Of [ inaudible ] these businesses catered to feminist women, whether gay or straight. Valencia street at this time became known as the womens district. Sfl i met susan in 1974 a1974 in 1976. When my brother died of aids in 1990, they were the first ones at my door with a pot of homemade chicken soup. When a mutual friend of ours was diing of aids, susan sat at his bedside. In conclusion, i would like to say that i wholeheartedly support saving the 645 valencia Street Building and approve the project as is. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please, and good evening, and welcome, as well. Thank you. My name is rebecca fernandez. Im cinas wife, and im here this evening to read a letter from the gobt historical society. Dear commissioners, im writing to you today on bart of the Glbt Historical Society in support of the project proposed by dennis and susan bring at the property located at 645 valencia street, the site of the former amelias bar and more recently, the elbow room. Founded in 1985 to collect, preserve and interpret lgbtq history in Northern California and beyond, my organization maintains one of the most extensive archives of lgbtq history in the world, and also maintains one of the very few museums of lgbtq history anywhere. Additionally we and our members have been involved in protecting and commemorating billions and places of historic significance to the Lgbtq Community for many years. Amelias kazz a ski institution in the valencia neighborhood that for years was deeply identified with the laez bean community, and the building that held the bar certainly has a strong historic significance for this community. We believe it is vital that we do all we can to protect and defend all Historic Resources in San Francisco so that our stories may be preserved in the spirit of San Francisco and all its diversity may be shared with future generations. We are encouraged that the rings, who have a Long Association with the building and with amelias plan to maintain the Structural Integrity of the buildings exterior and that they will commemorate the history of the building and the neighborhood with a permanent plaque, and we are delighted with their decision to name the building striky commons, after ricky striker, a leader in San Franciscos lgbtq movement, cou cofounder of the gay games. As you know, we currently have no lesbian bars left in San Francisco. While we are deeply concerned about the loss of Affordable Housing in lgbtq places and Historic Resources in San Francisco, we are pleased with the rings willingness to work with the community to protect and commemorate to preserve this building, and reurge the board to uphold the Planning Commissions approval of the building. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment on this issue . Okay. Seeing none, we will have rebuttal from the appellant. Thank you. Im very much prothe lgbt preservation. Why not preserve its function . Its a bar. Were closing the bar as a result of this project. The original design was also to destroy the whole thing, so im very puzzled with this ad miration. I understand family ties, because thats exactly what it was about people. When i have a mother lying in the icu, and thats going to be my neighbor, he doesnt he cant thats mr. Ring, and im sorry that im upset about that. I wish i was more composed through this. Im just i canvassed the neighborhood. These are all the neighbors that have signed up for that agreed with my statement. For the elbow room, we support a mixed use project that does not require a rear yard variance or that would include balconies that impact peoples privacy. 52 people signed that. In addition i have mission doors Neighborhood Association supporting me as well saying that the board remaining supportive, but they said granting the rear yard variance would result in untenable impacts on the fabric and character of the neighborhood, and then, lastly i also ended up sending a note to planning, so i do have community support. I do support the lgbt preservation effort. I just think there are different ways of doing that, and i think if we were to apply integrity to this process, we would all come to a solution that is meeting all of those objectives. Certain things have happened through the rear yard, through the discussion review process, which includes a proposed back room process by mr. Ring that he did not want to put in writing where he was going to override where he was going to call on the planning director, mr. Ring, to override planning outside of the process. If i had just signed this letter. I was very discancered wioncer that. I spoke to several entities about that. They advised me to not go along with that and to stick to the process, which is exactly what im doing. I trust this process, i respect this process, and i am very much sure that a reasonable outcome will be reached for both mr. Ring can have a project, and we can all as a neighborhood agree that that is a good thing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Rebuttal from the variance holder. With respect to the tree the za correctly points out its not a protected tree. You can see that it subsumes about a quarter of the appellants yard. It is the major cause of shadow in his yard. If it was removed and we offered to do that, to take it out and replace it with a smaller tree, he could get a lot more light. It is a shade garden, in shade 96 of the time. Ficuses are