tv [untitled] April 3, 2012 8:00pm-8:30pm PDT
thank the supervisor for his recognition. we are 90 years are not literally the same spot. we are going to be looking forward to our next 90. if you like to celebrate with us, we will have a silent auction this thursday at congregation beth shalom at clement and 14th. it is going to be a great event. thank you for your recognition. thipresident chiu: thank you, supervisor. let us go to our america's cup
item, item 22. >> a motion scheduling the board to sit as a committee of the whole to hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance off -- authorizing the waiver of certain bidding and contract in requirements of the administrative code, authorizing the director of the port to execute contracts for certain improvements for the 34th america's cup event. president chiu: we have already taken public comment on this item. can we take a roll-call vote on whether to sit as a committee of the whole? supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. -- >> supervisor olague absent. supvervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. president chiu: the motion is
approved. please call items 14 and 15. >> the board sits as a committee of the hole for a public hearing. persons interested in the proposed ordinance, which is from the budget and finance committee without guidance, executing the authorization of the court approval of certain contracts and requirements. president chiu: this was heard at the budget to medicament but there had not been a budget analyst's report. you have received written presentation from port staff on this item. i ask stuff if there is anything you would like to say in collaboration with the presentation you have given us. i actually, if you could perhaps use the other mic. >> brad benson, representing the
port director. i will briefly state that we have identified approximately $20 million of appointments -- of improvements to port property that are needed to prepare the waterfront for america's cup events. most of that workmates to start in the next two months of time-- work needs to start in the next ++ takes three to four
months to go to the standard bidding process. we have crafted for your consideration a proposal that would waive the standard contracting process report uses. we would instead rely on the contractor was elected to a prior competitive bid process. we would bid the subcontract. most of the work subject to this ordinance would go to a bid process so that we maintain competitive pricing for city work. i am available to answer any questions you may have. president chiu: thank you, mr. bentsen. supervisor combos. supvervisor campos: if i may, supvervisor campos: if i may, through the chair, asked mr. i wonder if you have any thoughts or comments on that report. >> i did not earlier think the budget analyst for working as hard as they did about processing the work of this ordinance and subcontracts in a short time. we agree with the way the budget analyst characterized the ordinance. there were two recommendations in the report. one went to removing demolition
activities from the scope of work that would be covered by the ordinance. that is largely because that work can be conducted under the existing contract we have with turner. we are amenable to that recommendation. the was another recommendation that port staff report to the board of supervisors at the time we come to approve a debt issuance for that work about the actual costs associated with the contract end compliance with other provisions of contract in law, including the local hire ordinance and the like. we concur with that recommendation as well. supvervisor campos: thank you. i do want to echo the thanks to the budget and legislative analyst for the very quick work they have to do on this item. i think that the recommendations that were made by the budget and legislative analyst make a lot of sense. with those recommendations being
added to what is before us, even though i do not think that waiving these kinds of competitive bidding requirements makes sense, usually -- i do think that in this case, given the timing of what needs to happen, it would be appropriate to do that, with the recommendations from the budget and legislative analyst. president chiu: unless there are other questions, let me ask the budget analyst if you have anything to add the honda -- and beyond the discussion that has already been made. >> members of the board, we have nothing to add, but we would be happy to respond to any questions. president chiu: any additional questions? supervisor chu: no questions. in terms of the recommendations -- one would be to clarify the waiver does not apply to the pier 27 shed and the demolition
of 29, which i think the department is an agreement with. >> that is correct. supervisor chu: the other component was to report on the selection of the firm's contract with. i think that was reasonable. i would support those recommendations. i suppose i would move to accept the budget analyst recommendations, and then call the roll on the item. president chiu: before we do that, unless there are any other questions, other members of the public who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment on this item is closed. supervisor chu was maggie emotion -- -- was making a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendations and approved. unless there is any discussion, a roll-call vote. supervisor elsbernd: aye.
supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: -- >> supervisor olague is absent. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supvervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. >> there are can -- are 10 ayes. president chiu: the motion passes. on the underlined ordinance, as amended, same house, same call. the ordinance is passed on first reading. if we could go to our 4:00 p.m. special order regarding 1111 california st. >> this is a public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the planning commission approval of a conditional use authorization at a property located at 1111 california st., also known as the nob hill masonic center.
item 17 approves the conditional use. item 18 disapproves the planning commission decision. item 19 directs the court to prepare findings. president chiu: we have in front of us an appeal for the conditional use authorization for 1111 california street. we will consider whether to approve the decision of the planning commission to approve a conditional use authorization to continue the existing nonconforming assembly and entertainment uses of the masonic center, and to continue the existing food and beverage uses in the center. i propose we proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellants or their representatives. up to two minutes per speaker the support the appeal. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by planning. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the project sponsor.
