you cannot get a stair penthouse, technically, to conform with this height. i have to do this to commissioner peterson. 25 years ago, there was a very famous name in san francisco. the zoning administrator denied his permit to build the market greenhouse on top -- to build an orchid greenhouse on top of his high-rise in pacific heights because it was non-conforming and above the height limit. the problem i have here perhaps is a little bit too much experience with this code section. that is that it has always been interpreted that way. the fact is that the 65 feet establishes the point at which exceptions take place. therefore i do not see any basis that i can even attack to give them what they want. commissioner peterson: i do not have the experience of commissioner fung, but i also am very sympathetic. i needed to look at the language to see if there is any wiggle room. you have a hope or expectation for having something like that on your building. i understand what it is disappointing to see these restrictions. but i also could not find any way around it.

when we read the code, section 260, we see that elevator stairs and penthouses are exempted. these features are defined where the height limit is 65 feet. the first item on the bottom is showing you could have eight stair elevator windscreen to the heights shown. there is an interpretation we do not think is correct which told us we can only do a stair that is 2 feet high above the roof level, which we obviously cannot have access to, an elevator we could probably squeeze in at minimal height, and a wind screen that would only be 2 feet higher than the roof, which is more unsafe than the existing paraquat. we think the ruling of the code suggests that where the high limit is 65 feet -- we are in that district -- the we should be able to have exemptions to the height limit to add these elements and, as the diagram shows. the last diagram basically is saying there are existing penthouses' appear up to 84 feet. we want a stair connected to one of those. it would have minimal visual impact. one thing i think has been created by the denial of the letter of determination. it is a ha

stairs to the roof and elevators, and penthouses. mechanical rooms. they are very small percentages of the route space. you are allowed up to 20%. we are below 20% of the roof space. the only thing that goes up to 16 feet is the elevator penthouses. >>> commissioner antonini: let's try to keep the design so the more we can ask these elements, the better. if you are high enough looking down you will see them but someone at the same height or from a distance away on ground level, the more we can ask these, the better. whatever you are allowed to do with parapets is welcome. comments were made upon the unit sizes and they talked about 700 square feet as being an average. i assume there is a distribution here. i do not know that there are a three-bedroom units. it would be nice if we did have distribution to allow for units that would accommodate people with children that needed more bedrooms and if that can be worked out as part of the plan. i think if it is done in the right way, it can be done without new approval but to redistribute york unit makes mo