tv [untitled] January 14, 2014 7:30pm-8:01pm PST
of the proposed project? >> 135 patrons per show. 3300 from 3100. president david chiu: that's my understanding. an increase about 4 percent of capacity for individuals. as i read your appeal letter, it didn't from my perspective didn't address the environmental analysis or the adequacy of that or as much as from 2013 was granted. i wanted to ask why didn't you bring a cu appeal if you spent a lot of time in your letter focused on that. >> we didn't file a conditional use appeal. the board is very stringent of getting the board before yourself. the reasons we did file a conditional use appeal. it was accepted by the
clerk. the analysis of the signature did not meet the threshold required by the board of supervisors and the city ordinance and we probably depending on how things go today we'll see the ultimate outcome, but we did file the appeal. >> you did not have enough in the threshold. >> we did not. >> the appeals in the past were brought with 20 percent property signatures if that's correct. >> i think that is correct. i was not involved at the time. if you asked the question, i will give you an answer. the settlement agreement that some of the neighbors entered into has taken many of the opponents out. now, what happened on the settlement it was large organizations that knob hill association. you will hear from barrett, she's the expert. it's been a very contention manner.
there are people concerned about getting involved at this point. the fact that we don't have 20 percent is no indication that one is that the project has been properly analyzed. of course that issue stands on its own, two, the nature of the contention of the neighborhood on the project has been squashed and quelled some of the enthusiasm as before. president david chiu: we have the knob hill coalition and you are representing the knob hill neighbors. from my perspective the knob hill nation representing thousands of residents and the they are representing the neighbors and they were parties to the lawsuit, is that correct? >> i can't speak to what
exactly that was. the inference that the knob hill neighbors and the knob hill >> the association and the coalition were parties to the lawsuit and they settled after many consensus after the party. your clients are knob hill neighbors and it's my understanding that it's an association that is not listed on the less -- established list of organizations. >> i think that is correct. >> thank you, no other questions. colleagues, any other questions to mr. wallace? thank you. why don't we hear from the members of the public who wish to support the appellant. >> good afternoon. i'm bob pass
more. you have in your record presented by mr. wallace by declaration for the matters using 22 b in the special use without requiring a code amendment. by 39 years of experience which is a zoning add sfrar before that as assistant zoning administrator and acting zoning administrator. the knob hill special use district as all special use districts was established and one of the first established in the planning code was established either to allow uses that weren't otherwise allowed by underlying zoning. in 1968 when that appeals special use was adopted property zone residential as the special use district notes the language especially is a rather unique
area with rather unique combination of uses and special use district was trying to recognize that and protect that aspect of the hill. at that time we had hotels, we had institutions. the masonic add auditorium was a private use house, it was not for entertainment. there was no need for >> the clerk: you have 25 seconds left. >> my belief is that it's accurate. it's not applicable to this case and the garage that's in the building is actually a principal permitted use by force that is subject to counting as floor space limitation that would otherwise
apply. president david chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> can i follow up on mr. pass more. mr. wallace mentioned in his document that this would set a terrible precedent to allow the fud for the polk street to be used by the knob hill project and i'm just wondering if you can talk about the impacts on other neighborhoods if this precedent is set by allowing us to move forward. i think that was the representation he made. >> i'm not sure that i can totally comment. it's clear the section that is used for knob hill it would be available for theoretical use and for all sections in the city. there are quite a few of them now. there was not when 182 b was put in the code that there are many more now. i'm pretty sure that
no one ever analyzed the concept of moving into those special use districts by use of 182 b. the other types of uses that might be available. you have to go by zoning district to know exactly what harm or what value that would have to the city. but it's clear it does set something up where an attorney fighting their case would look at it and say this is allowed and therefore, etc. >> thank you, mr. pass moore. next. singer please. if there are other members who wish to speak for the appellant please lineup. >> and you decorated our knob hill masonic center. you if i -- fix it up high. and you
supervisors, ray heart san francisco. i lived near saint frances hospital for the last 15 years and very familiar with the knob hill area. i think this sounds somewhat akin to something i said to the ethics commission that passed. they pass all these rules say a city employees cannot leave a city job and go to an organization that they are having financial dealings with in their job. yet what happens is they pass they rules and they go to the ethics commission and the ethics commission pro forms will say sure, we'll let you work for this company who you just arranged for 100 thousand or a million dollars contract with and they are offering you a job based on the fact that you have one hand in the city's pocket and 94 you are going to have one hand in theirs. they leave
with proprietary information and they leaf and know what all the department has and they give that information to their new employer freely. the laws are there to prevent that. the ceqa laws and especially zoning laws are to protect the neighborhood. and this has already been said. if you are going to start making little exceptions here and there, i find there is exceptions for people who have connections to somebody in city hall or worse yet people who have connections with somebody who passed a check or give a new job. just look back to jimmy jan who worked for the planning department and you found forgery. they should be
