, and it used to have the psychic as a commercial tenant. we are really happy that they are managing to do all this work without any new city money. we are getting another 55 years of affordability. >> i am a project manager at the housing corporation. i think they have done an excellent job of summarizing the project. at this time, i would just like to express my thanks to the board of supervisors for helping us attain the that allocation for the bonds and the tax credit reservation for the project. i am happy to answer any other questions that may come out and i want to express gratitude to the mayor's office of housing and redevelopment agency for their incredible support of the project.

supervisor mirkarimi: for this part of the area, what the area looked like 10 years ago, especially before the demolition of the central freeway, it is completely enjoying a renaissance and like it has been seen before, where this area of housing exists, especially for high percentage of low-income housing. it is a pretty spectacular project, one that i think should make us all very proud. >> we do not have a budget analyst recommendation or report because this is an item that does not have an impact on the city general fund. why don't we open this item up for public comment? many members of the public at which to speak? >> i have a lot to speak of

this, but not enough time. how to put on your mind, without a doubt, we are talking about fairness. i am here applauding bridge, mercy housing, catholic charities. we had all the big giant developers at one time come to the west division. at one time, it was mandatory that developments like this -- right now, we are at a state of emergency. i have come to let you know how serious i am speaking to you, whether you want to hear it on not. without a doubt, it is a prime example of a big project, with no input. i remember 10 years ago, they

come to the western addition to getting approval, and it was a rubber-stamp committee. the right now we don't even have a rubber stamp committee. the only part of the city that doesn't have a community organization that the city and county recognizes. i have to come here and raise my voice. i have to come here wounded, homeless, jobless. but not information less. we are in a state of emergency. all of these contracts you're proven goes without no input for the community. i don't need no clown backing me to ok what i'm doing. i have been coming here 20 years to see how this process has failed us. not only african-american people, low income people.

you're going on and rubber stamping, walking all over our community. i am here to say that you are in total violation. i can't go to the city attorney's office. who do i go to? do i have to go outside the boundary of the city and county to analyze what is going on here? i am up here, my voice is louder. i want to speak loud and clear in your ear that you are in total violation of the community. approve everything you want to do, but i wanted to show for the record that there is no voice for the western addition. with a c.a. with a c.b.d. i wanted to let you know i am

here in your ear. supervisor chu: any other member of the public wish to speak? public comment is closed. and on the item? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to approve with recommendation, i want to underscore that this has no impact to the general fund. as with most affordable housing agreements that come before us, it is 80% of the area median income, and the retention of those that live in the building, make sure it is 100% protected. this is one of those that should give a thumbs up across the way. supervisor chu: there is a motion to send the item forward and we can do that without objection. do we have any other items before us? we are adjourned.

>> 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 one project more than 60 days, and this was 63 days. 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