public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: to the fact i pay dues to a masonic organization. >> grandmaster is the wrong term. i was a master of one small lodge in 1963. the last association i had with the ownership of of the site in question, this was in 1964. at the time this was before the commission previously, i appeared with the city attorney's office and my paying of dues in california was not

sufficient for me to recuse myself because if there is any finance involved, this is not the same way around. this is the continuance. we have heard that this is some time near the end of next year. this will be between october 7, when this is before us, prior to any holiday. this does not change much in my regard. if, on the 17th, there is sufficient information, we can

continue further. i have a problem, mentioning the continuances do not sit well with me. i want to move this item to november -- november 17. >> i agree with the commissioner. commissioner miguel. as he has pointed out, with most of the speakers -- there is no new environmental discussion and we will see this at some time in the future. this is a fairly narrow question. the question is to continue the use of the kob hill masonic

center, the same yousef has been in place since 1966. it seems with such a narrow question, certainly, three weeks to research this year and make certain that this is something that people are in favor of, i think that this is very reasonable. this is not in the midst of the holidays. there is always the opportunity to continue an item for the day of the hearing. this cannot be heard on that day. the commissioner found reason for the continuance, and we were to continue that item on the 17th. you cannot even begin the

discussion on that day. i would ask the staff at the earliest possible time to get the staff report to the public so that they can have plenty of time to review this. and if there are any items that are not presently being made public, with the scope of this item, get this out at the earliest possible time. this is prior to the hearing. commissioner moore: i will ask them to continue this item to january 10. this is with the 17th at night. we will leave this commission at 6:00, which is workable and durable.

and ever since the academy of arts, this is something that we spend a lot of time on. we will have a completely different tack from what we have heard before. i have an interest in the entire hearing. and we view the presentation. i will be leaving that evening. >> the commissioner just mentioned that she will not be here. commissioner borden: i will not be here on the 17th. i am agnostic about which direction the commission wants to go.

>> december 1 is a possibility. commissioner antonini: certainly, it appears that two of the commissioners will not be here on the 17th. if they are agreeable to a date in december, i was the second of the motion. the other possibility is that this may be calendar very early to allow commissioner moore to be considered. >> this is that in o'clock in the morning. this is the continuation -- the 10:00 am special item. we can put the first item on the regular calendar. commissioner borden, you will

not be here? >> this is a limited scope. there is pressure from the alcohol beverage control board to have the temporary resolution. >> you are ok with not being here? >> action needs to be taken. most people did not want hearings in january. >> we will make certain of this for the academy, and for now, we will leave that here. >> we can make that part of the motion. and the second. the motion is to continue the item to november 17, with the caveat this will be the first item on the regular calendar to allow the possibility of

commissioner moore's participation. borden? fung? moore? >> no. >> olague? it passes 5-1, with commissioner moore voting against. >> thank you. you are now at commissioner's questions and matters. item 5 is consideration of adoption. october 13, 2011 minutes. following the public comments and any modifications or changes that you may have, we would like to see if you will a year -- if you will adopt this draft now. >> accommodations? public comment is closed. commissioner miguel:

i move for the adoption to move -- >> to adopt the draft minutes of october 13. commissioner moore has stepped away. olague? miguel? aye. >> are there any other matters? >> i have an item. commissioner miguel: during the last week, i have met with jill landon, from the arts commission and others regarding the items on the calendar and i have met with supervisor malia on cell phone towers in her district and a few other matters. this is regarding 2135

greenwich. hopefully, director ramm will talk about being at the meeting at dbi, regarding the project tracking system that is about to actually start action. the team that is going to put this into place, with a presentation yesterday, i thought that this was excellent. director ramm will give details. >> a few weeks ago, we had neighbors from abyon, who were here to talk about a project going to the board of appeals.

at some time i would like to have some kind of discussion and i will work with mrs. avery on us. we have alluded to this wall the neighbors continue on this. the group noticing this kind of thing. i think it may be premature but a memo for starters, that will be available to the neighbors as well. i did attend a neighborhood meeting at this. this is what is related, and i think that it may be more broad if we could involve other things. commissioner antonini?