weeds. They grow very quickly. Im not an arborist, so i cant speak to the radios, butoots, believe when your tree is overhanging to other properties, i believe its a common situation to remove the limbs, not that were doing that, but as you can see from this photograph, and this photograph, this tree does not come over the subject property much at all. With respect to neighbor support, i think thats wonderful that dino did go around and get neighborhood support, and many of the things in that letter have been addressed already by privacy and additional guardrails and all that were addressing of his at the time. Today, it appears that the big issue is the tree. With respect to the Mission Delores association support, they originally supported our project, but their Vice President is the dr applicant, and they reversed themselves on second letter, so what can you say about that . Do you have any questions for me . Thank you. Thank you. Anything further, mr. Teague . Just very quickly, more specifically, to answer your question, the citywide lgbtq context statement, the work began in earnest, i believe, in 2014, but it was actually adopted in march of 2016, this variance application was filed in may of 2016. Also, i just want to be clear that the Planning Department, we cant we get tree issues with some regularity. We understand that trees are amenities, and people feel very strong about their trees. If its not a protected tree class, its generally viewed more as a Property Line issues thats generally settled between neighbors because theres just very little guidance within the planning code as to their protection in situations like this, and im available with any questions you may have. We dale with some tree stuff every once in a while. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, the matters submitted. Resident architect, Vice President. You know, one of the primary elements of the five findings for variances is extenuating circumstances, and its obvious this project had extenuating circumstances. I think most of it came from staff. However, because you look at this building and its a building designed by committee, but the question is all of the points that were brought forth in terms of whether the of the five points, i find that this project does merit those findings and therefore, i will support the variance. I concur with the constraints of the historic preservation. I also agree. For housing not a criteria, but i think its another layer here. Understood. Is that your motion, Vice President . Move to deny the appeal on the basis that the findings made by the Zoning Administrator on the variance were supportable. Thank you. So the motion from the Vice President is to deny the appeal and uphold the variance on the basis that the five findings stated in the variance are supportable. On that motion, commissioner lazarus. Aye. President honda. Aye. C welcome back to the november 15, 2017 of the meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. We are calling item number 11, appeal just 17156, Patrick Mulligan versus department of building inspection. At 259 avila street. Protesting the issuance on august 24, 2017 to donald and jocelyn pin arrested of a site permit, third story residential addition and structural work; addition includes two new rest rooms and three new bedrooms. Good evening, president honda, Vice President fung, commissioners miss lazarus, miss wilson, mr. Swig. My name is scott stewart, and ive been a continual resident of San Francisco for the last 50 years, so were starting from that point of view, so maybe with that point of view, id like to introduce historic perspective, and between the Square Footage shown in the permit form. The size of the addition has not changed between the presentation meeting and the site permit application. The side of the third floor addition is 1,080 square feet is has always been that. The reason for the different total is the preapplication form showed the existing building net Square Footage which does not include the garage. The permit application drawings use the existing gross Square Footage to capture the entire building coverage, thus, the higher number. The drawings shown at the preapplication meeting and use for the site permit application as granted are identical and theres been no increase in the scope of work. The appellant claims that the additional result will result in a building thats out of size and character of the neighborhood. The size was reviewed by the Building Department staff and the own her paid for a preapplication meeting to right lane a plan consistent with planning requirements. All suggestions made by the staff were incorporated, including a 15 foot front set back to the addition and maintaining a historical design to the front facade and parapet. As 50 of the neighboring buildings are three stories are higher. Can you turn on the overhead, please. This project shows the project site. These are adjacent residences with no set back. The residence across the street which have third story additions in the similar configuration to what were proposing in the in the proposed project. This is the appellants house at 3606 scott street, and you can see his house is flanked by three story buildings with no s setbacks. This is the rear of his house, and even to the rear he has a fourstory building, which was just recently remodelled. This diagram showed threestory buildings in the neighborhood. This