tv Board of Appeals SFGTV June 11, 2021 5:00pm-8:01pm PDT
>> commissioner tina chang. also present is deputy city attorney to provide the board with any legal advice. at the controls is te board's legal assistant and i'm julie rosenberg the director. the city departments will present before the board this evening. deputy zoning administrator and acting deputy director for the san francisco department of
building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request us turn off or silence phones and devices to not disturb the proceedings. appellants and respondents are each given seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. affiliates must finish comments in three minute period and others have three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. the parties are given three minutes with no rebuttal. mr. longway will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. if you have questions about requesting an a hearing board rules or schedules e-mail board staff at boardofappeals@sf gov
and every effort is made to enable the process. sf gov tv is streaming live and will have the ability to receive public comment on each item. sf gov tv is providing closed captioning for the meeting. go to cable channel 78 and it will be rebroadcast on fridays. now public comment can be provided in two ways. one, join the zoom meeting by computer. go to our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in by phone. call 1-669-900-6833 and enter webinar i.d. 850 5532 6993. and again sf gov tv is broadcasting and streaming the
phone number and access instructions across the screen. to block your phone number when calling in star 9 is the equivalent of raising your hand and brought in when it's your turn and will have up to three minutes. a legal assistant will provide a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. there's a delay between the live proceedings and live streamed on tv and internet. it's important people calling in reduce volumes on tvs or computers otherwise there's interference. if participants or others need technology assistance make a request in the chat function or send an e-mail to board of appeals at sf gov.org.
now we'll swear in or affirm all who intend to testify. all members can speak without taking an oath under the sunshine ordnance if you wish to have the board give your testimony weight affirm. do you affirm what you'll say is about to be the truth, whole truth and not the truth. if you're not participating put your zoom on mute. we have one housekeeping items appeal 21035 and folsom street would like to the matter continued. we need a motion. >> we need a motion and vote.
>> i'll make a motion. >> is there public comment on the motion to continue the item? if so raise your right hand. i don't see hands raised. on the motion to continue the item to june 23, commissioners lazarus? >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> the motion carries and the matter is continued. we will now move on to item number 1 general public comment. an opportunity for anyone who wishes to speak on a matter within the board's distribution not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda, if so please raise your hand. i don't see hands raised. so we will move on to item 3 the
adoption of minutes. the commission is before for possible adoption for the june 2, 2021. >> do we have changes or additions may we have a motion? >> motion to adopt. >> is there public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes? raise your hand. i see one hand raised. >> caller: i would like to amend appeal 21027. the appellant is not filing this as incorporated. the entity is not in existence. the appellant should be 1169
market street lp the permit holder for the item when it was adopted and sent to dpw for the hearings. i'd like that change before the adoption of the minutes. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> can we get a vote from council whether it's appropriate one way or the other. >> brad russe deputy city attorney. i don't see a need to change the title of the case because that's the title when it was heard and if there's been a change in
ownership that's been a contractual matter. the new party assumed the obligations of the party that applied at the time. >> thank you. i amend my motion. >> so on vice president swig's motion to adopt the minutes. [roll call] the motion carries. >> item 2 was not addressed. >> let's go back to item 2. thank you, alex. commissioner comments or questions? >> none here. >> we'll now move on to item 4.
we'll hear from the requesters first. >> this was not a private agreement. they used it as a tool to suppress neighborhood opposition and get planning approval for their second and third floor. when they got the planning department approvals and the period for the neighbors to file a d.r. had expired april 23, they reneged on the agreement. this should not have been allowed given it was sanctioned. when the developers they were going ahead the planning department did not notify the
neighbors and deprived them of the chance of a discretionary review. one of the commissioners asked were there any other d.r.s. probably because of the 118 letters sent in by neighbors opposing the project. there were not of course because these neighbors had not been advised of their right to file a d.r. on the revised project which they did not know about. also, there are code compliance violations as it en violation of the adu codes.
wrong question to call it a private agreement. it wasn't private and mediated if not entered into with city staff and planning department and there's no mechanism to review that so that's a new piece of information that needs to be looked in to by the board and the planning department staff played an integral role so considering it as a private agreement is wrong. >> time. >> we'll new hear from the permit holder. >> i'm brian. i don't know what to say to my neighbors. i ran into jim literally out running with my wife he said look i'm done. i'm happy the project got downsized and done fighting it. i'm okay with it. i understand they're upset about change. i understand they're upset about
density. we all know they're overriding considerations for approval of the project. no amount of opposition would have been able to change any of these outcomes. they've never really addressed and i think they're misconstruing it to this board that there could have been no reliance. i told them myself april 2 after i sought the initial 311 period had expired about a deal public, private, doesn't matter. it's a hypothetical deal and would i have made the deal it if the pred predicate was true, sure, but once it wasn't true i called barbara myself. why wouldn't i? we've given them flowers and
wine and it's not the boogie than may perceived and it will be fine and safer than it ever was. the exit issue is another red herring. i was out with the department and we were measuring and it's still 121.5 feet under the most conservative standard which is not even the right one and the plan said 127 feet but that's not the legitimate plan. the plan that got approved was the one ending in 6157 in my cover sheet approved in april 19. that's when a.d.u.'s and the neighborhood will be safer and better and that's all i have to say and thank you the board to their efforts. maybe at a future board meeting i'd like to address in public comments some things i perceived to be unfair about this process
but for now we just need to get moving again. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> the matter is an item the board heard a couple weeks ago for the subject property. the permit does not contain the additional a.d.u.s it was under the planning code and i don't see issues with that permit separate from the permit before you. the board has very high standards for hearing requests we respectfully argue it has not met the requirements. the subject of the quote/unquote agreement was extensively discussed at the time of the previous hearing. there was no requirement or agreement made by the planning department for the design.
we did multiple notifications on this. there was the original section 311 notification told because of covid and this was an fortunate time for all projects to -- an unfortunate time for all projects when we sent into shelter in place. -- went in shelter in place and the project was changed and there was thought it wouldn't be proposed but that changed back and they decided to continue with the addition. we did an additional notice for the section 311 notice in may and there were no discretionary views this was a staff initiated discretionary review and took a project because we felt it was too large and this planning commission agreed and downsized the fourth floor. that's before the board on this permit. this is brand new for the board to consider all the arguments at
the last hearing. and that is all i have to add to this. thank you. >> we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. deputy director duffy, welcome. >> sorry about that. i pressed the wrong button and was muting myself constantly. hi commissioners, joe duffy, dbi san francisco. at the hearing the issue i heard brought up tonight is the exiting issue from the building code point of view. i want to thank for the e-mail on that and like to get queries
from people on very important things. the building permit itself was approved by d.b.i. and the fire department and in addition to that when we got the query i was able to get supervisors to review the approved plans and the architect. we looked at the condition [no audio] and a technical explanation on that issue. i don't want to beat it out but it's basically this is a code compliance building in regards to egress and other building codes. it's got good passageways.
