well, how do wsa—ii- a lot better than. well, how do wsa—ii wsa| you know what i think?l we— great british debate, i'm asking should we renationalise the waier— should we renationalise the water industry— should we renationalise the water industry ?_ should we renationalise the water industry ? well, joining me water industry? well, joining me to water industry? well, joining me is lissass— water industry? well, joining me is lissass mw— water industry? well, joining me to discuss my panel are danny heliw— to discuss my panel are danny heliw-alss— to discuss my panel are danny kelly-also nigel- to discuss my panel are danny kelly also nigel nelson. you kelly and also nigel nelson. you lils-i— kelly and also nigel nelson. you lils-i gei— kelly and also nigel nelson. you lils-i gei ihe— kelly and also nigel nelson. you didn't get the big— kelly and also nigel nelson. you didn't get the big titles. i hssw— didn't get the big titles. i hssw wse— didn't get the big titles. i know you're expecting it. you lils-i— know you're expecting it. you lils-i gei— know you're expecting

it was issued by the wsa to provide guidance on the interpretation of planning code sections. as you noted, 102 and 270. so at issue in this appeal is a relatively narrow question whether the zoning administrator aired or abused his discretion in the interpretation of code sections 102 and 270. addressing the measurement of bulk and plan dimensions. the appeal, as i noted, does not directly address any specific development proposal for 2700 sloat and the public's concerns regarding the specific a specific development on this site. for example, traffic, infrastructure, environmental effect sites are not at issue in this evening's appeal. the public would have an opportunity to address those issues if or when a specific building permit were issued. but that is not where we are this evening. thank you. then we can proceed, please, with the hearing. okay. thank you. so we will hear from the president if i if i may. sure. very very briefly. i appreciate your taking those efforts to educate the public as to what this hearing is about tonight and the issues before us. it would, i thi

you wsa sa— a bit. it's an alligator. you you tet— a bit. it's an alligator.versial— vietnam because it supports a controversial foreign controversial chinese foreign pathw— controversial chinese foreigni psttsy—exasth controversial chinese foreign. psttsy—exasth . policy position. yeah, exactly. ytethah — policy position. yeah, exactly. vietnam bans— policy position. yeah, exactly. vietnam bans new barbie film over scene showing map of the ahe— over scene showing map of the tash— over scene showing map of the nine dash line— over scene showing map of the nine dash line that depicts sshtestet— nine dash line that depicts contested beijing claims to tehttsw— contested beijing claims to territory-the— contested beijing claims to territory the south china territory in the south china sea. — territory in the south china sea. ss— territory in the south china sea. st h— territory in the south china sea. st ha a— territory in the south china sea. so in a way, it's a weird st— sea. so in a way, it's a weird version of the— sea. so in a way, it's a weird version of the

i actually i'm glad that there will be biannual, biannual, you know, report by the wsa. and i guess by that that's when we're going to really see in terms of, i guess, the biannual report. is that something whether they are implementing the closures and the partial closures, is that what it would mean? yeah, the biannual reporting is to both advise the department of future planned events like the dates just so that if we get calls from the members of the public being like why is this closed. we know in advance and we can tell people why. and then also it would report the previous six months to basically verify when those events took place so that we can keep track that that, yes, they're staying within the 12 full day and 24 partial day closures. okay. thank you. yeah, i'm generally comfortable with what the department has offered to us. i think it's because the fact that, you know, i think this is a balanced, you know, and again, i commend the department in terms of having this kind of conditions because we with the balanced approach of having private and i understand t

group with the prior group housing ordinance, mostly that appellants seems to take issue with the 2005 wsa a interpretation a long standing interpretation of what constitutes a kitchen. the e actually reiterated what constitute constitutes a kitchen and a dwelling unit in 2021. and this is consistent with that definition of a kitchen. for the past three years, the city has repeatedly found that the project does comply with the prior group housing ordinance. both the commission and this board previously approved the project with these group housing units confirming that the project does comply with the prior group housing requirements. the only question here is whether the sixth floor would would cause a significant, quantifiable, direct public health and safety impact based on objective, identified written standards. the record shows it clearly does not, and therefore the project must be approved as originally proposed, as required by the density bonus law and the housing accountability act. the project meets or exceeds all applicable planning code standards or qualifies for a waiver from

group with the prior group housing ordinance, mostly that appellants seems to take issue with the 2005 wsa a interpretation a long standing interpretation of what constitutes a kitchen. the e actually reiterated what constitute constitutes a kitchen and a dwelling unit in 2021. and this is consistent with that definition of a kitchen. for the past three years, the city has repeatedly found that the project does comply with the prior group housing ordinance. both the commission and this board previously approved the project with these group housing units confirming that the project does comply with the prior group housing requirements. the only question here is whether the sixth floor would would cause a significant, quantifiable, direct public health and safety impact based on objective, identified written standards. the record shows it clearly does not, and therefore the project must be approved as originally proposed, as required by the density bonus law and the housing accountability act. the project meets or exceeds all applicable planning code standards or qualifies for a waiver from