followed. president david chiu: next speaker? >> good afternoon. my name is barrett muo. a homeowner of knob hill for 18 years. the masonic auditorium is near my home. this isn't just an issue of one neighbor. it involves significant zoning planning and code rulings which will have an impact in this city and there are lots of them. i'm sure you are familiar with those in your own district. the powerful interest and large corporations to come into any district and use the mere influence over any special use districts. even those special use districts are supposed to take precedent over the more zoning districts as said earlier. the live nation reached with several
neighborhood organizations. when they could not present a compelling case to home owners they try to intimidate various individuals and home owners associations to get them to accept the settlement. others did and others did not sign. when it was learned that i intend to appeal the e ir, they were threatening and said they would hold me personally financially responsible. when they realized i wouldn't fall to their bullying tactics they offered me another plan. i'm not opposing changes capriciously and maliciously. i
have enjoyed many concerts here. the precedent sets ramifications for citywide and all of your district. president david chiu: thank you, any members wish to speak for public comment? if you do, please step up. if there is anyone else, please lineup. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is roesh a. i'm with san francisco land use and housing committee. the e ir is in fact -- inaccurate and insufficient. it was in the most current activity. among the activity has increased because of the activity on polk street. that was not considered
pedestrians. the attendees for the masonic auditorium are expected to park in the stockton garage because there is no other large garage available. now there is a bill hill going from bush street third street all the way to california street. how this is to be done? remains to be seen. the deir from the department correctly states that the hills would discourage pedestrians. munis, the eir says that they will not take munis. the department says that pedestrians will be discouraged because of the hills and not many people will take munis, how are they to arrive? you can see the traffic on certain days and it's a continuous line
of traffic. it's almost impossible. can you bike there? i would say no. tony bennett talks about he left his heart in san francisco. if he saw all of these young hoards of drunken people, i think he might change his mind. please don't let this happen. you must reject this. president david chiu: thank you, final speaker. >> linda chapman for knob hill neighbors and i was a member of the knob hill association. there was an agreement signed it was illegally obtained done through a threat coercion. there was a number of that that are helping with this project intensification. none of them knew about this project. they
were not allowed to vote. they still don't know about it. they say we are completely in the dark except maybe of those who received a notices within 300 feet. those are rather technical and people don't know what to do unless they are told about it. notices stopped coming to the knob hill association except noises that say free tickets at the masonic. come to your concert. that is not the people who were officers who did the research and came in and contacted the people. they were shoved way by illegal threatening dealings. no mail in went out on time because the client was threatened with $20 million lawsuit and therefore it was hard for me to make it understood that we have to have an appeal to begin with. the issue is not that they are going to be another hundred people. the issue is how many
more events there are going to be than there were in the past. the people that were really representing knob hill association passed a tremendous research. i have lived there since 1969. there were very few events. when there were they were very disruptive from the traffic laws. there was no alcohol. legally there you can have an institution that had ancillary entertainment and ancillary rentals like the cathedrals. they are not allowed to set up to a casino and a bar. nobody objected to this as long as it was a moderate event. president david chiu: thank you. anyone else wish to speak on this subject? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> good afternoon supervisors,
i'm berret from the planning division. joining me is jones from the planning department and guy who is the lead planner. the appeal before the board, excuse me, the appeal before the board is the planning commission certification of the environmental impact report from the masonic center renovation project. the masonic center is an entertainment venue. the eir proposed from 230 events to 350 events per year and also the maximum number of members would increase 134 attendees per event. the evaluation of the issues contained in the eir found the implementation of the
proposed project will not impose any project specific significant unvoidable environmental impacts and have cumulative impact on the environment. the ceqa issues raised by the appellant in december 13th appeal letter in the subsequent december 31st submittal related to the eir applicability related to transportation circulation, aesthetics, greenhouse gas emission, noise and public services. the purpose of the eir is to analyze the physical impacts not the type of planning approvals. the concerned raised in these appeal letters are already addressed in the ceqa documents. as our response to memo states this is sufficient in the eir. the problem does not extent to the contrary.
they have not addressed any new environmental concerns not already addressed in the eir. arguments and speculation and opinion do not constitute substantial evidence. they have not provided any specific information as to why the coninclusion reached in the eir are erroneous. supervisors the planning department the eir analyze all issues and the potential project impacts. considered the eir's written comment we have not heard anything that alters our conclusion with respect to the eir's finding. the staff recommend that the board uphold the specification of the environmental impact report and deny the appeal. staff is available for any questions. president david chiu: colleagues any questions?
