because this is an automatic conditional use without conditions. it is not a nonconforming use. i would be pleased to answer your questions. president chiu: let me ask if there are any other presentations from the appellants on this matter. or if we should go into public comment from individuals that support the a parlance. >> we thank you. yes. president chiu: let's hear from members of the public that supports the -- that support the nob hill association. >> good afternoon. my name is david.

i live on nob hill at 849 mason street. my wife and i have lived there for about 10 years now. i would like to address a couple of minor points i would like to make sure everybody here is aware of as we move forward. an awful lot of information has been generated -- facts, figures, interpretations of history. the issue is frankly what is the right recollection of history, what is accurate historical use. each supervisor was given two dvd's by the association with literally thousands of pages of information -- everything from photographs right the way through to exhaustively- researched data, in terms of historical use. it is important to understand that the board of supervisors

actually should not be able to consider this matter without environmental review. in the past, as i am beginning to learn now, a lot of supervisors were not aware of the lawsuits the city lost in this matter, six or so months ago. the city attorney's office noted in those cases that no environmental review was required. judge goldsmith disagreed with that. one of the lawsuits was lost, and the residents had their legal fees given back to them. we are in a similar such a question now. it is important for the supervisors to be mindful of the fact that until an environmental impact review is completed, this matter still falls under the jurisdiction of judge goldsmith. president chiu: thank you. next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i am the share of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, land use and housing committee. i would like to read this letter. their supervisors, at a general assembly meeting, we took action to formally oppose changes of use at the masonic temple. we strongly urge the board of supervisors to uphold the conditional use a p.o., and thereby deny the issuance of the conditional use permit. the masonic temple's original contract with the city prohibited use as an entertainment venue. the city approval was flawed. the live nation project has required so many conditions for approval. it is clearly indicative that they should not be approved. the site is located within 100

feet of residential buildings, close to a church, school, and playground, which violates regulations. the events proposed are disruptive. each major event would follow with offsite the activities, which would occur between midnight and 3:00 a.m. to major events would have 3300 customers leaving at one time, after midnight. it would be extremely destructive to a residential neighborhood, and is unacceptable. we regret the conditions were negotiated without the knowledge and approval of neighborhood residents. we strongly oppose the project. please up all the conditional use appeal. thank you. president chiu: thank you very much. are there other members of the

public who wish to speak in support of the appellant? >> i am a member of the board of trustees at grace cathedral. chris cathedral is the center of a vibrant religious, spiritual, and cultural and artistic life, with various activities occurring through the day and week. we are located directly across the street from the masonic center. we consistently have adapted to the concerns and needs of the surrounding neighborhood. the grace commission -- grace cathedral does not take the position on whether to expand the operations of the masonic opportunity -- masonic auditorium. we do oppose converting the seats. we suggest the planning department incorporate

conditions of approval to ensure there is no adverse affect on the neighborhood. these are things like we want there to be procedures for neighborhood reporting of complaints and problems. we want there to be a process for resolution. we wanted to be a monetary -- we want there to be monetary conditions if there are violations. this should be contractually enforceable. we strongly oppose the removal of existing seeding permitting general admission. we have serious concerns about the impact of these changes on the neighborhood.

>> my name is donald humphries. i am a resident of the knob hill association. i would like to point out to the board that the planning code mandates the phasing out of nonconforming uses. to continue to operate as a food and beverage service revenue, this has expired. for the first time, it seeks a conditional use authorization to continue to operate. this is the first opportunity for this board to condition any grant of the conditional use of recession, to insure the masonic operates consistent with the zoning laws of the state of california. it must be the same as the use obtained during the period when it conformed to the zoning. that was 1958 to 68. the number of entertainment events of a ban proposed far

exceeds the only evidence in the record as to what the historic use was. that evidence was in my submittal. there are two dvd-r's that support that in the record. during the 50 plus year history, the have never had a permanent liquor license. liquor servants was infrequent. clearly, the record does not support planning commission approval of the conditional use authorization, even at 54. the conditional use authorization cannot be upheld. >> linda chapman, a member of nob hill association. i have lived within three blocks

of the temple since 1959. during all that time, it was an non-profit launch. that is what it was legally permitted as. nonprofits like the cathedral are allowed to rent their assemblies base and put on events. but when it goes into a for- profit business, it intensified it. it has a different impact on the neighborhood. that is why in residential neighborhoods, non-profit clubs and churches are allowed. it makes a completely different used to turn it into a a profit menu. when there were large events, the whole of nob hill was affected by the traffic. there was very little parking. all the way down to van ness, it was blocked. but those were in frequent events. also, alcohol was not being

served. to say there are no conditions on it -- the condition was that it was a nonprofit. they ran in violation. violations were not stopped. the fact that there were operating as an illegal nonconforming use does not mean they can then be legalized, or they can be extended if there is a legal non conforming use. what you are asking is going to be extremely disruptive. i have sent data on what kind of muni service is available. those buses carry about 50 people. the come at half-hour intervals. the can clear about 250 people in an hour after these events. people will descend on to polk street.

