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 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 im not sure. I havent really thought about it. So both the appellant as well as the permit holder showed illustrations of the prospective completed project. Theres 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 appellants 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 cant put a parapet on the Property Line, even though youre 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 appellants drawing showed that the building going back much further than the permit holders. I dont think either one, and they can speak to this and show them again, i dont 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 appellants renderings and the permit holders 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 holders 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 havent 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. Im greg scott. Im an officer for the San Francisco coalition of neighborhoods, and i happen to live just around the corner of this project Pacific HeightsResidences Association and iopose the granting of this variance. Its 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 cant expand a nonconforming use. That alone should be enough to deny this variance. This should not be allowed to happen. Its 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 im nicholas chen. Im here on behalf of my parents. Were 2521 steiner street, and were 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 youd call it the appellants provided graphic and then, the view of the developers provided graphic, so i think you had a question about how far it goes back, so you can see its 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, youre these decks. Thats our house right here. Theres a bedroom where my brother where we grew up up here, and on both sides, youre 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 thats one thing that i think should be considered is theres 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 its 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 developers property, so thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. My names kristina wells. I am one of the tenants in participate apartment 2. If we could please have the projector turned on. Face it like youre looking at it. Sure. No, you are 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 doesnt 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 cant 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 doesnt acknowledge your existence, he wont have he wont 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 didnt 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 Commissions 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 homes history and previous remodel that caused a lot of the problems youre 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 Administrators 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 im 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 mcnultys 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. Theyre 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. Im a San Francisco neighbor of jonathan and tina. While i fully support the construction, im going to use my time to read a