my name again is keith wagoner, i'm here with libby wagoner lle representing the appellants recreation and open space for the waterfront [speaker not understood] and fred. we've already discussed the first portion of our brief that addresses jurisdictional issues. and, so, i will just pick up the discussion at page 8 where we raise the substantive issues that we have with the issuance of the permit. the first issue that we've raise is that the permit does not meet police code requirements. pursuant to the police code, the entertainment commission is not authorized to issue a place of entertainment permit in the following circumstances. first, notwithstanding mitigation, provided under the security plan, the building structure equipment cannot adequately accommodate the type of volume and vehicle and pedestrian traffic. the premises of the proposed operation has adequate safeguard to prevent among other things emissions of noise and glare that would substantially interfere with the public health, safety, and welfare. and the permit has not provided a security plan that adequately addres

. >> members of the commission or board of appeals, my name is keith wagoner. i am from the law firm lipy gaffney wagoner. we represent the appellants for the waterfront, gary botto and fred. on the question of the board's jurisdiction, it is a fundamentally simple question which is that there was no effective delegation from the port to the entertainment commission at the time that this permit was issued. therefore, the entertainment commission did not have jurisdiction in the first instance to issue any permit and, so, there's no permit for this board to assume jurisdiction over. also with regard to the amendments that have been requested, the same is the case. the m-o-u was not signed until two weeks after the permit was issued until a couple of days after the amendments that are before this board were requested. the port has said that essentially the delegation was effective immediately upon the legislative act of the report in delegating. the problem with that day is the port, when delegating the authority said it's subject to the m-o-u. there was no m-o-u

keith wagoner again on behalf of the appellant. i'll just make a quick couple of points. the attorney for america's cup said or live nation said, well, that statement is override under c-e-q-a, but there could be these significant impacts. that's wrong. statement of overriding considerations is that there will be these significant impacts. he he also said that we are asking for implied findings here. we are not saying that we're asking for implied findings. what we're saying essentially what they're saying is that that -- the entertainment commission is not bound by the record that's before it in which it's already been determined that these are significant and unavoidable impacts even with the plans. and finally, this notion that there's a difference in standards, that substantially interfere is somehow different than c-e-q-a. what was said was c-e-q-a standards is noise in excess of the general plans and state and local ordinances. if that isn't the standard of what is a substantial interference that you're violating the general plan and existing noise ordinances, then