before the board this evening. we expect scott sanchez representing the plot a department and planning commission, joseph duffy, senior building inspector, chris buck, urban -- urban forest or, and tricky, and the board meeting guidelines are as follows. we request you turn off or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. carry out proceedings in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute .-period-paragraph members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. at the president's discussion, he can limit public comment to two minutes depending on the volume of speakers. please speak into the microphone to assist the board and accurate preparation, your aspen are required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions by requesting every here and, the board rules, or hearing schedules, speak to staff during the break or after the meeting. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , cable channel 78, and will be rebroadcast on fridays at four p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can also be downloaded. we will swear it or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note if any member of the public wishes to speak, you do not have to take the oath. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings tonight, and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary route weight, please stand if you're able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear -- please stand if you are giving testimony, if you are able. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. commissioners, we have one housekeeping item. item number 7 has been withdrawn by the appellant. this is appeal number 18-141 barbara underwood versus san francisco public works. we will now move on to item number 1. this is a general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but it is not on tonight's calendar. how many people are here for general public comment? okay, if you can move over to that side, that would be helpful if you would like to approach -- excuse me, gentleman, please move over to this side. we need access in the event -- or egress. >> the first person, please start. >> hi, good afternoon. i would like to speak with you about issues with the department of urban forestry, and i apologize if this isn't the -- >> i just want to ask you, are you here to comment on the appeal number? >> this is not related to that. this is a general public comment i am really quite upset with the department of urban forestry, or i call them the department of urban de forestry, because they are moving a lot of our old growth trees in the city, and there seems to be no organization holding them accountable for this. they are removing trees that are very healthy, in one example, the posted notices all over my neighborhood and removes of old growth eucalyptus. this was in 2014, and they admitted at the hearing at city hall that they removed those trees because they screwed up with construction with the department of public works. at the hearing, we were promised new trees. they'd made a mistake, they removed old growth trees, they promised us new trees. it is now 2019. after numerous requests over e-mail, i have asked them for our new trees, they continue to ignore me, and continue to not comply with the promise that they made here at city hall to the public. i ask, what committee holds them accountable? when will the public have access to a public map of what trees in the city are being removed, especially for those of us with disabilities they cannot just go and make a perimeter of our neighborhood and try to found out what trees will be destroyed while we are sick in bed, which is completely intolerable, and when will they do their job of answering e-mails in a timely fashion, and not leaving us weeks or months to wait for a response at hold of their duties as public servants, and when will they stop wasting our taxpayer money, and/or personal time away from our jobs and our families to be here fighting for trees that make this city beautiful, and instead of reducing it. it is one of the most progressive, technologically advanced cities in the world. we put out an image to the rest of the world for what we want urban cities to look like, and how beautiful they can be, and for them to be destroying our city is disgusting and it needs to stop. thank you. >> thank you. >> what was the address of the trees that were removed? >> it is the intersection of appleton and mission, along the san jose avenue offramp. there is not an actual address for them. this is public record going back to the 2014 meeting. i'm happy to e-mail you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, my name is carl mcmurdo. i have a handout with language from proposition a from 2,007 if you would like to see it. we have a new organization called the san francisco taxicab coalition, which filed an appeal with the board regarding the airport taxi restrictions which mda plans to implement a february 1st. this appeal has been denied by staff. i spoke to the deputy city attorney his about this issue. notably, we rely on your wisdom and fairness to ignore unsound legal advice on the rare occasions in which the deputy city attorney his may provide faulty interpretations. in the e-mail chain discussion i sent you last night between the taxi director, your executive director, and our attorney, she states unequivocally that you no longer have the right to hear appeals and suspensions. however, tractor section 4.106 b. explicitly excludes the participation only for two commissions, the support commission, and recreation and park. there's nothing and probably of 2007 remotely indicating that you cannot hear taxi appeals. it's an unreasonable interpretation that someone who's agreed and affected will no longer have due process rights within the city system, and that under the guise of this action it can be construed as a taxi related function. regarding the airport band, we are entitled to hearing to see if whether or not you will accept jurisdiction. we can make a strong case that it constitutes a partial permit suspension for search and permit holders. there are thousands of taxi leased drivers. this is all they can do is drive a taxi, plus senior and disabled medallion holders on fixed incomes, all of whom will suffer greatly. some companies will fold. the public service will suffer. we need some guidance to close this out as to whether or not you retain inherent right and the responsibility to hear appeals from future taxi stakeholders maybe subjected to arbitrary and capricious actions against the business permits. please schedule hearing on this issue as soon as possible. