thank you. [ please stand by ]

>> -- and the functions that they serve, i think that we really need to either have you guys postpone this until they can come back and work with the community and really give us with some guidelines of what they're actually going to do or to have you guys specify the size of tree and the method of which the -- they get planted. thank you. >> good evening.

peter papadopolous with mission economic agency. and i also work with some spaces in this building as a volunteer including a small theater, and i have a tiny office in the building, as well. these are obviously critical trees to our building, and i think as acknowledged, there's been a loud and unanimous response to the idea of removing them. and maybe they do and don't have specific pressing health issues. i'm still unclear after the presentation, but certain things that we do know, this was flagged as part of the 16th street project that's going forward -- or maybe it's going forward. it was done by any kind of out reach. it's another red lanes project as another main core of this project. the mission street core project was devastating to the community, and this project has mass objection for obvious

reasons. the tree removal plan just sounds so far fetched. to remove 61 trees while you dig up this corridor and put in red lanes. the opposition is widespread from district ten through district nine is going to bring forward a lot of points about how this needs to go through a community process, everything from trees to do we really need red lanes here, if so, what is the function? how are we taking care of businesses this time around? what about the cultural change? we saw an enormous cultural shift in terms of what happened when you turned mission street as someone called it a bus super highway from a family shopping corridor. these kind of trees, to go back to them specifically, are a huge part of the presence of this building. everyone acknowledged it. supervisor safai expressed

concern when he saw they were being chopped down. and you all are having a little bit of concern is is there funding for this, and is there something to replace it? we'd like to maintain the shading, maintain the windbreaking that it does. so for all these reasons, you can send a message that in terms of process, if this can be brought back to some kind of clear process, that it's been funded, that the community's been checked in with. this is no small thing. this is going to change this corridor a lot as part of this whole large-scale transit project that they have planned. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is lucia obregon.

i'm not going to bore you with the benefits of having mature trees in the neighborhood, but each year, one tree produces enough oxygen for ten people, and trees also help reduce the stress of the residents around it. and you can imagine in the mission, a neighborhood constantly in threat of displacement, how beneficial this is, in terms of stress. to ask to cut down 61 trees is a threat to life. it's not a coincidence that all 61 trees that they want to be removed are all along the corridor, which where the red lanes are being planted -- being built. this is about an eco system that these trees are being part of, that the mission is constantly being disrupted without input from the community?

and what i'm asking of you is to be an ally to this community and hold this process of cutting down these trees. and no, i'm not asking you to cut down these trees based on their condition, but i'm asking you to hold this process until the sfmta considers an equitiable process and the community can be taken into account, and they can decide what transit measures they can take for the community. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good evening. kelly hill with united to save the mission. i just wanted to say thank you to mr. buck. he's always been very receptive when we've contacted him in the past. i think we need to look at this further. the socioeconomic exacts of

this red line -- impacts of this red line coming down 16th street. they haven't engaged in community out reach to see what these impacts are going to be. mission street has suffered greatly. these types of improvement projects actually only exacerbate displacement, gentrification. these are issues that are hugely in the forefront of our community. as great as prop e, for years, the city did not maintain the trees. it was up to property owners, and now, finally, we're going to get that. it's hard to look back and catch up on that, but now, it seems a little bit too late, and we don't want to see these trees prematurely taken down. i do appreciate commissioner

swig's comments of maintenance or something coming back. i think a 36-inch tree is too small. something like a five-foot box, we have to be looking at issue of tree replacement, 61 trees, and what that's going to do to a neighborhood. recently, the m.t.a. was at a neighborhood committee meeting, and supervisor safai was concerned about the lack of outreach that the removal of 61 trees in two different districts was going to have on the community. i think we need to delay this a little bit more come, and come up with an idea that's going to work. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. hough?

you have three minutes, sir. >> thank you. i think you've heard from the community, and mr. buck seems to be separating these projects from -- these two trees from the other 61 and prioritizing. maybe because you know -- he knows who's in that building and the push back, and wants to isolate it to these two trees, and that should not be allowed. these two trees are part of this project. it needs to be considered as a whole. the idea of trimming -- and i saw a lot of pictures, branchs, etc., you know? and i'm sure there's a lot of branchs -- they could take some weight off the thing until they have a plan for the whole corridor. if you allow these trees to be

removed, you must require at least four or five-foot box tree reason installed, not a 24 or a 36. it just is not enough to replace these trees. so you know, i ask you to do what you can, but i really think, you know, a full hearing with sfmta on this whole issue, and don't allow these trees to be cut down on the real issue, which is the culture of 16th street and the outreach and what sfmta is doing. that's it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. buck?

