originally opposed later wrote letters of support [ inaudible ] the appellant claims 140 neighbors are against that project, yet 35 of them don't even live in pacific heights, 40 of them are duplicates. four of them are at the u.p.s. p.o. box center representing themselves as neighbors. many having seen the 34r57bs nor t -- plans nor the studies but are friend of the deniros and agreed to support them. we have been going through this process for almost three years now, and we'd really like to have a functional home. we're available for questions. >> thank you. >> mr. teague?

>> good evening again president honda, commissioners, cory teague from planning department staff. i'd like to begin with some procedural department background. the subject property at 2523 steiner street is located within the rh 1 zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district. the proposal is to expand the existing third and fourth story of the existing single-family home into the required rear yard. based on the design feedback from the planning department's residential design planning team, the planning department revised such that the planned structure encroached into the rear yard approximately 9'3" into the ground floor. the proposed addition -- variance was heard at a joint

hearing with the planning commission on june 15, 2017 where they also held a hearing for discretionary review. so summarize the comments, the acting zoning administrator stating that can be challenging to make a required finding that the project would not be injurous to the project in the vicinity however the subject property is very small and narrow and that combination can squeeze floor plans in a way to make them planning he ceffecti. however, commissioners richards and moor are larger concerns with the project and more specifically commissioner moor thought the existing space could be used more efficiently without any addition. ultimately, the planning commission voted 4-1 to disprove the entire project with commission president hills voting know and commissioners fung being absent.

after further consideration the acting zoning administrator issued a decision letter granting the rear yard variance on august 30, but with several conditions designed to pulled proposed vier hences away to the north. these conditions are summarized as follow does. one, the proposed fourth floor addition was reduced to a depth of 3 feet into the required rear yard. additionally, no portion of the resulting fourth floor rear terrace that extended north of the addition can be used as open space which will provide a nearly 9 foot set back between the fourth floor terrace and the northern property line. second, the proposed third floor rear addition was set back at least 7 feet from the northern property line. next, the set back on the third floor cannot be used as a deck or terrace. third the proposed fourth floor

rear addition was set back at least 5 feet from the rear property line. and any windows must used obscured privacy glass. this ensures that no new building walter as or transparent window will be within 10 feet of the appellant's building to the north. the acting zoning administrator found that the property's small size and other principles constituted an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance for the subject property. additionally, the department confirmed with dbi that the ground floor and basement level cannot be used for bedrooms because the building code requires such rooms to have adequate escape and rescue openings which those rooms do not have.

the appellant claims the variance should not be granted because the association has already been disapproved the original planning permit [ inaudible ] the department disagrees with these positions. while it may not be common for the zoning administrator and planning commission to make conflicting reports, it does in fact occur i've provided two such examples in my brief, both of which came before this board in the last several months. plat noting commission and the zoning administrator are independent bodies under the city charter with decision making criteria. in fact, any such obligation would abridge the express authority granted to the city administrator granted by the city charter. however, i'd like to make it

especially clear that despite the fact that the planning commission and the zoning administrator may make conflicting determinations on the same project, in no way can a zoning administrator's decision to grant a variance for a project that was overrule or overturn the planning commission's authority to deny the associated building permit. in fact if the zoning administrator grants a permit but the planning commission disapproved it then the granted variance is effectively moot. such a variance is only successful if the appeal wperm overturned on appeal by the board of appeals.

[ inaudible ] >> i also wanted to speak to the claim that the variance approved the proposed decks which are disproved by the planning commission. aside from the other information just regarding the separate natures of the planning commission and the zoning administrator, the subject did not approve any decks or terraces in fact it placed sfesk restrictions on decks that were proposed. because the existing fourth floor is proposed to be reduced by this project, additional living space is requested at the rear to continue to meet the open space requirement for the single-family home. -- [ inaudible ] after further conversation with the appellant it was agreed that there was some inconsistencies particularly heights and some which don't

really relate to the conditions of approval but other rendering were generally accurate with the conditions of approval. due to time limitations i will conclude my presentation there and present for information at rebuttal. >> mr. teague. >> yeah. >> i think there were two other exceptions that makes the -- the denial of the permit by planning -- there are two other exceptions. one would be they wait a year, and two is that they resubmit a revised project. >> right. >> besides the fact that the planning commission -- excuse me, the board of appeals can review that particular permit, should it be appealed. >> that is correct. the property owners have the option right now with the existing building permit, which as mentioned has not yet been

