>> yes and no. it's free in the sense that extenet is a member of the northern california joint pole association and part owner of all wooden utility poles where there are utilities. that's kind of the function of the joint pole association. >> so if you are a member of the club -- >> yeah. you pay a membership fee to be part of that utility group. so it's not exactly free, i wouldn't say, but you are -- >> you have answered my question. >> you are correct that there's not a license agreement with the city of san francisco because it's not owned by the city of san francisco. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. any rebuttal? no rebuttal from the department. okay. planning department staff, anything? >> i have a question for the planning department.

so the designation of these excellent view corridors, good view corridors, in this case, that's -- that designation is taking into account this pole and the wiring that's there already? >> my understanding, the designation is because of the location of the street and the views that are visible from this particular street. >> so it's kind of -- so as it is, including that pole and all the wiring. >> that's my understanding. >> okay. thank you. >> when you talked earlier about the characteristics of a good view street, you mentioned buildings, you mentioned parks. i didn't hear you talk about the farthest views, which i would equate probably to the term open

space. >> sorry. can you repeat -- >> in your analysis, in the planning department's analysis, for a permit that comes before you on an excellent view street, you mentioned certain things that the department staff looks for. adjacent buildings, historical structures. and you mentioned parks. i didn't hear you talk much about distant views. >> under article 25, the compatibility standard only discusses important buildings, landmarks, open spaces and parks. >> my question to you, how do you define open space? >> i would like to defer to dwp

to answer that. >> and i have a question for you later. >> all right. >> so regarding the parks, although this wireless facility is adjacent to a green space, that is not an official city park. >> i understand that. let's deal with -- my question relates to distant views. >> okay. >> somebody mentioned in the litigation at the california supreme court, talking about distant views plus something else and they don't differentiate that in their briefs. >> okay. i was going to clarify that this was not referred to the recreation and park department because it was not adjacent to a city park. normally the recreation and park department will confirm whether or not wireless facility would significantly impair the views

of a city park. >> i don't think you are understanding my question. perhaps i'm not being clear. before you leave, the question i had for you was, you said something earlier about wireless facilities are not on transit pole lights? >> article 25 allows wireless facilities to be placed on transit poles, which are poles owned by the san francisco municipal transportation agency. they're also allowed to be installed on light poles -- >> i misheard you. i thought you said they weren't allowed. >> i have a follow-up question on commissioner lazarus's question for the planning department. we hear a lot in regards to

article 25. and so article 25 allows this and allows that. is there specific language regarding article 25 and i think that's what commissioner lazarus is alluding to, is one pole viewed the same with the bird's nest and one without? is there a difference when there's additional wiring on that pole already? >> there is no specific language -- >> no articulation of -- okay. so whether one has 100 wires on, it will be ruled the same as one with two? i see someone else stepping up to the plate. batter up. >> yeah, again there, is no language that references that, but we do take into consideration the pole, area around it and -- >> i get the structured around it. but i think that commissioner

lazarus was alluding to the amount of specific wires on that existing pole and that should be taken into consideration when you are attempting to add new equipment. >> we do take the existing wires into consideration during our review. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, matter is submitted. >> i'm in favor of the appellant on this one. shall i make a motion or -- >> i think we should chat. >> or is there further conversation? >> i will take the same position i took last time. i think the determination by planning was incorrect.

>> commissioners, if you are inclined to overturn the department and deny the permit, i would suggest that you consider written findings and that instead of adopting a motion -- >> intent >> yes. that you consider a motion of intent -- >> want me to make a motion? >> sure. >> a motion to uphold the appeal. just one thing before i make the motion. we come to this point and we've come to this point before. and there has been commentary from the various commissioners about the bird's nest effect.

and thank you for the explanation of the association that controls all this. and i would really suggest that extenet, i see verizon's counsel, and say, you are getting pushback because of bird's nest effect. because it impacts your ability to influence us to be jovial about these things and we're going to push back. as a result of, and would i like to make the motion, to uphold the appeal because the determination of the planning department was incorrect and in support of that, that there is significant impact of an important and world-recognized

landmark neighborhood in san francisco. that there is significant, negative impact on an excellent view corridor, both with regard to immediate views and long-range views. and, finally, there's a negative impact due to the aggregate effect of like installations throughout this neighborhood. >> commissioner, that is your a tentative granting of this and with the adoption of -- for direction to prepare findings and -- >> and the spirit of some of the findings. >> okay. so we have that motion from commissioner swig. vice president fung?

