nonconforming use. the applicant makes a credible argument that since they have no existing cap on the number of events that they could continue as such. they are a venue that allows these uses and it could continue. that said, we feel it is appropriate to have some limits here. i feel that number of events is at the discretion of this commission and we want to provide some guidance to the commission. we evaluated the historical use data given to us and we can go into greater detail about the methodology used, but he worked diligently to verify the information. we came to the average number of events, and that was 54 average entertainment events. there are other events that are not entertainment events. we had to parse through the affirmation to determine which were entertainment and which were not. we used the definitions available at the various units will code to arrive at those conclusions. we came to an average number of

54 and we felt given the was a fluctuation -- year to year, this changes -- so we felt it was appropriate to acknowledge that. so we did the + 25%. that gives up to 68. this is still fewer entertainment events than have occurred in at least 2004, which based on the calculations, was at least 77 events that year. we are not increasing the historic number of events. there have been more events that we are proposing here. the final number is at the discretion of this commission. a letter of determination was submitted earlier this week and we can continue to process that. if they disagree with the conclusions, they can appeal to the board of appeals and it is the commission's discretion whether or not to continue this hearing. you could continue this item to a future date to allow the letter of determination to play

its course. that would be several months, probably more than six months, if it's appealed to the board of appeals. but that is something you have the ability to do. in regards to the liquor licenses, we said clearly in our report that the information is insufficient to establish a historic number. there is testimony there have been five. we have to testify for the public that there are as few as two. that is something this commission will have the discretion to decide what should be the continuing number of liquor uses. i just wanted to clarify those two points and i am available for questions. the issue about the ãcity attorney. i wanted to clarify those issues. president miguel: thank you. good to go into the methodology of determining the number? >> certainly. we are provided with a day-by-

day list of all events held at the masonic center from 2002- 2007. those events were individually described in the listing and we reviewed under a number of different categories like light entertainment, special events, trade shows, speaking engagements and things like that. the first step of the methodology was going through that by event and verifying the accuracy of that categorization and then breaking out into the bit to global categories of live entertainment events, which our understanding was informed by the definition of entertainment in various parts of the municipal code. all other events are categorized as non-live entertainment because our concern is the impact of the neighborhood recall heavily around not such a size of the event, but whether or not there live entertainment or non-live entertainment. then we are able to come up with

an average number of events per year from those samples years. president miguel: regarding the number of bars? >> as you heard from testimony and as the project sponsor contents, there has been a history of alcohol sales at this location for certain events. we were not able to establish with enough reliability any sort of precedent for the number of points of sale of alcohol. there was some mention made about the condition of allowing three bars. that condition speaks more to limitation toward the end where alcohol is sold, limiting when people can be served and if alcohol is permitted or more than three is permitted, limiting the points of sale to a

maximum of three bars to the closing time of that event and setting a line marker so that patrons are cut off at that point in terms of who can be served after that time when it is one hour prior to the conclusion of the event where no alcohol can be served. if the commission is inclined to address this issue and impose conditions fewer than three bars, that condition would change accordingly. >> may i ask one other question? the number of bars does not necessarily in my mind correspond to the number of bartenders. do you know if they are talking about a bartender? >> we did not get into that. with respect to the condition i was describing earlier, our

interest was if these are geographically dispersed throughout the venue, limiting the number of corners of the venue that someone could go to to purchase alcohol. president miguel: thank you. i will explain the reasons for my last question, although i have been retired since 1991, back in the late '70s and '80s, i a served as a florist and number of corporate events, particularly entertainment events and there were at least at two of the events, five bars on which we did a floral arrangements. there were two bars, but each of them were quite long, with at least three bartenders at each of them. trying to figure out what an actual historic use is would be