is the project site. This was his site. In yellow are the three story buildings and higher, and you can see its more than 50 . The appellant claims that a Residential Rental unit will be removed by the project. That is not true. The current Property Owners have lived there since december 2nd, 1993 and have never rented to a tenant, in whole or in part. Please see the attached statements from the neighborhood and homeowners that there have been no tenants at this property. David lindsey from the Planning Department was asked to check fore a rental apartment, at the planning meeting he stated he had found no existing rental unit and no eviction would take place. The appellant claims that the building will block his morning sun. Weve conducted studies on the appellant ease property. This diagram shows existing proposed conditions at 9 00 a. M. At three different times of year. Theres sets showing existing and proposes. This is 9 00 a. M. In the spring, existing proposed 9 00 a. M. In the summer, and 9 00 a. M. In the winter. Theres a worst case scenario, this is the addition and this is the appellants house, and theres no shadows created on his property. Also, heres a photo taken at the roof of the proposed project, and as you can see, in this area, theres a lot of buildings at the height of the proposed addition, so theres already blockage horizontally at this level. The appellant claims that the midblock character will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project is compatible with the existing midblock configuration. Theres this site plan, you look at the rear yard, we are there is no horizontal addition. The existing setback is 339. The required set back is 25 feet, and were well within whats required. Also, if you look at the midblock configuration, you can see that were were not changing the configuration rear yard pattern at all. And these all of these illustrations are in your packet, as well. The appellant also claims there will be a negative structure impact from the proposed project. The [ inaudible ] this design is complete and drawings and calculations have been prepared. As required, this design was based on the Geological Survey of the site commissioned by the owners. The owners plan to continue living at this site for the foreseeable future and desire a home that is seismically safe for them and their children. That concludeds my presentation. The project owners donald and jocelyn pinard if you have any questions, and if its permissible, id like miss pinard to give the rebuttal. Thank. Okay. Mr. Teague . Good evening again, president honda, commissioners, cory Teague Department staff. It contains a two story singlefamily home and the Building Permit under appeal approved a third story addition and minor facade changes. The building Building Permit was filed on may 15, 2013 and the initial Planning Department review resulted in design comments to set back the proposed third floor at least 15 feet from the front facade in order to be consistent with the residential Design Guidelines point the permit holder made the requested confession and the code was entirely otherwise complying. The appellant requested discretionary review of the permit on march 23rd, 2016. Planning Commission Held a dr hearing on july 8, 2016, and at that hearing an issue was raised regarding potential unauthorized dwelling unit on the ground floor. The commission continued the case to august 4th of this year and instructed staff to raemp the issue further. At the august 4e hearing indicated that while the ground floor space did meet the physical criteria to be an unauthorized dwelling unit, it did not meet the criteria that the space had been used on a separate living area. This was based on a review of all documentation, and an affidavit from the Property Owners declaring the space had never been used as a separate living area to their knowledge. The Planning Commission found the plan to be consistent with the residential guidelines and voted consistent with johnson and fung to not take discretionary review. Therefore the discretion was properly reviewed. Ill let my colleague from d 2kwd i address the appellants claims of structural proposal, but im available for my questions you may have. Thank you. Inspector duffy. Commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. Its a the permit is its a form iii approval, which mean its he approved as a site permit, and as you know, the addenda still has to come to dbi for review. I would expect its going to be reviewed under the California Building code for all those standards that we typically see, including sexual inspections, geotech report, ongoing inspections from a third party inspector, and also a dbi, so im not expecting any problems there. Weve seen these type of projects in this area of the city before, and i know the appellant is concerned about that, but the California Building code is pretty strict on these, and we have our all of our requirements, and theyre usually met and that would be my experience, any way. I have nothing further to add on this case. The Structural Design will likely be for the entire building. Correct. Under 2016, right . Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing no Public Comment, then, mr. Mulligan, you have rebuttal, three minutes. Code compliant, i think 60 minutes said last week that the Millennium Tower was code compliant. Yep. Gentleman said that all of these buildings, three story buildings wanted to lead you to believe that they were all singlefamily. I walked the neighborhood on the overhead. All of them are multiunit buildings. None of them are singlefamily, other than the ones that have been increased. Truly, that gives you a better understanding of whats on that street. The homes are 1500 to 2,000 square foot. Mr. Antonini approved from 2,000 square feet up to 4700 square feet and he acted as his consultant, and he never recused himself. This is what ive had gone up next to me for the last 18 months of six days of noise and dust. The question about somebody living there, well, lets put that one to bed right now. Thats an email i got last sunday from miss k. Hi there. Yes, we rented the home for a short period in 1993, so i demand that the city is incompetent and does a better job of perusing records rather than just planning this inlaw apartment like all of them down there were built without permits. Building never had a reason to go there, and nobody ever got evicted from it, but that tells you that i told mr. Lindsey where to go and look, lexus nexis. I think that lets you hear enough. I ask you to reject the permit and find out what bulk is doing to the marina, the inner marina, when this building falls in on me and kills me because theres nothing supporting it even though it was built to structural demand, theres nothing there. They failed the last time, and now were adding more bulk . This is another Millennium Tower weighting on somebodys desk. Thank you sir. Okay. And rebuttal from the permit holder . Good evening and welcome. Hello. Good evening. Just i just want to show the singlefamily homes on our block, and there are singlefamily because we know the people who live there, and heres the other one. Those are right across our street, so im not sure why he didnt think they were singlefamily homes. Any way, my name is jocelyn pinard, and together with my husband, don, we own 259 avila street, where we live with our children, our two girls. We bought our home in december 93 before our children were born. We have lived there for almost 24 years and plan to continue living there. Our home was built in 1925, and has very limited living space. In order to meet the growing needs of our family the new third floor will incorporate the living area for me, my husband and children. The second floor will be a home for my ageing illing grandparents. We invited mr. Mulligan to our home to tour or home and go over any plans we had. He demanded we did not build our third floor, and he made it very clear that he will be against any expansion outside the current building envelope. He would only approve our project if we built additional livable space such as a one bedroom in our existing two car garage and told us to park our cars out in the street. He said he would make our lives miserable if we proceeded with our plans. Mr. Mulligans demand is not feasible. Putting one bedroom in our existing limited garage space is not adequate to meet the reasonable goals of our project, which is to provide sufficient living space that will allow appropriate separation and privacy for our growing family. We have over 20 letters of support from neighbors for our project thats on your exhibit 6. Our project is code compliant. We respectfully request that the board approve our modest and reasonable home expansion plans with the threefloor addition as proposed and deny the appeal because there is no extraordinary exceptional circumstances. Please allow our project to move forward so our family can have sufficient and adequate living space. We are looking to build a family home that we could live in for a long time where our children and their children can enjoy for years to come. Commissioners, thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Anything further, mr. Teague . Just very quick. Thank you again. The information provided about people listing 259 avila as their address or that they had lived there prior to the current owners only indicates that they may have lived at that address or in that home. In order for that specific space on the ground floor to be considered an unauthorized gelg ungelg dwelling unit, we have to have some independent authorization that that room was leased separately and theres been no documentation provided that thats been the case. Thank you. Thank you. And inspector duffy, anything . Okay commissioners, then, the matters submitted. [ inaudible ] i move. Anyone . Then deny the appeal on the grounds that the permit was properly issued. Is that your motion, commissioner swig . Yes. I dont see any reason why not. Okay commissioners we have a motion from commissioner swig. Shall i call the roll . Yes. Yes. Okay. That motion is to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. On that motion, Vice President fung. Aye. Commissioner lazarus. Aye. President honda. Aye. Commissioner swig. Aye. And we will call our last item, which is number 25, appeal number 17155. Kirk deniro paelg the granting on august 30, 2017 to jonathan and tina mcnully of a rear yard variance to construct a minor horizontal addition on the fourth floor and rear horizontal addition at the third and fourth floors that would encroach into the required rear yard. Good evening and thank you again. Good evening. Thank you. Save the best for last. Good evening, commissioners. We are kirk and leah deniro. Three apartments including ours at 2121 steiner abut the