it's sprinklerred. anyone in this building will be safe. they have two choices of exiting which is what the building code requires for this type of building. and in addition i want to clarify something that comes up a lot in building code occupants. the building code occupants for a single family or two unit building is an r3 occupancy in the building code. when you get into a three or more dwelling units it changes and that's the way the building code is and sometimes people get it mixed up so in the case of this building it's an r2 and i believe it was referenced in the handbook that applies to the r3
but it's an r2. i needed to clarify and thank you for sending in e-mails and thank my colleagues for accompanying me today and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we'll move on to public comment. would anyone like to provide public comment raise your hand. i see a phone number ending in 5936. go ahead. >> caller: i'm the president of park side action committee supporting the request for the appeal of 21-024 regarding 4326 irving street for the reasons stated in the submittal. thank you. thank you. is there any other public
comment? i see one more hand. sophia lind. >> caller: i support barbara to request a re-hearing for the project of this development because it increased it to 17 parking unit and the single-family om occupants have difficulty in parking and the board members should consider our neighbors to have justice in the decision making. the owner of this property are
gaining a huge amount of money from the rental [indiscernible] we live in the same neighborhood. we care for each other like a big family however, the developer and owner do extension for their own family living needs not for the non-profit. they gained a huge amount of money from the expansion. in addition there's no parking garage available and a lot of travellers visit the places and around the street there's apartments so parking is always
very difficult. and neighbors fight for parking every day. also residential house all full. the property like we have some neighbors have no garage. also think about the residents after the extension will be suffering and fighting for parking every day. it's a huge expansion to build on a single-family house. i hope the board members listen to our 120 member voices not only to hear our requests and deny the project. thank you. >> we have someone named renit aharman and says her microphone
doesn't work so i said she could type her comment in the chat. she said the project will cause horrible parking issues as well as noise and density problems. it's a very bad idea. okay, thank you. is there any other public comment on the item? please raise your hand. i don't see any other hands raised. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> i don't see new evidence. nothing's really changed from the hearing we had before. i would not be in support of this appeal or re-hearing. >> i would also agree with vice
president the bar for re-hearing request is extremely high and manifests what was brought up orally and in the brief was information heard at the previous case so manifestin just. would anyone like to make a motion. >> i'll make a motion to deny the request for re-hearing on the basis there was no new and different material presented and no manifest injustice. >> we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the request on the basis of no new evidence or manifest injustice. on the motion commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. we'll now move on to item 5.
appeal 12-037. (5) appeal no. 21-037 diane reid and joe reid, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4227 24th street. appealing the issuanceon april 1, 2021, to nate chang & jennifer tye, of a site permit (interior and exterior alterations including the addition of one story to the existing two-story home; expansion of all floors towards the rear property line; new doors; three additional bathrooms; all new electrical, plumbing and heating systems; upgraded structural work; no change to use or occupancy). permit no. 2019/12/31/1126. for hearing today. we'll hear from the appellants first. mr. or mrs. reid. >> as point of fact we represent 4231 and 4233 as a dual condo unit adjacent to 4227 the
property in question. we became aware of the project after things had gotten underway and so my apologies to our neighbors for our latent -- late entry. we think there's two issues outstanding. one is in the 4231 unit one window is boarded over and obstructs the light and would like it corrected and in relation to the 4333 unit there doesn't seem to be a setback on our side of the plan. there is a setback on the eastern but not western side of
the property so i'd like that included as identified in residential design guidelines. that's more or less our issue. the obfuscation of the window and setbacks and i'll leave it at that. that's our issue in totality. >> thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> my question is is there a reason you did not supply a brief? >> well, it may have just been an issue of covid when we looked at the list of people included in the diffusion of information about this to the previous owner. i'm willing to concede they made every effort to get it to us but we just didn't get it. i wish i had a better answer for you. >> thank you.
we'll now hear from the permit holder. we have a representative for the permit holder. >> can you hear me? >> welcome. >> thank you. if you don't mind i'll share my screen here. >> sure go ahead. we won't start the time nul get your presentation up. are you able to see the screen? >> yes. >> so i'm christen haller and the architect on 422724 street and here to represent the permit holders regarding the appeal. briefly, this project consists of a one story addition as well as a horizontal addition.
neither of which maximize the allowable square footage on the site property. here's a quick diagram to show you they could have elevated the building another seven and a half feet in this direction between seven and nine feet and on the first floor another 12 feet. nate and jen desired to stay in the building but were cognizant and aware of their neighbors and they're home owners not developers. the site permit has under gone an extensive review by the
planning and building department and approved with no variances or discretionary reviews. in part because the owners have demonstrated a consistent respect of city requirements, code compliance and neighborhood considerations. they met with neighbor who's expressed interest from the design process and why in large part why there wasn't major pushback in the process. the appeal was made by dian joseph. the neighbors went through the property on the 14th and when learning about the appeal, jennifer and nate made a concerted effort to reach out to diane and joseph and sent
numerous e-mails even knocked on their door to introduce themselves and made a real effort to try and understand the concern to address them and explain the project. this is of course after the many 311 notice and application meeting. we included in our brief letters from other neighbors who got the mailings as well. it's our understanding the appellants are concerned about the easterly facing windows. if you can see from these views here i believe these are the windows in question. the small window here is the first floor window they just mention ed.
this window was added in 2019 and it was a conditional approval. jennifer and nate were expecting the expansion and said yes, we can have the wen dough as long as it can be removed when it's time to extend our property. so that was pursuant to ab009. we have a letter describing that as well. this is the window in question here and here is the letter stating no objections so the neighbors on the condition they will not impede or dispute the blocked window. it's a property line window and
they're now asking that that window be removed accordingly. i think it's worth noting the third floor expansion is consistent throughout the block on the neighborhood. we have a plan here indicating by the dots circled in black all three story buildings. this is the subject property and here's the restored building adjacent to that. i think what they are requesting and the permit is in line with the adjacent building. we prepared to show how the
light does pass through the building. this is where we have the proposed light well and there's considerable space 7 feet 9 inches between the building and allows light down to the first floor window in the light well. these windows here reveal as early as as 9:00 and 10:00 in the morning with the spring equinox and autumn equinox will get direct sunlight into these windows. of course indirect sunlight throughout te day as is the kate in any urban environment.
>> 30 seconds. >> that's it for me. i'll turn it over to the owners. thank you very much to the board and we'd like you to deny this appeal and approve the issuance of the site permit with no revisions. thank you. >> we do have a question from president honda. >> commissioner: going to the brief you spelled out a little bit, one, there was no brief supplied by appellants. second of all, i noted that you guys made a pretty strong effort and what was the response with the neighbors in regards to the effort that you reached out because they evidently have a couple concerns but my concern is why weren't they addressed earlier and they let you know those were the concerns?
>> yeah. the neighbors to the east came to the application meeting and we went through the plans. they took photos of the plans in that meeting and later followed up. we sent a copy of the revised plans once we made revisions to the plans based on their comments and their requests. we mailed them a copy. they have a history of commenting on projects specifically on that block. i think there's at least three other projects they have been very involved with including the developer of the property. we did our best to appease them. the result was
[indiscernible] to their property line windows. jen and nate were careful with the design of the plan to maintain that. >> i think you answered my question. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> can we respond to that, president honda? >> you'll have time in rebuttal. thank you. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department the property located win an rh2 zoning district and the lot is little less than 26 feet wide and 114 feet deep. the subject permit is before you as submitted on december 31, 2019 for vertical and horizontal addition. the section 311 neighborhood identification was performed between august 13, 2020 and
september 14, 2020. during that time there were no discretionary review requests filed. the subject permit was ultimately approved by the planning department and issued by the department of building inspection april 1, 2021 and subsequently appealed to the board of appeals as noted by the board it was challenging to understand the totality of the concerns because no brief was submitted. there was in the statement of appeal a note about windows and it was in compliance with residential guidelines and the appellant's property is to the west and the question is set back from the property line the proposal incorporates a large light well about 20 feet and three inches long along the property. most of it overlaps with the portion of the appellant's
property that is setback and has windows. some is set back against a blind wall. that light well is about three feet deep. that light well is about maybe a little bit more than a quarter of the total buildable depth of the lot. it's a substantial size light well and in reviewing this and reviewing the fact the appellant's property some windows have setbacks allowing it to have light and air on its own property. the department found this project to be compliant with the residential design guidelines. separately, this is not raised by the appellant but i did receive an e-mail from a member of the public who had concerns about the demolition calculations for the project and was able it review that with the permit holders architect and they were responsive. there are minor errors in their calculation they provided them for review and the project
complies with section 317 and is not a demolition. they're close some calculations but are within the allowed limits and would not trigger the conditional use authorization requirement. that's compliant. i told them we can document that through the addendum process or the board could revise demolition calculations tonight but given it's not a matter raised as part of the appeal and focuses on the windows and light and air we can address that through the addendum process to properly address the calculations. i'd like to thank members of the public who reached out with that question to address that. again it's a code compliant project no variances required. meets the residential design guidelines. we believe the project should be approved as proposed and respectfully request the board deny the appeal for that reason and can separately deal with the
documenting properly the demolition calculations and i'm available for questions. >> we have a question from vice president swig and president honda. >> let's remember to put in those new calculations so they don't come up in further action. my question is scott could the permit holder have built two their property line and there is a set back. i couldn't see the setback thank you very much off the appellant's property but had the permit holder chosen to do so would it have been appropriate, probably not popular but would
have been appropriate and code compliant go to the property line and not have this setback to have the light go to the property? >> they're not developing to the maximum of the code. the code does not require a side setback district and it's a lot line to lot line district. it's through the residential design guidelines that additional changes would be made and the size of the light well i don't know all the history with the review of the department but i think the light well probably could be smaller and still comply with the design guidelines. it's larger than we would have required but i did not ask that question of staff. >> that's fine. thank you, sir. >> president honda. >> scott, first i believe you
are the acting d.a., right? >> yes for today, yes and tomorrow. >> and could you explain lot line windows 1 and how much larger of a build could this permit holder have done? >> i think the architect had a good diagram there's additional height left and the light well under the code is more of a design element or guide on compliance to build at the rear. there's a bit more and their diagram showed that well. property line windows are generally under the purview of the department of building inspection and director duffy can speak to that better and generally required to be moved and instead of mucking it up i'll refer it to the building department. >> thank you, scott.