very difficult. it has varied to my knowledge over the years. commissioner antonini: i would like to ask some questions from the representative of avatar if they are here? there have been some representations made about the liquor service and that there would be cabaret or you would be able to bring your drinks to the seats. is that the case or not? >> that is certainly the case currently. commissioner antonini: so this would be no change in what exists at the present time? >> exactly. commissioner antonini: there are some conditions that were added at an earlier approval which is

not before us now. but at that time, one of the conditions was the police could this about that they felt that was inappropriate for the venue. and there were over 12 letter to the pre sold tickets that the sponsors would have to have off- duty police officers or hire professional law enforcement personnel. are those conditions acceptable as part of this approval? >> those are acceptable. the reasons that did not include them in the draft notion was they felt was more appropriate for the entertainment commission to impose those conditions because the staff does not enforce those conditions were at the retain a commission, actions are enforced by the police department and not be applied to the entertainment condition and forced by the police department. commissioner antonini: it is

appropriately could mention of this is something staff has to advise us on. the third one i have in mind is that ceasing alcoholic sales after a certain time, just like after some sports events after the third quarter, you stop alcohol beverage sales or the end of the seventh inning or one hour before the end of the performance. i would expect that may be something we try to put in? >> that is in condition 29. commissioner antonini: i did not read that. >> condition 30. >>commissioner antonini: presidt miguel help us understand the basis for the numbers we're seeing. the zoning administrator point out that number of events per year vary greatly between 2003

to the present. there was one year where we had as many as 77 live events and one year where we had up to 332 total events. other years were close to that same number. as was pointed out, there are currently no limits. what ever happened to be able to sell in that particular year was the number of events that were going to have, both live events and total offense. now we're putting restrictions on. there is no rule that says you have to take the average. the average for the median is somewhere in between. but i did not hear a lot complaining during the years when they had the highest number of events, not there could have been problems but that has not been brought up. i would tend to think the number -- they are not going to have

that many events necessarily. they could have that number were fewer, and that's important. we are not talking about them having that many events, but not to exceed that number. in regards to the number of bart stations, and again, president miguel makes a good point. -- number of bar stations. if there are five bar stations at an event, it doesn't mean i'm going to drink five times as much. it's the behavior of the patrons, not the number of stations. nothing is worse than going to an event and whether you have an alcoholic beverage for not, you have to miss part of the events because there's not enough bartenders or bart stations. this is an operational question. it's part of the conditions we are putting in as to a number that would be allowed, but it's an operational question. i understand we are requesting

five or three bar stations. that sounds reasonable. >> our recommendation does not include a recommendation for any specific number of stations. the condition that had to do with three stations ltd. to a maximum of three toward the close of events of all sales are permitted. >> how about and the beginning of the events? >> the beginning is to the discretion of the commission as to whether or not to set a number and what it should be. >> this is a lot of discussion over something that is a logistical or management problems and not really -- you are not going to have more people behaving improperly. unlike the situation at candlestick which was alluded to, you have a situation where there is a parking lot and places where people can provide themselves with as much alcohol as they want and they could

probably do that outside of masonic also. but on the premises, you have the controls where someone is noticeably intoxicated, you could stop serving them. that's generally the policy analyst and a bar or event i have been too. that is how has to be done. i go to the opera frequently and there's a bar on every level which makes sense because you don't want to run up and down the stairs to get a drink during the intermissions. i don't see a lot of people behaving badly there. i think it is the people and their habits and attack of acts that you have. that is why it is important -- the type of acts you have. that's why it's important the police will have control over the type of act better book here. the other thing that was point out here is that there have been a lot of activity on nob hill this directly. collectively, it might be less now. when i was a youngster growing up, my parents used to drive

into san francisco because there wasn't anything happening out there. they would go to places like the fair month or mark hopkins and would go dinner-dance in there. the venetian room was in full swing and a smaller than you had top entertainers and all of these events were happening at same time. it could have been quite possible there might have been more collective activity on nob hill in the '50s and '60s and there is now. some of these are no longer there and it has been disseminated a little bit. the other thing that is important is to be realistic about what we have in san francisco and look -- it has to be an appropriate use, but we have to stay competitive. a lot of acts have been lost to the fox in oakland. there is a certain venues size the masonic is satisfying. i'm all for the arena, its 40