>> vice president fung: aye. >> commissioner lazarus: no. >> president honda: aye. >> commissioner wilson: no. >> that motion needed four votes to pass. lacking any other motion made, permit would be upheld by operation of law. okay. president honda, shall i move on? >> president honda: yes. >> at the president's consent, we're going to hear number 9 next. 3400 washington street. requesting appeal 17-157. november 15, 2017. board voted 2-3. to continue this appeal to january 17, 2018, with the

intent to grant the appeal on the basis that the planning department's assessment of no impact was incorrect. lacking the four votes needed to pass the motion failed. with no further motion made, permit was upheld by operation of law.

. >> thgs what dpw said. quote, had verizon wireless instead applied for a permit to install a new pole on the 3400 block of washington street, public works would have had to deny the application, and let me repeat that. would have had to deny the application. now, let me read just a little bit from the city attorney's brief in front of the california supreme court

waiting argument in t-mobile against the city. this is what mr. herrera has to say about the same issue. this court has characterized the rath of way rights granted to telephone companies as a limited right. the right of telephone corporations to construct telephone lines in the public rights of way is not absolute. that's from page 18 of his brief. mr. herrera's entire brief is filled with discussions of article 25 and 27, and he says on page 35, that the two are equivalent to each other. i suggest to you that you really don't want to be on the wrong side of what the california supreme court hands down having the information -- having a record with the information that was given to you and the california supreme court going in the way that the city attorney, mr. herrera, is

urging them to go. so what i would propose is that you do something like this. either put this on hold, this request -- my request for rehearing until you hear from the california supreme court. if we lose, then we're completely out. if the city loses, we're not going to -- you're never going to see us again. it is the same as if sb 649 had passed, but i don't think that's going to happen, and i think the chances of that are pretty slim. so i would recommend you either kill this or stay this until you hear. or if you want to reopen the record. fine. we'll brief the issue, and you can decide it. or you can -- you can stay the -- the actual rehearing of the proceeding. either way is fine with us, but i would think that you would want to hear from the supreme court has to say about all this. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit

holder. >> good evening, president honda, members of the board. i'm paul albrit dln on, outside counsel for verizon wireless. first, i don't think there's no new circumstances or facts raised by the appellant this evening. they raise a straw horse for an application where there is no pole. where, there is a pole, and our application is to put a discreet wireless facility on an existing pole, and under article 25, the departments have confirmed that that's something that is compatible and meets their standards. secondly, i don't think -- and i believe you would concur that this is not an extraordinary case of material injustice. you set a very high bar for rehearing, and this clearly doesn't meet that bar.

finally, the legal advice that you were given is absolutely correct. it's what california public utility section says. verizon wireless as a telephone corporation has a right to erect poles, posts, piers and abutments in the public streets and highways in the state of california, and if you go back and listen to the full record. that's the advice that you were given, and so there was no material injustice. there's no new evidence or circumstances that we should change that decision in any way. so we would encourage you not to rehear this. it's hard for me to sit through these discussions and not want to relate to you my 30 years of experience working on the four drafts of article 25, the final one ultimately adopted in 2015, and i want to close by offering that perhaps this board would consider a workshop of some

