western business planning task force and the recommended plan for 205 acres -- this is the second informational presentation on this particular process. we were here september 8 and at that time, there were a number of philosophical points discussed as well as the plan itself with a policy document was reviewed with members of the planning commission and the underlying philosophical aspects of this plan. this was really part of what i

would characterize as what the citizens' planning task force wanted to see with the rezoning and the community plan for this area. we talked about the community benefits and how we look at community benefit slightly differently on a large sites in this area and we talked very briefly about implementation measures that appeared in the first draft of the plan that have now been removed. i have spot -- five speakers from the community to talk about this plan. all of these pieces we are talking about with the implementation measures and the five items we will discuss today will be brought to you following the publication and certification of an eir in the early part of next calendar year. each item will be brought to you as an individual action items so that you can a evaluate each of

the items on its own merit, and as the sets as a comprehensive whole in the planning process. we will talk about this, and when i talk about this we talk about what they wanted, in the citizens planning task force, and now we will talk about how the planning staff has worked with them to try to achieve what it is that they have actually identified as their desired end of this planning process. we will talk about five things today, actually for topics, one of which has a couple of pieces to it. we will talk about the social heritage districts, which go beyond the borders of western soma. we are fortunate to have

representatives from both of those social heritage groups, the first, hopefully we will be able to get the film figured out in terms of where this is that. we do not have any way to show a dvd, do we? thank you. we will try to get this figured out and if not we will do without this. the first speaker i would like to have at the podium today, this is what we thought the film was on, and we are trying to do this so we can take this down for now. we are trying to find the url. the first speaker who wanted to show this film, we may take her out of order if we get the media services appear, go ahead and try to type this in.

this is ready to go? not yet. apparently not. the first speaker today will be bernadette, who is the executive director of the filipino american development foundation, working out of the community center at sixth and mission street and she has worked closely with us on the preparation of the background report for the filipino social heritage district as proposed for the south of market area, generally. she is also working with myself, and other members of the staff, and folsom streets events to prepare a community challenge grant for some social heritage treatment on the,, between seventh and ninth street.