>> we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. >> mr. duffy, d.b.i. and responding new windows and doors and additional bathrooms and structural work and no change to occupancy. the building permit was reviewed by our central permit bureau and planning department and building department and d.p.w. and p.u.c. and suspended on the 14th of april 2021. the question about the property line windows as you all know probably we speak about it a lot at the board of appeals. it's a draft in the san francisco building code under
administrative code 009. d.b.i. does permit the installation of property line windows and as part of giving that permit you have to meet all the requirements of ab009 and a couple requirement come into play here is a property line window installed on the conditions of the equivalency is the openings may not be used to purvey required light or ventilation or egression. when you put the window in, you also item 7 which we make people sign on the plans on the affidavit, it says the owner of a building shul provide a statement the openings will be closed or protected [indiscernible] in the event the ajoining
[audio digitizing] no longer comply with the revisions. a copy of the declaration of use limitation will be provided upon the building inspection plan review. it's unfortunate they put in the window a few years ago. here we have a project that unfortunately with the issuance of the property and window [indiscernible] give up the window or you'll lose any benefit you got from it. i don't see other building code issues but happy to answer questions. >> thank you. okay. i don't see questions so we'll move on to public comment.
is there any public comment on the item please raise your hand. i do not see hands raised. we'll move on to rebuttal. mr. and mrs. reid you have three minutes. >> we're totally reasonable. our assessment of the setback rule in the residential design guideline is identified as not requiring lateral setback as our property extends. i think we expecting a reciprocal solution in terms of what we put forward in terms of our setbacks being set by this plan setback. it sounds like there's no requirement nor would the board recognize it as reciprocity as some we should consider and joe your note about the window is interesting. i'd like clarity. what we have a document signed
by the property owner at 42227 saying we're allowing you to put this in but have the right to obfuscate it or make you move it. are you saying that's a defensible position and therefore must be upheld by the board? >> president honda is it permissible to answer? >> finish your rebuttal and then we'll have the department address that. >> sure. so we want to be good neighbors and we want to be amenable and while we're late to this party, it does seem we're getting penalized for which is the domain of the board. five of the eight easterly windows are being somewhat obstructed or mostly obstructed by this. it affects one of our units
materially and the material impact will be value of the unit as we go to market with it in the future. for that i'm a little concerned this board is contemplating the long-term value of the property and ultimately the tax dividends and things that come with that. it continues to be the concern the setback we provide is the setback being provided for the entirety of the new construction. we understand that and understand the board has the domain and expertise. if you are all are ruling against the setback and the window obstruction then we have very little left to stand on but that is our rebuttal. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> deputy director duffy, did you want to address this? >> what i can say to the gentleman is the building permit
obtained by himself i believe in 2017 to add one property line window on the fourth floor level on the second story group and ground floor dining room they issued it or ab009 and will stand over it because it's what the code says you have to do in the event you're allowed a property line window. to answer to the question d.b.i. used ab009. >> though it was not obtained by us? >> it was issued whether you were the permittee and there's the property line window and they're not protected. >> the building permit run with
the property not individuals. the building permit history on the property would go when the building was constructed to now. it doesn't go with the owners. it runs with the property. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> thank you. the owners would like to see something quickly too. as a response, those windows are not obstructed. the five he mentioned. three have not changed at all. the relationship to the exterior building has not changed. one has increased because of the size of the light well to about seven feet nine inches. the window jen and nate are not
punishing anyone. it was necessary for the design and they have double doors into that room and we think maybe even light tunnels. so the last thing i'll mention is the other side of the property as you saw in the aerial shot does not have any setback whatsoever. the property is against the opposite property line. if i can turn it over owners for a minute that'd be great. >> we'll pause the time. >> we can't see you. here we go. >> thank you. >> i'm jen and this is nate. quickly we want to say we lived in our home for nearly 14 years. we're not developers and not trying to max out our build as
has been discussed simply trying to grow our home to make sure our house grows with our family as we try to raise kids in san francisco. we really have tried to be good neighbors throughout the process as our architect's noted. it's disappointing and sad it's come to this. in fact it's disappointing to think that saying is true, no good deed goes unpunished because we were trying to be good neighbors throughout our time on 24th street which is why we granted the conditional approval of the property line window. i won't repeat everything that's been said we respectfully request the board deny the appeal and uphold the approved site permit with no new conditions and we really hope we can continue to have good or strengthened neighborly
relations going forward as we proceed with the project when this does happen. thank you very much. >> we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department in response to the setback and the answer's no. the residential design guidelines would not require the setback be perfectly matched by the proposal and what is before the board is something that would properly interpret and apply to the design guidelines. there's a large light well to account for the windows they have and on their property has a large light well as well. the vertical addition that is part of the appellant's property was constructed in 2004. my assumption is they were watching the light well below but on the vertical addition the new floor are setback from the
side property line probably for the reason of having them be operable windows and imagine there's a view towards the bay. that is not something that you would not be protected given the existing setbacks on the appellant's property and the proposed light well we would say the light and air is preserved. the board knows this is a de novo hearing and it's the board's finding that matter and the board can say we feel the residential guidelines were applied. it's the department's position the guidelines were properly applied. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. >> briefly, joe duffy, d.b.i. i sympathize with the windows who got the window normally they last longer and i encourage them to work together moving forward
on the issue. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> i don't see any reason why this appeal should be upheld. i'd like to make sure the recommendation of the zoning administrator that the new calculations become part of the record for the permit however. >> does anyone else have any comments? any other commissioner have comments? >> i would say i find it frustrating if not disingenuous when there's not a brief filed and sort of for the record i don't think it's an anybody's best interest to proceed in that fashion. and other than that i support vice president swig. >> vice president swig is that
your motion? >> issue the permit with the condition the new -- >> i believe mr. sanchez said that was more appropriately addressed in the addendum process since it just came up this evening. >> if he wanted to if not just deny the appeal based on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> you're getting so good at that rick. >> we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appealed and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly obtained. [roll call] >> the motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. as we mentioned earlier, item 6,
the 2722 folsom matter has been continued i'm repeating in the case someone's heard for public comment. we're now moving on to item number 7a and 7b. items (7a) and (7b) shall be heard together (7a) appeal no. 21-036 jerry dratler, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 27 17th avenue. appealing the issuance on april 2, 2021, to 27 17th avenue llc, of a site permit (to erect four stories, single family dwelling, no basement, type v-b). permit no.
