thus, he had it well before his brief to you on the variantce several months ago. he did not mention it in in his brief to you. he just admitted it. i am not sure he meets the criteria. even if you want to accept that as new evidence, this is from the same agreement he just quoted. it shows that agreement was about a shotgun marriage between my clients' predecessor and the property owner next door. here is why that is clear. i will read it to you. it is shown on mr. butler's brief. he showed it to you as his exhibit b. what it says is, "parties of disagreement agree that maintenance of the stair is burdensome, and if approval to remove the stairs should be granted in the future, they agreed to cooperate and assist in a reasonable manner in all efforts to physically remove the stair." i wanted to remind you that the zoning administrator and city attorney indicated that that document appears to be still a condition of approval of the previous 1998 planning commission decision, a decision which both of those people told the commission is void. thank you. >> mr. sanche

furthermore, the statement in the variantce that the deck provide substantial separation between these units remains true. the sun room occupies only a tiny portion of the overall deck and a tiny portion of the overall separation between these buildings. no case has been made for discretionary review. there are no broader issues in terms of the priority policies or the issues in the planning code. we respectfully request that you deny -- that you take action to approve the project and to not schedule a further hearing. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. the public hearing has closed. commissioner moore: i would like to take issue with some of the presentations i heard and ask the commission to examine the project further. i had put the request forward that the packet submitted to us did not show the section which mr. atkinson just showed. i think it is important to understand what the real issues are. i find the package that was submitted difficult to understand, somewhat misleading. i should be able to see it with a glance. that is not the case. but it seems important t

>> it is within the variantce. vice president miguel: that is all right. i will say this again, because i have said this to a number of the people i met with from the delores heights improvement group. we are not here to hear a variance. that was heard. it was appealed. it was settled. it is not before us. it is there. as far as the roof deck is concerned, i did not see anything in the special use district that forbids roof? -- roof decks. the special use district and the improvement association does not exist in my mind as a wild, gated community. it exists in a general neighborhood. the argument they are making -- and i do not know, because i did not look in detail at the boundaries -- that there may not be any roof? within the special use district, where it is not permitted -- there may not be any roof decks within the special use district, where it is not permitted, but there are within the general neighborhood -- it is not unusual for that neighborhood, as far as i am concerned. since the extension is done in the right way, within a granted variance,