Board of Appeals denies neighbor’s appeal, upholds permit for Potrero Hill remodel

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 denied an appeal by neighbor Michael Montgomery and upheld a city permit authorizing a second‑floor addition at 739 DeHarro Street, concluding the project was issued in compliance with planning and building rules. Montgomery had argued the project would block four long‑standing property‑line windows that supply his family evening light and proposed a 3‑foot light well to preserve access to natural light.

Montgomery told the board he and his family have relied on those windows “for 4 to 6 months out of the year” for evening light and proposed a modest light well that he said would preserve the dining‑room light “without impacting the overall look and feel” or reducing habitable space. He said his outreach over two years produced no substantive design changes and presented historic permits and photos to show the windows predated the current permit holder’s ownership.

Permit holders Jamie Austin and David Deming and their architect said setbacks and light wells are not required for property‑line windows under the city’s residential design guidelines and that they had voluntarily made concessions — including a 5‑foot top‑floor setback and limiting a ground‑floor extension — that were not required by code. “We have already made voluntary significant concessions for the benefit of our neighbors,” Austin said.

Planning Department acting deputy zoning administrator Scott Sanchez told the board the project was reviewed through neighborhood notification and discretionary processes, the Planning Commission declined discretionary review, and the permit complies with zoning and residential design guidance. He said property‑line windows do not enjoy a protected “grandfathered” status and that the department rarely requires setbacks for these windows. Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection noted the San Francisco building code and past practice mean many property‑line windows lose protection if adjacent construction occurs.

Commissioners asked whether an ADU or skylight alternatives had been considered. Montgomery said he had suggested options, and the permit holders said they had evaluated skylights and a 5‑foot light well but that a full 5‑foot light well would prevent them from fitting the three bedrooms they seek on one floor. After discussion, Vice President Rick Swigg moved to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued; the motion carried unanimously.

The board’s action upholds the Planning Commission’s earlier decision and leaves open standard code pathways — including ADUs or future design proposals — for neighbors and owners to pursue. The board’s vote was the final action reported at the hearing; the permit remains valid.