since there are examples of cities that solve these issues successfully without having hardware displays in the public realm. i have a feeling that this has to do with competition between the carriers trying to claim the poles. but there are so many comparable situations that are handled without all this hardware in the streets that there has to be another way. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> welcome. >> good evening. my name is charles ferguson. and just to make this very clear. i'm here in my individual capacity. i was not asked to come here by anybody, but it turns out that i lived in the beginning of my professional career at 2200 leavenworth, directly opposite this pole. i lived on the 2nd floor above the main door. so i had a perfect view of this particular pole.

i also lived down the street at 1703 for several years as well. so i know this neighborhood inside and out. i don't live there anymore, as i think most of you know, but personally, i feel very close to that neighborhood and it's worth protecting. what i want to suggest to you is that you should find out from the planning department what exactly were the standards that they used? in 17073, you were able to get the zoning administrator to explain to you that the reason that he was willing to deny a permit, recommend denying a permit, while he would -- grant a permit on an excellent street but deny a permit on a good street, namely lombard, is because he thought that the distant views were not as worth protecting as the up-close views of lombard street.

i looked at the brief that the city attorney has filed with the california supreme court. the city attorney uses two types of views throughout that brave. one, the painted ladies, and, two, the murin headlands. i would encourage you to find out whether using the same standard that was used in 17073 that distant views don't show here. "it shall be in writing and set forth the reasons therefore." i bet in this record, you don't have any written explanation of

what the reasons are for why the planning department is recommending this permit be granted. thank you. >> any our public comment on this item? seeing none. we can take rebuttal. commissioners, i want you to know that there are people here from the planning department that are available if you have questions for them. do you want to hear now or wait -- >> let's hear now. >> okay. staff from planning? >> corey teague from planning department. i'm joined by ashley lindsay, who is our wireless specialist in the department, and her supervisor, marcel boudreau. i will let ashley address any of your specific questions. thank you. >> that's fine. >> welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm ashley lindsay, as corey mentioned, and i'm available to answer any questions that you may have. >> hi, ashley.

i will ask the same question i asked on the previous case nearby this, in the brief i didn't see any details in terms of planning department analysis. can you explain what occurred in your analysis that granted the impact on the street. >> we wanted to determine if the proposed wireless facility is in line with the compatibility standards. there were two this pole triggered because it's planning-protected and zoning-protected. it's located on a street with excellent quality of street views. and we needed to determine if it

impaired any views of landmarks or parks. within a 300-foot radius of the pole, there are no landmarks or park spaces in which the proposed facility would impair views. the facility would be in an rh3 zoning district. and the residential structures and buildings range from through to three stories and subject pole itself is 36 feet with the antenna being at 26 foot, 1 inch. we determined that it would be compatible and consistent with the height in this zoning district, therefore, recommending approval to the department of public works for this particular pole at 2001 leavenworth street. >> can i ask you a question? >> yes. >> one thing that mystifies me

is the bird's nest effect that exists on that pole. that would be the myriad of wires and other stuff that is on that pole. is it -- whose jurisdiction is it to manage the bird's nest, that shouldn't exist in the first plates -- place? if you have gone to india, it's like that block after block. we're supposed to have control over our poles, our view areas and who gets to put stuff up in that bird's nest. who, indeed, has jurisdiction? is it planning? is it dpw? is it puc? is it -- who is it? how do you control the bird's nest? the thing that sets me off tonight is we all saw on that screen that big loop of wire

that was just hanging there because probably some worker anticipating that that wire will go somewhere in the distant future leaves it up there because it's easier. meanwhile in one of san francisco's most important locations for tourism, most important location historically, this loopity loop is hanging as part of the bird's nest of this telephone pole. who manages this? >> i cannot speak to that particularly, but i would like to defer -- >> i knew i would get an answer from somebody. >> can i have the overhead? for this pole, it's owned by pg & e and the california state public utilities commission has the rules for the attachments to these woodening pg & e-owned poles.