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, board members. i am a taxi driver for green cab and member of the san francisco taxi coalition. these new rules that were implemented by ed risk in, the director of transportation, were directed -- they were directed by the m.t.a. board. they go into play severe restrictions on 550 plus cabs in terms of pickups at s.f.o., and bad another 250 cabs entirely from picking up at s.f.o., which means well over half the taxi fleet, hundreds of medallion holders, thousands of cabdrivers in every cab company in the city will feel the impact of these rules, and make many of these permits are virtually useless, and many more severely impaired. the rules constitute material modifications of city issued permits, which was the basis of an appeal we filed with the board which was rejected citing a lack of jurisdiction. we next asked for this to be treated as a request for jurisdiction, which was also denied. we were informed the m.t.a. had a consent in order for the board to hear the appeal, and they have declined to do so, and we are here to ask you to give us the opportunity to request jurisdiction so you can decide whether our appeal can go forward despite the m.t.a. charge at lack of stand. some of you may recall a similar situation arose in 2012. the m.t.a. approve the issuance of a couple hundred taxi permits to be issued directly to cab companies. when united taxi workers took an appeal, it was treated as a request for jurisdiction, which i handled back and argued that the charter section granting m.t.a. exclusive jurisdiction over taxi did not apply to appeals to this board, which are governed by a separate coequal section of the charter. when this came to a vote, only four commissioners were present. the vote was 2-2, so our request was denied without the presence of a fifth member might have provided the deciding vote allowing our appeal to go forward to. for that reason, we feel the issue was never adequately resolved. the brief that we submitted in the 2012 proceeding explained in detail why the board had jurisdiction. although the current situation is not identical to the one back then, for purposes of jurisdiction, the principles are the same, we would ask president fung, board members, to review the 2012 brief cat just for the purpose of determining whether we should be allowed to come before you and argue our case for jurisdiction over this monumentally destructive decision. i'm sorry, i only have one copy. it is a copy of the 2012 brief that we submitted. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. his -- >> good afternoon. i am the owner and manager of alliance cab. we are a small company, but we have been in the business for 30 years. i am here to request for jurisdiction on our request for appeal that needs to be heard. the airport van is opposed by seven supervisors, and i have brought two copies for this. 259 cabs would be banned out of the airport, and over 500 will be treated as second-class drivers, and this would throw thousands of drivers out of jobs they would be leaving the workforce, they need to put food on their table, and pay their rent, and they would rather drive for a meal, which is what one of my drivers did. let's not experiment on their jobs. if you kill the taxi drivers' income, there is no taxi industry. if there is no taxi industry, san francisco does not look good if we don't have cabs, in a premier city like san francisco should have, we are losing an essential part of our transportation business. let me tell you the domino effect of what will happen. for us, cab companies, with no drivers, the cars will sit on the yards. we are paying for the cabs and the insurance expenses and all their maintenance. what will happen to us while we will crumble and fold up. it will open more avenues for uber and other ridesharing companies. there will be more congestion. it will be worse for air pollution. as it is right now, there are 40,000 ridesharing vehicles rubbing the city, taking over our streets, and it will just get worse. this plan was adopted by m.t.a. in their effort to appease the lawsuit that they are being sued by the federal credit union for the loss of the value of the medallions that they sold. this plan will not stop the foreclosure. all these medallions -- they will just turn back the medallion -- if they cannot earn a living, and they cannot meet their obligation. board of directors, it is your duty and our contractual obligation to look into this matter. i'm urging you to give up jurisdiction to help -- hear our appeal again. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am with the san francisco taxi coalition, and i am here to respectfully request that you hear or appeal. we are stuck in a situation that is very undemocratic where a couple of bureaucrats make the decision that will affect thousands of people in san francisco, and leave us out of appealing the decision. it is ridiculous. in the u.s., in san francisco, we don't have due process, so please do it for us. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is michael nolte, and i i'm a native san franciscan, and i have attended several hearings about the process, and how do i get the overhead costs. >> overhead please. >> this policy is flawed, and this is why we will -- is it coming? this is a policy from the department of public works, and you will end up seeing a lot more appeals because of this policy of removals in general in the city. right now there's a whole bunch of trees that have been tagged because of a policy that basically, instead of doing the right thing, they are just deciding to tagged them all, and you will be backlogged with having to deal with them one by one by one. so i know you are not the legislature in the city, but the thing is, i'm sure you have some influence about, hey, we don't want to have to have a backlog if necessary, and maybe some changes could be made to better serve the community at large, as well as not have a bunch of things happened that end up being everybody charge you upset about. the other is that the previous hearing that took place in these chambers, it's about access, and there was a sign, not your guy his', by the department of public works said closed session signage at the entryway to the room, and there was no meeting posted -- no notice posted. those are the requirements of having a meeting. there are people who are actually getting paid to produce these meetings for the public to know where the meetings are at, and be able to have access to a meeting, and i really appreciate the work that your executive director has been able to provide trying to get as many people available for this meeting tonight. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other general public comment? seeing none, we will move on to item number 2. commissioner comments and questions. any commissioner comments? >> first of all, i forgot to congratulate my good friend, norman yee, who became the resident of the board of supervisors, as well i would like to congratulate president mel gardner, as well as joe koppel, vice president and president of the planning commission. >> thank you. any other commissioner comments? is there any public comment on item two? seeing none, we will move on to item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion are the minutes of the january 9th , 2019 board meeting. >> any corrections or additions? >> move adoption of the minutes as submitted. >> okay, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes of the january 9, 2019 board meeting. is there any public comment on that? okay, on that motion... [roll call] [laughter] >> i am glad you are here. >> okay. the minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item number 4. this is appeal number 18-132, jeff potter versus the arts commission. appealing the revocation on september 24th, 2018 of the street artist license. this is license number 7568, and we will hear from the appellant first. is the appellants present? >> oh, great. >> the appellant is not present, so we can hear -- >> let's move to the next case. >> okay. we will move to the next case to give the appellant an opportunity to appear, so we will move on to item number 5, appeal number 18-153, michael montgomery versus department of building inspection, the subject address is 739 -- protesting issues october 30th, 2018 of a site permit, remodel of an existing single family home with a new second floor addition and garage, one new bedroom, and one new bathroom, upgrade of the mechanical, electrical and structural systems. this is application number 201700370898. we will start with the appellants. you have seven minutes. >> thank you, board members. my name is michael montgomery, and i along with my wife and two children, live next door to the pros project. we have strong ties to the city. >> excuse me, use a centre microphone, it maybe closer to you. we can't hear you as well. >> better? okay. i have strong ties to the area. i have worked in my firm for the last 12 years, my wife teaches at city college. we look forward to raising our children here. i would like to clarify something that i think is important peer i'm not here to block the project or prevent my neighbors from having the house of their dreams. my family can sympathize with their situation, they are raising two children in a 2,000 square foot home three bedrooms and two baths. we are also raising two children , and we have more similarities than differences, we know the challenges of raising children on different floors of our home, and can empathize with her desire to build a bigger home port situated to their needs. we would want them to have the house of their dreams, but we are asking for the approval of their permit with a modest modification that would significantly reduce the impact on our home, without impacting the overall look and feel of their design, nor reducing any square footage or habitable space within their design. i will now outline the project and the impact it has on my home here's the rendering of our current home as they stand today we have four property line windows that provide the only light to our children charge a bathroom and primary source of light to the dining room area during the evening hours. these windows have been part of the home for -- as far back as anyone can recall. they are in every single set of plan held by the planning department and they are the oldest one picture of our home. the proposed project blocks all four of these windows, so now i would like to explain more about why this is so important to my family. through these windows, my family receives direct sunlight during the evening hours, which allows us to eat dinner together under the natural light for 4-6 months out of the year. without these windows, we would not be able to do this. we can turn on lights, but that would take away from our special time together. as you can see here, i can highlight the reflection just to show the direct sunlight is reflecting off of our dining room table. the big question is, can we help my family reduce their loss of light, while still having a minimal impact on the design. i believe there is a solution. here is another rendering of the existing home. you can see the direct