2018/06/25/2842. for hearing today. (7b) appeal no. 21-039 susan maccormac and andy taylor, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 27 17th avenue. appealing the issuance on april 2, 2021, to 27 17th avenue llc, of a site permit (to erect four stories, single family dwelling, no basement, type v-b). permit no. 2018/06/25/2842. f >> thank you. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. you have seven minutes. >> can you hear me now? >> we can. >> i have a power point and screen sharing. hopefully you can see that. i'm ready to go. the planning commission did not approve the building permit on july 25, 2019. the plan submitted for 25 and 27, 17th avenue assumed the demolition permit would ab proved and was not. the planning commission approved it for 25 17th avenue with the requirement to restore the bay.
the requirement to restore the bay at 25 17th invalidated the plans because the plans seem to be code compliant. the motion was to take to revert the property back to its previous condition. the approved mission fol the planning department 2016 notice of enforcement which requires restoration of the bay before future permits are approved. if the city enforced the 206 noe the two houses would have been construct and i would not be here. the wisdom of the planning commission apparent today. in the last five years the project sponsors have done nothing to restore the bay. i have tried three times to get the planning department to
correct mr. winslow's inaccurate discretionary review action memo and the planner would not have approved if it an accurate d.r.a. memo would have been submit and not stamped the planning commission approved. the 44 neighbors who signed the petition in my brief are asking you to revoke the building permit not approved and require the new compliant set of plans with lot line adjustment. there were serious errors in 2020 and approved the third attempt to legalize the third attempt and she approved plans for the construction of a new home on top of an existing deck. the deck was removed five years ago without a permit.
she approved plans that violate the building and fire codes. this is why the plans include unsigned exemption forms. the bay straddled the existing lot line and this is illegal. the lot line should have been approved before the plans. you can see from the map that one the blue line the bay extends over the lot line and in the yellow line the outline of the deck that's never been legalized the deck removal. the project sponsors submitted four sets of inaccurate plans. i've listed them but don't have time to speech to each one. the fourth set is a set of plans i'm discussing today. i'm going to play a brief video now.
>> we can't hear the video, we see it. can you pause the time alex. it is because have you the headphones on? >> let me unplug the headphones and thank you for calling that out. >> sure. >> i'll try it again. can you hear it now? >> commissioners there's a motion and if i understand the motion correctly it requires the property be reverted back to its previous position. >> exactly. >> i'm sorry is that entertain new plan submitted for the other lot? >> i'm fine if they bring up project four on the other lot. let's reconstruct the building and make sure the new project exists to the new existing conditions if they need a
demolition project or whatever they need to do i'm happy to entertain it. >> can we not approve the building on the other lot today? that already has been submitted? it's got to be a new -- >> i'd like to see a new project because it doesn't take into consideration the three story bay. >> i don't believe you can approve it on the other lot today because it would encroach over the lot line and physically change the plan of the building on 27 17th af gnaw. -- avenue. >> commissioners on the motion to revert it back to its previous position. [roll call] >> so moved. the motion passes 5-1 with amongst fung voting against. >> so there are four good reasons for revoking the permit. the permit was not approved.
the plans violate the building planning and fire codes. this is the fourth set of inaccurate plans submitted by the project sponsors and at the proposed house envelops the restored bay and makes the bay virtually invisible. the bay view that existed in june of 2016 has not been restored and you can see in the next slide that what existed in 2016 is on the right and in the plot map you can see the house is a zero lot line house and fully envelops the bay except for one of the three walls. thank you for the time to present. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from the appellants for appeal 21-039 and
their attorney will be representing them this evening. mr. amlage. >> hi, this is deborah holly. i'm speaking on behalf of scott amblage still in mediation. simply my clients sue mccormick and andy tailor are no longer challenging the project and we have reached a settlement with the project sponsors. their attorney will describe the changes to the plan that we agreed upon.
>> thank you. >> madame director can i make disclosure is involved. >> i hired a law firm and their appearance will not affect my decision and i apologize for making that disclosure late. >> we'll now hear from the permit holder and his attorney mr. kevlin. have you 14 minutes given two appeals. >> thank you, ms. rosenberg. >> thank you. i'm on behalf of the project sponsors. we're happy to be here the final step in bringing the project before the conclusion. this is the final appeal required to construct the permit and hope it's the last time we're here at the board.
the permit in particular author of authorizes the construction of the new family home at 27 17th for the rebuild of the bay at 25 17th avenue. i'm happy to report we reached a settlement with the appellant located at 1600 lake street in addition to two other good neighbor commitments the project sponsor has aggrade to further modify the project to protect privacy at 1600 lake street with the rear yard adjacent to the project itself. >> can you pause the time, alex, please. >> i'm back. the first modification is we are further setting back the second floor rear deck by an dition two
and a half feet. there'll be a full seven and a half feet setback from the south property line for the deck. then at each of the levels we'll do some privacy treatment such that we will have a three and a half foot tall parapit wall and have privacy glass for another two and a half feet above the decks. again, this is to address privacy concerns to to the rear yard of their home and finally will see the top circle we shrank the size of the four story window into the bedroom to allows light in but does not allow views that would look down on the appellant's property. we're very excited to share this
with the commission tonight. this is just one of a number of efforts the project sponsor has been making over the years to work with their immediate neighbor to make sure the project fits well with the neighborhood. there's been a number of years of controversy but i think it shows the project sponsor's efforts to continue working with the neighborhood through all that. i'll walk through this is 1600 lake street and the appellant we settled with tonight. there's an adjacent neighbor between the two properties on 17th. we're currently negotiating a neighbor agreement with them potentially an under pinning agreement as we move to the rear of the new construction lot we have agreed not to demolish the existing garage at the rear until project construction and the property at the rear of 25
17th the building we were altering and restoring the three-story bay this is actually a former appellant on this project. the project sponsor has been working with them to design a new property line fence and that's a good story the former appellant are working together and the adjacent neighbor to the north of 25 17th street the project sponsor incorporated additional noise mitigation to that project in order to mitigate noise. again to remind commissioner the context and how this project sponsor while there's been bumps along the way and we talked through them ad nauseam has continued to work and do what they can to re-establish trust and work especially with the
adjacent neighbors to make the project work for everyone. >> okay. >> not quite but almost so we are asking with regard to the appeal with the south neighbor, we're asking the board to accept the appeal and to modify the project based on the agreed modifications. mrs. rosenberg maz received the set -- has received the set of plans and all parties have showing the modifications. we should have everything necessary and feel free to ask me or staff questions about how to achieve that. i think you've all done this a number of times before. moving back to the original appellant claim. i think the new one we're hearing tonight is that the planning commission denied the project and does need to go back to the planning commission and
something not only does the planning sponsor disagree with and staff. to walk through how this went down, when there's a d.r. hearing at the planning commission there's only three options. the first is not take the d.r. and approve the project and everyone agrees that does not happen so that's not on the table. the remaining two options are to take the d.r. and disapprove the project or take d.r. and make modifications. what you'll hear in the hearing is that at no point did the planning commission say they disapproved 27 17th ave. commissioner richards was clearly unconcerned with the project at 27 17th ave. i'll quote again you heard this already i'm fine if they bring a project forward on the other lot. that's great. let's reconstruct the build at
25 17th ave and make sure the new project adheres to the existing site condition referring to the restored bay and they need to to get a demolition permit or adjust the lot line whatever they need to do not suggesting they have concerns with the project at 27 17th. you heard there was discussion about not being able to approve that project that night. that was a reference to the project that was in front of the planning commission had assumed there would be no reconstruction of the bay. since the planning commission was taking action to restore that bay, that would have been a physical conflict between the two projects. what the commission was saying that night was that and what mr winslow was saying is you can't approve it in front of you because it needs to be
redesigned. they took d.r. as stated in the d.r. memo and modify it to accommodate the reconstructed bay. that's about what the project sponsor did staff including with the input of the zone administrator approved the site permit consistent with the planning commission's direction and because the project only got smaller, did not get bigger the notice was not required so did not open up a new opportunity for d.r. filing. that's our response with respect to that issue and the additional appellant brings up problems with the site permit plans and we responded to those in our brief. there's a number of them and we responded to them fully in the brief. i'll leave it to the board questions if you have any.
we're ready to speak to those. with that we're asking the board to deny the appeal and allow the project sponsor to complete the project we've been spending time and attention on in a way consistent with the previous two board hearings and thank you, commission, for going through this with us and getting us to this point and here if you have questions. >> commissioner honda. >> i think this is the longest time you've spoken. you almost used your whole time. i want to make a comment the case has been before us a minimum three to five times prior. since the beginning of the original appeal and the penalty be double in construction costs. i just wanted to make that comment. >> okay.
