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

it is a request for variantce. the zoning administrator will consider item 13 c the request for variants. >> i am rick crawford, department's staff. this is a request for a conditional use authorization and 4 ceqa findings approval -- and for ceqa findings approval for the project to demolish the existing two-story building and construct a 10-story building with a dining hall, kitch