dan kennedy is not willing to compromise. he feels that his, the building he wishes to build is already substantially under the maximum building envelope. the modest increase in seven-foot height above the current d.r. applicants rear roof deck parapet wall will not substantially change the views from or daylight into the rear lower level limits. it will have virtually no affect at all on the remaining rear-facing units above that level. in conclusion, we feel the proposed project is precisely what the new western neighborhood guidelines were drafted to encourage, the service and light industrial use of an automobile repair garage, also it should be noted that any modifications to the proposed design would likely also have the greater effect of establishing a dangerous precedent to the newly established guidelines. thank you for your time and i'm available for questions. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor. it appears there are none. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal? >> thank you

dan kennedy stormed out of the room very angrily. he does have a short temper and he just keeps going back to the same thing, which is i could put up a 40-foot building here, so why do i need to compromise when i have already -- when i'm proposing to put up a 26-foot building. so, yes, certainly an angled wall could be done, the floor area, the useable floor area in that back storage section would be somewhat compromised, but it's not -- we built out the lot to the size that was available, so, yes, if it had to be angled back, it could be done. physically, there is no reason why it couldn't be done. commissioner moore: you have a 10-foot ceiling height upstairs, from seven-foot up, you create a fully usable work space and then the window going back, the issues here, the commission needs to be concerned about balancing that indeed we have this unusual live work situation, which is still a live situation as well as by definition a work situation and we would be interested in some adjacecy. perhaps if mr. kennedy would not lose his temp

dan abrams. these papers sealed by the court a long time ago. now, becoming public. explain what they are. >> this is one side of the story. this is bobby kennedy'sccount of why he needed custody, at times. he was granted temporary custody at one point. this is primarily an affidavit in connection with their divorce. it's personal. meaning, it's not just personal towards her. it's also personal towards the family, which is why i think this is getting so ugly now. he's making allegations in this affidavit that he warned them. and he had reached out to them to say she needs help. and that they didn't step in. >> does the fact that the judge awarded him temporary custody, mean that he found the allegations true? >> there's something to them. whether it's all true, we don't know. but there was something to it. she had problems. she was suffering. and as a result, he was granted temporary custody, which is significant. that doesn't mean anything in the affidavit is true. but it does mean something. >> what did you make of the details as you read them? >> it's distressing from the fact that there's a lot of stigma from people who have mental illness. t

dan, i feel like that was enticement. >> you're in. go. >> jeff, you and i have had our back and forth. i said i thought it was unconstitutional. you said constitutional. after oral arguments and kennedyame after the government, came after the solicitor general very, very strenuously, you said, ok, this might be struck down. but i can't help it, it doesn't escape me, they did the same thing on the arizona bill and voted opposite. do you think maybe, just maybe, the mandate will be held constitutional? >> well, look, oral argument is a good but not perfect predictor of how the justices are going to vote. it is true that in the arizona case, they gave a hard time to both sides. but it was nothing like the health care case. it was not nearly as contentious for the government side. donald virily, the solicitor general, argued both cases. and paul clement, the former solicitor general, argued the arizona and health care case as well. i don't think this is a particularly good predictor one way or another. they are very different cases. they are different issues at stake. but it is true that some people were surprised by this ruling. i'd be very surprised if they uphold the law in full. >> d