kind, perhaps with bill sanders or myself or something to educate yourself around these issues. you are obviously very educated about these issues, but the current state law is that we as a telephone corporation have a right to put a facility in the right of way. it's not relevant to the decision that you made, and we encourage you not to take a rehearing. thank you. >> thank you. you ever find out who was working on the pole at 2:00 a.m.? that was the pole, right? >> we did. kevin is here. it was preconduit work being done by pg&e and the fiber company, which pg&e has a permit to do at any time, and that's who it was. >> thank you for checking into that for me. >> yeah. >> thank you, council. >> i have mu >> -- counselor. >> yeah. i have much to say, but i won't. >> okay. we' we'll hear from the department. >> amanda white from public

works. we believe the request should be denied for two reasons. first, the advice provided to the board was correct. the deputy city attorney advised state law allows them to construct their facilities in the right of way, that is correct. while state law allows for telephone companies to construct their poles in the right of way, citiy law protecs city. it defines the amount of utility work, and city law regulates the placement of utility infrastructure. that's why, for example, the planning department must confirm that each wireless facility meets the capability standards of article 25. the second reason to not grant the rehearing request is whether verizon had a right to install a new pole is irrelevant. in truth, verizon would not have been able to install a new utility pole at 3400 washington

street. that's because article 25, section 1500(c) 1 prohibits the installing of new poles for wireless facilities in underground areas, but verizon's applications here was not to install any new poles. verizon's permit was to install a wireless facility to an existing streetlight pole and remember sigh son's application was consistent with public works code article 25, and since no new circumstances have arisen since the original hearing, we believe the rehearing request should be denied. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> welcome. >> yes. i'm kay driden. i'm right across from 3400, and this installation is right in

alignment with my bedroom windows. so why do you think article 25 doesn't let a new pole be installed in an area where there's already underground? it's -- it's hard to imagine that -- that article 25 would allow an installation on an existing pole in an area where there's already undergrounding. you've just heard about russian hill, where there's all this stuff on top of the poles. well, we have the opposite situation. with great time and effort and expense on our part, we've undergrounded everything, and now, we're looking at verizon, and then verizon's competitors competing for all the light poles in the area. verizon told you in the hearing that you heard just recently in the transcript, you can see that they say that it's a proprietary as to how many of these light poles they're going

to try installations on. by doing this permitting on a pole-by-pole basis, they are basically killing the neighborhood by infinite cuts. you know, one cut offer another cut after another cut. this location was not the right location to put it in. and one very important thing is, you have never heard verizon say they have talked with planning or with dpw about the alternative to poles. they take poles as an assumption, that they have a right to have an assumption, that they do not have an unfettered right. perarticle 25, they were supposed to setter for forth t need and they did not write anything about how they came to a conclusion that they could

degrade this view. so what is the assumption under which the city is going to protect its neighborhoods. if it's not russian hill, and it's not this location in presidio heights, where is the location that we're going to have planning put in writing, a verification that they went through a real and thoughtful process about what are the alternatives to poles? poles are in the direct view of these excellent view corridors. they can put them in other locations, technically, and they should put them at other location does, and this has to be discussed with planning and with the neighborhoods, so they're doing it pole by pole. the neighborhoods don't get a chance to have a say on this, and i think it's actually a travesty and something you should deal with. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? step forward. i thought we were having another speaker.

okay. no other speakers, then, the matter's submitted. >> i don't find that the request satisfies our thresholds. >> i concur. >> i also concur. >> someone care to make a motion? >> move to deny the request. >> okay. so we have a motion from the vice president to deny that request. [ roll call. ] >> okay. that motion passes with a vote of 5-0. so we will move onto item 7 a through d. this is appeal number 17-144, 145, 148, 150. they're all protesting the issuance -- i'm sorry, can

>> let's get ready to rumble. everybody take their seats. >> welcome back to the december 13, 2017 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are calling item 7 a through d regarding 255 sea cliff avenue filed by terrance and marlene marseille, bruce and nick leppla, brucian ow bruce . it was continued by the board to allow time for the permit holder to work with the appellants on the design that removes the penthouse and includes a roof deck no larger than 500 square feet, and with the president's consent, i think we should hear from the permit holder first since they're coming back to the board with a revised plan. >> and also, i should disclose

that i am a partner in a plan that is deal with -- it has no effect on my decision. >> okay. three minutes. >> good evening. thank you. tom tenny, reuben, junius and rose on behalf of the permit holder, and then, i'll be pretty brief here and turn to our architect, lewis butler. we have presented a plan to the neighbors. we feel like that he had previously presented us with a number of conditions. we feel like we met many of them, most of them. it's a modest deck proposal, meets the board's requirements. no step penthouse, we provided side setbacks as requested by the appellant.