>> good evening, commissioners. chris buck, san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. i heard the feedback loud and clear about replacement trees. covered a lot of groupnd on that. no one wants to remove the tree. like, i don't go to this site thinking that is going to be fun. well look at the trees as arborists themselves. we look at the trees themselves. they're ficus. how do they fail? they split apart at the main stem. i've got so many different examples. sherman elementary, we've got four, i think we can keep three. one of them fails, and it injures a parent. we're not creating work for ourselves. that's not what this is about, and i jokingly say i used to believe in conspiracy theories

until i started working for the city. there are two things going on here. for sure, there's this m.t.a. streetscape project. no one denies that. we also, as the bureau of urban forestry have the duty to maintain 135,000 street trees. i apologize, but there's going to be two things going on at the same time. now, will there be a community meeting? yes. we haven't posted these 61 trees for removal. i need to let the project people lead the project and do that. we'll be in touch with them for sure. they'll be outreach to the community, and then, we'll put notices on the trees. and the moment we put notices on the trees, i personally had no idea. everything that i've heard this

evening is sort of news to me, and the acrimony between the building and the project. i wasn't excited to hear that, but it is what it is. it's unfortunate, the timing, but i do want to assure everyone we have two things going on simultaneously. we're not going to serialize the removals out on 16th street. there's just no benefit to that. i will pretty on the project team to make sure they're doing their out reach and have a community meeting, that notices go up on the trees just so there's more public information. that's all i have to say. >> commissioner honda: i have a question, mr. buck. out of the 61 trees, are these the three worst trees out of all 61? how did these particular trees get selected because being a long time san franciscan, 64th

and 16th street are the pinnacle of that corridor -- and i can see what's coming, but we need to move forward on the removals. >> commissioner honda: no, so the question was are these the -- these the three worst or two worst trees out of the 61 proposed? >> for sure, these are some of the worst, and the others we posted, similarly, we didn't

want to wait around for it. >> so did you apply for the others or just these two so far. >> we applied for the removal of ten to 12. etc. he on family leave right now, bonding with his kid, so i don't have the number in front of me, unfortunately, but there are a number that we need we're initiating the removal now. >> commissioner honda: is he -- but is this the first two out of these ten? that's what i'm trying to get to, why these two out of the 61 that were in that project? >> the project itself, i don't control the pace of that project -- >> commissioner honda: you're not answering my question, mr. buck. >> well, i'm trying. so we walk the site. there's 61 potential removals. separate from that, i'm the urban forester. i manage the trees in san

francisco. i've got ten to 12 ficus -- >> commissioner honda: so the question is are these the first two trees? >> these are about ten to 12 ficus that we've posted for removal. >> commissioner honda: is this the first two out of the ten trees. >> numerical, i don't understand how that plays into the listing. >> in the words of yogi berra, this is deja vu all over again. two weeks ago, we were here. we introduced you to each other. we said we understand your point of view, but you have a lot of really open issues here that the public is owed a plan, the public is owed clarity, the

public is owed every opportunity for you all to get to introduce each other, get together in a meeting room and come up with a more formal plan. what i'm seeing the deja vu piece is m.t.a.'s over here doing your streetscape. you're going i've got these trees over here that are going to go boom and fall down and kill somebody. i don't doubt that, and you want to move forward -- and i heard your pledge, you said replace them in six months. but let's say you put redwood trees in there, right? and then, the m.t.a. in their wisdom said, you know, our designers say that japanese maple, another bad choice, is the right thing, but we just replaced these with redwood trees seven years ago when we

