a stair penthouse and large roof deck were eliminated. a visual screen at the front entry was required. the depth of the top floor, front setback was increased. and an arborist was required to protect the health of the trees on abutting properties. issue two, the appellant claims that the planning code sections 303, 317 and proposition m findings not supported by substantial evidence. the appellant offers no suggestion as to why the evidence discussed at great length in the authorization motion should be considered less than substantial. the findings are accurate or concise, which is appropriate for this small-scale, infill residential development. findings of consistency require a balancing of policies and a determination of overall consistency to the relevant criter criteria, objections, and policies. this was fund to comply with all requirements and unanimously approved with conditions by the planning commission. for these reasons, as well as those made in the planning commission's motion, we recommend that the board uphold the commiss

most people, especially children, would prefer access to a yard rather than a roof deck with a stair penthouse. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the project is doing what we asked it to do. if it's enough is a separate discussion. we asked for the project to take off the fourth floor. the way you describe the height of the building is from the front and it's address side and not its appearance on topography ir respective of excavation. that being said, the project is three floors high. regarding light wells, one of the basic requirements and one of the basic issues to look at for conformance of building with ajoining buildings is to match light wells. that means that light wells of equal occasion, preferably equal size, to protect other people's access to light and air. the way that windows are located is, it's not a direct view across, but windows in the new building are arranged to the side, so you will never look across. and i assume there's enough need for

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 theconstruction 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" a