there is our glass railings, it's muted colors, no vegetated roof, and no raised floor to the deck. we're also not proposing any cooking facilities. there's no hot tub. sometimes you see that in decks. and then, we've also proposed a small increase in the ceiling height of the top floor, 2'3" and i'll allow lewis to talk more about that in the design proposal. thank you. >> good evening. lewis butler. if we could take the overhead to the section, and if it's possible, i think it may be worth another minute of time on this, if you can give that just to go through the math, but i'll go through the math right now in this proposal, you're

looking at the revised proposal, and the penthouse was gone. i want to give you the net of how that works. here was the existing penthouse. here was the original proposal of the house. this is net 4'6" down from where the original proposal one, so the roof which had the roof deck on, it went up 23 him. this building's actually over 32 feet high, and it's defined by the daylight plane. the height of the building is not defined by any other height limit. the only place we hit that maximum height is that 45° daylight plane. we're requesting this extra dimension because we would like a little more ceiling heights on the floors, particularly the lower floor which used to have stairs, split level. my clients have elderly parents who will stay in that lower floor. we'd like to get rid of the stairs. the rest of the space goes to a

little bit more ceiling height. it also goes to a construction assembly back in the days when we had the penthouse, we had smashed the construction assembly to make room for the penthouse. that was expensive. we've now relaxed it now that the penthouse is done. the roof is 15 feet back from the front of the house. it's 5 feet back from sides, and the staircase is in a stairwell, and so there are really no protrusions above the stair except a glass rail that was mentioned. if i could take one more second to look at the exterior, that's the existing exterior as it stands now. this is the new proposal. bear in mind, the facade is back five here. right here -- this is the bow of the existing roof. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> perhaps you could describe the height changes a little

differently in terms of what you've reduced from the top of the penthouse. i understand you initiated a drop in the penthouse. what is the increase in height on the first three floors. >> so i can go by the top floor. what was originally a 9 foot height, is now a 9'3" ceiling height. >> and the second floor. >> second floor was 9'7 1/2" and now it's 9 feet. >> i just described to you the use of 7.5 inches of that 2'3".

t the lion's share of that was the entry. we're taking that floor from 7'9 1/2" to 9'0". the original proposal had steps. the street side was higher, the garden side was lower. the street side was quite a lieu ceiling height that created problems with the stairs. the garden side was higher because we had the room. and then, there were a few things that went into construction that got us to that number. >> and the stair is a completely open stair? >> completely open. no impact on the building at all. >> okay. you mentioned a storage facility on the roof now? >> yes. there is a storage facility

that's 14 feet long that runs east-west on the roof against the south rail line. it's 36 inches high, and it's for storing cushions and other things that might be used up there on a day-to-day basis. >> so that's not a 3 feet. >> excuse me? >> that's 3 feet in addition to the height of the building? >> yes. >> so net really hasn't been reduced in height. >> no, but in perspective, that throat feet is part of what i think would contribute to any view loss or anything noticeable from the neighbors. in fact, it might even contribute some privacy, but yes, it is a net 3 foot add. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now. mr. williams, are you here representing all of them or is there anyone else here on behalf of the permit holders? >> yes. >> okay. so how many -- >> appellant. >> appellant. how many appellants are you --

