So the designation of these excellent view corridors, good view corridors, in this case, thats that designation is taking into account this pole and the wiring thats 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 its kind of so as it is, including that pole and all the wiring. Thats my understanding. Okay. Thank you. When you talked earlier about the characteristics of a good view street, you mentioned buildings, you mentioned parks. I didnt 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 Departments 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 didnt 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. Lets 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 dont 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 dont think you are understanding my question. Perhaps im 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. Theyre also allowed to be installed on light poles i misheard you. I thought you said they werent allowed. I have a followup question on commissioner lazaruss 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 thats what commissioner lazarus is alluding to, is one pole viewed the same with the birds nest and one without . Is there a difference when theres 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. Im 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 weve come to this point before. And there has been commentary from the various commissioners about the birds nest effect. And thank you for the explanation of the association that controls all this. And i would really suggest that extenet, i see verizons counsel, and say, you are getting pushback because of birds nest effect. Because it impacts your ability to influence us to be jovial about these things and were 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 worldrecognized landmark neighborhood in San Francisco. That there is significant, negative impact on an excellent view corridor, both with regard to immediate views and longrange views. And, finally, theres 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, were going to hear number 9 next. 3400 washington street. Requesting appeal 17157. November 15, 2017. Board voted 23. To continue this appeal to january 17, 2018, with the intent to grant the appeal on the basis that the Planning Departments 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 Attorneys brief in front of the California Supreme Court waiting argument in tmobile 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. Thats from page 18 of his brief. Mr. Herreras 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 dont 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 were completely out. If the city loses, were not going to youre never going to see us again. It is the same as if sb 649 had passed, but i dont think thats 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. Well 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. Im paul albrit dln on, outside counsel for Verizon Wireless. First, i dont think theres 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 thats something that is compatible and meets their standards. Secondly, i dont 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 doesnt meet that bar. Finally, the legal advice that you were given is absolutely correct. Its 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. Thats the advice that you were given, and so there was no material injustice. Theres no new evidence or circumstances that we should change that decision in any way. So we would encourage you not to rehear this. Its 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. Its 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 thats 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 wont. Okay. We well 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. Thats 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. Thats because article 25, section 1500 c 1 prohibits the installing of new poles for wireless facilities in underground areas, but verizons applications here was not to install any new poles. Verizons permit was to install a wireless facility to an existing streetlight pole and remember sigh sons 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. Im kay driden. Im right across from 3400, and this installation is right in alignment with my bedroom windows. So why do you think article 25 doesnt let a new pole be installed in an area where theres already underground . Its its hard to imagine that that article 25 would allow an installation on an existing pole in an area where theres already undergrounding. Youve just heard about russian hill, where theres all this stuff on top of the poles. Well, we have the opposite situation. With great time and effort and expense on our part, weve undergrounded everything, and now, were looking at verizon, and then verizons 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 its a proprietary as to how many of these light poles theyre going to try installations on. By doing this permitting on a polebypole 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 its not russian hill, and its not this location in presidio heights, where is the location that were 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 theyre doing it pole by pole. The neighborhoods dont get a chance to have a say on this, and i think its 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 matters submitted. I dont 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 50. So we will move onto item 7 a through d. This is appeal number 17144, 145, 148, 150. Theyre all protesting the issuance im sorry, can lets 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 theyre 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, ill 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. Its a modest deck proposal, meets the boards requirements. No step penthouse, we provided side setbacks as requested by the appellant. There is our glass railings, its muted colors, no vegetated roof, and no raised floor to the deck. Were also not proposing any cooking facilities. Theres no hot tub. Sometimes you see that in decks. And then, weve also proposed a small increase in the ceiling height of the top floor, 23 and ill 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 its 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 ill go through the math right now in this proposal, youre 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 46 down from where the original proposal one, so the roof which had the roof deck on, it went up 23 him. This buildings actually over 32 feet high, and its 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. Were 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. Wed 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. Weve now relaxed it now that the penthouse is done. The roof is 15 feet back from the front of the house. Its 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, thats 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 youve 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 93 ceiling height. And the second floor. Second floor was 97 1 2 and now its 9 feet. I just described to you the use of 7. 5 inches of that 23. T the lions share of that was the entry. Were taking that floor from 79 1 2 to 90. 