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 neighborhood at night. The streets are really dead
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 were not adequately 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 an
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 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 ordina