>> i'm representing just one, really, richard yanowitch. the leppla family wasn't able to be here. >> okay. so three minutes. >> when the board determined that the penthouse, the top fourth floor should be removed, we were under the impression that they would remove the top floor, and we would work together on designing the deck. that's not what happened. they used the opportunity to increase the height of the building 2.5 building, so the overall bulk, the shadows, the views blocked is now much large. they say they didn't raise the floor, but they increased the height of the thing. the top of the guardrail on the new deck is the same height that the penthouse was, so you know in all the years i've done this, i've never seen someone ordered to take a floor off and come back with a building that's the same height. the board said there's no four

story buildings in sea cliff, but here we are with the exact same four story building, just calling it a three story building with a roof deck. i urge you to reject the reconstructs that they've done. they've dot a cabinet that's 15 feet wide and 42 inches tall. another permanent structure, it looks like a small penthouse. lighting, there was a lot of concern for lighting. we don't know what the lighting situation is. it's not called out on the plans. it couldn't be described to me. a lot of it is this uncertainty happened because they didn't work with us. they waited 3.5 works and sent us a plan. they sent us a presentation. this is it, take it or leave it, and nothing has changed since that was presented to us. there's a fire pit up there that wasn't previously on the roof deck. and one of the main concerns is the lighting. again, we don't know what the

light sources are going to be. they haven't been described, not called out on the plan. there's a new fire pit, and one of our main concerns besides the increase in the height and the permanent structures now above the roof level are enforcement. so we've asked for a notice of special restrictions or some sort of document that will help us keep them from putting up 8 foot wind screens immediately after the building's constructed, because these things can be done with over the counter permitted and/or with, you know, no permit at all, most changes on roof decks can be made once they're built. they refused that. they refused any sort of thing that would help us, you know, hold the line and keep this roof deck to a simple roof deck, and so you know, we're back here at the board, not having been successful in our attempts to reach out to them. i wrote to them the day after our first hearing on november

6th and said this is what we'd like. you know, these are our suggestions. took nearly a month to get a response back, and then, when the response came back, they actually increased the height on me, so i urge the board to enforce its previous ruling. >> thank you, mr. williams. >> okay. we can hear from the appellants marseilles. >> welcome back. >> thank you. good evening, board members. we're the immediate neighbors, as you know, right next door to the maos, and we feel the same way as what -- mr. williams has just said to you. we are fine with the set backs on the roof deck and fine with the inside staircase.

however, we would like to see nothing on that deck that extends beyond the height of the top of the guardrail, the 40 -- 42 inches. we would also, since we're right next door, we'd like those hours of construction to be limited from monday through friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no weekend work. we also would like this increase, this -- we were quite surprised when the plans were submitted to us and this increase of this additional approximately 2.5 feet, we felt they were really taking some liberties here, and we would like to see that reduced to what the original was without the 2.5 feet.

we're also -- we're in a very sensitive area, and we would like to see whatever is on that roof deck to be minimal, and this would include the lighting, and we have no detailed plans on what they intend to do with the lighting. certainly, whatever they need for safety, we're definitely in agreement with, but we don't want to see any -- you know, an exaggerated amount of lighting. terry's going to talk about our roof deck, 'cause i know it was brought up last time. we did not have any photos. this is on our second floor, which is our top floor. >> overhead, please. >> we did not put this roof deck on. i believe it was done in 1970, and it was done by the previous owners, so we bought the house with this roof deck intact. okay. so terry's going to explain the

pictures. okay. >> so the roof deck -- and i mentioned it when we were -- at the meeting, we had a small deck. it's eight-by-ten, actually, over the stair unit of the house coming from the first floor to the second floor. and now, you're looking at this large area here. that's 1,000 square foot rec room, and it's a great room, but let me put a fire pit in the middle of that. i don't know if that's a safe thing to do. so you know, what we put on top of roofs is very, very fuzzy, i think. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> okay. thank you. just to confirm, there's no one here to speak on appeal 17-145, the bruce and nick leppla? oh, you're speaking on them -- their behalf? [ inaudible ] >> are you miss curry, right? okay. i just wanted to make sure there was no one here to speak for the lepplas, so go ahead,

and you can be next. >> good evening. >> hi. good evening. five weeks ago, along with four other neighbors that came here for help and asked you for some guidance, and we were here to protest demolition and rebuild of a building in sea cliff. and it was great, we talked about presentation and the appreciation of all the buildings in sea cliff. i still think about that free man building, the house that you mentioned, mr. swig, and just the differences there. and the take away that i walked away with from that meeting was twofold. essentially the architecture and the contemporary design was fine, and the last thing i heard, was work together as a group. if not, we'll do it for you. we're back here today to say i think we need some help and for you to do it for this group.