years overdue. but that's for a bigger type concert. and there is even a bigger type concert that would be at a huge stadium. but for this type of concert in the range of 2000 to 3000 people, you have to have a venue and it has to be appropriate for that size concert. it generates a lot of jobs, as we have point that out. it has to be properly permitted. properly policed. it is a wonderful than you if we do all of those things. it was pointed out that 700 people are employed by live nation, 500 of them are san francisco residence. we have had a lot of great entertainers come through there. overall, i am favorable to this

but we might have some additional conditions. >> commissioner fong: i'm not necessarily important -- a supportive of this but i am supportive of the overall product live nation is able to deliver. and the space is able to deliver. i'm going to pick up on the the commissioner's comments on what's not hill was back in the day. it was the top of the hill. it was a place of bluster and not hill has lost its luster. i'm going to speak as the former president of the visitors bureau. there probably has not been a new hotel room built in nob hill since 1985, maybe. all of the hotel space has been built around the mosconi center.

all of the business moving there, restaurants, bars -- all of the night life as well. san francisco deserves to take care of nob hill and i want to be caution when i say -- i don't mean to blow it wide out, but it is deserving of activity and activation. this particular venue -- i'm getting off topic. this particular venue has some pluses to it. it has a parking garages that is independent and can sustain its capacity. what i see here that keeps popping up in front of me is the maximum capacity of the proposed renovation does not increase from what is now. as far as seeing or drunk people, i don't see how you see more drunk people. the same number of people are

going to be there. i want to be careful -- bars are not the best word to use because they are catering bars and they understand their stations and all of us have been to a game where you cannot access to even by candy for your son or a glass of water because the line is too long. having access to concessions to quickly get in line and get back to your seat helps you in the end because it shrinks down the length of showtime and it can get them out sooner and the intermission doesn't have to be half an hour. those minutes add up in later hours. i also want to comment about san francisco overall. many of us here were at a civic gathering recently where it was just packed. it was overcrowded and people were sitting on top of each other. i said san francisco needs a gathering space. maybe multiple gathering spaces

where we can convene an have celebrations of some sort. this is the perfect opportunity and a perfect space to do that in a civil way. i'm going to ask a couple of questions and conditions, but some of these things are already mentioned. there was a comment about the loading area. not sure who the best representative to answer these are, but i will throw them out there. the comment about restricting the ways and patting the area -- it seems like you have spent some time looking at this. any restriction on hours or a maximum time of night that offloading work in loading can occur? maybe somebody -- >> there are a number of conditions that deal with an overview operations, noise associated with that and the hours with various loading.

first of all, to split the traffic load, there's a condition requiring access to the loading garage be opened to ticketed patrons. there's number of track conditions imposed and the specification of a loading zone and requirements for measures that were described by the gentleman earlier regarding laying down maps. but parking is limited to one and one-half hour prior to the start of the events. there is a requirement for shore power, allowing performer buses to plug in to them rather than having to run a generator built into the motor. >commissioner borden: op --

commissioner fong: there were several comments about the sidewalk in the appearance of sidewalk, whether it was traffic or chip bags -- is there a provision as far as demanding live nation pitch into a fund or to clean up themselves? >> the sponsor shall maintain the entrance and all sidewalks maintaining a clean and sanitary conditions. given how much frontage the masonic occupies, that obligates them to maintain a good portion of the block. there is no separate condition requiring any committee but the district. >> that's a very windblown corner.