forally denied by the planning department or by the department of building inspection, and the reason is because they have options with what they can do with that permit, and they are basically going through the process to help determine how they want to explore those options. one of the options they would have is to amend that permit in a way that would amend it so significantly that it would be considered perthe charter, a different project. if they did not want to do that, they would have to wait if the project was effectively and ultimately disapproved, they would have to wait another year before they applied for essentially the same project. >> question. one, how does it feel to talk about yourself in the third person? sk >> i'm not sure. i haven't really thought about it. >> so both the appellant as well as the permit holder showed illustrations of the prospective completed project. there's a big difference. can you explain that? i know you were alluding to that in your -- into your --

>> sure. the primary concerns that i have with the appellant's rendering were that one of the renderings i think from a perspective of the ground floor deck area or the yard space, and i think the permit holder make this comment as well showed someone kind of looking over the parapet, but there was a requirement that there be a 7 foot set back there, that 7 feet off of that property line you cannot use that as open space. it is true that the conditions of approval for the variance did not expressly state that you can't put a parapet on the property line, even though you're going to set back the open space, i think it was implied that any such parapet or railings would go with that 7 foot set back, as well, so that was one concern. the other concern was that in run of the renderings you could see through the windows and one of the conditions that they be windows that were obscure

privacy glass, and then, the other issue which i believe the permit holders pointed out is that the height shown actually kind of showed the third level floor height raising, which actually as was mentioned, the -- the second floor height is coming down, and so the third floor height is just going to extend at the same level that it is, so there was some discrepancy there with the height as being shown. >> my question is more as the appellant's drawing showed that the building going back much further than the permit holders. >> i don't think either one, and they can speak to this and show them again, i don't think there was a lot of discrepancy how far they went back except that the permit holder has an additional option which was -- >> no, i got that, the third one, the reduced. >> they reduced it even further. i think the primary differences between the appellant's renderings and the permit holder's renderings was the height and the perception of

how close people may be to their property relative to the new addition. i should point out and i think it was pointed out here, too, that the permit holder's renderings show that on the fourth floor the terrace went a little bit beyond the addition, like, a little bit closer to the property line than the tula addition itself, and i think it was pointed out that was a slight inaccuracy. it will be flush with the fourth floor addition as conditioned in the variance. >> thank you. >> may i see a show of hands of how many people plan to speak under public comment? okay. so if you haven't already filled out a speaker card, if you could do so before or after you come up to speak, that would be helpful. i would also ask that you lineup on the far side of the room over there, and the first person in line can be right where that stack of papers is, and -- >> first person come on up. >> president honda.

>> two minutes because of the time length. >> and we are going to have each person given two minutes to speak, and that is because of the hour and the number of people to speak. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm greg scott. i'm an officer for the san francisco coalition of neighborhoods, and i happen to live just around the corner of this project pacific heights residences association and iopose the granting of this variance. it's uncontionable that the zoning administrator would overturn the planning commission. i think the basic fundamental thing that confuses us, this building is already a nonconforming use where it covers most of the lot already. planning code says you can't expand a nonconforming use. that alone should be enough to deny this variance. this should not be allowed to happen.

it's very bad planning. the project support ors knew it was a small oddly configured house when they bought it. they should have done their due diligence in nonconforming use. this project should be denied and this project should not be allowed to go forward with the variance. thank you. >> thank you next wither, please. >> and again if the line could start right there at the corner of the desk, yeah. >> >> good evening, welcome. >> hello. >> so i'm nicholas chen. i'm here on behalf of my parents. we're 2521 steiner street, and we're the neighbor on the other side. i wanted to go back to some of these documents that i put underneath the projector which shows the view from our back yard on the far left. the view of the, i guess you'd call it the appellant's provided graphic and then, the view of the developer's

