and it's disregard -- the disregard that -- you're acting as if it's not at all an issue. i'd like to understand how you go forward with that argument. it would be helpful for me. i know i understand you're basing the standard that the entertainment commission has to use a i think 10 65. 1060. >> 1060, 10 65 i think is the -- 1060.5. okay. from your -- i mean, what's your view of the c-e-q-a interplay? you're saying it's a standard that is irrelevant to the analysis? the thing is c-e-q-a standard and police code standard are different. >> they're different. may it be simply disregarded? the police codes, no, cannot be disregarded. >> the c-e-q-a standard? the c-e-q-a standard was

relevant for the city making a determination back in 2011 and 2012 that there was a possibility that noise from the pavilion could exceed certain standards in city codes. that's not saying that 30 concerts over the course of three or four months is going to result in a substantial interference with public health , which is a standard out of the police code. they're very different standards. >> you're saying the c-e-q-a standard is saying it could potentially exceed -- it could potentially exceed certain standards -- the city's standard, c-e-q-a standards of significance which are quite stringent. it's a very different standard than -- >> i understand they're different. but can it be simply disregarded? what's the point of it? [multiple voices] they're not disregarded. both the board of supervisors

and the port made extensive findings of overriding benefits. that's what happens under c-e-q-a if there is a significant unmitigated -- >> and the board of supervisors found that notwithstanding those concerns, the permit -- the permit could continue to be issued. i mean, they didn't stand in the way. they made overriding findings. [speaker not understood] from the planning department can also address that. >> okay. >> joy navrette from the planning department staff. the c-e-q-a requires us to disclose potential impacts that would arise with proposed project. we did in the e-i-r disclose that noise and traffic, air quality and other things were going to be -- they were going to be significant environmental impacts. the document under c-e-q-a is just an informational tool for a decision maker to make a

decision on whether or not to approve a project, and that's why they have to adopt findings of overriding considerations saying that our project, even though there would be significant impact, would -- the benefits of the project would outway any of the impacts . ~ outweigh. we did address the then noise transportation would have unavoidable impacts, although they would be temporary, we had to look at them as if it were day to day impacts. >> okay. okay, thank you. >> i actually still have a question for the live nation representative. so, on your noise control plan number 9, it says live nation will consistently measure the sound of all events with db meters in the facility as well as the surrounding neighborhood. so, could you define consistently? does that mean that you are going to have someone in their

neighborhood at the whole time of each concert? or are you going to put them at the beginning of the concert or at the end of the concert? there's two standards. the first one is at the mix position, that's decibel will be me you'der throughout the entire show. that decibel is a very different decibel than what would be in the neighborhood as the speakers are facing, again, towards the water, not towards the neighborhoods and the sound can ~ curtain, as well as other -- there is a wall, a building, plus a four-lane road between the building which is very busy. the embarcadaro, of course. the second sound meter person will have a decibel meter and will measure the decibels throughout the course of the event in various places throughout the neighborhood. so, they'll go to 101 lombard, measure the decibels. they'll go to a different residence. they'll measure the decibels. one of the things we're doing with the [speaker not understood] organization is

setting what the ambient decibel levels are. i am also not a sound acoustic ition and that's why we're hiring the best in san francisco over the first couple of shows to develop what is the baseline now, what is the baseline for a concert and is it within the reasonable limits. >> and do you have a written plan of where these people are going to be and regarding when they are checking decibels in the neighborhood? there are a number of individuals in the neighborhood that have already volunteered for the residences to be used. so we're developing that plan with charles salter now. >> thank you. thank you. >> one of the statements made early in the presentation by the proponents said that the direction of the stage prevents sound from going backwards. you continue to accept that comment? live nation is purchasing a

acoustic curtain. the details are in the sound plan. it's the best acoustic curtain known to the industry. and, so, sound is multi-directional. there's no question about that. but speaker technology is far better than it was 10 years ago as well. you can direct the sound from speakers. will there be some slap back as the technology or the terminology goes? yes, there will be some slap back. that's the intent of the acoustic curtain as well as the other mitigating factors, the sound measurement in our plan. >> when is the first concert? may 31st. >> and, so, there is sound, the engineer, the acoustic ition is going to start his work on may 31st? no, next week.