>> part of the event operation daniel would include pat -- trash pick up. commissioner fong: one last thought -- because there was a comment about queuing before and after, but more so before, is their consideration or part of the plan to allow pre show entry halfway into the site or along the outside on the second level mezzanine level? >> conditions of approval required queuing on premises. that could be a combination of interior lobby space and the outdoor terrace area and recognition of sometimes the spillover effect onto the sidewalk. i don't know if the sponsor wants to elaborate on the specifics, but that is a requirement and condition of approval in the draft motion. commissioner borden: do --

commissioner fong: do you want to add more to that? >> there is a portion on the front porch where queuing can occur. i was there with president obama and there were people going off the sidewalk and it worked very well. commissioner fong: i am curious what the fellow commissioners have and i appreciate the time -- did you make a motion? commissioner borden: i want to follow up on what my fellow commissioners have already said. there are 30 conditions in the motion, but i would be fine with adding some of the additional things in that conditional use. i understand there are entertainment commission

conditions, but i'm happy to see that included. one of the things discussed was something about huntington park or making sure people don't enter huntington park and perhaps that is the line which we can include to make sure the security people direct people away from that and i like the off-duty officers for the 1200 presold tickets. our fellow commissioners have had upon the fact that it's difficult to ascertain 8 #about events of the past years and this facility is operating -- if we continue this item, don't they get to operate as they currently are? >> yes. commissioner borden: so the only way you get that is through conditional use. they can continue to operate as they have been operating. this should be providing more assurances to the community. this application is obviously

different than and not the same as the previous application we considered, which had different ramifications. i think commissioner fong brought up the case that it's harder to argue it to greater intensification of the same number of people are able to be at an event. the issue with bars is very challenging. we have all been to events where there are not enough bars, which is why most black-tie events have people passing drinks around because if you have 3000 people trying to get a drink one hour before the event, the lines are extremely long. i don't think it's in anyone's best interest to have chaos inside the building if you are trying to get people off the streets into the building. if the lines are super long, it further queues people into the street and that does not seem advantageous. the thing with trying to limit the number of bars is the point commissioner miguel made -- five bartenders, to bartenders, it's

an issue we often run into. it's an issue we run into when we look at retail spaces when they're trying to determine the square footage they dedicate to alcohol sales. we cannot really enforce it and it's difficult to do. that's one of the reasons that while i understand the concern about the number of bars and the behavior around people consuming drinks, i have to believe most of those people there are there to actually see the show and not spend most of their time in line at the bar to get a drink. i would assume that's why most people go to the shows there. additionally, and terms of there was a point made earlier that they make a lot of money off of alcohol. if you go to movie theaters, their biggest revenue generator is concessions. i don't make up the economics of these venues. it's the same thing we grapple with what we have restaurants

and bars that come and ask for liquor licenses that have not because it's the greatest driver of revenue in a lot of cases for the venue. should be that way? i'm not saying it should, but the reality of the economics of how things go. the conditional use here, we are considering is the general plan here. why we think it makes sense to continue the existing used as it is is because of things in our commerce and industry elements. all the decisions have to be balanced against the general plan and the needs of the entire city, whether it is jobs and cultural activities and the neighborhood. that's why this motion has gone a long way trying to add these protections and i'm supporting additional protections because the goal is not to disrupt the community and make things unpleasant. there have been factors that have done that and with all

kinds of establishments -- it is indicative of not very well run manager about what i've heard from the audience is black anecdotal situations that have brought up, but we have not had a bunch of people stand up here and say they have done a lot of terrible things. things seem to be working well. are their objections? absolutely. are there things that can be worked on? absolutely. the secondary -- another issue is there is a concern about live nation. that is something we are not -- that's not our consideration. at the end of the day, when we approve the use, we do it at a space, not a vendor operating use. if live nation goes away, someone else gets the conditional use. they go with the facility and space, not the operator.

that is something i hope people understand. that's another component of our consideration. it's not about life and how we must judge that. we are looking at how we can preserve this facility. that is the reasoning behind why we are -- we express support for this publication. not everybody feels that way. there is a dialogue between the community and the masonic auditorium to make sure there is policing to -- that could cause nuisances and i