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 be clear, that is a motion to table item 17 and adopt item 18. and to adopt item 19. president chiu: that is correct.

>> can we have a roll call? supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. president chiu: the motion is approved. i want to thank all the parties for your participation. why don't we go to our adoption without committee reference calendar? we have handled item 22. if we could call the balance of the calendar. >> items 21, 23, and 24 are being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference. these will be adopted by a single roll call vote on less a committee member would like to single out an item.

president chiu: do we need to sever any items? supervisor olague: i would like to sever item 21. president chiu: items 23 and 24, can we do that same house, same call. without objection, those are adopted. item 21. >> a resolution supporting the assembly built 1831. regarding the extension of california's bandbox policy. supervisor olague: this extends the ban the box policy across california. people who are convicted of crimes experience difficulty in re-entering the workforce. this pushes public-sector employers to ensure a strong nexus between an applicant's past criminal infractions and the duties of a position when

the applicant is refused the job. the bill would not eliminate required positions in law enforcement or any of the checks that are required by statutes. rather, it would eliminate barriers to employment for people who were previously convicted but are making the appropriate strides to join the state work force. the city and county of san francisco currently offers these protections and my office vetted this resolution. as a leading city, we must support policies that level the playing field for citizens in california that are typically locked out of opportunities to better themselves. that is why we support this. president chiu: any further discussion? why don't we take a roll-call vote on this item? supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye.

supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. madam clerk, do we have any in memoriams today? >> it will be adjourned on behalf of supervisor elsbernd for the late mr. robert standstill and 4 supervisor olague 4 lawrence bill richardson. president chiu: is there any more business in front of this body? >> that concludes our business for today. president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

>> the question when i started 11 years ago when i started doing resolution work is can anything be presented on a really low resolution device where it is potentially a digital image? can anything be presented that

way? or will it feel cold and electronic? >> the imagery will change. there will be four different sets. it is a two dimensional image. it is stretched out into three dimensions. the device is part of the experience. you cannot experience the image without the device as being part of what you are seeing. whereas with the tv you end up ignoring it. i make gallery work more self

and budget and public art work where i have to drop this of indulgence and think about how people will respond. and one of the things i was interested in the work and also a little fearful of, it is not until you get to the first and second floor were the work is recognizable as an image. it is an exploration and perception is what it is. what are you seeing when you look at this image? one of the things that happens with really low resolution images like this one is you never get the details, so it is always kind of pulling you in kind of thing. you can keep watching it. i think this work is kind of experience in a more analytical

way. in other words, we look at an image and there is an alice going on. -- and there is an analysis going on.

>>