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 well 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 thats 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, shes the expert. Its been a very contention manner. There are people concerned about getting involved at this point. The fact that we dont 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 neighbo
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 nonspecial use district to authorize the intensification of a largest affordable nonconforming 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 projects 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
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 well 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 thats 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, shes the expert. Its been a very contention manner. There are people concerned about getting involved at this point. The fact that we dont 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 th
Third street and xelsory. The interpretation dated may 1990 in your packet which says when a nonconforming use changes to another use such must conform to other applique able. Lets go to other problems in the eir, the proposed project of uses in the amount of knob hill and increasing parking and traffic large increases in the number of events and patrons that will attending the events. The knob hill does not permit this type of activity. What else is wrong with the eir . In order to avoid the analysis that i just discussed the need to comply with the special use district, the ir, it doesnt meet the plans of 182. The far that allows 2. 51 is exceeded here because the parking garage is not an accessory use as contended by my friend. I say that with great honor. The parking garage is its own use. It operates 24 7, 365, it accommodates the clubs, the hotels and accommodates the masonic. Next is the issue of whether other entertainment can be lawfully applied at the masonic. I pointed out i
Analyzed. The Planning Department to the board on january 6th, january 3rd go into detail of the appellants arguments. The final eir is complete and objective. On behalf of live nation we request the board uphold and allow the renovations that are needed to modernize. Chiu president david chiu thank you, any questions to the project sponsor. Seeing none, lets hear from the members of the public that support the sponsor. Please lineup. Hello, David Elliot Louis representing myself as a resident aware of this project for some time. And someone who i think i can see from both sides. I urge you to reject the appeal and approve the project. I see this difference between age group, those who want quiet and those who want a nightlife and its also an issue of alcohol. I agree that can be a problem. I do believe that neighbors have a right to quieten enjoyment of their neighborhood but not at the expense of fun, not at the expense of decreasing nightlife. We can use a little more life in that n