were actually anticipating that next year, you were actually going to do this project -- i'm saying sarcastically. >> sure. >> so is there -- and this really bugs me because there is no plan, there is no coordination between yourselves and m.t.a. not your fault, it's m.t.a. who's lagging, and you are at risk of taking some action that's going to miss off some people. you are taking action to replace some trees in six months by your pledge, but they may be the wrong trees, and they may be out of context with the original plan, which is going to open up another can of worms. so i'm going to go back to -- and this is what bugs me. this is dysfunction city, department dysfunction at its

worst. and i'm not blaming you, but looking at m.t.a. about this, but worried because this is going to fall on your shoulders and cause you a big problem. may i ask you, regardless of your pledge that you were going to replace these trees in six months, but in consideration of my concern that you're going to replace them with something completely different, is there a way to mitigate the situation, mitigate the danger by surgically applying a measure to these trees to postpone their demise, really, with the idea that it becomes part of the general plan and you're not redoing work.

>> our department wants to address the public safety that these trees present. if the board or commission seeks to continue the item to get additional reassurances, i'd prefer to have that -- >> vice president swig: you're not answering my question. it's a yes or no question. is there a way to sustain these trees in their position until there is more clarity of the project and surgically adjust them so to mitigate some risk of health endangerment at this point, yes or no? >> there is, but public works isn't going to be willing to do that. we'd prefer to continue the item and provide any additional information that the public will need to facilitate replacement. it's a huge undertaking.

it's going to be double the cost. >> president fung: let me interrupt a little bit. >> vice president swig: sure. you can take it. >> president fung: and perhaps look at it from the point of view of a similar situation, different department. quite a while before there was a heavy rash of residential demolitions, but no excitement. so now, it's standard practice for both building and planning, if you have a demolition permit, it's held in abeyance pending the full entitlement of a replacement. i mean, isn't that something could be done here, pending, whether it's the entitlement of an overall plan or whether it's

funding? >> the condition of removing the trees would be absolutely committed to replacement if public works doesn't have the funding to replace the trees, don't remove them. it's additional language that could be expressed so the message is clear and strong. >> president fung: and hopefully, as you're saying, the time could be relatively short. >> commissioner lazarus: i have a couple other questions. >> president fung: no, go ahead. i was just trying to see if there was another way of dealing with this. >> commissioner lazarus: so i just wanted to clarify. there was a hearing on this in late october, right? >> correct. >> commissioner lazarus: and what's the outreach in terms of notifying people of that hearing?

>> so we -- our ordinance require that we post 30-day notices on proposed -- trees that are proposed for removal, so that's what we do. and i -- what's interesting is this is where i think sometimes i ask for people to be understanding. i don't keep track of every project in the city. 125,000 street trees, sometimes we go out and we walk into a hornet's nest, and i don't do that intentionally. i hear some confusion from the public, like, it's just too planned. no, we go out there, and we go hey, these trees are really bad. so 30-day notice, and then, we received a protest. so then, we scheduled the matter for a public works hearing. so we did have a public works hearing. >> commissioner lazarus: and i think similar to another case a few weeks ago, have you analyzed what the largest

possible tree replacement would be? whether it's two or three. >> i looked out to see the number of trees wree planted at the site? there's definitely remove for three total trees, the removal of two with a replacement of tree. we hear the concern about the number and the size. we can't replace these trees in the next 20 years. >> commissioner lazarus: right. but, i mean, is 36 the maximum as far as you know? >> i guess my concern is that public works is not seeking to replace for any other reason

another public safety. i'm trying to address public safety. i don't want to come in here and overcommit to we're going to restore the canopy. >> commissioner lazarus: yeah, i understand. >> yeah, i'm just a little worried about that. we are still investigating about what can be done with 2465 vanness, the largest possible size. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. >> clerk: anymore? okay. thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: i'll start. what a surprise, huh? as was mentioned, we recently heard a bunch of cases on trees. to me, i am not supportive of these trees being removed. we just had a conditional use authorization for trees to be

saved, and it was ordered that the trees be cut down. i am not supportive of tearing these trees down. at minimum, i would support a continuance. i mean, sorry to continue, but the department says they have no money. the problem lies not with the department, but with proposition e. that legislation was made to support these trees, but no effort was made for replanting. i love how legislation was made and no one considered the sunset of these legislation. we've recently heard in this very room how often d.p.w. has promised to plant trees, and years later, there's no trees.