provided graphic, so i think you had a question about how far it goes back, so you can see it's basically the same in both of these. i think this one may have been moved back a little bit further, but kind of my main concern here is no matter where it goes back being to, you're these decks. that's our house right here. there's a bedroom where my brother -- where we grew up up here, and on both sides, you're looking directly from those decks even if you move it to a line over here or over here, those lines are looking directly into these rooms and are also obstructing light from those rooms, so i think that's one thing that i think should be considered is there's very clear vision points from the decks into the property. the other thing that i think is worth mentioning is that you know, that floor plan to

include three bedrooms and i think it's 1800 square foot house is entirely feasible. i live in one myself, and i think adding another bedroom is a need to expand an additional floor and increase deck space, and a lot of things that kind of go against the rest of the neighbors there to increase the value of the developer's property, so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening. my name's kristina wells. i am one of the tenants in participate apartment 2. if we could please have the projector turned on. >> face it like you're looking at it. >> sure. >> no, you a're looking at it. >> this is the impact of the plans approved by the variance

if the assistant zoning administrator is saying he forgot to add to his conditions that the parapet wall right next to us is supposed to be approved doesn't that mandate that you overrule him even without the parapet, the project seeks to raise the low edge of the hip roof up close to the gable peak. our box and deck will start to feel like a pit, but no matter what you do with the parapet, the rear decks in the yard will allow their owners to look down on us. i can't propose some expensive extension that would benefit me and ignore everyone around me. is that how it works at the planning department? if the zoning administrator

doesn't acknowledge your existence, he won't have -- he won't have to acknowledge your impacts. commissioner richards explained to the sponsors what they were trying to do was only benefiting them and harming four families around them. they did not get this message from neighbors at many conversations. they didn't get it when nice neighbors who viewed their new plans still thought it was too impactful and then wrote letters against it. the zoning administrator tried to talk to the planning commission into the letters that he approved. vote no, plain and simple. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. >> good evening, welcome. >> i have a list of the groups. these are the neighborhood tenant organizations supporting the appeal. each organization listed below has independentally reviewed

the variance and agrees the tenants will be impacted by the variance. if you allow the back door tactics of the assistant zoning administrator, no neighborhood can safely rely on the planning commission's decisions and findings. this is not a dispute between just adjacent neighbors. this is land use issue that has galvanized an entire neighborhood and beyond. some of these organizations rary agree on anything. 2523 steiner was nearly on thes

and to make adjustments as necessary to obtain neighborhood support. the goal was to reconstruct the home to be very functional and obtain the third bedroom that they needed for their family. the meeting turned very contentious and at one point, the appellant and wife were yelling at the mcnultys. there was a lot of unfair hostility that had been placed upon the mcnultys because of the home's history and previous remodel that caused a lot of the problems you're hearing. since then, the mcnultys have met with me and many other neighbors on the multiple times to revise the plans and come up with solutions that do adjudre the neighborhood concerns. since the first time i saw the

plans to the current proposal -- proposal, they had been scaled back significantly. when you look at the mcnultys' home and the shadow studies, you can see that this is about reworking a very dysfunctional home to work for their family. i ask that you uphold the zoning administrator's ruling and allow them to stay in their home and their neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. welcome. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. my name is ali mccort, and i am a neighbor of the mcnultys living in pacific heights. i am in full support and was originally planning on speaking from my own point of view, however one of the neighbors down the street was written a letter of support and so i'm

going to use my time to read that letter now. dear members of the board of appeals. i am writing you in support of jonathan and tina mcnulty's remodel of their home at 2325 steiner. we have visited their home on referral occasions and have seen firsthand the flawed design and construction of their property. they have been transparent with their plans and have reached out to neighbors to address their concerns. jonathan and tina have scaled back their construction can considerably, and they have been ideal neighbors. they're friendly and considerate. when our block needed a safe cocaptain, jonathan immediately volunteered. their family is a delight and they write warmth and laughter to our block. it would be an absolute shock to see them leave. my name is ali mccort. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening.