essentially, it's been five weeks since that time. we gathered the first time, i think about the week and a half afterwards, when the maos and team wanted to get together, then, they asked for an extension. we have been available the entire time and have not been contacted once by the maos to have a discussion about this. as steve mentioned, we got a letter that was at our door, and i think their attorney called our attorney to see if we could meet today at noon. no direct contact, and it does not instill a lot of confidence. so our take away, we walked away with an appreciation from when this board was looking to do, which was to take the building, but no fourth story. the fact when we received the plan from their team, and the building had changed, it was concerning. whatever numbers that they want to walk you through, i can tell you the bottom line is if i

look at the new roof line, it was 30'3". in addition, there's a 14 feet storage unit that is 36 implgs high. that looks like a penthouse, so we got a plans of a building that was -- had grown. we had storage, lighting, there's a fire pit. so very concerning. the bottom line, and the last thing that steve mentioned to you is looking for notice of special restriction. i feel like again, as a neighborhood group, and i'm sorry the lepplas couldn't be here, the lepplas, the marseilles, richard, we've all worked together to make this work. the last time the maos invited us to their home, the giants

won the world series, so it's been a while. so we're back here today, and my last sentence on that is in the information that they sent us, where the reuben junius team talks about special restriction, they say this: we strongly oppose this. an nsr is unnecessary as any conditions of approval deemed necessary by the board will be enforceable by the board's decision. the maos have done everything possible to comply with the requirements and to accommodate the neighbors. i don't feel like we've been accommodated, and we need your help, so thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> and mr. teague? >> good evening again, president honda, commissioners. cory teague, planning

department staff. just briefly, did get a chance to look over the proposed plans by the permit holder just to see if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. the only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. in this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. the rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, what was the -- what is the max height they can go in comparison to where we're at now? >> so i think -- well, as was mentioned during the permit holder's presentation, the

height district here -- it's a 40 foot height district, but because it's rh-1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front property line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it basically follows grade from there. if it's an uphill or if it's a flat property, it just follows a straight line there. so you know, towards the middle of the lot, the max height generally is 35 feet, so they have somely way there. the front corner is basically meeting as proposed now in front of you is meeting that kind of 45° angle that's required. >> in studying it, the permit holder had mentioned that the height of the building is still lower than their immediate neighbors. >> mm-hmm. >> is that correct 1234. >> i'd have to look at the plans to look at that. i'm not positive.

>> do you have a cold? i caught it. no shaking hands you with or anything. >> any comment, mr. duffy? >> any public comment? seeing none, the matter's submitted skbl madam secretary, do you have a record of what my motion was -- >> madam director. >> it clearly wasn't resolved, but can you read my motion? >> sure. so i think that's the november 8th motion which was. >> yeah. >> let's see...to grant the appeal -- to grant the four appeals and issue the site permit on the condition that the penthouse and roof deck be removed on the basis that these features are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. and on that motion of president honda, commissioner lazarus and commissioner wilson dissented, which is why it didn't pass.