>> we have many emails and letters, and faxes and phone calls. i welcome then at any time. in terms of how strongly that we consider them, the letters that are composed individually, with the individual named below them, residents of san francisco or the area in question, have more magnitude than things that are just sent anonymously, or from people who are not residents, and everyone is welcome to send anything that they want from any place, in terms of how much we give consideration. with the viewpoints that are

individually concerned. this is the same letter being sent, earlier and earlier. and often, this is verbatim. >> thank you. if we can move forward to director's report, including director's announcements. the board of supervisors and historic preservation commission. >> a couple of things i wanted to mention a ,wha, what commissr miguel was talking about. the department of building inspection. this is to vastly improve the tracking projects. we have the internal kickoff meeting of the staff that were involved in this project and there was a meeting that was

open to the public with a brief demonstration and we are excited about this. this will take two years to actually make this system implement and put the system in use. there was some concern expressed yesterday about -- how both the departments do business. and the conversion of years of data. this is a 40-year investment and it is important that we get this right. and other departments can add on to this. this is the one place the public

staff and the commission will be able to see the status of the project across all of the involved departments. i also want to remind you, about the health care master plan, and you have received this in an e- mail, claudia and staff have been working on the master plan. we were required to do this based on the legislation. the department of public health is on the lead and has assembled a task force. we have concern -- hired a consultant to the background work. just an fyi, we will be looking for additional funding in next

year's budget to continue the environmental work. this will be necessary to move the project forward. we will be seeking additional funding. this concludes my report. commissioner miguel: this is a comment for the general public. there was also an interesting comment, the micro records in 1901 to 1980 will be converted over time and be available to the system. with the present information going in about 1980. that possibility is also there. this is a fantastic project.

>> anne marie rodgers to give you the weekly report on the board of supervisors activities. the first is the ordnance that will allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, and the special use subdistrict. at the commission unanimously passed this resolution. you adopted this with a couple of modifications. with the additional exception, allowing them to serve beer and wine. and the chemical modification. we amended the ordinance to accommodate both of the recommendations. she received word from

supervisor campos that there would be a need to allow the single screen theaters to sell alcohol but also multi-screen theaters. this would cause them to send the ordinance back to you for your consideration. they did consider this for the future. supervisor weiner also mentioned he has concerns that the controls are not achieving their desired effect. this may be something that we hear about more in the future. at the full board of supervisors, they heard the appeal for 4141 gary boulevard.

this was for wireless internet, actually nine of them. two people had opposition, but it was approved unanimously. it was a different story this week at the board with a two- hour hearing or the majority of the comments were in opposition to the antennas. a written argument was not cemented, but they completed a survey in presented that to the board on thursday right before the hearing. at the hearing, the board questioned the staff about what sort of analysis was conducted, either by us or by the commission, to document in verify the materials submitted by verizon, as far as their ability to receive cell phone calls in that area. >> who asked that question? >> supervisor mar. staff responded that the commission is an appointed body that, much like the board, is not a technical expert in marcellus antennas. instead, the commission the same

sort of review of submitted materials that the board of supervisors is that they're hearing, weighing evidence presented before it and then using their discretion to decide the matter. in this case of your decision to approve the wireless antennas was based in part because it was a preference one location, or the highest priority for these antennas in the city. supervisor cohen if there is any action the supervisors could take in the future if they did not like the existing locations of the antennas to the staff advised the board that the wireless citing guidelines is in the document that was developed through interactions with the board of supervisors, which resolutions and in response to how they settle appeals. and the board could suggest a further refinement of the guidelines through a resolution or they could codify the guidelines in the planning code if they wish, and you might

appreciate that as a commission because it is very controversial here. the hearing ended with a request to continue the item from the district supervisor. he stated he would accept an offer that verizon, the project sponsor, may. they said that would make all their proprietary data on cell coverage and capacity to a neutral third-party engineering firm to analyze and weigh in on their data. this party would analyze the data for the appellate and the board, and the board closed the hearing and voted to continue the item. so we will be back later for decision. there were no new ordinances pertaining to land use introduced this week. commissioner olague: thank you. >> [inaudible] commissioner olague: and historic preservation did not meet this week. thank you, commissioners. with that, we can move on to

your 15-minute general public comment category. members of public may address you on items of interest to the public that fits within the jurisdiction of this commission. each person may address you for three minutes. they may not address you on any item on the calendar today, and the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. dan liebertson and linda chapman. >> before i start, i would like to get this letter to the secretary to distribute to all when i finish, so that is not forgotten. thank you. good afternoon. i am dan liebertson, including

