i think -- >> excuse me, commissioners. we're fine with eliminating that parentheses as otherwise set by sffd. >> i don't think it's fire, i don't think it's fire department, it's police, isn't it? ~ the entertainment

commission has stipulated to fire capacity because typically that's what we would look to in terms of capacity. so, it is typically fire department. >> not police. not the police department issue. >> i'm just trying to understand which agency, which department is didtion to be going to be in charge when an issue arises. it's not really clear asset out in these conditions. so, there's been a vetting permit that has been issued and the permit has multiple capacities. so, if the show is sold as general admission, 92 87 is the maximum capacity for the pavilion space itself for general admission show. if it's a seated show, it would go down to 8700 approximately. if we did banquet style tables there is a different capacity. so, there are multiple capacities that are technically allowed for per the sf fire

department based upon what the set up is, but the maximum capacity would be the 92 87 number. ~ >> so, one suggestion would say parentheses lower capacity set by the san francisco fire department. rather than potentially increased -- any potential increase might question the e-i-r. >> okay. is everyone okay with that modification? okay. the other difference that was just mentioned to me is that the site improvements and repair of damage in the entertainment commission version does not include the additional language that live nation, america's cup and the steering committee agreed to, to not pursue a permanent venue in the location, approximate size over the next 10 years. >> right. you added that on and

entertainment didn't include that in its -- that's right. >> and is that -- i mean, if they're going to put a further restriction on themselves, i think that would be appropriate. the commission at that time felt that that language was not something that they were necessarily in agreement with, but if this board feels something more restrictive -- i mean i think you have the latitude to add to these conditions if that's what you choose. >> why would your commission disagree with that if the permit holder is [speaker not understood]? >> i'm not sure that i can speak to their intentions. i can just speak to the outcome of what they directed for me to communicate to you. ~ it is -- >> okay, i got it, all right.

>> i always wonder why the site is tied up that way for 10 years. >> live nation, yeah. >> but it is also interestingly, as i read it here, it seems to me that it's very specific. i mean, if you all in 10 years apply for an amphitheater approximate size, approximate in size, what if you wanted to make a billinger one? ~ bigger one? that wouldn't be excluded by your condition here. how about nothing? it doesn't fit -- bigger doesn't fit would be -- >> okay. that's the easy answer. >> the largest size in there is what's been built? as approved by fire code, yes. >> [speaker not understood]? >> no, i think for purpose of a permit i think it's best we not as a condition of permit state that they will not apply -- not restrict their -- >> they're doing it on their

own. >> yes, they can agree between themselves, but as a permit and the first amendment issue, i think it's best that we not bar them, if you will, from exercising their right to do something. they apply and update -- >> [speaker not understood] can't pick you up. >> i'm sawyer. i'm saying i think it best that the permit not restrict or prohibit them from applying for a future permit or change in their per met. >> potential interference of economic relations? >> or their rights. >> even if it's self-imposed. if you want to impose it on yourself, impose it on yourself. voluntarily. >> i hear it, okay. i'm just trying to line them up because the text is different. so, traffic and parking.

>> the language on number 1 on the entertainment commission brief that talks about the permittee must submit requests, in thinking it through prior to the hearing, it seems perhaps it would be better to say they may submit requests. they're not required to. and even if they choose to ask for an extension of a curfew, then they will have to ask for permission so that, not that they must extend the curfew -- >> it requires you to ask for a curfew extension. >> well, what if they don't want one? i think that's the director's point. >> [inaudible]. >> okay. so, i would recommend that the language be clarified that the police department have the approval authority, which is not spelled out in the entertainment commission brief. it just says that you have to request it of them, sfpd must approve. submit their request to sfpd,

but i'm suggesting perhaps you consider that the "may submit request" for the sfpd to put aside whether or not to approve. >> okay. can you remove the steering committee from that [speaker not understood]. >> sir, i'm sorry, you're speaking out of turn. i'm happy to hear you if you could stand up and speak into the microphone. i think your input is appropriate right at this moment. i'm concerned with the specific language in point number 1 having to do with curfews, recognizing some kind of official standing of the neighborhood steering committee which does not have any such standing. >> okay.

i would request that you change the wording so it says to work with the neighborhood regarding requests for curfew extensions. and i would think that live nation would try to do that if they did that, but i think that putting in a specific committee like that is not consistent with the -- >> got it, thank you. thank you. >> would you be willing to take another public comment on -- >> 30 seconds. it goes to the issue that dealt with the ten-year request that live nation not apply for a permit with the proximate same size amphitheater and so forth. i understand the legal preference to make it as

neutral and perhaps not impose that, but i would make one plea from the standpoint of the public. [speaker not understood] significant unease about the future and the fact that this is america's cup, it's a one-year event, but in two or three years down the road, there is significant [speaker not understood] about what may happen down the road. and we believe that that was a condition language that was negotiated and we believe it's a fair representation and would serve the interests of the neighborhood. it's not ironclad. there are many ways to -- if the port or the land holder wants to be creative, there are ways to circumvent that. >> okay. >> it puts a stake in the sand. >> thank you. all right, all right. ~ are there any other issues that the city attorney or the director added?

