they suggested they hire an acoustic firm charles salter specifically to analyze noise intrusion into the residences and the tic did so. salter's analysis concludes virtually no noise transfer to the residents will occur. all residents were invited to a meeting with the architect and consultants to discuss the project. the tic then asked the consultants to conduct a second analysis which also shows no sound intrusion from the office to the residences. noise issues cited by the appellant are from 12 years ago and were due largely to the former market's refrigeration equipment which has since been removedment the tic has made enormous effort to ensure an office won't enter fire with the residents' quality of life even though the appellant provides no evidence that noise will transfer to the residences. the tic, on the other hand, provides ample evidence that noise will not be an issue. we urge the board of appeals to reject the appeal and allow this project to move forward. [speaker not understood] will now present the architectural plans and the acoustical consultants will present thei

>>> you're referring to the charles salter -- >> uh-huh. >>> the silence conditions under acoustic plan and verification, you address use restrictions, but you didn't address acoustic plan or verification. >>> if it's all right with you, i'm going to ask the salter consultant to come up and talk about those. >> i asked them earlier and they didn't have an answer. ~ >>> i think now they can address it. >> okay. >>> sorry. joe nodeker also with salter. ben and i worked on this. the question about future verification has actually been addressed. we can give you actually copies of our proposal that's been signed by our client already that authorizes us to come back and do two things. one is observe the installation of the vibration isolators that will be installed on the existing and the new e-pumps to make sure they're installed properly. and second, while we're there, to the extent that the residents will allow us to enter the units, we'd be glad to and we're authorized to measure future noise levels from the heat pump and the mechanical equipment. ~ in their units. and it also states tha

live nation has hired charles salter, a very well respected sound acoustic ition to provide sound testing of ambient noise both during the evening and during the daytime before any events take place as well as the first two events. live nation is also commit today spending over $150,000 on sound acoustic material to prevent sound from going backwards at the venue itself. live nation is committed to not starting work before 7:00 a.m. and we have also indicated that we will work with the neighborhood on curfews over the last number of meetings we moved from our original entertainment commission permit of 11:30 and 11:00 p.m. can you remember fuse. ~ curfews. we moved it to 11:00 p.m. [speaker not understood]. thank you for your time. >> we'll hear from the entertainment commission, ms. cain. >> good evening, jocelyn cain, entertainment commission. just a little tiny history about the entertainment commission. we were created in 2003 after a charter amendment. there are 7 commissioners that represent all the stakeholders, impacting entertainment and nighttime business. even include neighbors

so we're developing that plan with charles salter now. >> thank you. >>> thank you. >> one of the statements made early in the presentation by the proponents said that the direction of the stage prevents sound from going backwards. you continue to accept that comment? >>> live nation is purchasing a acoustic curtain. the details are in the sound plan. it's the best acoustic curtain known to the industry. and, so, sound is multi-directional. there's no question about that. but speaker technology is far better than it was 10 years ago as well. you can direct the sound from speakers. will there be some slap back as the technology or the terminology goes? yes, there will be some slap back. that's the intent of the acoustic curtain as well as the other mitigating factors, the sound measurement in our plan. >> when is the first concert? >>> may 31st. >> and, so, there is sound, the engineer, the acoustic ition is going to start his work on may 31st? >>> no, next week. >> and that's to get the baseline of ambient -- >>> that's correct. >> okay. i have nothing. >> okay, thank you. we can hear rebutt

. >> well, all it says is -- it just says charles salter & associates should confirm to the appellant they have reviewed the final set of plans and specifications including tenant improvement mep and their recommendations have been integrated into the plans. when construction is completed, salter & associates will provide a closure letter -- >>> i don't know what closure letter means. >> i think that would be a good idea for them to speak to whether or not they understand what this requires of them. >> could we get the salter representatives up here, please? do you see the paragraph i just read? >>> yes. >> do you understand the closure letter would require of you? >>> not explicitly. i mean, i could guess, but that's all it would be, yeah. ~ >> okay. does the appellant want to explain what a closure letter would mean? >>> sure, typical letter would state they have reviewed the installation, that it complies with their recommendations, and that the measurements that they conducted reveal that the noise levels comply with the industry standards. something as simple as that. >> just con

i apologize, but we did not receive the charles m. salter & associates comprehensive acoustic report until the day after our brief was filed. but could the board have the conditions? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand -- >>> we wanted to give out our conditions now. they weren't in our brief. >> what conditions? >>> the conditions that we'd like to ask for. >> oh, that is based on your consultant's report? >>> yes. >> and the report had not been available to you at the time -- >>> it's not ours. >> right. so, i don't understand what -- >> i think they're saying that they have conditions that you'd like -- that they'd like you to approve, but they couldn't put them in their appellant brief because the acoustic wasn't available at the time they submitted the appellant brief. >> okay. that's fine. >>> i can submit this? >> sure. >> [speaker not understood]. >> yeah, have you given it to -- >> and to d-b-i. >> are you indicating that you are in agreement now with the permit if these conditions are added? is that what you're saying? >>> yes, we wo