>> my name is jessie. i'm a san francisco neighbor of jonathan and tina. while i fully support the construction, i'm going to use my time to read a letter from another neighbor. lenny wanted to be here in person but she had a previous engagement. dear memory befrz of the board of ael pas. my husband and i are writing this letter in support of jonathan and tina mcnulty's remodel at 2523 some typer street. we have a direct view that looks onto their property. we also raised a family in this neighborhood and hope to keep their family on our street. over the last few years we have seen their property go through in a number of poor changes, resulting in a dysfunctional floor plan not capable of supporting a family in this neighborhood, let alone anyone ageing or disabled.

after visiting the home in person and going through the proposed plans, we feel the very modest expansion is absolutely warranted to allow tina jonathan and their family to continue to thrive in our neighborhood. their proposed expansion does not go back nearly as far as the other homes and will not have any impact on the neighboring properties. after hearing their story from other neighbors in support of this project, it is unfortunate that one overzealous individual has been able to disrupt the process so significantly for the mcnulty family especially since they have welcomed their son into the neighborhood. they are the kind of friendly community oriented people we would like to be able to see staying in our neighborhood and we would certainly allow this one low relatively small unimpactful change and ask that

you allow them to do that. please grant the variance as requested. thank you. >> thank you, and welcome. >> good evening. my name's josine. i'm also a san francisco neighbor, but i'm not directly affected by the remodel, so i would like to use my time to read a neighbor's letter of support on their behalf. i'm wearing three different hats in doing this. as a pacific heights resident who has long worn a realtor -- [ inaudible ] prevailed in her own dr process in 2001 and all too well remembers the insanity and pain. those of us who live in pacific heights -- [ inaudible ] began with the ill conceived and poorly built plans of mr.

chris rose. i met the mcnultys this year from mutual friend and was delighted -- 2523 steiner is a bizarre series of split levels that make it nearly useless to a family, an older person and certainly anyone with an injury or disabling condition. none theless, they had hopes when they purchased the home in 2013 after they purchased the home in foreclosure. -- i have reviewed their modest plans for leveling the floors and adding a very small amount of square footage to allow for two children rooms. i urged them to keep working through the variance process to create a livable family home. we need to keep our families in our neighborhoods to make their our city is viable.

they are not wealthy and speculative developers. they're devoted and loving parents, totally unlike what's depicted in the bizarre smear campaign levels by their neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm john mcnulty. i'm jonathan's father and father-in-law to tina. >> i'm sorry. your time to speak would be under the variance holders. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. >> good evening. welcome. >> my name is angela, and i'm a san francisco neighbor of jonathan and tina. i'll be reading a letter from their neighbors that could not attend the hearing but have asked that their letter be heard in front of the board.

dear board of public appeals my wife and i are writing this letter to support the mcnulty's remodel efforts for 2523 steiner street. we overlook the central block area. we understand that their home at 2523 steiner street has gone through a lot of building turn and has resulted in poorly built home with a very dysfunctional floor plan. one that is dangerous for the elderly and children and cannot support a family safely. having gone through the proposed plans, we believe that the -- their model rear extension and remodel will have -- will not have any negative impact to our property. furthermore, we appreciate the addition of more greenery, and very much welcome the overall improvement of a home on our block. we know that there is already a significant amount of neighborhood support for this project, helping to keep a long time family stay in our

neighborhood by improving their home should be a spriert. furthermore they are a wonderful family engaged in the community and we very much home that they continue to raise their young children and remain an integral part of our block and neighborhood. we ask that you support their efforts and uphold the variance that has been granted to them. sincerely, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is janet gamble, and i'm here to support jonathan and tina's efforts to make improvements to their home. my husband and i own a home in pacific heights, and the mcnultys regular attended community meetings. i have visited their home and

have reviewed the proposed renovation plans. the house would be extremely challenging to live in as it is. the disjointed layout significantly undermines the functionality of the home. there are too many random levels accessed by too many stairs that creates a dangerous living condition. in my opinion, the proposed plans are pragmatic and make the house more livable. the expansion to add a necessary third bedroom would appear to have minimal impact on the neighbors. we live in a high density urban setting and as such we all must dale with changes to our environment every single day. jonathan and tina have made tremendous efforted to minimize the impact this construction will have on their neighbors. they have made signatures compromises and i suggest it's time for the neighbors to do the same. we are unfortunate to have this

couple to choose to raise their family in this neighborhood. their contributions to the character and vitality of the neighborhood are essential for its long time vibrancy and sustainablity. a greater amount of flexiblity demonstrated by the neighbors would certainly be warranted and expected. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. welcome. >> hello. katie we wills is a tenant of 2525 steiner who was trying to make it here but she's so i'm goi -- not, so i'm going to read it for her. >> overhead, please. >> overhead. >> our unit is the lowest unit and almost all of our windows face on the project rear yard. as you can see, we're boxed in on all sides.