>> good afternoon. i live at gramercy towers, right next to masonic auditorium. i have lived there 36 years. i was also employed as part of a special staff at masonic, composed of ticket takers and a head usher. during that time, i worked from february of 2001 through 2006. i enjoyed working at my stomach and very much. i was usually the head usher in the balcony. liquor was not serve that most of the events. when liquor was served, it was served in the lower lobby before you go into the auditorium. on rare occasions was there ever a bar set up in the dock and a. alcohol was served before the performances and during

intermission. the shows ran, usually, and co only can a court, can a court 15. the staff was on a four hour shift. we started at 6:30. we were all off by 10:30. the hall was not allowed. drinks of any kind were not allowed in the auditorium at any time, except bottled water. this is also the situation at as if jazz concerts, the upper right, and the ballet -- at sf jazz concerts, the opera, and the ballet. there is no way to control of a whole being given to minors once they are in the auditorium with the drinks. -- there is no way to control alcohol be given to minors the

ones that are in the auditorium with the drinks. i spoke to a bartender in yerba buena. she said their license does not permit that inside the auditorium. president chiu: seen no further speakers, why don't we go to the planning department for a presentation of up to 10 minutes? >> i am from the planning department 4 san francisco, joined by the -- for san francisco, joined by our zonian minister, scott sanchez. -- zoning administrator, scott sanchez. some of you may remember a c u of p.o. in 2000 -- a cu appeal in 2010.

it would have allowed a slight expansion for the masonic center use. the neighborhood failed a lawsuit. the court decision required more review. well we are completing this additional ceqa work, they need to continue their conditional use. reprove -- we approved the continuance. the 47 guy -- before kevin guy goes through the specifics, a c u -- a cu is to determine whether this is compatible with the community. this is a venue of regional and civic importance. it has hosted a wide variety of events for over 40 years, since

the 1950's, without substantial operating conditions. if you choose to the, you could approve the cu which allows the center to continue without any conditions. the department attempted to minimize impact on the community by imposing 30 conditions. you can review the operations of this center with conditions, whether it is necessary to the city. >> i am kevin guy, with planning staff. i will summarize the three conditions raised by the appellant. the appellant contends the conditions of approval exceed the authority of planning code section 185e, which allows an

operating business to continue, providing there is no enlargement of the use. the superior court of california upheld the zoning administrator decision of this is a legal nonconforming use. the sponsor may request continuance of this use. as discussed, the center has operated since the 1950's without any substantial operating conditions, except those imposed by the planning code and regulations. the commission could have iraq to quit approved an -- could have theoretically approved a continuation without restrictions. however, to address concerns of the neighborhood and minimize impacts to the area surrounding the center, the commission imposed conditions of approval. this reduced the operations of the center, which had operated

without restrictions. the appellants questioned the number of operating hours. the commission clement's the -- limits live and non-live entertainment events, based on research performed by department staff. rather than recommending an arbitrary and addition, staff proposed a new limitation informed by historic operating patterns from 2002 through 2007. with separate return to the number of events that may be considered live -- wheat separately pounded number of events that may be considered -- we seperately counted the number of events that would be considered live entertainment. we approved a 20% above the

average number of events during the considered time, but significantly below the maximum. we are below the historic high numbers during this time of review. this should be emphasized that the conditions of approval to establish a maximum number of annual event. based on historic event data, it could be reasonably expected the center will not host the maximum number every year. a hypothetical maximum of no more than the average number would reduce the events actually held at the center. the commission approved numerous conditions related to safety and security, and noise, event hours, parking, a antiestablishment of monitoring and enforcement programs. -- and the establishment of monitoring and enforcement

programs. several conditions trigger additional requirements for larger events. such extensive conditions and restrictions are not routinely imposed on assembly venues. a movie theater is not restricted to a specific number of screenings per day. the hotel is not hosting a maximum number of conferences per year. but opponents contend that there should be a limitation on a cold beverage. the commission did limit the quantity of alcohol that could be sold during a single transaction. that progressively reduces and it bans the prohibits the sale of a call toward the end of events. -- of alcochol toward the end of events. the commission determined there is insufficient evidence to reliably established a historic average.

