on the board's comments and the neighbors -- what the neighbors wanted, 500 square feet, no stair or penthouse structure, nothing intrusive a wire or glass railings kept at the minimum height allowed by the code, a hatch or some sort of recessed stair. no large apertenances, and no large set backs, and no lighting up there, since then a big issue. but i couldn't get responses or affirmation on nearly all of those things, so here we are. >> thank you, mr. williams. >> mr. tunney, and sorry, i forgot to disclose. >> tom tunney on behalf of the permit holder. appreciate the opportunity to address this. we are -- would like more time to come up with a plan for the roof deck. we have talked about december 13th with the appellants. we have agreed to give them, to provide them with a plan, drawings ten days in advance of the 13th, december 3rd, that's a sunday. we can figure out exactly when to get it to them. they've sent a list of items. i've explained to mr. williams a few times that we're happy to consider all of them. some of them we already acknowledged, the 500 square foot limitation, but we n

in elevator penthouses due to concerns -- those are the set back stairs, sorry. and here is the second floor with all those units, land locked. in terms of the third variance, street frontage, ntc requires that the first 25 deck be active uses. we have 81% of our ground floor where we cannot do parking, so for us, the amount of four parking spaces, the street front variance is required. i'm going to address the appellant's salty claims that are in their letter. we can talk about the tree more in the rebuttal. the first is the lgbt designation should not be an excuse not to comply with the code. i think variances are just for that purpose to recognize extraordinary circumstances such as an historic structure, and preservation of this resource is a public good, in the variance decision, it says significant area that would otherwise be included in the project's billable envelope is lost due to the potential impacts of the existing historic building, and the rear yard variance is necessary to accommodate a reasonable amount of development. this is -- to the appellant

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

there is no penthouse stair sca. staircase. there is no manifest injustice o new information and my husband i hope we can finish the remodel e into our home. >> do you have a 3-r report? >> i'm not sure what that is, a. i have a fer mitts that mr. san- permits that mr. sanchez sent. >> that's okay. we'll ask the department. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. teague. >> good evening president honda, commissioners, cory teague fromg department staff. the planning department has reve appellant's request and found is not comply for the request. it does not contain any new infn that has not been provided on ts matter. last we be the other appellant d questions. to support their claim, they prd one page ever a four-page documt stating that the top floor was t legally constructed. they reviewed records and founde document in its entirety. upon reviewing the report baseda site inspection in further an fa condominium, they found that thp floor was illegal. they cited 13 minor items for correction. the report was a fached to per - attach

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