i think you all may sit down. thank you for everybody's input. if we need to do the finding on the record, should we knock it out? first we need a motion. anyone want to make one? i can make one if no one does. >> you want to specify i think before you make the motion what the findings -- >> you can propose the motion and somebody could adopt that. >> the findings can be articulated as part of the motion. >> okay, go ahead. >> so -- >> i thought you were going to do that. >> you want me to read them in? i will. and i have copies here. i thought maybe it would be better for the parties to have it. >> that would be good. >> ms. cain, would you mind -- >> whatever you say. i can do this bypass over ~ by

pass over. >> if you want to hear it. >> i'm happy to. >> we heard other commissioners. you heard our board and where we're headed. and, so, i think you feel comfortable to do this, right? >> yes, i think we have some c-e-q-a findings to make and then finding about the entertainment commission permit itself and these additional conditions. >> so, start with the c-e-q-a findings if someone wants to chime in after that, feel free. so, c-e-q-a findings would be based on the record which includes but is not limited to environmental impact report for the 34th america's cup project. the planning department march 20th, 2012 moved to file and materials and testimony presented and available to this board for this hearing. the board finds there is no new information of substantial importance and no substantial changes to the project or circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will change the conclusions of the planning commission and certifying the project e-i-r or the board of supervisors's

affirmation of such determination in such a way as to require additional environmental review under the california environmental quality act, c-e-q-a. the record is incorporated in this motion by reference. and number two would be for purposes of this board's action, the board adopts as its own the board of supervisors's c-e-q-a findings which include rejection of project alternatives as feesable and adoption of statement of overriding benefit and adopts the mitigation monitoring and reporting program all as set forth in board of supervisors resolution number 109-12 and the port commission's resolution number 12-34. said board resolution and port [speaker not understood] and c-e-q-a finding are incorporated in this motion by reference. sure? >> based on all the information submitted to this board and presented at this hearing, the proposed operation complies with the health, zoning, fire and safety requirements of the laws of the state of california or ordinances of the city and county of san francisco that are applicable to the operation, the location of the

proposed operation can adequately accommodate the type and volume of vehicles and pedestrian traffic anticipated. the pro poed operation has adequate safeguards to prevent emissions of noise, glare, dufty and odor that would substantially interfere with the public health, safety and welfare or the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring property. ~ and the permit applicant live nation has provided a security plan that adequately addresses the safety of persons and property and provides for the orderly dispersal of individuals and traffic. >> so, the permit is then upheld conditioned on the permittee's compliance with the security plan and the permit is upheld with the following modifications and additional conditions, and this would speak to the supplemental conditions that were just discussed. the first being that the condition imposed by the entertainment commission that "no more than 10 of the paid concerts shall be for attendance of 6,000 to 10,000 people. the remaining paid concerts shall be for fewer than 6,000 people ", shall be replaced by

the following. "no more than 30 concerts at the maximum capacity of 92 87 people each or such lower capacity as specified by the san francisco fire department." the next would be the permittee may submit requests for up to six 30-minute extensions of the ending times of concerts to the san francisco police department. any such request must be received by the san francisco police department at least 10 days in advance of the concert. the endling time for the concert for which an extension is sought shall not be extended unless the police department approves the request for an extension and shall only be extended to such time as approved by the police department. the san francisco police department is encouraged to work with the neighborhood steering committee regarding requests for curfews. and finally the second modification. >> i think that the appointment by the public [speaker not understood] should be incorporated given the question as to whether -- >> i think that did leave a question in my mind at this hearing. whether the steering committee

was truly a representative group given the objections of other commenters. so, i would delete steering committee and just say, work with the neighborhood. >> the immediate neighborhood. >> immediate neighborhood. >> commissioners, i'm comfortable. >> okay. >> okay. and then the last is by october 31st, 2013 the permittee shall remove all site improvements and repair any damage arising directly or indirectly from any concert, improvements, removal of improvements or any other use of or activity by permittee. >> so moved. >> all right. >> okay. so, we have a motion by the vice president. if you could call the vote, please. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to uphold the

place of entertainment permit, the c-e-q-a finding as read into the record with adoption of the board of supervisors c-e-q-a findings a referenced in resolution -- i didn't get the number. >> [speaker not understood]. >> and with the three extra conditions as read into the record with the amendments to two of those conditions. on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. >> aye. . >> president hwang? >> there was an amendment to one of the conditions to be clear. i think the second condition. >> actually it's an amendment -- >> there was another one about the fire department as well. there was an amendment to that one -- >> no, no, not a stated, not a read into the record. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> aye. >> examine commissioner honda? >> aye. >> aye. aye.

>> the vote is 5 to 0 and this permit is upheld. thank you. ~ >> okay, a five-minute. >>please stand by; meeting in recess

>> welcome back to the may 8,

2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. thank you all for your patience this evening. we are calling item number 7, appeal number 13-0 24, legacy 455 market street lp versus the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping, property is at 455 market street protesting the issuance on february 15, 2013 to kabob trolley llc of the mobile food facility permit, sale of >> aye. gyros, kabobs and soft ruination, 11 mff-0 147 and we will start with the appellant. ~ is on for hearing tonight and we will start with the appellant. you have 7 minutes. ~ good evening, my name is cathy mckenna. i represent the retail [speaker not understood] market building