okay. if there is no questions, why don't we go to the project sponsor. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here to support the decision of the planning commission the certified final eir and urge the board to reject the appeal. this is a very comprehensive eir and contains 50 sets of the approval each agreed to buy the neighborhood. that conditional use permits includes 79 large events per year. only 54 of
which maybe music, concerts and dance events. that's an average of one event a week. the capacity center an allowed to increase by 134 persons. the eir fully analysis the physical and impact on the neighborhood and while the renovation project while analyzing the 2013 approval as alternative. the eir the most intensive project will have no effect on environmental impact. the eir determines it will have a less impact and the environmental superior alternative. the planning commission adopted and approved in 2013 cu. this is the first time this has considered this project. in 2010
was issued and the planning department on this board approved a renovation. after this a lawsuit was filed against us and the city. in 2011 the san francisco superior court over turned the categorical exemption and this satisfied the superior court's. the petitioners and those consolidated superior court cases, the knob hill association and knob hill coalition and five neighbors. they consent to the 2013 conditional use and support the eir. that settlement includes all conditions of the approval and limited to 54 events per
year. as president chiu inquired, this should be an appeal of the conditional use permit and not the eir. they were not able to contain the signature of not a single homeowner. the merits to the appeal itself. first of all the client states a stipulation that limits it to special use. that was wrong. it was issued by determination that the 1953 approval was for entertainment use, not institutional use held by the court's. next appellants argue the planning code is not for approval. the planning code is not applicable because the property is in the knob hill
special use district. even if they were right, it would have no impact on the adequacy of the eir because the eir analysis the physical impacts of a project, not the type of approval. on the merits, the appellants are simply wrong. the argument they made was also will it combaetd when the categorical exemption was filed the lawsuit was filed challenging the 2009 letter of determination. board of appeals did identify the letter to convert the non-conforming use to conforming use and intensify that use. in 2011 the same superior judge invalidated that letter of determines. however the city and we an appealed that to the court of appeals and in april in last year,
april 2013, the california code of appeals reversed the superior court judgment and the 2009 letter upheld in its entirety. for that reason, the zoning administration is an appropriate means to the project is final and not subject to further legal challenge. not to report the outcome of that allegation. even if it did analyze in different means that project could have been approved that is not ground for objecting the eir. that is because the eir already analyzed the possibility. on section 2a. approval for the non-special use district to authorize the intensification of a largest affordable non-conforming use.
the masonic temple prevail at the appeal at the verdict of mandate. less the eir already did cover the possibility that an amendment special use district would be necessary however we did prevail at the court of appeal and the final eir actively approved that. the physical impacts on the environment of a project. not the form of project's approval. the ceqa guidelines to find a project analyzed in the eir in the activity being proposed not the approvals. therefore even if the appellants are correct, they would have no bearing on the adequacy of the ei r. let me turn to the section of the 182 argument which applies citywide is not available in the knob hill special use district. we agree with the
appellants that the provision of a special use district supercede general code planning commission provision when there is a conflict with any other code provision. appellants can point to no conflict between section 182 and section 238 which is the knob hill ordinance. whether they assume that because section 238 is silent on how non-conforming use, there is a conflict and which it has been superceded. the clear language to the planning code to the contrary. the appellants argument because it's located in the special use district in applying the 4th district does not apply. appellants cannot apply nor case authority to support their novel proposition. the planning code clearly addresses the interaction of the special use districts in the planning code section 235 which authorizes a special use district concludes with the statement and any
special use districts, the provisions of the applicable underlying use district shall prevail except as specifically provided in the ordinance. in this case, the knob hill special use district is silent in how non-conforming use is treated. therefore the under lining zone prevails. by upholding the eir is not setting a precedent to change the way special use district are used in the city. the code remains in existence and states unless there is a specific inconsistency between the sudden ordinance and the under lining zoning, the under lining zoning controls. it's nothing new, it's always been in the code. from an interpretation from the code that was issued several years ago. "special use district's are intended to modify the provisions of the under lining zoning to the extent and only as stated in the provision" therefore the
under lining zoning prevails. earlier these same arguments were made in a superior court in the judicial challenge of the 2009 of determination. once the court of appeal upheld the appeal, that matter was settled, the 2009 letter of determination was upheld in its entirety. on the environmental effects on the renovation project, this eir is comprehensive and thorough. it's 2 inches thick of single space text and covers every environmental issue imaginable in the neighborhood. one of the painstaking detail on traffic transit loading and pedestrian and bicyclist and noise and recreation and public resources, air quality, light and air. appellants presented no evidence that the physical impacts