these are views from our only open space to the project site. this is a close up from the sponsor's own exhibit c. the chief difference between our view and theirs is that we show a 42 inch solid parapet wall at the property line. we show this because it is shown in the exhibit a, plans referenced in the letter -- decision letter and not removed in the conditions of the approval. the assistant zoning administrator wrote kirk on monday and said that the parliament wall, quote, doesn't have to be there, but it is there, and it will be there unless you include its removal in the conditions of the approval. from what is crystal clear from both their 3-d drawings and kirks is that there will be people standing on the rear

yard roof decks looking into our deck. behind the deck is one of the two bedrooms so they would be looking into that as well. our entire 800 square feet faces then fiej project site. we do not have a home theater or wine cellar to retreat to. we got the unbelievable variance decision letter. i'm asking you as a person who loves the city, this neighborhood and our home, please do not do this to us. we have so little air that at least we don't have a did he cent amount of privacy. we will loose more light, more air -- >> okay. >> sorry. >> that's okay. next speaker, please. welcome. >> hello. my name is jason, and i'm against the variance in this case. the variance letter does not cite that there was any hardship here. in fact the za --

[ inaudible ] i'd like to address each one. first, sponsor writes that the foundation is failing. fixing that foundation issues does not area a vier aeance for two additional stories plus two deck. second, the ledges are failing and causing leaks. those do not require a variance for two additional levels and decks. he states the bathrooms are not to code and are dangerous in part because of stairs and ceiling height. those repairs do not require a variance for two additional stories plus decks. in sum, there are no practical difficulties with this property that would require a variance for two additional stories plus two decks. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening.

my name's ron randall. neighbor's jamie and rory weinstein live away from 2523 steiner. they've asked me to read this letter. dear planning department and appeals board. we live around the corner at 2323 steiner and can see literally into the rear of the home from our home. the planning commission denied the plans to expand 2523 steiner this past june. months later, the assistant zoning administrator allowed a similar plan -- [ inaudible ] we have had the opportunity to consider all the plans proposed by 2325 steiner including a working plan, after a visit to the 2523 steiner, a reduced plan proposed by the owners which would still include additions and two stories and

two decks on the third and fourth floors. we have considered -- i'm sorry. we have concerns with any plans to extend this home. 2523 steiner is the subject of an open yard requirement by per-san francisco planning code to allow neighbors to build additional decks in open places that by code should remain open is not something we support. additionally the property surrounding 2523 steiner are already in close proximity with each other on all sides. we do not support any further encroachment into the shared open green spaces that remain in this area as it will diminish the overall beauty in the neighborhood. finally the decks in the rear of 2523 steiner would allow residents to look directly into our property and properties of the surrounding neighbors as they reduce overall privacy in the neighborhood. for the reason above we support

the appeal deny the variance of 2523 steiner expansion project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> and welcome. >> good evening. >> overhead, please. >> overhead, please. good evening. i'm louanne lee. this is a neighborhood map that the sponsor submitted, but with the support for our appeal represented in red. i want to especially point out that there is absolutely no further project from 2521 right here, steiner, the neighbor or from any of the tenants in 2525 right here on the other side whose apartments face this project, which would cause a lot of dust, noise, and loss of

privacy. former tenants at 2521 steiner already had plans to move with the states support and moved months ago but the supporter's map still show them as supporting the project. the sole tenant in 2525 who supports the project is the sponsor's friend moving in two week and does not even live on the side that this project is affecting, and his apartment location is also misrepresented on the sponsor's map. the sponsors also show that irene kivetts who lives across the street is in support of them, but she confirmed this week that she wants to remain neutral. the pacific heights residence association supports this appeal despite the sponsor contacting them repeatedly with variance plans because all of the plans will harm the neighbors. the sponsor implied that