>> and that's to get the baseline of ambient -- that's correct. >> okay. i have nothing. >> okay, thank you. we can hear rebuttal from ms. cain if you have anything. please step forward. >> thank you. again, jocelyn cain. we believe the applicant has satisfied our request -- our requirements for noise, traffic, and safety plans subject to the final sign off of all of the departments mentioned. i also just wanted to reiterate that our responsibility at the entertainment commission don't end at the issuance of this permit. we do an enforcement responsibility and the authority to suspend or revoke a permit. if the conditions are violated, we have citation power as well. and it's not -- it's no longer the elongated process that it once was. i as the director have the

suspensions very quickly and within a matter of days. and, so, we will and are prepared to use that if we need to. so, i think that's all i have to say. i'm here for questions. >> two questions [speaker not understood]. so, the permit is not an issue. it's bn approved, but the issuance is contingent on a number of other conditions being satisfied, correct? >> that is correct. >> and, again, you can rescind the permit at any time? >> i can suspend -- >> suspend. >> yes. >> okay. so, they could give 10 concerts and you could say, you violated the criteria in the permit and we're suspending it? >> absolutely. there is a process for that, but it's not -- it's no longer the 30-daytime process. it's very quick. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, barring any further questions, the matter is submitted. >> anybody? >> unless you'd like to start. >> no, i'm deferring the floor. >> there has been a fairly wide range of issues that have been brought up by both sides here. the question that we're facing is really looking at the criteria that the entertainment commission uses in the issuance of the permit. should we agree with it, however, there is an additional component to our decision making that relates to confirmation of the

environmental review in the c-e-q-a findings. at especially that the that. note to file that was issued by the planning department addresses many of the thing that were not known perhaps or perhaps not as well studied or determined at the point that the original e-i-r was issued. it addresses the questions that were raised about size of venue, number of occurrences, and then some of the other elements that were related to that particular program. i am convinced that the -- that portion of our decision making,

should we so choose to deny the appeal, conforms that the c-e-q-a findings, especially with the note to file, the decision making conforms to that, those findings. in term of the entertainment commission's issuance of the permit and the finding that they need to address should they reject a permit application, and from what's been stated by most people here, it all focuses on traffic and sound. ~ terms the issue of traffic is an interesting one in the sense that no matter what you plan, it doesn't always work. i'm sure that the ballpark has

an excellent plan because there's much less problems around that. i would guess that it's also assisted by the fact that most of us stay away from that sector when the giants play. and for those of us who forget, then we're stuck in traffic, try a left turn on 3rd street in front of the park and be able to continue along the embarcadaro. and for some of the people in this audience, i also happen to live not far from where they do. the question of the traffic, you know, is a difficult one because even when they have a fire works show at pier 39, both people and vehicular traffic is a mess throughout the north beach. what happens here at the park -- excuse me, at the pavilion, it's going to be hard to say. and the question is whether

they're really addressing it. i can't tell because i have not seen the plans. however, the appellants provide very little detail. their discussion of the traffic is in general and there is no argument specific to either element of the transit plan or the people plan or whatever you want to call it that deals with the movement of the pedestrians or vehicles. i have no way of saying either way that it's totally mitigated or not, but the question of the application is do they have a traffic plan, and they do have a traffic plan. the same applies -- and i'm not going to talk about the security issue. i'm going to talk about the sound issues. the reason i brought those things up because the

appellants have no detail in there. they talk in general about the criteria and how it may not be appropriate. the discussion really lends very little ammunition in terms of making an argument against the specific plan that has been proposed and the criteria that has been documented within the application and the agreement. however, we all know that sound is not going to be totally baffled by whether it's the sound can urtain or whether it's the direction of speakers. there is always reflected sound. there is the number of things that are going to occur. the question is whether they're going to be able to mute it enough so that the residents nearby are not totally bothered by it for four hours. i think that there is probably

enough key in both the testing and in the ability of the entertainment commission to suspend -- i'm not sure how easy that is going to be, whether that will ever occur. but at this point i'm leaning toward denying the appeal and upholding the permit. >> i guess i'll go next. i am in agreement with all of that. i guess my, my observation at this point is that we have to make very specific findings. either here on the record or in writing, and i wonder if -- what the best way is to do that. >> writing. >> i think so, too. so, i would also vote to deny

the appeal. again, i have not heard anything from the appellant to change the basis of the c-e-q-a findings or really anything tangible other than perceived general discomfort with the traffic and noise that could potentially impact the residents. again, i am confident that there is a process in the entertainment commission for the residents to bring up any concerns in the future and there is a means of redress should the permit have to be revoked or suspended or if there has to be some other way to address the concerns. i think the proper avenue would be through the entertainment commission. so, that's where i'm headed. >> and i'm generally headed in the same direction. i think particularly in terms of c-e-q-a, the fact that