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 thats 14 feet long that runs eastwest on the roof against the south rail line. Its 36 inches high, and its for storing cushions and other things that might be used up there on a daytoday basis. So thats not a 3 feet. Excuse me . Thats 3 feet in addition to the height of the building . Yes. So net really hasnt 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 im representing just one, really, richard yanowitch. The leppla family wasnt 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. Thats 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 didnt 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 ive done this, ive never seen someone ordered to take a floor off and come back with a building thats the same height. The board said theres 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 theyve done. Theyve dot a cabinet thats 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 dont know what the lighting situation is. Its not called out on the plans. It couldnt be described to me. A lot of it is this uncertainty happened because they didnt 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. Theres a fire pit up there that wasnt previously on the roof deck. And one of the main concerns is the lighting. Again, we dont know what the Light Sources are going to be. They havent been described, not called out on the plan. Theres 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 weve 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 buildings 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 theyre 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, were 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 wed 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. Were 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 were right next door, wed 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. Were also were 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, were definitely in agreement with, but we dont want to see any you know, an exaggerated amount of lighting. Terrys 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 terrys 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. Its eightbyten, actually, over the stair unit of the house coming from the first floor to the second floor. And now, youre looking at this large area here. Thats 1,000 square foot rec room, and its a great room, but let me put a fire pit in the middle of that. I dont know if thats 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, theres no one here to speak on appeal 17145, the bruce and nick leppla . Oh, youre 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, well do it for you. Were back here today to say i think we need some help and for you to do it for this group. Essentially, its 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 303. In addition, theres 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, theres 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 im sorry the lepplas couldnt be here, the lepplas, the marseilles, richard, weve all worked together to make this work. The last time the maos invited us to their home, the giants won the world series, so its been a while. So were 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 boards decision. The maos have done Everything Possible to comply with the requirements and to accommodate the neighbors. I dont feel like weve 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. Im available for any questions you may have. Mr. Teague, what was the what is the max height they can go in comparison to where were at now . So i think well, as was mentioned during the permit holders presentation, the height district here its a 40 foot height district, but because its rh1 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 its an uphill or if its 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 thats required. In studying it, the permit holder had mentioned that the height of the building is still lower than their immediate neighbors. Mmhmm. Is that correct 1234. Id have to look at the plans to look at that. Im 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 matters submitted skbl madam secretary, do you have a record of what my motion was madam director. It clearly wasnt resolved, but can you read my motion . Sure. So i think thats the november 8th motion which was. Yeah. Lets 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 didnt 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 thats what we reacted to. Im going to put aside for the moment the new the new plans because we havent had a chance to really study them, but i lets 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. Id 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 thats thats 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. Thats the direction i would like to go, and i think thats you know, thats 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 its not just the deck, but theyve added some more bulk to the building. I dont 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 im inclines in the direction that commissioner swig is headed. Im 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. Lets 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 cant 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 theres an issue. Im sensing that a couple of the commissioners here have an issue with the increased height of the lower floors. Im not sure i shared that so much. The question, also, then, is roof decks. I didnt 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 id like to get further clarification from the two who added it back, what is it about this that you dont like . I dont 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 dont know what this 14 foot storage bin is. To me, its having access to a roof if they intend to use it. I dont understand the argument about raising the ceiling on the lower floor i think had to do with access to rooms that there wouldnt be stairs, and i dont know why that wouldnt be addressed before. That has nothing to do with what went on on top, i dont 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, theyre getting some of that floor space back . Yeah. Which i reiterate, i dont 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 dont 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 im 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 lets talk about the typical railings. About the specific items, then. Okay. You have a deck thats under 500 feet. Fine. Its transparent, so it doesnt necessarily block views, but it provides views of whoevers 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. Youre correct. It doesnt show what is proposed. You can condition it so that you provide the minimum illumination thats necessary for ingress and egress, all right . And also that would be similar to what would be a code requirement for the, say, onsite 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 theres no permanent structures that are past the top floor. So if i understand it correctly, its 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 youve 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 thats 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 longterm 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, thats the kind of thing that would be used to report the conditions of approval. Thats 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, thats an option for them . Yes. It could end up being an over the counter type permit . It could be, depending on what theyre proposing to do, so thats 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 dont really come into play, but a lot of times, they do for roof decks. Theres a lot of things that are generally permitted on roof decks, whether its furniture, tables and chairs, other types of Outdoor Furniture thatll be utilized to use the deck. Obviously, its not uncommon to see those types of features, and they dont 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 im 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 theres more warm days, i guess. But thats where thats 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. Theres 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, thats 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 dont normally require permits for Outdoor Furniture. And im 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 dont think so. I dont think so. You have a stair there. Youre going to have to provide light. Yeah, i would prefer. Do you have xray