support from people outside the immediate block should be discounted, such as the people in the next block that have a different zip code, but a project like this affects more than just the immediate neighbors. and that's why neighborhood groups from all over the city and the city's 30 group umbrella organization, the coalition for neighbors are writing in support of this appeal, and they represent hundreds of citizens. finally it's important to note the handful of neighbors who indicate support for the sponsor reference their supposed new plans, not the plans in this appeal. the sponsor asks for variance to be upheld in a much larger project, and yet, the little support that they garnered hinges on this supposed smaller plans. please support this appeal. commissioner richards said this appeal causes harm to many neighbors. he was in this similar

situation, and he had a conscience, and instead of upholding the variance, he moved. please support this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm often baffled by the parade of witnesses that come to these hearings and are for one party or the other, and mostly these character witnesses are talking about how wonderful the family are, great community members, but we're not here making a decision about the character of the people that are trying to build decks on this project. this is about a case where the planning commission disapproved the decks that do not require variances, but the zoning administrator approved them as

a variance. we understand that the authority of the variances rests with the zoning administrator, and he has clearly exceeded his authority in this case because decks do not require variances, i repeat. decks do not require variances. if the zoning administrator is allowed to reverse aspects of the lawful planning commission denial of project features that do not require variances, the city charter would be violated and therefore this is an issue of citywide importance that must be addressed vigorously and that's why i'm here. i'm sure you noticed that i said i represent a neighborhood organization from noe avalley and not pacific heights. clearly, as you've witnessed the rent controlled tenants are going to be clearly harmed by this variance. that's why i would like to urge

you on behalf of noe neighborhood counsel and lots of other citizens in this city that do belong to cfsn to uphold the planning commission and disallow the variance. >> thank you. >> is there any other comment? please step forward. >> saving the best for last. welcome. >> naturally. good evening. boy, is it late. i'm lisa fromer. i'm president of liberty hill neighborhood association. well, the charter gives the authority of variances to the zoning administrator in this case, he's clearly exceeded his authority for a number of reasons, but the planning commission disapproved were the proposed decks which don't require variances.

by proving these decks, however, the zoned administrator explicitly approved what does not require a variance and that's really troublesome. if the za is allowed to reverse aspects of a lawful planning commission denial of projectal elements that do not require a variance it will be a violation of the city's charter which will be an important issue and it must be addressed vigorously. also a vieryance must be proved to not be a material harm to the neighboring properties. you've heard these words plenty tonight. the commission has already found that the proposal violates both of these requirements when they disapproved the permit. they had the opportunity to reduce the project down to what

the za has approved or even make it smaller than that, but they denied it altogether. they felt no additional expansion was appropriate given the project home already has a floor area ratio of over two, which actually is more than twice the by far of the average home in san francisco. the house is already noncompliance because it has two floors plus four decks in the buildable area. the commissioners were also concerned because two rentable apartments would lose light and air because their homes would be negatively affected for the benefit of just one house. >> thank you. >> i urge you to uphold this appeal. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, then we'll have rebuttal, starting with the

appellant. >> i'll just go a couple hours. in their brief, the sponsors state that we have fabricated their attempts to sell their home a year and a half after they conceded they listed it almost 1.6 million above the purchase price. the this brochure touts over 2700 square feet, a potential home theater. we notes a far of over two because the sponsors have been telling everyone they will be making unconditions space conditioned no matter what happens. this is why the planning department called it over 2600

skbar feet in the 2007 ceqa document. why the sponsors themselves labeled it at 2237 existing gross square feet in their own variance application. gross square feet is how far is determined and so their own far is over two. this is a five story home, two stories of which already in the required yard. it's next to noncompliant structures on both sides which include apartments that face their site's rear yard and depending upon it's open above the second floor for ambient light. the sponsors and architect completely ignore the concept of context believing that because our buildings are noncompliant they don't deserve any context. on the 60 russell peal you agreed that curb proposed have to fit to -- that project also uphold the principle that

building sites should be in proportion to lot sizes that is to say small lots should be reflected by small buildings that project didn't even need a variance. this one does. a variance requires it not to impact adjacent properties. throughout the sponsor's exhibits he has sprink willled new plans. and while the amassing impact is less and the new proposal, the third floor is much, much larger, the third floor deck is much much larger, will substantially worsen the privacy impacts. our interest is in both smaller massing and absolutely no decks or usable space of any kind in the rear yard.