>> vice president swig: so -- i'm not going to have the argument with my fellow commissioner, because i could go along with this. my concern, mr. buck, is this. why i'm spending so much time on this, this ain't going to be the last time, so you just identifies 61 trees that are candidates for more conversation, and where there's 61, and another 61 and another 6 61. this is why i'm belaboring the point, and not you and d.p.w. what i would like to see d.p.w. do in situations like this is knowing the sensitivity of the neighborhood, knowing all the things that we put you through on a weekly or biweekly basis, it seems. what i would like you to do is we've got two trees that we've got to tear down.

we don't want to tear them down, because we love our trees, but they're a health risk. these trees are part of a much larger picture with regard to m.t.a. we have consulted with m.t.a. they had a plan. that plan is going to continue, replaced with certain trees because they are of a certain architectural type. this is what we're going to replace them with, the largest possible, and here's what we're going to do. if you come in and say that, you're going to get my support, unless i think you're crazy and shouldn't be taking down the

tree. i believe you're telling the truth, as you always do, and they do present a health hazard, but it's so out of context of everything. it's so arbitrary. there is no plan. there's no reference and no cooperation with m.t.a. there's no suggestion of how big a tree, what we're going to do and where the funding is going to come from. how can we support you when you're not wrapping up with a firm ball of comfort, and you're not. so darryl's suggestion is good enough for me, but -- or we can just kick the can, say let's hear this again when you've got more information in a similar

fashion, again, deja vu all over again. again, come back with someone from m.t.a., tell us about all the 61 trees and how these tre trees fit into it, and just proactive initiative. that's all. >> commissioner lazarus: i'd wait to see what gets proposed, but i do not want to be associated with these two trees being a suspicious pair or we've heard time and time again about the department planting trees when they said they would. i think there was one reference to that at a hearing a couple weeks ago. i think we've been given information about how things don't come here because they get handled properly. i don't wish to lay a major case out here but to deal with this particular instance.

>> president fung: you know, the -- i'm not sure that m.t.a. will listen to us any way, but they are the deep pocket, although they seem to be running over budget on all their projects. >> commissioner honda: they're doing such a great job on vanness. >> president fung: as you'll recall, vanness was piecemeal to us. and so when you're dealing with a -- an appeal of a couple of trees, but you never see the entire picture, it's one thing. but however, the question is

really not so much these two trees. i think the appellant and others started with wanting to save the trees but then wound up talking about replacement size, more of a concern with an overall plan and everything. i'm looking at it just purely on the basis of this permit itself for two trees, recognizing the issues with the ficus, but also the fact that we need renewal. so i'm supportive of the department taking down trees that need to be replaced. i think we can condition it so that the demolition occurs when they have full entitlements. >> commissioner honda: so how would you condition that, mr.

president? >> president fung: i think you would demolish when you have your conditions in place. >> commissioner honda: would you support it or condition? >> president fung: i would condition. >> commissioner honda: i'm not supportive of that, i'm sorry. >> president fung: you're not supportive? >> president fung: i would actually deny the permit on the grounds that the property notification was not done. >> commissioner lazarus: i can't support that. >> president fung: okay. but is that a motion? >> commissioner honda: i'll make that motion. >> president fung: okay. let's vote on that. >> clerk: so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and overturn the public works order.

on what basis? >> commissioner honda: on proper notification was not given. >> clerk: proper notification was not given. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion fails. do we have another motion? >> vice president swig: i'd like to postpone action on this item, a very short window, so that mr. buck can come back. >> commissioner honda: the department. >> vice president swig: mr. buck can come back on behalf of the department and provide us more clarity on the project. that is the type of trees, the size of the trees, and where -- where the money is coming from, at which point, i would -- at that point, i would make a

motion to uphold the appeal on the condition the permit be issued with those three elements in place. >> commissioner honda: how long of a continuance are you looking for? >> vice president swig: so that's a continuance? >> clerk: okay. and when would you want to continue it? >> vice president swig: when do we have time for -- >> clerk: i guess that depends how much mr. buck needs? we can put it on the 20th. >> commissioner honda: i won't be here on the 20th. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to continue this matter to february 20. on that motion -- for the purposes of -- so the urban forestry can provide clarity on the project, more specifically, the funding source, and what the trees will be replaced

with, the size and species. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and the appeal is continued to february 20. >> president fung: madam director, let's take a >> clerk: welcome back to the board of appeals february 6, 2016 meeting. we are now on number seven. subject property is 33517th avenue, protesting the issuance to cynthia lo of a site permit, horizontal permit, add bedrooms and bath, add interior stair, ad family room at second floor, add matter bath on third floor.