so they're the ones setting the rules for the telephone lines. the wireless facility that's under review under article 25 in planning is just this antenna and the radio transeiver. article 25 defines a wireless facility as antennas and related equipment for personal wireless service. so wireless is a definition of, without wires, through radio waves. >> that isn't the question. the question is, if you put that back up on the screen, so we can all see it, is the aggregated impact of mismanagement of the pole, my perception, because it looks like a bird's nest. it completely desecrates the

excellent view corridors, not my word, your word, it's in writing. and the idea -- i know we're here to talk about the antenna, but the aggregate damage and desecration and we keep on adding stuff and no one is taking it away. would love it find out who is in charge or will another department add something else next week? who says no? where does it start? and it permeates the entire neighborhood, which will come up later in the discussion. >> the state law sets the rules for the wooden telephone poles. under article 25, we only have authority to regulate the wireless antenna. >> so i will not get the answer to my question. >> i think she did answer it.

>> no. so every telephone pole owned by pg & e in this city can desecrate a neighborhood and we have to go knock on the door of the puc to say, please manage your wires? is that the answer to your question? >> i don't know if i would use those terms, but article 25 does allow wireless facilities on streetlight utility and transit poles in the city of san francisco. >> okay. thank you. >> we'll do our rebuttal now and start with the appellant.

>> thank you very much. just to talk about the telephone poles. you will see the tragedy, that when no one is responsible for taking them off, this is the current view out of my neighbor's house. there is clearly an accumulation of stuff put on the poles and no one is responsible for taking it off because it never happens. everything you add to it will be there in perpetuity. who knows what the next generation of wireless will look like. no reason to think that more stuff won't be added to poles. apparently no one is responsible for taking it off because it doesn't happen. in summary, one point, clearly at issue here, whether or not this degrades the view in an excellent view area. what i don't understand, even though i respect the hard work done by extenet and the city. some views are protected and others are not. i don't know the criteria for what is excellent-excellent view

versus plain excellent. in our view, this is an excellent view street. the view has been degraded, adding more will only hurt this situation. it won't make it better. and it makes it more difficult to take the wires down. once again, i plead with the board to revoke this permit and hope to seek for alter attives that are less adulterous to the neighborhood. >> we can take rebuttal from the permit-holder. slooirn >> just a minute. thank you. just wanted to try to respond to

commissioner swig's questions about who is responsible for the wires. it's a complicated question -- answer, i should say. easy question. really that falls to the northern california joint pole association. it's an association of utilities. so extenet is a member of the joint pole association, as are the wireless carriers, as is comcast, pg & e. so it's an organization that we try to work closely with to ensure that we follow the rules that are stipulated by the organization. california public utilities commission is the primary governing body over what happens to the poles, but what happens in reality was installed in the way it's installed is something that would go through the northern california joint pole association review process. and the photo that the gentleman showed earlier outside of the window was not the subject pole

we're talking about right now, but it was the one mentioned earlier that we discussed three months ago in front of you and hasn't been resolved yet. in any case, we agreed in that case, and we'll do the same here going forward, that we'll try to work more closely with nor cal association to figure out whose wires are where and can they be fixed and can some of that slack go away? it's not always easy because we don't have the authority to tell another utility how to go about their business, but we have close relationships with the jpa, so we have some ability to try to work with utilities to fix that up a little bit. so we've committed to trying to reach across the table and do a better job of that. i would caution that it's difficult for us to force somebody else to do something about them. i know that's probably not the answer you are looking for, but i hope that sheds a little more

light about how this happens and where the place to go might be for some of that. one other thing i didn't have a chance to talk about earlier -- we talked about alternative locations and there were many we analyzed, but also discussed alternative designs with the planning department. one of the design factors that they prefer is using streetlight poles instead of utility poles because it allows for a sleek design. it's not possible here because there are not light poles in this area, so all we have are the wood poles. even then, we investigated using a pole top antenna. puc requires separation between antennas and -- you would have to install a 4-foot extension and then with the antenna on top of it. we thought it was more impactful and not less, so we went forward with this proposal and we think