>> my -- my thoughts on this is that -- that there was a -- originally a glass enclosed penthouse that was -- that we -- it was described as a beam of light that would intrude on the neighbors and change the character of the neighborhood, and i think that's what we reacted to. i'm going to put aside for the moment the new -- the new plans because we haven't had a chance to really study them, but i -- let's stay focused on -- i want to say focus on what we -- what i had an issue with. obviously, in my motion, i heard from all the commissioners who did, as well. so i -- i would be prepared to do the same motion, but a deck.

i'd like some help with the size of it, but with some special restrictions that relate to no, i guess, combustible materials -- example, a fire pit or a barbecue or cooking option, no storage unit or other permanent structure. no lighting of any kind unless required for emergency purposes by planning or the building department, and so that's -- that's kind of the direction i -- i would go. and i -- a rail around the -- the deck -- a glass rail around the deck, which is to -- at a minimum height, which is -- which would be according to the building department rules. that's the direction i would

like to go, and i think that's -- you know, that's fair. give them the house that they want minus the top basically, but give them a deck with some special features. >> well, i think the last time they were before us, the understanding -- which was a little confusing, because the thought process i thought going forward was they were just talking specifically in regards to the deck. and then, here we are, a couple weeks later, and it's not just the deck, but they've added some more bulk to the building. i don't necessarily have a problem with the floor plates increasing per se, and we originally had talked, i think it was 490 or 487 square feet. it was less than 500. but the lack of communication kind of concerns me, that if the permit holder had adequate time to draw these plans up and

put them together but did not want to share them until the day before, to me, is a little concerning, you know? >> well, i feel like opportunity was fully taken advantage of and was beyond what we expected to see back here. so i think i'm inclines in the direction that commissioner swig is headed. i'm not sure if the nsr portion is needed. i mean, maybe mr. teague and/or mr. duffy cann enlightn us, but i support a motion that essentially addresses the deck and not the rest of it. >> let's break that down a little bit further, in terms of detail. when they limited it -- the penthouse, the previous scheme

had the roof of the third floor depressed so that the height of that penthouse was not as great -- it was 4 feet or something. >> i can't remember. >> it was prointruditruding up >> it was protruding some amount, but it had been dropped, and the curb framing is dropped straight across. i have no issue with that. if you get rid of penthouse. the question then is where the -- the height was picked up, and whether there's an issue. i'm sensing that a couple of the commissioners here have an issue with the increased height of the lower floors. i'm not sure i shared that so much. the question, also, then, is roof decks. i didn't want to say too much,

but you recall that two of the commissioners killed the first motion, which deleted any roof decks and required that it be put back into the motion and allowed it. so i'd like to get further clarification from the two who added it back, what is it about this that you don't like? i don't see much difference between this deck and many other decks that we have seen. >> i expected a basic roof top or roof deck with some railings around it, no accoutrementes. i don't know what this 14 foot storage bin is. to me, it's having access to a roof if they intend to use it. i don't understand the argument about raising the ceiling on the lower floor i think had to

do with access to rooms that there wouldn't be stairs, and i don't know why that wouldn't be addressed before. that has nothing to do with what went on on top, i don't believe. >> no, i think what occurred is in their efforts to try to procedu portray the overall bulk of the building, they reduced it. the inches out of the floor, they pressed the penthouse downward in order to show a product that was of lesser height. >> so basically because they sacrificed the penthouse, they're getting some of that floor space back? >> yeah. >> which i reiterate, i don't have a problem with the added floor height, but as several of the parties from the public have mentioned, because there was a switch in plans and the lack of communication and evidently they have hired guns, i do think that a special deed of restrictions is probably

going to be required on this so that we don't have to deal with things popping up in plans and having repermitting issues. >> so my issue is not with the building, my issue is with what happens on top of the building. so if the -- if the -- if the revised plan or the revised bulk -- i'm not going to fight on that, but i -- i really think that it -- we should mandate with clarity the size of the deck, which i would do not to exceed 500 feet. that we should also be very clear that as commissioner lazarus said, it is a plain deck and -- with -- >> but let's talk about the -- >> typical railings. >> -- about the specific items, then. >> okay. >> you have a deck that's under

500 feet. >> fine. >> it's transparent, so it doesn't necessarily block views, but it provides views of whoever's up there. the question is where is this storage unit? the second is the fire pit. >> and the light. the light, i think, is a very important issue that i heard the first time around was that beacon. i think the first word was beacon, so if we were allow it to be lit, we defeat that whole issue. we defeat that whole thing. >> you're correct. it doesn't show what is proposed. you can condition it so that you provide the minimum illumination that's necessary for ingress and egress, all right? >> and also -- >> that would be similar to what would be a code requirement for the, say, on-site walkways and things. >> okay. so would we address that in -- in just language or in the nsr?