project site. This graphic is from the sponsors brief on which ive labelled the apartment numbers. I think it helps to understand the open space where apartments 2, 3, and 5 are and to see that all apartments are oriented to the project. Please note that apartments 3, and 5, almost all the windows face the project, and apartment 2, all the windows face the project. This is before and after a variance approved project for my familys deck, apartment 5. As you can see, privacy is the major concern. Because mr. Teague stated in his brief that our drawing had not been modified to reflect the decision which is a completely accurate exhibit, i will use the sponsors only graphic. As you can see, she clearly shows the same level of privacy impact. The sponsors they are here, and that the deck area circled in green then allowed the Property Line and the variance is closer than whats allowed by the variance. This is a view from the deck of apartment number 3, occupied by tenants from the sponsors own exhibit, again, this is the only open space this unit has available, and again, privacy is a main concern which is apparently equal in both the 3 in their 3d drawings and mine. As you can see, the curtains will have to be drawn constantly to avoid the deck occupants from peering into the bedroom. Apartment 2 is on the ground level at the rear. This shot is from their only open space. Please note that a sun study was done without the parapet, but the Zoning Administrator did not remove the parapet in his conditions of approval, which i believe he will admit is in error. The sponsors imply that they were cheated because only fiesk out of seven commissioners were present. The vote was four to one, so even if both abbott members were there, the permit still would have been disapproved. This is a graphic showing the disapproval of the planning variance along with the condition mr. Teague approved. The plan was to expand the top floor in the living area, essentially replace this deck and also extend into the rear yard and place decks there. The commission disapproved the whole thing, but what is critical is that the Zoning Administrator does not have jurisdiction over the buildable area and decks, and while mr. Teague can and approved a 3. 5 by 8. 5 element on the fourth floor, the commission disapproved the connection between the element and the house. One of the reasons they did this is because the deck is required open space and they did not want to move it to the rear because of privacy impacts. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the variance approval. The Zoning Administrator knows the only way to build this is for you to over rule this disapproved permit, its obvious why the process is being manipulated this way because we will need four out of five votes to overrule the variance, where the owner would only need four out of five votes to overrule the disapproved permit. After this hearing they can finally send the permit down to the building approval, and make my neighbors and i come back for another hearing where they will say well, you really already approved a fourth story, and then, you will have to approve the rear yard decks. Mr. Teague cited 68 richardson as if its a similar case. You had to overrule the Planning Commission here. Here, the required open space is already in the buildable area. I might add mr. Teague indicates that another case in his response [ inaudible ] both were conditioned. One merely with a condition linked to the variance, and neither results in anything like this absurd physical result in this variance. The deck and buildable area issues are why neighbors and tenant groups in and outside the neighbors are most upset. They think like we do that it is wrong to allow decks in an area already disapproved by a Planning Commission. We believe the fairway to handle this would have a joint hearing on the variance and permit where both parties would need four out of five votes, but the sponsor and Zoning Administrator appear to not want a process that is fair or make sense. We ask you to deny the variance. In the event you dont want to deny, we ask that you apply with the minimum of the following conditions. Please remove the second floor parapet, which we believe the za and the sponsor say isnt supposed to be there. Replace this condition with a condition that prohibits all decks in the required rear yard. Condition the size of the third floor addition to 11. 5 feet by 5. 5 feet and without any side facing windows. This is what the sponsor himself proposes in his new plans and has been relied on by some neighbors. Fourth remove the freestanding fourth floor rear yard element because it cannot be built without removing required open space in the rear yard area. Im available for questions if you have any. Thank you. If we can hear from the variance holders now. Variance holders, the mcnultys. Good evening, and welcome. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is jonathan mcnulty. This is my wife, tina, and we are the homeowners of 2523 steiner street. We are representing ourselves here, and respectfully request that the board deny the appellants appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrators decision. The variance allows us to get the third bedroom that we need to get this home functional. Our variance was granted for 114 square feet to create a functional three bedroom home in one of the smallest homes in all of pacific heights. What youre going to see is three different designs. First is a submitted version to planning, second is the plan submitted variance, and third is the alternative that we came up with. That does what that does, it actually just reduced that third floor expansion from from about 6 square feet to 50 square feet. We proposed this to appellant and unfortunately he he has rejected our request. If you look here on the page, you can see the first design here is what we submitted to the commission and it has a terrace that goes all the way around. The second was approved by the Zoning Administrator with a 7 foot restriction on the south side, and it restricts the overall expansion to just 96 square feet. The one on the right furlth reduces the backs expansion which was trying to get the support of the appellant. We can see the expansion on this fourth floor. Originally it was 42 square feet and how it wnow, it was ro 18 square feet. One of the significant impacts youre going to hear is impact to air and light. That is not true. We conducted two light studies. The first one was submitted to the Planning Commission, and the second shows the planning and Zoning Administrators restrictions. The total air and light impact to their property after examining all eight locations is between 0 and 2 of total annual impact to light. Thats 0 to 2 total, and we have many, many pages that we can show you during every hour of every day of every season that shows that. The other thing that the appellant has done is hes circulated inaccurate designs. As you can see here this was a picture that was taken by the appellant. Next to that is what the appellant has pushed around to the neighbors to get their support and the third is what was actually approved by the Zoning Administrator. The fine one there is actually or restricted plans to show that there is very minimal impact here. The next page is the same thing. You can see a picture taken from the appellants property. This is what he said that the property would look like afterwards. This is actually what it would look as you can see in the background there at 2521 steiner, we dont actually go out as far as they do, and here is the restricts one where we significantly pull back to just 5 feet. Just to mention in that design, as well, you can see that he increased the floor level on that roof. That floor level actually comes down by about 2. 5 feet. The next one is from 2521 steiner. You can see he shows it as a massive structure which is not true, and the third design you can see or the fourth design you can see the further pull back version and that property in the background is the appellants property that goes all the way back to the Property Line and it is nonconforming as well. On the first picture you can see we have two windows there. Those are going to be removed. Those look directly into the ground floor level of the appellants property. He shows us as increasing the roof line, which is not true. He also shows somebody looking over the edge which thats not true, and here, you can see the actual designs that was approved by the variance and the further pulled back version. Another picture here that he was circulating away showing us taking up all the back yard space there and taking up the view. You can see the view is spli t slightly obstructed, but its mostly green space and the last one here is the pulled back version that we submitted to him. Another photo that you submitted is not possible. Weve increased the hedges just for clairity, annette used to be opposed to the project. We worked with her and shes neutral, and we think we came up with a really good solution to increase the privacy in her yard. Now if you look at the map, we worked really hard and were willing to meet with everyone. As a result on our block, you see a substantial number of people either in support or neutral of this project, including mark bula and neighbors across the street to the north, south, and the west. Five neighbors who were originally opposed later wrote letters of support [ inaudible ] the appellant claims 140 neighbors are against that project, yet 35 of them dont 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 wed really like to have a functional home. Were available for questions. Thank you. Mr. Teague . Good evening again president honda, commissioners, cory teague from Planning Department staff. Id 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 singlefamily home into the required rear yard. Based on the design feedback from the Planning Departments residential Design Planning team, the Planning Department revised such that the planned structure encroached into the rear yard approximately 93 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 41 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 appellants building to the north. The acting Zoning Administrator found that the propertys 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 ive 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, id 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 Administrators decision to grant a variance for a project that was overrule or overturn the Planning Commissions 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 singlefamily home. [ inaudible ] after further conversation with the appellant it was agreed that there was some inconsistencies particularly heights and some which dont 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