has it been rebuilt? the bay was torn down illegally as i recall. you can correct me, i don't mind. so the bay was supposed to be rebuilt, where's the bay? let's start with that. that's everybody's concern from the beginning and i don't want to forget about the bay. >> thank you commissioner. the bay does not exist today. this board approved the site permit the reconstruction of the alteration to that building which include the reconstruction of that bay. the addenda are currently going through the process. in fact one of the addenda's been issued. you can imagine considering the process there's a desire to get
finality on the whole of the project the site hearing tonight would provide that. long story short the bay is not there. addenda are being and processed right now to issue that and will allow the adjacent building to be built around the bay. >> bluntly, your client has done nothing to build by trust. i really am sympathetic to the other appellants who share his feelings. i've been here from the beginning and i don't like people who break the rules and tear down things without a permit then cause great anguish,
it's my anguish just participating in these hearings and then the bay's not built. why are we moving forward -- and i'll ask also scott to address this, why are we moving forward making further approvals at the risk of this bay never even appearing and for all the stuff we have gone through all the anguish on both sides the misguidance the project sponsor has offered consistently at least in the early days why are we moving forward when the primary issue that brought us here today has not been dealt with and i can just j imagine and sorry for my paranoia and cynicism the primary root of this issue will never be dealt
with and we risk this by moving forward on this. i don't understand it. maybe mr. sanchez can explain this but maybe you can explain this on behalf of your client. why should we move forward? >> mr. vice president the last time it was front of us we explained why the bay would be removed and at that time the planning commission and department gave an explanation why that would be removed. >> i knew it was removed illegal and was supposed to be put back and we had a discussion about windows. it's a thing that's changed so many times and -- >> why don't we address that through the department. >> that's what's bothering me. >> looks like mr. kevlin wants to represent, mr. honda. do you want to let him or hear from the planning department.
>> respond first because i asked a question. >> thank you, commissioner. i'll get to a vital piece of information. i'm being told by the project manager that in fact the bay is currently under construction. foundation has been laid. there has been construction started on that and by the way, it does take time to get the addenda through the process. much of the time spent last may when we had the hearing on 2517 was getting the addenda that authorizes construction but the bay had begun it's reconstruction. the work has begun. >> thank you. if it wouldn't have been torn down in the first place illegally we wouldn't have the frustration would we, sir? >> we're not in disagreement over that. >> thank you very much. >> we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the matter before you is an appeal of a building permit for
new construction at 27 17th avenue subject property in rh1 zoning district and 40h heightened bulk district and lot is 25 feet wide by 125 feet deep. there's been discussion about the lot and the history of the lot. a certificate of compliance was submitted to the department of public work october 2016 and certificate of compliance is saying the lots had been historically listed as two lots. city records had one lot but the certificate of compliance is where you can petition to the department of public works if you have information showing the lots were never legally merged and the department of public works found the lots were never legally merged and issued a certificate of compliance confirmed and recorded in 2017. that found that the lots were never legally merged and they
were legally two separate lots. this is 2017. june 25, 2018 the subject permit was submit nord construction of the four-story splm dwelling section 311 notification was between february 21, 2019 and march 5, 2019. during that time there were two discretionary views filed. one by the appellant behind or cited as an appellant on 18th avenue and one across the street from the subject property. there was a discretionary review hearing held june 25, 2019. this is one hearing where two items were called together. there was the subject permit which is for the new construction of the single-family dwelling on 27 17th avenue and permit to legalize work on the adjacent order at 25 17th avenue.
that permit sought addition to the building and that sought to legalize the removal of the bay window. i think there's a recall from past discussions on this initially our enforcement said to restore the bay window. they went through the historic review analysis process which found that that did was not a necessary element for historic purposes and we said we could allow removal of that bay window so they went through the process seeking to remove that. at the d.r. hearing where both item called together the planning commission did take action and did take d.r. there are two discretionary view decision memos, d.r.a. action memos. one was 0658 for the subject permit and one was 0657 for the permit on the adjacent property and that required the restoration of the bay that the window be taken back in and put
back in there. there is allegations in the appeal that the commission did not approve the permit at that peering. as the board knows the executive secretary is responsible for finalizing the action and the executive secretary signed the approval 065 and 065a -- 0657 and 0658 and was noted in the minutes adopted august 2, 2019 and that note the approval of both permits with conditions. one correction to what mr. kevlin noted in terms of what may happen at the hearing i would say there's four things that could happen at a hearing. they could approve it as proposed. they could take d.r. and disapprove, they could take
to reiterate and maybe i should say more loud'. the board is not bound by the commission and the lower body as the board likes to say i think. you find this permit to be appropriately design and one more question, i think what he is actually requesting the board is to grant the appeal and to adopt the revised plans that they have a meeting of minds with the other appellant to make those changes to address their concerns and so, we're supportive of that and we reviewed the revised plans and found them to be code comply
around and would support that change. one question that the vice president swig had is the bay window and i don't have a independent of construction and and i thought that's the case and trust is a port of this all. i would suggest the bay window timing was never addressed by the planning commission and i think the board of appeals could do as part it. you could say that no construction can start perhaps until the bay window is constructed. you can continue this item until you have more information about this construction of the bay window. you have that authority, that power if it's a concern and we approved this and allowed this to move forward because the planning commission didn't require that. we would say if that bay window is not reconstructed, as the
approved and issued plans have shown, that's the case. maybe i'll briefly, perhaps not necessary, go over some of the appeal history but this is been before the board before going back to 2017 with appeal 17-128 many of that was a permit that sought to legalize removal of the bay, the board had taken, granted that appeal and reduced the scope such that the removal of the bay window is not to be on that permit. it was only interior work and then, separately, they sought the permit for the 17th window avenue that was the discussionary view heard at the same time as this case. that was issued under appeals
23-014 and the board denied that appeal and there's also another earlier and for this and she was shown in 2020 and to restore the bay window which the permit holder has indicated that they are under construction now and they said they have started the foundation. lastly, i would just like to run through a couple of questions sent to me and i want to express he shared his questions in advance with me is so i can address them with the board. there were concerns, if i missed anything, let me know and the response and there is comment about the existing plot plan and the removal of the deck that
existed that had been removed without permits. and the plan here showed dash lines for that deck which is traditionally one way of showing demolition of an existing item and it does note removal or demolition of the deck and it's also faced out for the garage which still exists today so i don't -- they used different marks for the removal of garage, they use a cross hatch mark where as they use a dotted line for the deck. i think what is clear on the plans, is that there's also separate demolition permit for the garage and for the deck that was anna peeled to the board of appeals. i feel comfortable the permit and plans properly document the removal of the deck and the garage. there was also question about
the restoring the view to the bay from all around and the planning commission didn't specify that. the plans that are before you, for the new construction, have the proposed building nestled all around that bay window. there's no space between the two buildings. and that is something that the planning commission didn't specify and it was consistent with the commission's decision and that is also as part dinovo hearing, is that appropriate and adequate or should there be set backs to the bay window. we found it to be appropriate and we approved it and that's what is before you now. lastly, there was some questions about the lot line adjustment. it was handled as a certificate of the compliance recorded prior
to the submitting of this permit and it was in 2018, they submitted a survey, that you can document and that was done afterwards and has also since been recorded and so this is d.p.w. was extensive blee consulted in this and we do have any issues with the der tive kit of compliance and that document and there was a question about building and fire codes which i referred to to deputy director duffy and he can respond to during this time. i've taken a long time. i apologize for that. it's a long, complicated history and i'm available for questions if that's helpful. thank you. >> thank you, we have a question from vis president swig then commissioner lazarus.