670 members of the park club. i am here to ask you to reconsider your decision to change the design of the planned cvs store in -- in the portola drive neighborhood commercial districts. you heard this application in april and approved with the condition that the art deco design be modernized. yeah, this design was developed by the original sponsor, based on participation of our organization, residence, and community architects. when cvs to cover the project from walgreen's, they assured us that would use the original design, which was constant with the architectural character is of the ncd's and mira loma park, including tower market and many homes. in addition to modernize the design, it was imposed without study of the special

architectural character of this 2500-home neighborhood. our representative at the hearing was assured by the planner that the design changes would be minimal. therefore we made no appeal in april, assuming the planners would observe the administrative code requirement that formula retail and ncd be compatible with existing architecture. then we were presented with a new completely different design purged of all art deco alamance, a very big box 13 design that we in the last week and the project sponsors tried to avoid. located at a major never gave way, this new design what betray our most characteristic and distinctive architecture. we wrote requesting reinstatement of the original design but received no response. mr. crawford said the new design was adopted without further community input or hearings. this decision and our exclusion from the process of development and adoption of the new design

run counter to a 20-year tradition of collaboration between the department, commission, and neighborhood organizations. this tradition has yielded mira loma parks residential design guidelines, developed with department cooperation and adopted by the commission in 1999, and has also resulted in the avoidance or settlements of many dvr request. the board has volunteered countless hours to assisting planning staff and the commission. in our view, our continued involvement with the process would have served the best interests of all. we urge you to repair this damage to what was a model of collaboration between community, business, the planning department, and the commission. [bell rings] and to adhere to the administrative code, reinstate the original community-supported if assad design. we appreciate your consideration and reply to our request. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you.

>> and linda chapman. i wanted to speak further about the subject of people negotiating a conditional use conditions and saying that the represent the community and that not being taken very seriously. i brought up the subject of nob hill senior housing last time and the in lieu fees over $5 million that could have been directed there, and they can be directed to a particular project. it was mentioned that there was some doubt that there could be. but quite a while ago i discussed with -- with this with calvin welsh and the person in housing, and i think i originally consulted them. this was the second time that that happened, you know, right in the nob hill area without the knowledge -- i mean, it is find to come in and say we represent the neighborhood association. but what about the people who actually live in the community

or even members of the neighborhood association who know nothing about the fact that this is happening? i was asked to write a synopsis for the mayor's office about the project, the little church, for example. i was asked by one of the officers of that organization to include the fact that 150 neighbors had signed petitions and other requests to have reuse of that. here was a source of funding, for example. this was the second time that that happened in that neighborhood, where money that could have been directed right there was not directed there. i brought the letter that steve tabor wrote you last week that was too late to bring in, senior member of the nob hill housing. it says, in agreement with your position that providing 15 affordable, a milk -- condominium and instead of and in lieu fee is not an efficient or effective way to provide affordable housing. he gives three reasons.

one is the one that i tell thee, that it will be divided project and people will be outvoted. those 15 will be outvoted by the people who have a different agenda and different interests. and two technical things that relate to funding. to it being an ineffective way to bring in subsidies, and they will be building to higher standards than it would be built somewhere else. so it is like the leveraging the money. also, he concluded, there is an argument that could be made that on-site housing would help integrate income groups, but that in lieu fee in the same neighborhood would have that effect, you know, while providing affordable housing. [bell rings] that the developer said that he could do the project, and it was 15 units, after all. or i could put the $5 million in something else or i could do this. you know, without any public discussion, any votes, any -- of

two organizations, i asked neighbors when i was told that we negotiated this -- [bell rings] commissioner olague: thank you. is there any additional general public comment? seeing them, a general public, disclosed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: am i to understand that the design was substantially changed after our approval? maybe staff can look into that. >> i personally do not know. we will look into that. i do recall that you had asked the design be changed from it you had seen to a more contemporary design. how much it changed after that, i do not know. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would also like to hear more about that item. i remember the discussion, and if there is a significant change, i would like to know that. banks. commissioner olague: my sense from the speaker is that