the planning department has reviewed and agreed with us on that. i'm available for any more questions. >> who does the public call when there is that bird's nest? it's nice that the kids are watching the candy shop, but in general, if that's the view that you look out, say that was your window and there's just a tremendous amount of excess wires, who does the public call to remedy that? >> that's a good question. i don't know. i really don't know. i think if it were me, i would start with pg & e. i say that only because -- i don't like passing the buck, but i think i would start there only because they have probably a more robust customer service network that may be able to field questions like that. >> or give direction. with the pole, you can see it's cable lines and not powerlines. and then the other question, who determined if it's a wood

pole or steel pole? you said most of the poles are wood, some that come before our board are steel. >> oh, sure. the difference is the function of the pole. what i was talking about with metal poles, they're just light poles. the purpose of the poles is to provide lighting for the street. the wooden poles are typically poles installed 50, 60 years ago by pg & e with the intent to string power over them, but now other utility infrastructure is also installed. most of those types of poles just happen to be wood. and most of the light poles happen to be metal or concrete. >> someone from the public had stated that the reason why they choose wood over the metal is because it's free. is that true? is there a fee for this? >> yes and no. it's free in the sense that extenet is a member of the

northern california joint pole association and part owner of all wooden utility poles where there are utilities. that's kind of the function of the joint pole association. >> so if you are a member of the club -- >> yeah. you pay a membership fee to be part of that utility group. so it's not exactly free, i wouldn't say, but you are -- >> you have answered my question. >> you are correct that there's not a license agreement with the city of san francisco because it's not owned by the city of san francisco. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. any rebuttal? no rebuttal from the department. okay. planning department staff, anything? >> i have a question for the planning department. so the designation of these excellent view corridors, good view corridors, in this case, that's -- that designation is

taking into account this pole and the wiring that's 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 it's kind of -- so as it is, including that pole and all the wiring. >> that's my understanding. >> okay. thank you. >> when you talked earlier about the characteristics of a good view street, you mentioned buildings, you mentioned parks. i didn't 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 department's 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 didn't 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. let's 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 don't 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 don't think you are understanding my question. perhaps i'm 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. they're also allowed to be installed on light poles -- >> i misheard you. i thought you said they weren't allowed. >> i have a follow-up question on commissioner lazarus's 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 that's what commissioner lazarus is alluding to, is one pole viewed the same with the bird's nest and one without? is there a difference when there's 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. >> i'm 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 we've come to this point before. and there has been commentary from the various commissioners about the bird's nest effect. and thank you for the explanation of the association that controls all this. and i would really suggest that

extenet, i see verizon's counsel, and say, you are getting pushback because of bird's nest effect. because it impacts your ability to influence us to be jovial about these things and we're 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 world-recognized landmark neighborhood in san francisco. that there is significant, negative impact on an excellent

view corridor, both with regard to immediate views and long-range views. and, finally, there's 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, we're going to hear number 9 next. 3400 washington street. requesting appeal 17-157. november 15, 2017. board voted 2-3. to continue this appeal to january 17, 2018, with the intent to grant the appeal on the basis that the planning department's 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 attorney's brief in front of the california supreme court waiting argument in t-mobile 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. that's from page 18 of his brief. mr. herrera's 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 don't 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 we're completely out. if the city loses, we're not going to -- you're never going to see us again. it is the same as if sb 649 had passed, but i don't think that's 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. we'll 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. i'm paul albrit dln on, outside

counsel for verizon wireless. first, i don't think there's 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 that's something that is compatible and meets their standards. secondly, i don't 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 doesn't meet that bar. finally, the legal advice that you were given is absolutely correct. it's 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. that's the advice that you were given, and so there was no material injustice. there's no new evidence or circumstances that we should change that decision in any way. so we would encourage you not to rehear this. it's 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. it's 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 that's 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 won't. >> okay. we' we'll 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. that's 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. that's because article 25,