>> so, regarding the lot line. is this going to come back to haunt us at any point? i know it was in the last hearing or the one before, i can't remember, there's been many, that the lot line issue. was there a lot line, was this two separate parcels, blah, blah, blah. is this not dealing with the hotline going to haunt us and are we being diligent in moving forward with this is this ambiguous or is it not ambiguous? i have another question after that. >> there are two questions about the lot land, first, is this legally, are these legally two separate lots? and the city's termination through the department of public works is is they were never
legally merged and they've been aside lot numbers and they show in our parcel maps and have shown since 2018 as two separate lots so i think that's well done and that discussion and debate is over in my mind. the second question is now that we have the lot line, and now that we have the bay window having to be restored and built over that lot line, how is that dealt through the building permit process and the deputy chief director duffy can best address that, it's my understanding from him that this was properly reviewed. >> that's the gist of my question. i mean, we dealt with this last time, we acknowledged that ok, there are two separate lots and then where the bay window will go over the lot line and how are we going to do with it and i don't want to walk out of here
without that being resolved in my mind because we're back here again to talk about this issue when someone makes an appeal for some further permit on this so i really would like someone to definitively express this not with ambiguity, this is going to be going over an existing lot line and something has to be done, i would recommend that something needs to be done with this proactively so, we're not back here yacking again. the second question is, the second very muchel bay.
you said that we would put the approval of this project on hold are approve the permit or putting timing on the completion of the day. bay. it's a punitive step, at least to me. is there an intermediate point if we put that contingency on between the final inspection and today and final inspection with really the clarity that more than the hear say that foundations have been put in but when a building starts to emerge that we can put some and see how
they feel the board could have imposed such conditions. i think some timing, it's common and we have requirements that certain things happen before other things happen when it comes to public art, it has to be installed before you get your p.c.o. or your final certificate of occupancy. maybe the board can request that the bay be completed before a t.c.o. is issued on the single family dwellings, that's one idea. and maybe def you tee director duffy has other ideas but there's a lot that could be done in terms of timing if that is something that the board would like to explore.
>> i'll remind you it was your idea, not mine, and i just applauding your concept because again, based on hear say and the history of this project, i'm not leaving hearsay and i would like to be assured if we move forward, and approve this we're not driving by one day and seeing the that building got built next door and there's no way, as we had mandated. >> we have a separate permit number and if your city attorney agrees, could you continue it such that the t.c.o. for this permit is not issued before that permit is finalized? that still gives them time to complete the construction. it allows the permit to move forward. but it doesn't allow this building to be final until the
bay is actually in place and final. >> when we deliberate, i'd like mr. duffy on this issue and second when we get into deliberations, i'll let the other commissioners comment on my considerations. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner lazarus. >> i have several questions. none of which i will require detailed answers. i want to confirm, i think i heard you say, mr. sanchez, that the revised plans that have been agreed to with some of the other neighbors are acceptable to you, is that correct? >> yes,. >> ok. >> secondly, despite all this discussion about the bay, it is a deposit rat matter, is it not and this permit in theory, has nothing to do with the bay? >> it's on a separate permit it
they're in violation of a number of different things. >> assuming the project sponsor know the outcomes get worse if they don't comply with the conditions imposed on them. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you, we'll hear from the department building inspection. deposit you director duffy. >> four-storey single family dwelling and fire sprinkler and sprinkler monitoring under separate permit. the building permit has gone through and a planning review and bdi review and bpw have looked at it as well and it's been have been properly reviewed and issued and he did bring up
some questions and an e-mail to mr. sanchez that i got forwarded to and i just spended this evening to him on signatures on the administrative five and this is no requirement it gets signed off and the fire department would not say that (inaudible) either. the question about the lot lines, i mean, if you're going to build we always recommend, we can't enforce it but we can recommend and service down points to ensure that construction is followed for the plans. that would be one idea on this. there could be possibly on a
drawing, a sequence of work that must be performed. sort of layout the statements of work so the work is going to be done in accordance with all of the permits and that might be one idea or if the board wants to put some conditions of approval on it and we are happy to monitor how the sequence of the work goes if the bored takes us through that and obviously i think i would imagine the project sponsor with as much limelight and violations and all of the reviews and opinions that have gone on here do not want to put a foot at all going forward and i know certainly from d bye we don't want to see that we've spent enough time here dealing with plans and violations and we want to see whatever is permitted is built properly and accordance with the codes and the approved plans. i'm available for any questions.
>> clerk: inspector duffy, we're honored we have a director in our hearing for a little bit i saw. >> that's right. yes, he dropped in for a moment, as he does sometimes. >> you guys are burning the midnight oil. >> we do that a lot. thank you many of. >> ok, i don't see any questions so we're going to move on to public comment. i see one hand raised from a caller, there's no i.d. so please, go ahead. the caller has a hand raised. >> caller: hi, my name is lauren. i am a 40-year resident of san francisco and i just want to say to the board that the departments and the commission, thank you for the hard work that you do that often goes unnoticed in keeping our city looking to good from a building point of
view, thank you for that work. i'm calling to be supportive of john kanter, the project manager on this job. i think my understanding is there have been some concerns about the project in the past. i want to say that i've known john for about eight years and we serve on many committees together and i have found him to be very honorable person and a man of his word and i think you can count on him going forward to do the things that are agreed to this evening. i can give you some examples if you'd like. and would be happy to answer any questions about his character. >> ok. thank you. so, we will now hear from gerard westmiller. mr. westmiller.
>> yes, thank you, board, thank you, everybody. i've been watching that project over the last several years, i also a four-year resident of san francisco. thank you for all the work everyone does. and i would like just to put my support in for the project and not have this project once again denied for something else. it seems like everything is set in stone and i'd like to see a building there on that block instead of just a hole. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from alan. >> caller: thank you. so my name is allen and i've lived directly behind 25 17th avenue and just one house
off of 27 17th avenue which is the subjects of this appeal. i'd like to make a couple of comments quickly. i just want to comment that it's my understanding that the city of san francisco tries to maintain the highest ethical standards and i found that president honda's disclosure that he is a client of mr. kevlin and claiming that wouldn't affect his vote on this issue is completely unacceptable and unethical manner in which to vote. there's no possible way that his relationship with that law firm would not impact his judgment. and that was further evidence by his lack of understanding about what is going on on this project. the way he was confused about whether we were removing or replacing a bay at the beginning of the project. mr. kevlin was disingenuous in
the representation he made about my relationship with the developer and the cooperation that was involved in the fence replacement. our fence blew down, i designed a friendly neighbor frens and the developer did share the cost of replacing that fence with me, which is completely a standard, common, neighbor thing to do, sharing the cost of a fence. the fact that mr. kevlin made a point that saying the developer is reaching out and cooperating with neighbors is inappropriate and it was misleading. the lot line adjustment that vice president swig is talking about is another reason why this permit should not be approved. the lot line has not been adjusted, the bay that they're required to build straddles two properties and that's illegal. this entire process that we've been engage in for four years, five years for some people, four years for me, it's supposed to
create a level playing field and create transparency and sadly this is not the experience or the outcome i've been experiencing. on july 25th, 2019, almost two years a. the planning commission voted that the property be restored. >> 30 seconds. >> and not going to be up to do even scratch the surface of the issues but the planning commission's video should speak for itself. me say it should be restored to its previous condition many of the fact that there's no evidence that the bay has been rebuilt by the way, i lived directly behind the project and i see no evidence that there's any work being done on the bay and the developer won't let anybody on the site. i only scratched the surface, thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 5080. please, go ahead.
>> caller: hello. can you hear me? great. my name is sarah stevens. i live across the street from this subject project. please revoke or at least reexamine the building permit for 27 17th avenue. not only is the design overwhelming for our neighborhood but more importantly, you understand the project sponsor permitting and follow through has been inconsistent with planning commission's request and process. we neighbors have recognized the sponsors' on going efforts to adjust building designs and to skirt the design process often without prior approval. an example is they're not returning the three-storey bay to its original condition. i'm sure covid made building and the building permiting and oversight even more challenging. however, the process should
still remain honest to ensure the planning commission's reputation as a trusted entity. i encourage you to rereview past hearings to make sure neighborhood concerns are now and in the future properly addressed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 8177. please, go ahead. 8177. we can't hear you. you might want to try star 6. >> caller: good evening. ozzie realm with san francisco land use coalition. the case before you is essentially approving a set of plans that are based on false premises. the sawed-off 25 and 27
17th avenue started over five years ago when a developer demolished a bay and a deck on the existing property illegally. the bay window on the deck were inconvenient features on the exiting property that stood in the way of the developers' plans for splitting the lot. so he took matters into his own hands and demolished them with no permit. when the neighbors escalated this to the planning commission, the commission took d.r. and required mr. brown to restore what he had demolished before any new plans for new homes could be submitted back to plan. that was two years ago. and since then, mr. brown has taken no steps in complying with this order and instead he has submitted new plans, disregarding the commission's directive. commissioners, we are understand that the board of appeals used cases on a dinovo basis so if mr. brown didn't agree with the planning commission's verdict he could have simply appealed that to this body two
years ago. instead of going rogue and pushing his plans through the back channels. here we are five years after his illegal demolition of the bay, and a deck, and two years after he was ordered to restore them. we just heard from president honda that the sponsor or the project manager, has informed him that the bay window is being constructed as we speak. does it take two years to construct a bay window? even mr. sanchez stated that he cannot verify mr. brown's claim. so why should you believe as sponsors who has clearly acted in bad faith all along? that's why we urge you, not to reward another rogue developer and instead at additional conditions to make the site permit code compliant by restoring the bay, adjust the lot line, abate the permit for deck demolition, and revise the plans to remove life-safety
issues. i just want to bring up once again that you cannot split the lot if there's a bay window on that part of the building. so, the developer should actually restore the bay and then adjust the lot line. you can't put the horse before the cart. so, please, require him to restore the bay and then adjust the lot line and then take the new set of plans. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 3747. please, go ahead. try pushing star 6. >> caller: hi. i'm sorry. hello, my name is carole and i have spoken in most of these
meetings as well as many, many meetings that we had with mr. kanter and the neighbors. so, i would love this to be the last time because it seems to me we just keep rehashing the same things over and over and over again. sadly, i think there are neighbors on the block -- and one of them said this to me, that would just prefer to get this thing to drunk driving outg the developers just left the project, because they were out of money. so, i mean, there's some truth to that, i think t. because we keep -- they keep coming up with new things. i think it's sort of unbelievable and unfair. i've seen the plans for the new house. i have seen how the bay
restoration will affect the look of the new house. john kanter, i live right next door to his current construction project, and they're moving forward. he has been absolutely considerate of my family and other neighbors on the block. while he has made mistakes, no doubt, and maybe if he hundred dollars made the mistake he made we wouldn't be here today. he has made amends and i think this whole thing should be over. it's more than anguish because it's divided people on the block that were friends and it's all just absolutely unnecessary at this point. i mean, if he started construction on the bay tomorrow, that would be great and then that would go away, i i guess.
he is working on the back of the house trying to frame and shore things up that looked pretty precariously perched without any structure underneath. and that is all i have to say. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from clark. it's going to take a moment for him to join as a panelist. hello, clark. go ahead. >> caller: hi, my name is nancy clark. i live at 1628 lake street i share a property line. i am also attending these hearings over the long years. i want to go back to say that i remember the planning commission motion that was approved that requires that the decks on the project sponsors restore the bay
first and then submit new plans to the planning commission. so, much has gone on. i was happy to hear that mr. brown negotiated a settlement with the taylors that addresses the south wall privacy issues at 27 17th avenue. however, it is going back to the behavioral many of it's restoration at the bay that is my primary concern as well as that of the neighbors who the 44 neighbors who signed the petition asking that the board of appeals revokes the site permit and the negotiated settlement that does not ensure the bay is restored before the site plan is approved. i currently could support the taylor's permit if the conditions were expanded to
include restoration of the bay before any planned agenda are approved by city and the developers and the underpinning agreement. so, bottom line, my neighborhoods and i have been deprived of the opportunity to have the planning commission review the revised plans and so i hope that you will please revoke the site permit for 27 17th avenue or expand the permit conditions to address the restored bay and then correct some of the other questionable aspects of the existing site permit. and thank you for all your time after all of these attempts. >> clerk: we will hear from the caller whose pen number ends in
6867. please, go ahead. >> caller: my name is jim riley, i live at 1601 lake street. what i heard tonight has been utter crap and this needs to be a story in mission local tomorrow. i completely agree with alan, president honda, you should recuse yourself from any decision on this case. and i think it's highly inappropriate to imply that oh, their construction costs have gone up. so that's enough. to justify illegal, unethical, immoral, dishonest behavior. scott sanchez, you keep using the term bay would. it was a three--storey
structure. there why nine fen is traces in that structure. you minimize it by calling it a bay window. and do we need to keep reminding everybody that this was all done illegally? mr. kevlin's deflection about outreach is laughable. four of those five people on his little map, they do not support the project. big whoop, they paid for half a cent. you are letting attorneys wordsmith your orders and your decisions and policies by the city. and frankly, if you let this go, you are setting a bad precedent. these guys, way back when, rodrigo santo said we made a mistake. they tore that bay off intentionally with the thought
they could get away with it. and that was before mr. santos got arrested. back then he thought co get away with things but they picked the wrong neighborhood to do it in. and those 44 neighbors that signed that petition, they want the bay back. and mr. kevlin's elevation again, it's deflection, he shows what is happening at the back of the building. and i also find it absurd that we have to point out the word restore of the the order was not to reconstruction the bay, it was to restore the bay. mr. kevlin used the storm historic bay tonight, mr. sanchez used the term restore. the bay was supposed to be restored before any plans or anything was permitted at 27. if i sound like i'm mad, i'm
pissed. because my neighborhood is being ruined. the good will in the neighborhood has take not a toll. all because of slimy, sleazy behavior. and please revoke this site permit and i'm with commissioner swig, if you don't do something tonight, who knows what is going to go on once walls go up. and i had that in my prepared statement. that they have no problem lying and going beyond the scope of plans and permits. there might not be a bay on the inside of the wall. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from call in user number 1, this is someone without a phone number. please, go ahead. >> caller: call in user number one. >> and i'm sure that many of
those coming in tonight have not done their homework and done so. i thought it important to highlight the planning department clear frustration with this behavior. mr. david winslow, the principal architect for the planning department, writes in an e-mail to mr. drttle railroad for the sake of clarity and brief tee a response to your e-mail as i am sure that you can appreciate how little time i have and a phone call with you would not be productive. from the department perspective you raised are not up to debate and your interpretation of what took place at the planning commission d.r. hearing is erroneous. it was clear to me that the commission secretary, the zoning add straight o. the deputy
zoning administrator and planning department director that this project did not require further commission approval and if the revisions were reduck tive in nature and not substantial. it wouldn't. is it has resulted in years ever delay for a project that complies with the planning code. and was reduced in mass from its original design through meetings with neighbors, staff recommendations, and commission requirements. his false claims, over the last five years to staff, commission and this board includes that the new home will block his view of the water. the project proposed is over
parked. the contractor is even anti-semitic. an illegal subdivision occurred and the approved home was too big and out of church interest for a neighborhood? that the submitted plans did not show square footage and the survey prepared by licensed survey or was not even a proper survey and the written findings were not the commission findings. none of these allegations have shown any permit and only highlight how one narcissistic individual can use process to delay progress. this is the sixth time that this project has been before this board and i hope that the board up holds the permit issuance sending a clear message that a, once is enough, and b, the board, while willing to act as an impartial arborrer for legitimate appeals does not look favorably on those who abuse the
process to settle personal scores. >> clerk: raise your hand if you want to provide public comment. i do not see any further public comment so we'll move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes, mr. dratler. we can't hear you. >> can you hear me now? i have i need to share because i have a one-page powerpoint. >> we'll pause the time while you get that up. >> time is paused. >> thank you. i'm going to share the screen. can you see the powerpoint. i need one more second. >> yes.