-- master bath on third floor, and the appellant has requested an interpreter, so her time will be doubled. so if you could please approach the microphone, miss to, and the interpreter. so it's my understanding that miss to will be speaking to you, and then, you will translate, is that correct? that's why we're doubling her time? >> mr. wo will be speaking to the board, i'll be interpreting. >> clerk: okay. is she going to be speaking english? >> some of the parts will be in chinese, and some of parts will be in english. >> commissioner honda: you're going to have to hold the mic, i'm sorry, ma'am.

>> clerk: she can also stand over here. it's a lower microphone. >> we neeshe needs to use the projector. >> clerk: well, you can bend the microphone. it goes down. >>. [through the interpreter] my name is cherry to, and i'm presenting this to the board. it's about this coming through my window. mike, my neighbor, is saying that i'm here in front of the board to ask for money.

money is not an issue here. i'm in front of the board to ask my sunshine, my fresh air, and my view back. i don't want my tenant to complain because i do have tenants there. it's not an issue of the money, it's about the work. if you give me the money, i'll spend me the money on the work, so you might as well just you spend the money on the work yourself. there was an 18-page document that was sent to me on january 30, and it went to my junk

mail, so i didn't see it until yesterday, february 5. so this morning, i came to the board of appeals on february 6 to ask for the 18-page document. i don't have a printer. i do have a camera at home, so i have to go to the library to print it out. it's very inconvenient. that's why i went to the board of appeals, asking for the 18-page document. and i asked the board of appeal exactly what the plan is 'cause i didn't understand the plan.

and the board of appeal wasn't able to tell me, and they referred me to elizabeth white at the department of planning. elizabeth was busy, and she just asked me to call mike because mike is the person that made the planning, and he would be able to tell me what the plan is because she didn't

know. mike was very upset, and he told me i'm wasting his time and money, and he told me for sure i would lose the case. and he asked me to not even appear in front of the board. and the issue is i didn't understand the plan, and if you explained it over the phone, i wouldn't understand, i would need to see it in person. mike said i'm a veteran, i should be able to understand it, but it's technical.

it has nothing to do with being a veteran. he said that i'm here for money. i am not interested in the money. the money you give for me, i'll have to spend on the work. but from june to october of 2017, i was in san francisco.

and i was also in san francisco in february 27 to march 18. and lo, my neighbor told me that there was a letter about something that was delivered to me in december. lo sent me a letter. >> commissioner honda: overhead, please.

thank you. >>. [through the interpreter] lo sent a letter about a meeting on december 13, but when i got the letter, it was already february 22, 2018. so i missed the meeting. i had no idea about a meeting. so -- because he was sending a letter to my home.

and mike send me an e-mail regarding my rear window on march 30, 2018. and i was actually grateful for my attorney being concerned about my rear window. and the attorney was referred to me by elizabeth. so i showed them the letter and

my e-mail from mike to my rental agent, yu, april 2 'cause i wanted to figure out who exactly michael was. and my rental agent contact the city, and there was no update.

so there was a note from -- on february 9, 2018, from peter from department of building inspector. and peter presented us with a notice of violation on may 8, 2018. and we went very quickly to correct all the corrections that needs to be made. and now, we received a permit for a rear window on may 21, 2018. it's the window that's already

existing. we bought the house when we were about 20 years old. the house was the way it was. we rarely stepped into the house where the window was into our 20's because we were busy with work. and it was just me and my husband who lived in the house, nobody else. there's no way that we did the window on our own without reporting to the city, and it was decades ago.

who knows. that's almost 40 years ago. i think michael was wrong. and i was not in arkansas from august 5 to november 9, 2018.

and there was a building permit notice on november 14. and then, i ask elizabeth about the building permit on 335 on 17th avenue. and business leggett asked eli to the board of appeals.

>> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >>. [through the interpreter] i met lo in 2017, and she was nice to begin with, and then, she turned her attitude. because we were not friends even though we both speak chinese. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >>. [through the interpreter] should we ask if we block a little bit of her driveway? >> clerk: okay. i'm sorry, ma'am. your time is up. you'll have more time in rebuttal. when did she realize there was the 311 notification?

i believe she said that she didn't receive it. when did she notice -- when did she receive that notification in arkansas? >> commissioner honda: okay. >> clerk: can you speak into the microphone, interpreter. >> i went back to arkansas august 13, 2018. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder.

>> commissioner honda: thank you, gary. >> thank you, miss rosenberg and commissioners. my name is mike raifsnyder. cynthia is my wife, so it's the two of us that are the permit holders. now i think what just happened was we heard about how miss cherry to, the appellant, didn't get notice. but in fact, i included in my papers e-mails from her where she was e-mailing me back even in march of last year, and she was e-mailing her real estate person, and she was saying, is there any way we can stop this project, so she knew about anything. with respect to the 311 notice, we hired a service to do that, we didn't do it ourselves. and also -- oh, you know, i don't want to forget to say

that when we were sworn in, i raised my hand, my wife raised her hand, miss to did not stand, she did not raise her hand, for the record. what i thought this hearing was going to be about was this window in the back. it's not a rear window, it's a window on the property line. it's a small little window on the property line. i also submitted with my papers some plans that miss to submitted to the building department, and those plans, they don't show a window there, you see, so she's -- i think she was trying to mislead the building department for the planning department. with respect to her not understanding things, i just have to tell you that when she asked my wife and i how to deal with the neighbor who was a problem, we responded and she understood perfectly. when she asked my wife what

color should she paint her house, we had a discussion with her, she understood perfectly. one sunday morning about 7:00, they were about six workers at her house, and they were with their hammers, knocking walls down. when we said miss to, cherry, what's going on with that, why do you have workers at 7:00 on a sunday morning knocking walls down, she didn't understand. when we said miss to, why are your workers blocking our driveway and throwing cigarette butts all over the place, she didn't understand. so they came here this morning, or this evening, and she says -- i think she's saying that she just doesn't understand. another thing i pointed out in my papers was everything is available on-line. the e-mails indicate she was watching on-line, her real estate person was watching on-line. they were communicating with each other. our site permit was approved. she filed her appeal the very

next day. so i don't know if this appeal is going to be about her allegedly understanding or if it's what she put in her appeal, and that is this window on the property line, on the side. and i reviewed the video of the -- of the hearing on january 23, 2019, on 729 de haro street, where they wanted to build up and it would black all those windows, and there was a discussion about how this is repeated over and over, grandfathering is not something that's acknowledged by the property department, and somebody with a project on the property line, it can't be

upheld. we should be allowed to go ahead and -- go ahead with our work because we've done everything by the book. everything we've needed to do we're done. i'm here for any questions if anyone has any. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening, president fung, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. [inaudible] >> the permit was subsequently issued and appeal today this board. the proposed horizontal addition is completely code compliant. we have had a string of those types of windows with property line windows to the board of

appeals lately. as the permit holder stated, windows on the property line be protected. the appellant submitted plans that did not show a property line window. what the permit holder had submitted was a sketch because they're not allowed to submit the actual plans, but they submitted a sketch, and they were correct. the plans did not show a property line window for that top floor. it wasn't misrepresented the windows that were there because if you look at the photos of the rear of the property, it shows only the one window, but on the plans that they had submitted, there were more windows on the rear. again, the project is code compliant. we'd respectfully request that the board uphold the permit as approved and issue. thank you. >> commissioner honda: just one question, mr. sanchez. in the brief, it shows one

window, but you say there's four in the back rear area? >> well, the photos correctly show i think what is there now. but on the plans the appellant had submitted in 2017, they did not show a property window, and they had actually shown two windows. >> commissioner honda: just for curiosity, would that suffice for light and air, do you think. >> that would be up to building inspection. this would meet the building code requirements. >> commissioner honda: