the want to get to appellate body issue, -- >> what is the appellate body? >> [laughter] let's just move on. one, whichet to that we all know we will get into the weeds here because that is what the wto does, with weeds, but let's start with the concept of wto reform more broadly. when i see you, i am referring to the administration, what are your priorities for change and what are the possibilities of alluding to what you just said? what are the possibilities of getting anything done before the next conference? how long do we have? this is the problem with wto reform. eu issuing a paper on wto reform, the canadians are organizing a group of ministers in late october, but this discussion, in my view, the discussion of the beauty over form would not have happened but of the disruptive leadership the united states. what are our priorities? one priorities notifications, transparency. you need transparency to have a system, soing unfortunately, too many members are not transparent and failed to fulfill the notification obligations and i have statistics here i wi

the appellants say this is the curious thing. the appellants say due to their own building, force modifications to our proposed project, versus recognizing their building is the anomaly. this front absolutely -- this runs contrary to the base extenants of the planning code which is to encourage conformity. their request that we should shorten the building by 15 feet would result in the loss of minimally three bedrooms. two on the lower unit and one on the upper unit. and we don't believe that this is a reasonable ask to accommodate their nonconforming building. here is the site diagram and so interesting that they have used a different diagram about how one accommodate ascotage. this is the diagram here specifically in the residential design guidelines that show when one building a building next to a cottage, that ask for a setback on the side. our building is exactly follows that diagram if you can see here. we are setback 4 feet from the south property line and we have not blocked any of the nonconforming windows. many of the -

because the appellant didn't want the ballet school to go out of business, but the appellant explicitly left it up to the ballet school, to the permit holder, to ensure that this egress complied with city code. as it turns out, this agreement does not meet code for egress, and the appellant does not want to be on the hook for liability if something happens with the stampede of people leaving that school over his property. as the court found, again, on the overhead, i'll quote, instead of addressing the actual circumstances with city officials, however, crossroads misrepresented its interest in the set back, there by cutting short the administrative process. there can be little doubt that had crossroads been truthful, it and its neighbors would not be in the difficult situation they find themselves. at this point, they've decided to deal only with the ground floor egress and they're ignoring the second floor egress for the balance eye school assembly. this is a much more hazardous condition upstairs because it's an assembly and it includes children. so what's wrong with the subject permi

first, up to ten minutes for the appellant, and the appellants are our mission no eviction. the appellants will describe the grounds for their appeal. two minutes for public commenters to speak. these are commenters that are speaking in support of the appeal, and then, we will have a ten-minute presentation for justin horner from the planning department to present his analysis of the -- certified e feir, and then, there will be a ten minute presentation from the sponsor, and another two minutes for public commenters to speak that are in support of the affirmation of the environmental impact report, and then finally, the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal argument. and i think colleagues, without objection, we can get started. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the public hearing is now open. i'd like to take a couple minutes to give a few opening remarks. i've had an opportunity to meet with both the project sponsor and the appellant involved in the appeal. just for reference, this is a mixed-use development comprised of three existing industrial buildings wh

do we have an appellant here? nick skinas? okay. the appellant is not here. is the permit holder here? 15 allison street, appeal 18-117. >> this rarely happens. should we check in the hallway? thank you. >>clerk: we can move onto six, if you want. >> let's just see if they're there or not. >> okay. mr. sanchez will know. >> wow. >> no, mr. sanchez? you know, i might note that this is just a final. why don't you come forward. at least the department can bring forth -- i probably am not interested in continuing -- >> bernie curran, d.b.i. what they're trying to appeal is a final permit, but it's only on the -- some of the structural aspects, shoring at the retaining walls and things like that. all that work is done. what they should be appealing is if they were going to renew the permit for the main building, three story rear addition. you know, there's been numerous problems out there. they've got about 20 different complaints that they've dealt with. >> this went through a couple of hearings here before. >> yeah. it's my understanding that the guy is trying t

they have their own egress that was granted to them, as the appellant said, by the appellant. the ballet agreed to be dismissed from the lawsuit in exchange for emergency egress, and it -- i'm stunned to now see these -- the appellant try and say that oh, we gave them inadequate egress. if it needs to be made adequate, then, the ballet and the appellant need to work that out. i'm sure that the ballet would be very surprised that they are suddenly being told that the -- what they were given in exchange for their settlement was invalid at the time it was issued. i mean, it's really -- to me, it's a very simple review. the permit's a very distinct line of work, and i -- i believe that it's pretty clear-cut and should be approved. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> is there anyone from the ballet -- is there anyone that represents the ballet in this room? >> they weren't really a party to this action. neither was the owner. >> okay. >> i have a question. your ground floor space shows a vestibule and an access into the rear which then has access to that site. >

i really do appreciate the appellant's work. everything he has said this evening is accurate, related to how many trees have been removed , how many basins have been paved over. we also, in the time that we were contacted by the appellant, we have issued nine fines since november 2013 to 9 different property owners on dorado terrace for excessively printing street trees. lastly, what i want to say, and this is in an e-mail to the appellant earlier today, we will absolutely use our -- we have a full-time public information officer. we need to do a mailing of outreach to everyone on dorado terrace and debrief about the tree situation out there. this is -- san francisco public works is not responsible for maintaining these street trees and we want to know that they should not be printing these trees so we can protect the few that remain and prevents them from being topped. additionally, we will take the canvassing report. i think my daughter should have been out there as well. they look about the same age. we do want to verify how

from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> i want to clarify a couple of things about the hotel. our business, assisted living, is not just a regular apartment, it's for people who come if they have a need to be cared for like medication and dementia care. those are very limited clientele. it's not just you come in a room and board. to answer the question of commissioner swig about why does this not fill up for the entire last 14 years and we are stuck. the below market we have problems of the market rate, you know. but for below market, even that wait was set up by d.d.a. and it's still an forward abl not ar people that qualify because they have a limit of how much income to qualify for level care. it's a very complicated calculation and during a couple meetings with city attorney and also the mayor's office and office solution how to resolve it. they don't listen. my goal is, i think also the goal for the public is how to fill up and help seniors who need help. not only we, avenue, are private. we

we'll hear from the appellant. >> thank you, ryan patterson. i'll respond briefly to a few things here. first off, the zoning administrator's comment that even if the board were to overturn this denial and issue the permit then we would have to go into the section 317 process. i think it's correct. and the answer is the board should overturn the denial and then we go into this section 317 process. and planning can decide if they want to seek legalization as an a.d.u. or what not. that is the appropriate process to be going through. the question of whether there's an assumption of this unit being lawful or not, based on lack of evidence, there's a lot of evidence showing that this is not a lawful unit here. so that's the right process. if you overturn the denial, you are not sentencing this unit to disappear forever. planning will have its way with us. senior inspector's note about 1986 permit and c.f.d. showing two ground flor units, this is what our argument is all about. the 1976 c.n.c. says three units and that carry over into the subsequent

the side setback a jays end to the appellant's property. thank you again for the opportunity to speak and that would conclude my comments. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is wendy and i'm a homeowner around the corner. >> into the microphone, please. >> i'm sorry? >> speak into the microphone. >> my name is wendy beck man, i've been a homeowner in the neighborhood near these two properties around the corner for 20 years. it's my understanding, when alison and steve brought their single family home 42 years ago, that all three of the properties, meaning theirs and the two, one on each side, meaning 575 belvedere were all on the same existing footprint. as a homeowner, i admittedly don't know a lot about regulations and codes and what is allowed and what's not. i do know when you purchase a home, there's an implicit expectation that your space, light, privacy and view will remain similar in scope to your initial property investment. as a homeowner, any structural changes that significantly impact your space, light, priv' or vie

the appellants purport -- [inaudible] >> -- the future issuance of 415 francisco for which d.r. taken and we hope that your decision in this sends a message to the harassment of the project by this party. thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there anyone here from the planning department? >> scott sanchez, planning department. would like to highlight a couple of facts. the permit was actually approved in error by the planning department because the roof deck has a 6 foot high glass wind screen under the code. anything higher than 4 feet would require a section 311 notification. i discovered this when reviewing the project plans today, and i did reach out to the attorney and spoke with him earlier. another issue that i had noticed appears to be inaccuracy on the roof plans, they're showing the second set of stairs as existing, but in reality, that is a new condition. i think it must be a drafting issue because in the brief, it seems as if they're representing the second set of stairs as a new addition. in regards to the compliance with the not yet adopted roof deck policy, i

up to five minutes for each appellant, and again, as a reminder, there are two appellants.y will each have five minutes to describe the grounds of their appeal. followed by up to 20 minutes for public comment to speak in support of the appeal. then we will hear a ten minute -- we will hear ten minutes for mr michael lee from the planning department to present his analysis and certifying the real parties and interest to present the project speaking on behalf of oewd -- we will have two minutes of public comments for people to speak joke -- speak in support of the affirmation of the environmental impact report and then finally, each appellant will have up to two minutes for rebuttal and arguments. i don't see any objections. supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: thank you i just wanted to state, before my appointment as supervisor, i worked in the office of economic and workforce development. a natural, one of my tasks was to ensure the city looked at equity and housing by engaging the community in the area and provide local residents with information about affordable housin

to the appellants' claims. regarding air quality impacts, the eir disclosed that implementation of the project would result in significant air quality impacts and identified six mitigation measures to address those impacts. planning department staff have evaluated the existing mitigation measures and determined that mitigation measures maq-1a and maq-1c could be amended to require use of renewable diesel, which would further reduce the air quality impacts. >> president cohen: just so we can kind of translate the language that you're speaking, what impactly is maq-1-a? >> mitigation measure for air quality and it's 1-a. there are a total of six, so 1-a through "f." >> president cohen: thank you. >> we submitted the revised language for those mitigations efforts and this is done in response to comments we received from the bay area air quality management district this morning. and we have copies available for the public. >> president cohen: thank you. the clerks will come and collect that. >> so the appellant doe

case no. 6848: 780 post street owner of record & appellant: st., 1201 fulton street, san francisco, ca 94117 and david lagomarsino, 1201 fulton street, san francisco, ca 94117-1507 action requested by appellant: re-inspection by senior alan davison and reversal of the order of abatement. testimony, deliberation and possible action to uphold, modify or reverse the order of abatement. >> good morning. the acting chief housing inspector, andrew clarks, declined to appear, so normally we would have our, the person who supervised this case come, which is senior housing inspector alan davidson. he's not at the office today. we asked him to come last time too, and he was out of the office that day as well. so i'm here before you this morning. case history at 780 post street, case began in january where we found a problem with the elevator. and we went over this at the last hearing. the case went to director's hearing, and that was approved by senior housing inspector alan davidson as well. the owner was given a continuance of that hearing. the case was r

my career like many nominees for appellate court, my career is focused on appeals. i felt over 45 brief in the supreme court. been involved in more than 50 appeals occluding arguing in five of the different federal circuit courts. >> you went to work for justice thomas, that would take you through 2011? >> that's right. >> and then you came back to williams and connolly? >> i returned to williams and connolly after clerking for justin -- justice thomas where he helped build our appellate practice erie >> you have been there seven years and you became partner 2017? >> i became partner effective january 1, 2017. virtually all of my partners have graciously supported me. they are very politically and demographically diverse group and i'm honored they support my nomination. >> did you have a mentor at williams and connolly? >> i am indebted to canon it is sitting behind me. he worked alongside me in the appellate practice from the beginning. >> is she senior to me? >> he appears on the letterhead above my name. >> i don't recall when he enjoined -- joined the firm but i

what has -- what has the two appellants done to try to reach out to the third party? can you explain that. >> we have been talking to him for five years. we had contractors. >> i'm charles reiss. good morning. i'm the owner of 560 broadway, the actually 318 columbus, lot 13. ever since we received the notice of violation we reached out to all of the four property owners. and received immediate cooperation from the owners of lot 16. and immediate denial for lot 14. because of the denial that the property was on their wall we incurred the cost of i believe $12 you had how to to do -- $12,000 to do a survey which established that the property was on his property and we forwarded that survey to him. at that time he had an attorney and we forwarded an agreement to them to permit access to allow the work to be moved forward. and they ignored that for years. subsequently the owners of lot 16 have negotiated with the owners of the lot 14. two months ago i sent an updated agreement, a much shorter, simpler agreement to them. we thought that we had a tentative agreement that th

appellants put the words rear door on that. it is not a rear door. it doesn't have the adequate height. this door, again, they have not shown it correctly. the door to the unit is actually inside where my finger is. this is not the door. there's a landing that's a diagonal. you go up steps. steps are not shown. they're steps with the wrong height and wrong width, and they're not shown. you go up those steps, you go into a landing. a gate comes here out onto the sidewalk which is not allowed. these windows don't have bars that let insiders out in a fire. i'm just surprised that the owners continue to say these doors are legal. by the way, they don't show the door and the gate. the door and the gate would be legal if it was a 3 foot door surrounded by a 3 foot door. instead, they have a 6 foot door and a 6 foot fence, not shown there, and that is simply what the planning department would not allow, indeed, it did not see this permit. john, come on up. >> just a couple of points that were brought up. miss bishop said this is a special situation, but aga

first to clarify the appellant's misunderstanding, i did not hear this case. it was acting administrator cory teague who heard this case. it wasn't as if i had suddenly two drastically different opinions here. first, there were different people that were hearing these cases. second, there are material differences between this and the property two doors down. there is a significant enough topography difference that i recall from the plans that such from the rear, this reads now two, going to three, and the other property, it read as one going to two. there was, yes, a peaked roof there. there were, as i recall, in that third floor, as well, and certainly, the volume did increase, and i believe john lemon was the architect on that, as well, so he may recall some more of the details, and i think that seems to be a key argument of the appellant's brief, other than stating a variance was granted for that, they really didn't go into too much detail in comparing the two how they are similar as they claimed, because i really don't think they are similar. we don't thin