Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds demolition permit for 255 Seacliff but pauses on penthouse, continues site‑permit debate
Summary
After hours of testimony, the Board of Appeals denied appeals of the demolition permit for 255 Seacliff Avenue 5–0; the board did not require removal of the proposed four‑story penthouse but voted to continue the site‑permit appeals to Nov. 15 to allow neighbors and the permit holder to negotiate roof‑deck parameters (board signaled ~500 sq ft as a candidate limit).
The Board of Appeals spent the latter portion of its Nov. 8 meeting on eight consolidated appeals of demolition and site permits for 255 Seacliff Avenue, where owners Anne and John Mao propose to replace an existing house with a new single‑family residence that includes a recessed penthouse and a small roof deck.
Neighbors, multiple appellants and community representatives told the board the proposal is out of character for Seacliff and would set a damaging precedent. Bruce Leppla and other appellants argued the plans show a four‑story building from the street and stressed that Seacliff has no comparable fronting four‑story buildings; they raised concerns about privacy, light pollution and the scale of glazing. "This is a 4‑story building," Leppla said, summarizing the appellants' central concern that the project would be the first prominent four‑story facade on the block.
Permit holders and the project's architect, Louis Butler, and counsel Tom Tunney, described a long review and negotiation process with the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Butler said the project reduces mass at the street line by moving the facade back and consolidates penthouse area into a subordinate element. "The new houses move 5 feet further back from the street than the existing house," Butler said, describing the massing changes and the Planning Commission's reductions in penthouse area.
Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) and DBI (Joe Duffy) told the board the permits and plans meet applicable code requirements, including the method for measuring height on up‑sloping lots; staff noted the Planning Commission imposed a discretionary cap on the penthouse area and specific setbacks.
Commissioners debated two separate but linked questions: whether to allow demolition and whether a top‑floor penthouse and glazed penthouse stair would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Commissioner Rick Swig moved first to deny appeals of the demolition permit (i.e., uphold administrative approval of demolition); the board voted 5–0 to deny the demolition appeals and allow demolition to proceed.
Commissioner Swig then moved to grant the site‑permit appeals and require removal of the penthouse and roof deck. That motion failed (2–3). Several commissioners expressed sympathy for neighbors' privacy and precedent concerns but were reluctant to direct wholesale redesign of a project the Planning Commission had already modified and approved. The board instead voted unanimously to continue the site‑permit appeals to Nov. 15 to allow the parties to negotiate a specific roof‑deck solution. During deliberations the board signaled support for a constrained roof deck consistent with building‑code egress limits (inspectors said roughly 500 square feet is the typical threshold for requiring additional exits) and asked the parties to present a proposed deck plan at the continued hearing.
The board's split reflects the tension between the code‑compliance findings of staff and the planning commission and strong neighbor objections about precedent, demolition and the visual impact of the glazed top floor. The continuance gives both sides an opportunity to reach a targeted compromise on roof‑deck size and screening before the board issues a final decision on the site permits.
