the appellate body on its own, or the dfc? >> i think that is the point most people would agree that it should be the members. >> but that doesn't address the question of supposing they want the things the appellate body has been doing that we don't like. >> it would have to be done by consensus and we would object. >> all right. where this is heading is the administration. i think it is a fair point that this predates the administration and goes back a long way, and the obama administration in particular took actions of reappointments for the body to reflect its unhappiness with some of the same issues. it is important to note that this is not a new thing. in fact, there were people in 1994 saying, this is what is going to happen. i do not think you are going to find a lot of people here who would say that the administration's arguments are misplaced. like some other things in the administration, i think the argument here has been the diagnosis may be correct, but the description may not be. -- prescription may not be. the ad

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

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 which will be turned into approximately 10,000 square feet of

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. >> right, and we don't -- we are not able to use that for ground floor egress. that was part of the lawsuit. >> what's the purpose of the doors, then? >> what's that? >> what's the purpose of those doors? >> in the back? they were originally egress, but we lost that in the case. >> they

i understand the appellants are here. you have three minutes. if you could identify yourself for the record, please. >> good evening. i'm appellant philip meza. the -- it's our contention that the revised roof deck is even further out of compliance than the first iteration that the board reviewed at the first meeting. two gates were added for easy access to the so-called nonoccupied areas, creating safety and abuse enforcement issues. the deck area creates a total occupiable roof deck, both extensions constitute a single large roof deck that is out of compliance. in the previous hearing, commissioner swig correctly pointed out that a finish item that someone would get amnesia about. if it walks like a deck and quacks like a deck, it's a deck. i would also echo the earlier comment that no genuine n.s.r. that was -- as was recommended by the board is included in these revised plans. >> good evening. i'm mark hermann, one of the appellants, you can't really state how an owner's going to use a property, so we really think this is a useless item there

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 h

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

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 m

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 view

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

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 does

i think the appellants spent too much time making excuses for the variance two doors down and not enough for the variance here. but this is a de novo board, and if the board feels enough justifications have been made for the five requirements, they can make the decision. thank you. >> so the obvious question for me is what should this project look like if it can meet the variance requirements or is it impossible for this project to meet the variance requirements? >> i mean, i think -- well, i think the architect, maybe they can discuss if they have developed a code compliant alternate ti alternative. it may not be feasible for the purposes of the plan of their client, but maybe they could present that. and it may be that a code compliant alternative may not even fully address the issues raised by the neighbors, as well, because there under the code it doesn't speak to the height of the building, but to the mass reduction. it can be taken off a number of places that do not fully address the concerns of the neighbors. >> i'm not hearing the answer that i wanted to hear. in its current stat

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

i do hear from the appellants that there is a current exit passage way. like i say, in this information sheet, because there's the building, because it's only a 2r existing or a new building. i think they're ok with the exiting that is currently planned for the project. i'm not really anything else. i would want to make a comment as well about the drawings. it did show there was a lot of that building being demolished and we will agree, i want to shout out a warning here, do not exceed the scope of demolition. because that's going to just bring that whole project back again. so that's something that if you get your permits, do not exceed the scope of demolition. that's because it's just going to be a problem. other than that, i don't think i have anything else that i want to say. i mean, i would be available for any questions. >> are there any notice of violations on any of the properties at this point? >> good question. the only notice of violation that we have -- well, the only complaint we have on 891 carolina street is a vacant building. i didn't check

seeing that there are no other names on the roster for questions from my colleagues for the appellantwill open for public comment. public comment is open specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. if you are here to support this appeal you will have an opportunity. you will have two minutes to come and speak. for those of you who are opposing the appeal, you will have an opportunity to speak later on in the hearing. mr dacosta? >> supervisors, i represent the first people of san francisco. we are holistic. so there are some people who make a mockery of my people, that is on them. having said that, we all came here with a very holistic view the last time around. we were made to sit down for six long hours while most of you supervisors did not do due diligence. what i see here is if all you supervisors had to take an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, three or four of you supervisors would recuse yourself. what i am seeing here is willing -- wheeling and dealing of the worst order. you pretend to represent, but i tell you, after 40 years of c

so i hope that anybody who's running in tennessee and west virginia and southwestern virginia, the appellation section of ohio, et cetera, et cetera, i do know people those areas and candidates from his fairies are listening to what ashley has to say. because we do have the capacity to pick some vote up on this if they're willing to show political courage. it is a heart issue to. i'm not totally convinced he can be done -- >> we will be the last few minutes of this "washington journal" discussion. you can see the rest of it on our website c-span.org. u.s. senate continues debate on the house approved water resources development act today. they will be gathered in in just a moment. a procedure book to limit debate on the bill set for 530 eastern this afternoon. and now to live coverage of u.s. senate here on c-span2.

i have had the opportunity to meet with both the project sponsor, most of the appellants, at least the ones who reached out, and i've been able to better understand their concerns around, on the grounds for their appeal. we heard about this project yesterday in the land use committee. this development encompasses the 700 ennis avenue, 900 ennis avenue india basin open space in india basin shoreline park parcels. it is comprised of 28 acres of privately owned land, 6 acres of open space at approximately 6 acres of unimproved and unaccepted right of way. has the potential to provide over 1500 units of housing and a host of community benefits throughout the life of the project. i'm looking forward to hearing this hearing and i see no other names on the roster. i will now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. madam clerk, can you tell me which appellant is listed first on the agenda? spee 12 mikael brodski. >> supervisor cohen: you have up to five minutes to present. >> clerk: the clerk will come and pick that up from you, sir. >> respectful supervisors, thank you for g