>> can we ask mr. teague, can you help us. >> no -- and then, also, like i said, i would like to make sure there's no permanent structures that are past the top floor. >> so if i understand it correctly, it's just a little guidance on the potential nsr and how that would work. so i think a good way to think about it is obviously if you review the permit, you have the authority to basically amend the scope of work for this permit. you could -- you've already decided to do that by removing the fourth floor penthouse, but whatever you finalized in that decision would basically be the final scope of work that's approved for this permit. any subsequent permit that would meet the planning code and the building code and all other requirements could be approved in the future. nsr is a notice of special restrictions that would be reported on the property to document any specification

conditions of approval put on, and i was thinking about what conditions kind of long-term do you want, not necessarily just limiting the scope of work for that permit, but what additional conditions you want to apply to that, whether that be no this or no that or no more than this or no more than that. if you wanted to apply those types of conditions of approval in perpetuity that just go beyond this permit, that's the kind of thing that would be used to report the conditions of approval. that's what we do at the planning department. if you have an entitlement those conditions are recorded on the property as a condition of approval. the zoning administrator has the authority to put those kind of conditions on a building permit, as well as any kind of entitlement, and again, those conditions can run in perpetuity in addition to the

permit. >> and barring that, and if they come back and want to get a permit to do something else, then, that's an option for them? >> yes. >> it could end up being an over the counter type permit? >> it could be, depending on what they're proposing to do, so that's something to take into consideration. obviously, the plans show the fire pit and the storage, you know. this is not above the height limit, so our height exemptions don't really come into play, but a lot of times, they do for roof decks. there's a lot of things that are generally permitted on roof decks, whether it's furniture, tables and chairs, other types of outdoor furniture that'll be utilized to use the deck. obviously, it's not uncommon to see those types of features, and they don't require a building permit just to put up outdoor furniture. anything that would be a

structure or railing or things of that nature would generally require a building permit. >> so i think the -- i'm seeking your advice. so one of the concerns of neighbors was the light at night, creating a beacon effect on that square footage, which would be transparent to the neighborhood. so that, to me, would be anything that would create light, which would generally mean that if you -- if you -- a restriction on illumination. the other piece, i think, was the restriction of an activity such as cooking or -- or an activity that would require a -- something like a fire pit, and basically want to get back to a deck that if you have a chair up there, you can sit in

the lovely fog of sea cliff in which i grew up. we have global warming, so there's more warm days, i guess. but that's where -- that's where i -- i see taking this. >> yeah. >> of -- and based on the neighbors comments and concerns. >> sure. i mean, i think that the lighting issue is obviously two different contexts. the prior proposal was a complete glassed in room that was going to have a very different type of lighting that was enough to illuminate the entire room which would create a different lighting effect from afar. >> but another thing, it was the type of glazing. >> drawback glazing and the kind of lighting that would be in there, where it would be mounted. obviously, it has to be a very different context. my colleagues from dbi can speak to the absence of real lighting on a roof deck. there's no real clear guidance to set it to.

but if you feel there are certain requirements pertaining to the height of potential light fixtures or some other metric on limiting the light, that's within your purview. similar ly, prohibiting fire pits or any other barbecues or facilities like that, that would be within your purview, as well. i mean, obviously, things -- whether it comes to furniture, that gets a little more challenging. a lot of outdoor furniture has a lot of storage components to it. it may not be different for storage cabinets themselves, but depend, we don't normally require permits for outdoor furniture. and i'm sorry, after the lighting, you were speaking about the cooking facilities. okay. we addressed that. >> pretty much. so we could actually limit it to no light. >> i don't think so. >> i don't think so. >> you have a stair there. you're going to have to provide light. >> yeah, i would prefer. >> do you have x-ray