sunlight hitting my windows. obviously the proposed plan blocks all of these windows. what i show here is a modest 3- foot light well, as you can see, it would allow direct light to continue to hit the two windows that bring light into the back of my dining room. you maybe asking would -- wouldn't this have a major impact on the design? unfortunately it does not. in this image, i am lighting up the windows of the proposed design. it may not be obvious, but they have a large portion of their second floor that is completely open to the floor below. i have highlighted the areas that are open to the floor below , which creates a 22-foot ceiling in the living room below based on where my windows lined -- line up, there is ample space for my proposed light well without having an impact on the second-story floorplan. this is a sidecut of the design. you can see the middle and the ceiling. that is a 22-foot average ceiling close to our property line, it is actually 24 feet. my proposal would reduce their ceiling and a portion of the living room from 24 feet down to 15 feet. no impact on the square footage or habitable space. the light well could be used to bring more light into their home and give light to their kids' bathroom. this process has been a frustrating one. we have had more than 20 e-mails and phone calls over the years with me making a pitch for the idea that could solve my issue, followed by debit rejecting and making clearly do not want to make modifications to their plans what i have here on this page is the original plans versus the final plans side-by-side. there's not a single change between these two plans, not once have they ever offered to make a modification to the plan to meet these needs. to be fair, they offered to potentially pay for modifications to our home, but unfortunately, it created new issues or did not solve our light issue. i'm not here for a payout or subsidization of a remodel of our home, we're just like to preserve something very important to us. the lack of collaboration in considering an offer is the reason i have been forced to bring this in front of you. i want to mention a couple things i mentioned in their response big they made the claim that they made concessions as part of this process. that is simply untrue. everything they have highlighted our will highlight as a concession was part of the original plan to, clearly not tied to any discussions with neighbors a request made by the community as evidenced by this picture here. the second point that they make is that my family already has enough light to. i show to the direct sunlight coming through this windows, in my efforts for the past two years should hopefully bring more evidence as to why this is happened just important to my family's happiness. the third claim they make is there is no precedent for light well at the midpoint of a house in any circumstance in the neighborhood pick the best example for president of a light well at the midpoint of a house already exists in their property today. as you can see here, this is a current plan, i specifically highlighted in red the existence of a light well as a midpoint of their home. here's a picture of the light well. as you can see, it is directly below the existing property line windows, essentially what my family is requesting today is a preservation of a light well that already exists on the property today. i thank you guys know this better than i do, but the guidelines clearly grant you the authority to mandate design modifications and minimize impacts of construction on light and access to neighboring properties, with setbacks, late wells, or other modifications. my proposal would allow my family to continue to eat dinner using natural light. the only sacrifice for my neighbors is a small section of the 24-foot ceiling in their living room would would reduce to 15 feet. there be no loss of habitable space a reduction in square footage. thank you. >> i have a question, mr montgomery. looking at the supply pictures in the brief, how long have you lived at your property class. >> i have been there three and a half years. >> and when you purchased it, was already improved, or did it -- did you improve it during your ownership? your house. was your house remodel when you purchased it -- >> yes, i have never remodelled my house. >> that was my question. >> thank you. i looked back on all historic plans, and all of them have these windows already in them, and everything in record. >> i have a question. could you put up the photo of the light well again, the current light well. so that is located adjacent to, or in the same place as what you are proposing? >> exactly the same location. >> so when you do light wells, the domino effect is where does the water go when it rains. is there sufficient drainage at the bottom of the light will now -- >> you can kind of see in this picture there are four pipes -- i don't know if you can see it, you can see two of them and there is one behind it. they already manage drainage between these properties pick one of the problems is around drainage. there already is -- it is already designed into the current house. >> so there hasn't been a problem with drainage -- >> it has never been mentioned in my time there, and it did not come in -- come up in any of the reports. >> i have a question. is a real window that also looks into the dining room, or does it look into something else? >> it looks like you showed a drawing of your building, and that of your neighbors' building it seemed like there were four side windows and there was a rear window. >> i have windows in the back of my house. >> and it looks into the dining room? >> just to say there is some light. >> and never made a claim that i was 100% -- my claim was i would have to eat dinner in the light by electricity. >> thank you, thank you. >> i want to make clear, we would be losing 100% of the light in my kids' bathroom. >> will now hear from the permit holder. >> thank you, you