one closing point about the 3-d's one point is indisputable. there are two decks were individuals can look into multiple bedrooms. that's undisputed. thank you. >> thank you. >> and rebuttal from the variance holders. >> okay. so -- oh, yeah, we'll need the projector on please. so we just heard a few things. >> overhead, please. >> oh, there we go. we just heard a few things from the neighbors and we'd just like to clarify some things. not a single person who spoke has reached out to us, been willing to tour our on us, understand what we're trying to achieve, so the ones who are supporting us have come over to see what this plan is. the first thing i want to show

you is a letter we wrote to george chen, who basically after the dr we reached out to him. he's the owner of 2521. they said we really cannot help you we oppose your application. now the city has rejected your application. you should seek relief from chris rose and the others who might have sold you a bill of goods. you can also see here that when they talk about removing or impacting air and light and privacy, these windows look directly into the lower unit that kristina wells and katie wells just spoke about. these are removed, so we no longer have visiblity directly into their bedroom, and we've made that consciously because we want to help them increase their privacy. as you can see the lower first floor patio, 0.19% total impact, so we're not talking about an impact that's going to

hurt their light. it's 0% impact to that lower unit. they also just showed a neighborhood map that unfortunately was not correct. you can see here that right below behind our property, you can see marwell, we have worked closely with her, you can also see that the rhenners and irene wirene -- renters and irene is neutral, and the renter are fact in support of this project. also we have a letter that we wrote to kyle here, and you heard him speak. he had represented himself as living in the neighborhood for 35 years, and i'm not disputing that, but we did stop off to his house and requested to talk to the owner, and we spoke to a guy named lewis lipset, and he was the owner. he said we should reach out to

kyle. and we sent it to his house saying, would you be willing to talk to us. we received noness spo. we've sent hundreds of letters to people who oppose this project, to try to find ways to reduce the scope and we've done that successfully with a lot of the neighbors but unfortunately there's been a lot of them who are just unwilling to meet with th us and you've seen that today. we don't know what the gross square footage is of neighbors but as you can see we're completely in line of the lower overall far for the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question. so the opponents had put up a flier of a property for sale. is that your property? >> yeah. so when we got pregnant with our first child, we were

debating whether we could live in that how's because it's so dysfunctional, and after listing it, we decided to pull it off the market and we were going to figure out how to make this property work. >> okay and how long ago was that, sir? >> probably 2015. >> okay. >> okay. mr. teague, your rebuttal. >> we're getting our money's worth tonight with you. >> thank you. there's a lot to get through, so whatever i don't get through, just feel free to ask questions. >> i just want to make this abundantly clear, the zoning administrator can not overturn the planning commission's decision. it's effectively moot unless the decision on the building permit is overturned. i want to make that super clear, and vice versa, so you told me that the project as they proposed required two things: the granting of the variance and the planning commission to approve it at the dr hearing. i just want to make that super

clear. also there's a lot of discussion about the decks and the variance approves the deck. the variance does not approve the decks. the variance approves the projections into the rear yard. it not only did not approve the decks it put limitations on what they were proposed to be. regarding the parapet wall, it's correct that the conditions of approval did not specifically say that the associated parapet wall would need to come back with the set back for the open space. i think that was just an assumption that was made. i have no problem with that being added to the condition of approval. i don't think there would be any reason for anyone to put the parapet wall there if your actual deck is going to be 7 feet off. someone made a comment that nonconforming structures cannot be expanded. that's not true. even if you have a

nonconforming structure, you can expand it into the legal buildable area of the lot without a variance. if you propose to expand it within the required rear yard, though, you need a rear yard variance and that is the case in this situation. there was some conversation about how much square footage do you need, and i made it clear that not all square footage is created equal. you can shape, you know, 1800 to 2,000 square feet in a lot of different ways, and this site is very narrow. on top of that the building itself has some minor side set backs that push it back even further not to mepgs the levels being offset, so this was more not providing a variance to allow for a larger home per se, but to allow the ability of the home to be reorganized in a way that was much more efficient and was done in a