this does not limit the total number of stations. service stations are a less good measure of the sale and consumption of our call. we limit the most impact full amount, the volume of up a whole. -- we limit the most impactful measure, the volume of alcohol. the environmental review officer has determined the conditional use authorization is not subject to ceqa. it is not defined as a project under ceqa, because continued operation of the existing user will not change the environment. the department's requests you uphold the board decision to uphold the existent nonconforming assembly uses at the center, subject to the

conditions of approval, and denied the appeal. i am open to questions. president chiu: at this time, why don't we hear from the project sponsor, a presentation of up to 10 minutes? >> thank you again, president chiu. i just want to make one point. it seems to me the association of's appeal and testimony was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal status of the center. in 2009, the zoning administrator issued a formal letter of determination, determining the masonic center was entitled in 1956 as a commercial entertainment venue. it was completed in 1958. the zoning was commercial at the time. the zoning administrator also determined there were no conditions of approval imposed on the center in the 1950's,

when it was built. the board of appeals upheld the determination that the center is a little commercial value. -- a legal commercial venue. the superior court upheld the zoning administrator in his 2010 judgment. he determined the masonic is currently a legal nonconforming use, a legal commercial and assembly venue. the notion that somehow the masonic is a private lodge, that it is not a nonconforming use, that it is not entitled as an entertainment venue, is simply wrong. the legal determination by the zoning demonstrator, board of appeals, and a superior court have all approve that. the neighborhood association did not appeal the airport -- the court of appeals decision.

the planning department did a fine job of explaining to you the nature of this conditional use and the conditions imposed by the planning commission. we request to uphold the commission, with the modification discussed earlier that five of the six opponents agreed to. i am available to answer any questions. president chiu: any questions to the project sponsor? at this time, members of the public who wish to support the project sponsor, with regards to the subtle agreement -- the settlement agreement before us today. >> president chiu, if i may address the board in this time slot, i want to make it clear i do not support the project sponsor, but we do support the

settlement agreement. i want to clarify for our friends and neighbors who continue to have many serious reservations about the project, including the settling, we agree with much of the explanation, the limited issues before us on this c.u.p. and reiterate we have retained the right to address our other concerns at a later date. we think this supplement is appropriate, and we urge the board to uphold it. president chiu: thank you. if there are members of the public that wish to speak with regards to the settlement agreement or on behalf of the project sponsor, this would be the appropriate time. ok. at this time, let me see if there is a rebuttal of up to three minutes from the appellant. is mr. barney still here?

>> mr. president, i am not here to of but -- to rebut the settlement agreement. it is what it is. the nob hill association will proceed in the best interest of the membership, and the people who live on the hill, who might be affected by this issue. we thank you for the time you have given us on this hearing. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to any of the parties we have heard from today? item 16 has been held and is closed. items 17 through 19 are before us.

i want to thank all of the various parties who have been involved in this, not just for the last couple of weeks, but for the last couple of years. i know only about half of us were president in 2010, when we heard the first set of appeals with regards to this matter. in 2010, these involve the very hotly contested issues, and subsequent lawsuits that are still ongoing at this time. as you have heard from the planning department, they are engaged in an environmental review heard by a superior court judge, which overturned the decision of this body, with regards to detective coracle exemption which almost doubled the conditions on what is proposed for the future of the masonic. the issue at hand today is about

the existing and continuing use of the masonic. as you have heard during the planning commission discussion on this, there were a number of different perspectives on what would consist of an existing or continuing use. the masonic had originally proposed that there be, or that there was, an average maximum, or an average, of about 54 live entertainment events, and about 160 events that did not involve live entertainment. the planning department made the decision that that number could be increased by 25%, with a live entertainment event closer to 70. the neighbors have continued the number was probably closer to the low to mid 30's. that was the set of decisions in front of us. i want to thank all of the parties for the work done on this matter. another have been many meetings. there have been a lot of late-

night phone calls. i appreciate the work my neighbors did and that live nation and masonic did as well. i think this is probably not going to be a surprise, but from my perspective, i think the compromise is one that often leaves both parties not particularly satisfied, but represents something that is truly somewhere in between where the two parties are. i want to thank the five appellants who have signed the settlement agreement with masonic and with live nation. at this time, what i would like to propose as a way of resolving today's matter is that we amend item 19. we move to approve the project with amended conditions, as laid out in the settlement agreement. if i can read into the record, this would be with regards to modification of condition 34 of the cu approval.

if i can read in its entirety, the condition, a proposed it read, "there shall be an annual maximum of 54 live entertainment events, and an annual maximum of 176 events not involving live entertainment. notwithstanding these limitations, there shall be no limitation on the number of events attended by 250 patrons or fewer." i would like to approve the project with those conditions. again, i want to mention that with this agreement i know that neither side has made promises or suggestions as to the future of how these matters will be handled. but i very much i very much appreciate the resolution with regard to these parties and i look forward to what the future brings. >> just to