have seven minutes. you can go ahead. >> thank you, good evening. i am the co-owner of the home, along with my husband, who is also present. we have both lived in san francisco for more than 18 years , and have owned our home for more than eight years. we have two children, and our lives have centralized around the neighborhood to. i work at california college of the arts, and/or son goes to a local potrero school. we want to raise our family in the city, and are looking to remodel our home so it works better for our family of four. our goals for this remodel have been to have three bedrooms on the same floor, at a garage we don't do carry the kids in all their stuff up and down our hill , and to make our overall house and envelope more in line with the properties on our block to help us through this process, we worked with a san francisco-based architect to make this dream a reality. she is also present at the meeting today. we ask that the board denied the appeal and approve the permit. setbacks on light wells are not required or suggested at the property line windows in the coder in the residential design guidelines. the board set a precedent of not requiring late wells on property line windows in a decision last year. we have made significant concessions for the benefit of our neighbors, and the rooms at 745 were the property line windows will be covered will still have ample access to light and air. we strongly believe the permit was properly issued. the residential guideline suggests only matching light wells. the residential design guidelines are cleared on this point. light wells are required only where they match across buildings. that is not the case here as the appellants have no light wells for us to match, and our lower floor light well that was shown does not actually match with their bathroom window above. -- >> nor does it extend to the second floor. >> correct. these pages are copied verbatim from the latest design guidelines document. on both pages, it only references shared light wells, nothing for property line windows. everyone mentions page 16, but here it is, and there is no mention of preserving nonconforming lot line windows. we are sympathetic to our neighbors, we understand how hard it is, but this is the first time we have actually seen some of their details. every time we have met, there have been different ideas and suggestions, and we feel like it is at the point where it is unreasonable any longer. the appellant at 745 it will have ample access to light and air after this project. we feel we have been respectful. here are the drawings showing the rear elevation of their home , and i would like to highlight a few things. there's nothing extraordinary or exceptional about covering up property line windows. for example, right behind us, at 636 carolina, they covered up property line windows of their uphill neighbor just this year. that was a five-story project, much larger than the modest remodel we have been proposing. our downhill neighbor at 733 covered up one of our property line windows when they remodelled, and it is clear the appellants will have ample, even enviable access to light and air after the project is finished. the drawing shows there sliding glass doors opening onto a deck that will remain in the dining room and kitchen area. is a three by 3-foot picture window that will remain, into three by three windows on the south property line that will also remain. let's have a look at what this looks like inside of their property. this is a picture that the previous owners chuckle marketing the property that we downloaded from a local realtor website. it shows the interior of the room where the property of the line windows will be covered, but all of the windows and doors highlighted in green will remain uncovered. specifically there will be a large picture window, to separate sliding glass doors full height that lead out onto a deck that has a view, this alone offers ample access to light and air, and two more large figure -- picture windows on the opposite south facing side of the property line. these are all east and south facing, providing much more light than the north facing property line windows that will be covered. this adds up to light and air access that is comparable, if not better than most properties on the block, and indeed enviable compared to san francisco in general. here is another view of the same room. the nonconforming property line windows and black will be covered up. that is true, that is our roof in the left window, but as you see next to them, the huge sliding glass door leading directly onto a deck. access to light and air is not an issue here. here is another close above the deck that makes it even more clear how easy it is to access light and air for the appellants from this room. we have already made voluntary significant concessions for the benefit of our neighbors. we've attempted to work with the appellants for more than two years now across 15 plus in person meetings, and countless e-mails. we just don't understand why they keep claiming we have not done anything to be respectful to our neighbors during this process. we do the following things without being compelled to change anything by the planner. s.f. planning has approved every design choice we have made. we did a 5-foot setback on our top floor of the seven floor five property line to help preserve light, air, interviews. this is not required by code or residential guidelines or norms of the neighborhood. we wanted to slant our house to give them that opportunity. we limited our ground for extension to 6 feet versus the allowed 12 feet, and limited our building to 12 stories, which is eight and a half below the proposed height, and proposing a simple and integrated façade. this is a view of the top floor of the windows will be located. we have given a voluntary 5-foot setback at the property line to protect access to light and air to the rear of their home. this is above and beyond