up to two minutes per subject in opposition to repeal. finally, up to form in its rebuttal by the appellant. before we proceed, i understand most of the appellants have reached a settlement agreement with the project sponsor. assuming that is the case, i propose refers to hear about the details of this agreement by the appellants and project sponsor, and then proceed to the rest of the hearing. unless there are any objections, why don't we hear from the representations -- representatives of the appellants starks >> my name is stanley -- appellants? >> my name is stanley. i will start on a lighter note by wishing you a happy birthday yesterday, president chiu. i am here to announce that the knob hill coalition, of which i am a representative and which i represent, and also four
individual appellants, have entered a settlement agreement with the project sponsor, the owners of the masonic temple. the individuals are william carroll, donna muse, elizabeth d'amato, and giacommo. but agreement with the owners of the masonic, we have entered into the agreement. as background, we are here before you on the appeal of the decision of the planning commission to approve the application by the owners. the principal issue before us is the planning commission approved the motion with provisions which would allow for 68 large entertainment events, and 219 large events, not including more of the entertainment -- as conditions of the c.u.p.
but agreement, the owners of the masonic have agreed to request the board to amend the motion so that the number of events will be 54 large entertainment events in 219 -- i am sorry. yes, 219 large entertainment events not including live entertainment. assuming the board agrees with this settlement, the appellants will agree to forgo any further appeals are challenges to this c.u.p. i do have to put emphasis on this c.u.p. in fairness, we have to note the opponents do have other areas of disagreement with the owners of the masonic. but the parties have entered into this settlement agreement, including the owners of the masonic -- have agreed to proceed in this manner for the
time being, and to forgo both their assertion of their other rights and our assertions of our challenges and objections, until a more appropriate time. in considering this agreement, we would ask you to take into account that both the appellants and the owners have made significant compromise on the number of events. we think this is a reasonable and acceptable outcome on these considerations. there are other remaining significant areas of disagreement, but we have agreed to forgo a discussion of those issues at this time. as to this agreement, the appellants think the owners for their flexibility and willingness to compromise. we also think the board for its leadership and support of these discussions, and we will ask you to approve. president chiu: if i could just clarify -- from what i read a, what you are asking the board to do is to amend section 34 to
state an annual maximum of 54 live entertainment events and a maximum of 176 events not involving live entertainment at the masonic center. there shall be no limitation in the events attended by 250 patrons or fewer. is that the understanding? >> that is correct. president chiu: thank you. is there a representative of the project sponsor on this same issue? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the california masonic memorial temple. i am also with live nation, who have been engaged to professionally managed the operations of the center. you will recall that in 2010 you voted 10-1 for a conditional use approval for the masonic. that included an intensification
of the use. there was a categorical exception. last year, and that was overturned by the superior court. the use was voided. a focus eir is now being prepared to assess the impact of the proposed alterations and intense a vacation. a new round of hearings were scheduled. what is before you is solely to permit the masonic to continue to operate as it historically has, with no in margin of intense a vacation or any modifications, -- with no intensification or modifications, until the p.r. -- the eir is completed. the pennant contender in the
number of events was too high. as you have just heard, we have reached an agreement with five of the six appellants. we have joined with the nob hill association in asking the board to reduce the number of large and live entertainment events from 68 down at 254 annually, and to reduce the maximum number of large events from 2192176. we want to be clear -- from to 19 to -- from 219 to 176. the eir is analyzing the potential environmental effects of a substantially larger number of events. another round of hearings will occur after the eir is certified. when we return to the planning commission to modify and
intensify after the eir is certified, we will be seeking a larger number of annual events. this proceeding does not preclude us from doing so. the appellants are also in agreement that they are reserving their right to oppose in the future any additional use and modification of the masonic. all parties are in agreement that this agreement is only for this interim period. it is unfortunate one of the appellants did not enter into this agreement. however, we ask the board to incorporate our agreement. president chiu: thank you. when not to proceed into the hearing? obviously, because we still have one appellant that did not come to an agreement, we will proceed with the full hearing at this
time. the president -- the presentation will start with 10 minutes by the appellant. let me ask mr. barnet, as representative of the association, how you would like to use that time. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to use this kind -- time to review some of the factual history of this endeavor to use the masonic temple in the manner prescribed, and to bring this organization up to speed on the history that we are dealing with, which i think would be beneficial in helping make a decision. i would like to introduce mr. james miller, a 32-year-old employee of the planning department who retired recently as planners three. with that, i would like to introduce james miller.
>> good afternoon. in 1991, the nob hill special use district was extended to pick up the oversight of three private clubs that were in the vicinity that were non conforming and had been nominated to become legal. those private clubs where the pacific union club, the university club, and the masonic auditorium. the masonic lodge. accordingly, the special use district was amended to allow a private lodge, a private club, a
private recreational facility, but sinatra, as long as no gainful business was present or part of the application. 1991 was 21 years ago. the clubby in the masonic auditorium -- the masonic auditorium at that time did not have association with live nation. by design, this organization became an automatic conditional use without conditions. it ceased being a non-conforming use at that time. there is no negotiation that is possible at this time, 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