section 1500(c) 1 prohibits the installing of new poles for wireless facilities in underground areas, but verizon's applications here was not to install any new poles. verizon's permit was to install a wireless facility to an existing streetlight pole and remember sigh son's 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. i'm kay driden. i'm right across from 3400, and this installation is right in alignment with my bedroom windows. so why do you think article 25 doesn't let a new pole be installed in an area where

there's already underground? it's -- it's hard to imagine that -- that article 25 would allow an installation on an existing pole in an area where there's already undergrounding. you've just heard about russian hill, where there's all this stuff on top of the poles. well, we have the opposite situation. with great time and effort and expense on our part, we've undergrounded everything, and now, we're looking at verizon, and then verizon's 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 it's a proprietary as to how many of these light poles they're going to try installations on. by doing this permitting on a

pole-by-pole 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 it's not russian hill, and it's not this location in presidio heights, where is the location that we're 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 they're doing it pole by pole. the neighborhoods don't get a chance to have a say on this, and i think it's 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 matter's submitted. >> i don't 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 5-0. so we will move onto item 7 a through d. this is appeal number 17-144, 145, 148, 150. they're all protesting the issuance -- i'm sorry, can >> let's 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 they're 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, i'll 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. it's a modest deck proposal, meets the board's requirements. no step penthouse, we provided side setbacks as requested by the appellant. there is our glass railings, it's muted colors, no vegetated

roof, and no raised floor to the deck. we're also not proposing any cooking facilities. there's no hot tub. sometimes you see that in decks. and then, we've also proposed a small increase in the ceiling height of the top floor, 2'3" and i'll 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 it's 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 i'll go through the math right now in this proposal, you're 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 4'6" down from where the original proposal one, so the roof which had the roof deck on, it went up 23 him. this building's actually over 32 feet high, and it's 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. we're 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. we'd 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. 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" and now it's 9 feet. >> i just described to you the use of 7.5 inches of that 2'3". t

the lion's share of that was the entry. we're taking that floor from 7'9 1/2" to 9'0". 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 that's 14 feet long that runs east-west on the roof against the south rail line.

it's 36 inches high, and it's for storing cushions and other things that might be used up there on a day-to-day basis. >> so that's not a 3 feet. >> excuse me? >> that's 3 feet in addition to the height of the building? >> yes. >> so net really hasn't 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 -- >> i'm representing just one,

really, richard yanowitch. the leppla family wasn't 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. that's 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 didn't 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 i've done this, i've never seen someone ordered to take a floor off and come back with a building that's the same height. the board said there's 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 they've done. they've dot a cabinet that's 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 don't know what the lighting situation is. it's not called out on the plans. it couldn't be described to me. a lot of it is this uncertainty happened because they didn't 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. there's a fire pit up there that wasn't previously on the roof deck. and one of the main concerns is the lighting. again, we don't know what the light sources are going to be. they haven't been described, not called out on the plan. there's 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 we've 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 building's 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 they're 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, we're 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 we'd 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. we're 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 we're right next door, we'd 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. we're also -- we're 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, we're definitely in agreement with, but we don't want to see any -- you know, an exaggerated amount of lighting. terry's 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 terry's 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. it's eight-by-ten, actually, over the stair unit of the house coming from the first floor to the second floor. and now, you're looking at this large area here. that's 1,000 square foot rec room, and it's a great room, but let me put a fire pit in the middle of that. i don't know if that's 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, there's no one here to speak on appeal 17-145, the bruce and nick leppla? oh, you're 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, we'll do it for you. we're back here today to say i think we need some help and for you to do it for this group. essentially, it's 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 30'3". in addition, there's 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, there's 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 i'm sorry the lepplas couldn't be here, the lepplas, the marseilles, richard, we've all worked together to make this work. the last time the maos invited us to their home, the giants won the world series, so it's been a while. so we're 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 board's decision. the maos have done everything possible to comply with the requirements and to accommodate the neighbors. i don't feel like we've 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 t