with the code design guidelines or norms of the neighborhood would suggest, and you will see that our downhill neighbors have given us no such setback, their house extends already beyond the length of our house. this is an overhead picture of our block with the houses highlighted -- with our house highlighted in blue, and the locations of the neighbors who signed our nine letters of support highlighted in green, and those letters are part of our packet. a lot of them have families with small children. we did not ask them to be present tonight, but they submitted their letters and they were supported -- supportive of us. the vast majority of our neighbors support as. for -- there are a wealth of good reasons for not requiring setbacks or light wells for property line windows. this policy and position were confirmed to us in the appellant several times throughout the process. we respectfully request that the board of appeals continue that policy, and denied the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, good evening. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject property is located in our zoning district. the subject permit was submitted to the city on march 2017, underwent a section 311 neighborhood notification between january and february of 2018, during that time, to discretionary review requests were filed, including one from the appellant in this matter. the planning commission heard this case on january 3rd, 2018 at that hearing, the planning commission voted unanimously not to take discretionary review, and approve the permit as proposed. they have no appeal before you buy the appellant raising concerns with light and air and the potential description of their property line windows. similar to the case we had two weeks ago with a very similar set of facts. as you know, the windows are not protected. they are not allowed to be retained. i know the appellant has included the term grandfathering in his brief, there is no such legal status for these windows. it is pretty rare that we would require setbacks for such property line windows. in regards to the property line windows themselves, i did review the permit history for the appellants' property, it is always helpful to see where those windows are. i looked at aerial photos, which date back to 2002, in the windows appeared since 2002 on those aerial photos. it appears the windows may have been changed out between 2011 and 2012, but i did not see any permits for such change of those windows. i did find permits from the 1990 s, which showed property line windows, but also showed a different interior configuration for the top floor. a look like it was a bedroom with a closet. i don't see any permits that put it in the configuration which it was now, which was shown by the permit holder to be a kitchen, open floor plan for that level. also, the windows don't appear in the same arrangement on the 97 permit, so perhaps between 97 and 2002 when the aerial photos occurred, the windows may have been reconfigured. even if the windows were legally permitted, there would be no requirement that they be retained. one difference perhaps to this case from what we had two weeks ago is that the case two weeks ago was on a lower level of the building, so actually the appellant would have the ability to put a skylight in, or other methods of getting additional light, or even air to that space again, to summarize, the project is code compliant. as the permit holder noted, they are well below the height limit here, and they're not even about half of that requirement. with that, the department respectfully request that you uphold the planning commission's decision not to take discretionary review, and approve the permit as a proposed >> mr sanchez, that was one of the reasons why i asked the appellant how long they owned their home, because it seemed like looking at the images, there are significant remodelling down to that property. generally when that is done, the reason i ask is because they usually would indicate that your property line windows during the permit process are not protected >> there'd there be concerns about any concerns. >> they need to be fire protected, which is triple at the expense. >> that doesn't appear to be done by a prior owner. >> thank you. >> i have a question. bottom line is, like we had two weeks ago, property line windows are not protected in any way, shape, or form for any reason. >> that is correct. it is very rare the planning commission would take discretionary review. it is consistent with their prospect. >> if there were the inclusion of a light well, it would be out of the kindness of the property owners, or in this case, the permit holders. >> right, the city does not require that in order to comply with the design guidelines, so it would not be required. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit application here was reviewed by planning as you heard. the building, fire department, d.p.w., and it was issued, as it has also been reviewed by building as well for compliance, and we are talking about one of our favourite subjects, property line windows. as you heard mr sanchez say, we had this issue a couple of weeks ago, but it does come up a lot. it is very unfortunate when they have windows, and then someone has to build next to them. it usually ends up in property line windows big lost. if you want to put in property line windows on a permit today, you will always lose the right to those windows if someone builds next to you, so you have to give that up in an affidavit. and the older buildings, we did not have that. the general thought is property line windows are property line windows, and it's always a tough conversation with someone who's getting a project done right next to them. at least here we are ahead of it sometimes people don't even realize. it is usually under construction we will get a call and they are saying, i am losing my windows. at least we are having this discussion here, which i appreciate. i am available for any questions that is all i have to say. >> and recently, if i can remember, we had a case where the windows were not permitted, and that property had to undergo quite inspection from your department. >> that's correct. these ones may have been there a long time. years ago they were put in, but then buildings got put next to them. the term grandfathered is not recognized in the building code. there is no such thing in the building code for that. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> yes, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is chris cole, i live a couple houses up, and i was there when the 745 was remodelled, and it was done well before the montgomery his own debt, and well before the people who owned it before them. it certainly had nothing to do with how it was built, and nothing should be thought that they did anything wrong to change any windows or did anything. the commissioner mentioned that this would have to be done out of kindness, and it struck me as that is why we have the residential design guidelines, unfortunately. we needed to have those because the codes of the building requirements do not have any room for any changing, or people who would have leeway to do something. but that is what the residential design guidelines do, and they are tremendously overlooked by the planning department, by the planning commission, and often by the board of appeals. if we look at page 16 of the residential design guidelines, and these guidelines are the law they are required to be followed just as a zoning building codes are required to be followed. if we look at page 16, it addresses a situation such as this where under certain circumstances, when light and air is impacted, and there is not a huge effect on the proposed project, that the residential design guidelines say that the light and air should be considered and saved. here -- i had the picture myself , and mr montgomery showed them, is how much unused space there is. how high these ceilings are in this building. and that is fine. we all want as much space as we can get, but by reducing those 22 feet to the 14 or 15 feet, it allows the montgomery property to have the light and airy that it has had for many years, and that is important to that family so nobody is saying that the 739 project is not going to be what is needed, they will have everything they need for themselves and their children, they will just have somewhat of a lower ceiling, and it will do a lot of good for the appellants ' project. thank you. >> as a neighbor, your public comment was that this remodel was taken place long before these ownership? when was that, do you think? >> they have been there for years. the people before them lived there at least ten, it has to be at least 15 plus years ago that the house was completely gutted and remodelled. no changes were made by the folks who owned it before the montgomery family. we were very good friends with them and they made no changes. it was all done by the contractors who remodelled and then sold the project. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? public comment on this item? okay, we will move on to rebuttal. mr montgomery? you have three minutes, his are. >> thank you. i will make a handful of points here. again, my neighbors mention significant concessions that i've shared with you and the original plans that was shared with the public, as well as the final plans. there are zero changes there, whatever concessions they are claiming, never took into account any community in influence. there has been no response to that whatsoever, simply a waiting and pushing their project through, which brings me to my second point. they mentioned this was the first time they are seeing the details here, i looked on my phone and i have the text from last may when i sent them these exact plans. i have some the multiple options because i am trying to be creative. i never received any response except we are not changing their plans. i thought i might be up to strike a chord with one of them, but these plans i presented to you tonight, i presented to them last may, and i the text to prove it with the timestamp if this is possible. they talked about covering the property line windows, and mention the property behind our house. although they did cover a property line window, they left at least three other property line windows open. i have countless other examples of houses in potrero in particular where neighbors have respectfully worked together through this process to come to resolutions where they do not have as significant of an impact in designing the house they want , but will also take into consideration the neighbors' homes. i feel like this project design was created without any sort of construct of how it would impact our home or our house, and i really wish they would have consulted with us earlier, and listen to us, because i think they could have had a house they fell in love with with very modest changes. thank you. >> mr montgomery, it was mentioned there was discussion verbally of a light well as an option, and you mentioned a brief that you did not like that option, a skylight, sorry. >> we looked into a skylight. >> what was the reason that you did not want to have that as an option,. >> excellent question. that is exactly our primary concern, and we did look into that. here is the issue. it provides light throughout the day, absolutely, however, at noon when the sun is its brightest, it provides direct light and it makes it very usable for us during lunch time. it was one of these things where it might fix the evening answer, but it creates a new issue itself. >> is there not things that you could put onto a light wild out eliminate the issue during the daytime? like a shade of some kind you could operate. >> i suppose we could put an umbrella -- you are absolutely right, we could block something like that. >> the only other question i have is the permit holder put a list of the concessions that they actually made during a 5- foot setback and sloping, now where those in direct response to your request? >> absolutely not, and i would say when i first saw their plans , i suggested to them that if they wanted more space, they would have my full permission, and all of our neighbors' permission to move further out from the bottom, which they listed as a concession, but nothing they put there is anything that my family asked for. >> okay, thank you. >> you still have a minute and ten seconds left. >> did we interrupt your time, i apologize. >> if there any other questions, i can answer them. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders. >> thank you. we have been trying to be creative in suggesting things as well. we did suggest a skylight. the former neighbors of our house told us that when 745 west remodelled, they did cover property line window that is in our current kitchen, and those owners added a skylight over our kitchen. we use it every day. it is lovely, it provides light. skylights can be glazed, they can be shaded, there's a lot of great ways to bring light in their -- great ways to bring light and there, and their creative solutions that we can do. our second floor bathroom that we are proposing in the remodel also does not have window access , but we have skylights to provide light in those bathrooms just like would be possible for the bathroom in their house. also, i don't remember ever seeing any drawings of light wells, but i know, for example, in the drawings they mentioned creating a 3-foot light well. we looked into that, but buddy for 3-foot light well is not into code. you are required to have 5 feet so there's a possibility for someone to get in there for repairs, so if you add a 5-foot light well, we did all the calculations and made it absolutely impossible to fit three bedrooms on one floor, and that was one of the goals we laid out in the very beginning. we have two small children, we don't want to be on separate floors. so we really want to get this bedrooms to fit, and that is not possible with the 5-foot light well as is shown. and to the front façade of our house, we are only proposing 7 feet higher than our current roofline, super not trying to go much higher and much bigger, we were trying to keep this in line with all of our neighbors, and be really reasonable. we do not want to go off the back because we have a deck on the lower floor. we use it every day. our kids ride their bikes down there, we have our raised beds down there, for us we really wanted to maintain the deck access. that is why we decided to remain within our same envelope, but add space for the extra bedrooms on the top floor. >> i would make one other point, as their property goes to full with, and they take advantage of the entire 25-foot lot. five he does not sound like a lot, but that is 20% of your with. it is saying -- i just don't agree with that. >> are you done? >> when you did your initial consult with the neighborhood, how many people showed up, and what were the concerns that were brought up at that meeting? >> we had three neighbors showing up including the appellant. >> and two other neighbors. one who is the other discretionary review filer. one was the other discretionary review filer, her name was barry , although at that meeting she provided no comments, it did not leave her name or contact information to follow up. the next thing we heard from her was to discretionary review. than the other neighbor that came was a neighbor diagonally behind us. he was fully supportive of the project, in one of the people whose letter you would see. the only person we have dealt with as mr montgomery his. >> we did talk about -- i mean we talked about the property line window windows. >> nothing was documented. it is hard to know. >> that is fine. thank you. >> thank you. >> this is not your time to talk we had a public comment. you had an opportunity before. [please stand by] property line windows are vulnerable, and it's clearly stated, and somebody chooses to cover them if they are your neighbor, then they can do that. you know, i always talk about you all have to live next to each other for a long period of time, so you can choose your battles, but clearly, from a legal standpoint, the property line windows are not protected so i don't think there's a discussion because of that. and i would not support the appellant. >> sure, i'm somewhat sympathetic to the appellant in regards to losing natural light that they've had the benefit for the last three and a half years, but as i mentioned, it looked like the property has had substantial remodeling over the years and at that time it's usually mentioned that any property line windows are not protected from your neighbors' building. and generally speaking when we hear these property line windows, those are the major source of natural light. these, as of the drawings, face north, as well as, you know, i don't know french doors that are glass, so i personally feel i would deny this appeal and uphold the permit. >> president fung: any other comments? if not, is there a motion? >> motion to deny the appeal based on the fact the permit was properly issued. >> okay, we have a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, [ roll call ] okay, and that motion carries and the appeal is denied. we will now move back to item no. 4, is the appellant here, jeff potter? >> president fung: if not, let's go ahead and hear the case. >> we're going to move forward and hear the case. once again, for the record, this is appeal 18-1-2. license no. 7568. >> president fung: for the record, the appellant has failed to show up. >> after we waited, correct. >> just so you know. >> hello, members of the board, th

Related Keywords

California , United States , City College , France , San Francisco , French , Michael Nolte , Joseph Duffy , Frank Fung , Chris Cole , Michael Montgomery , Scott Sanchez , Norman Yee , Joe Duffy , Jeff Potter ,