significant and unavoidable impacts exist is not alone a reason to not certify an e-i-r because the standard is the benefits outweigh the liabilities and i think that's been well documented. and in terms of the standards for the issuance of an entertainment permit, i'm satisfied with the answers. i know some of them are a little bit vague, but i appreciate that, because until some of these things actually happen, it's going to be difficult to know. but it seems everybody is preparing for as many as if's as possible. >> i also concur with my fellow commissioners. i believe there was not enough evidence to override the amount of work and effort that's been put forth. i do believe that from hearing what was presented today there is a workable plan here.

at the end, everyone is probably not going to be happy, but i think those concessions were considered prior at the board of supervisors and at the at the planning commission. so, i would, too, lean to deny the appeal and that the permit was issued properly. >> i would also concur. i think i feel satisfied after hearing the testimony today and the arguments on both -- on all sides that many of the issues that came to mind while i was reading the materials as well as listening to the members in the public who had concerns i felt were addressed in our -- and i agree there does need to be some flexibility to address problems that have not yet arisen. to the extent they can be anticipated, be ready to deal with them. [speaker not understood]. with respect to the argument

made by the appellants on the c-e-q-a, i feel satisfied, too, that the board of supervisors has -- and planning has made adequate findings overriding the standard, overriding the issues of concern with respect to the unavoidable noise and impacts, environmental impacts. and i think that we as a board, to the extent and it sound like from the comments of my fellow commissioners, that we're going to deny the appeal and we would want to then adopt as our own the findings of the board of supervisors with respect to the c-e-q-a issue. on the standard that the entertainment commission applied for purposes of issuing the permit, i think that we don't have -- echoing what has already been said, we don't have evidence that the -- i

think that there are four points -- four elements that we needed to have found to overturn the entertainment here and they don't -- they haven't existed -- they haven't come to fore yet. so, we don't have evident to show that the permit was improperly issued. and for all of those reasons, and i think we have been advised that we need to make findings on the record rather than in writing; is that correct? is that due to the time issue? >> that's correct. >> so, we don't have time to put one together and then present it at the next meeting. is that what you're saying? >> there are two concerns. one is the business and tax regulation code that talks about how quickly this body should act on an entertainment permit, which is within 30 days

that the appeal has been filed. and the other is simply the speed at which the permit holder needs to move forward with using the permit in order to host the first eat. >> and i ~ event. >> and i believe there is some adoption of additional conditions. >> yes, i tried to find that on my exhibit. but we need to address that. actually, can i be directed to the exhibit where the conditions are raised? they all sounded reasonable. entertainment? >> commissioners, the conditions that are listed on page 5 of the entertainment

commission brief are slightly different than the conditions listed in exhibit 3 of the live nation brief. so, the parties need to come to some agreement or the board needs to make a decision on what -- >> we do need to hear that. i don't think we have -- actually, yeah, is entertainment and live nation on the same page with respect to conditions? >> i don't want anything on

here that's not proper. >> that's the page from the brief -- >> that's in your brief. >> i have it -- so, it's not a new document. >> i just want to know what the -- >> that's it. those are the ones that were selected to you from the entertainment commission. >> okay. >> that's what was going to be proposed at your 16th -- >> correct, correct. >> okay. these conditions from my perspective when we heard about -- read about them in the briefs and heard about them today all appear reasonable and appropriate and would improve on the permit.

so, i would want to include that . >> [speaker not understood]. >> you're looking at the live -- [inaudible]. yeah, they're all in agreement. i got the nod from counsel. okay. >> all right, okay. i'll entertain a motion or i'll make it myself. >> make a motion. >> were you going to say something?

>> there are some questions that have been raised i think that are important to have addressed here. if i could have both entertainment and live nation

answer a few questions, please. on the conditions, the documentation for them in entertainment's brief -- live nation's brief are not the same. and the concern -- one of them, number 3, the cap on the number of concerts and concert capacity , in the aye tal i cans and the entertainment listing, number of 30 concerts, maximum capacity or otherwise set by ssfd. i think that's the standard form. do you have extra copies, mr. vettle, of your conditions? because you were walking up here earlier. do you have -- it will just be easier for me to get to the writing [speaker not understood]. thanks. okay. so, commissioners, do you have them? okay. i ink the number 3 here,

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 th