>> >> so the lot line issue, i'm not debating the certificate of compliance. the survey of records that was filed is the same plot line you are seeing we have a bay that straddle the lot line. why is there no lot line adjustment. i haven't heard an answer. d.b.i. doesn't do land use issues. mr. richards said restore the bay first and get a lot line adjustment, then bring the project back. neither of those things have happened. the tamers sent an e-mail to the neighbors just before this meeting saying they would not be at the meeting, they settled, they did mention though, the project sponsor delayed their over the counter fence permit
and by seven feet, mr. kevlin didn't mention that as part of the neighborhood outreach. there are two options tonight. revoke the unapproved non compliant site permit for grant the second appeal with the conditions that only address privacy issues on the south wall of 27 17th avenue, there's a third option that moves the project forward. it's before five years nothing restored the bay and the board of appeals could impose the condition that no site permit addendum are allowed to be issued until the bay has been restored. we can all agree, that needs to happen. in mr. kevlin's brief he falsely claims a lot line adjustment is unnecessary and d.b.i. approved it and mr. brown's two llcs address the problem. you know, the easement was never signed and the easement can't grant a legal right that mr.
brown doesn't have. the board of appeals should also impose conditions requiring the project sponsor to secure anna baitment permit for the deck demolition and revise the site plan to include a it a code compliant egress plan that row moves the life safety issues. it would be wrong for the board of appeals not to revoke the site permit o'er not to impose and to make the site permit code compliant. it does not address the code compliant and signal other developers and the board of appeals condones the action of mr. brown and mr. kanter and also not addressing the code compliance issues with planning department staff and it's ok to over roid the planning commission decisions. these two messages should not be sent and thank you very much for your time. >> thank you.
we will hear from in holly. >> i'm sorry, he is not. i don't have much to add. it is true that, i just want to correct the record about the fence permit that mr. dratler mentioned. i don't think we can attribute the entire delay to mr. kanter or mr. brown. just want to correct that in the record. although, there were -- they did get involved in that permit from what i understand. so, i don't really have anything else to add and i'm happy to
answer any questions. >> clerk: we'll hear for mr. kevlin, the attorney for the permit holder. >> thank you commissioner. i first would like to have john kanter hop on here so he can give you the feedback as to the status of reconstruction of that bay. so mr. kanter, do you want to step in. >> thank you, john. and while it's fresh for everyone, i only communicated with the neighbors regarding the fence, i had zero communication with staff therefore, no obstruction on my part to delay permits. for the record, mr. swig, thank you for asking about the bay and i do want everyone to know that removing that bay, without the benefit of a permit, was a horrible, horrible mistake on both the project sponsors and my part.
it wasn't just a mistake, it was a bad decision. mr. duffy can attest that when i have seen him at d.b.i. and i've told him, if he has any other people that are heading down that road that he should give them my phone number so i can advise them against such a stupid act. mr. swig, i wanted to correct what mr. kevlin said, we will formed the foundation for the bay. it's being restored. and we had other -- if you remember, we couldn't start construction on that because the appellant appealed the permit which would allow that construction. that was adjudicated and finalized at the end of march. we were at a stand still. when we got back on the project we had more pressing issues off the back of the house
structural' that needed to be addressed and we are planning on restoring the bay. i want to alleviate the neighbors concerns but it's not going to happen. it absolutely will happen. >> thank you, john. thank you for that feedback and clarification and to speak to concern and trust with respect to the bay, we are happy to accept a condition approval that would further grow that trust and verification and he said no t.c.o. for 27 17th avenue for the bay and we would be willing to go beyond that and going to no architectural addenda issues
for 27 17th until for t.c.o. >> i apologize. you restate it, john. >> i think conditioning basically no final sign off on either permit for 25 or 27. unless the bay is fully restored, per this board's requirements. so just to wrap-up, there's not a lot more to add. we've discussed all of the technical issues at this point and i they we're speaking to the verification. this is a long process and i've been through it for half of this and really the entire time we've spent on this is trying to get to this day, trying to get to a resolution, trying to put all of
the original behind us on an agreed path forward which this board has had two so please condition the project on that. but that this is really if you want to end this that it's fair and clear, please, grant the second appeal with the modifications to the south property and the rear of the property and and please condition it on a verification method for the bay so that we can all move forward. i think we've gone long beyond talking about technical issues and our everyone is looking for
a resolution. thank you. >> we'll hear from president honda and vice president swig. >> councilor, you are restoring the bay. i've heard public prime minister the bay stratel the property line can you address that already and lot line adjustment or does it straddle the property line. >> it will, there are two rectangular properties here and the bay always encroached over that property line. no lot line has been done any time recently in our lifetime and there's no need for a lot line adjustment because they own both properties they have the ability to grant a declaration of restrictions and it's signed
by d.b.i. and basically it says that the property owner is granting an easement. >> this is a disclosure. >> vice president swig. >> you stomped on my question. thank you both for your flexibility and addressing i deep concerns. my grave concern is the lot line and if that when we go to discussion on this, if planning
and bdi suggest your is a good one we see you often and we'll see you again so i know you are going to give the best you can tonight. that i would like it memorialized because i look forward to us resolving this legally and properly and also i don't look forward to someone else, giving someone else a head sake so when there's a trancation with these two properties that not our commission but some poor judge is put put in a position between fine between two consistent and two neighbors. let's put this to bed very clearly and memorialize it tonight, the lot line issue, thank you.
>> clerk: thank you, we'll hear from the planning department on rebuttal. the planning department has six minutes. >> thank you, scott sanchez, i'll just speak to the question of the hotline so this received a certificate of compliance from the department of public works which found the lots why never merged. the condition that existed previously with the bay extending over the property line is something this happened historically so they're going back to that condition and there's two options for dealing with it. one, they could have chosen to do a lot line adjustment to have it to be on the 25 17th avenue property. there was a requirement from the planning commission to do so. the alternative, which is allowed under the planning code and allowed under the building
code, is what they went through that they can speak through a authoritatively where they allowed for the encroachment over the property line and that is consistent with the planning commission's decision and does not override the planning commission's decision so that is acceptable that that process is outlined and mer formed making sure it happens and understand from deputy duffy that that did happen and i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> sorry, this is probably a more general question whether a lot line issue is under our purview so i would like to retain to direct it towards our deputy city attorney when we're through with the testimony. >> ok. thank you. we will move on for the rebuttal of the department building
intext. >> the only fault that i had was about the conditions about completing the work at the bay and make sure it's done and not neglected and we did a start of inspection on that permit and i don't know how long it will take to build the bay because the permit, if that permit wept ahead tonight, i understand it has to get a approval but there's a possibility on d.b.i. and it was on there that we could pull an address block and we have an address block on the property and it cannot be issued that the bay is done and i'm not
sure if that's feasible or not but i do think it might be a path forward and i'm available for answers. >> i don't see any questions. this matter is submitted. >> who would like to start. commissioner chang, would you like to start? >> >> sure, i'm the newest commissioner so i am viewing this case with slightly fresher eyes so to speak. than my other commissioners on this body. to me, i am sim that net tick to the neighbors because the co issue of trust has been broken and it's very frustrating because trust is broken it's difficult to get it back.
at the same time, you know, reviewing the case documents, reviewing previous hearings, understanding and listening to what the planning commission intended and what staff has reviewed and approved, it does not seem that the approved plans to me conflicted with the planning commission direction and i think the idea that the site permit is flawed. it's unfortunate frankly from my perspective, that the bay is required to be restored. it never should have been illegally removed in the first place but you know, the fact that it's required to be restored and what would be a
clean lot for it seems to be a sticking point with the neighbors involved in this case and finally, i think, again again, i appreciate the desire to have things fall or but i don't think that there's a need for things to happen sequentially and it's very common for. >> we're going to be done soon. >> i'm sorry, put your microphone on mute, please.
thank you. i was just going to say it's very common to have concurrent processes occurring such as site permits being drawn up and reviewed concurrently because of how long the development process takes place in the city and so i don't see it a need to do so. i think i just wanted to say that those thoughts for the record and i would love to hear from other commissioners. thank you. >> commissioner lazarus. >> yes, i'd like to, as i say, ask the question regarding lot lines. i mean, it seems to me that it's kind of a private matter, as i think mr. kevlin alluded to. can we get a little perspective on that, please. >> sure, good evening.
>> there's a cloud on the title unless there's clarity and it would seem to me at the time the permit is issued, that there's clarification that the lot lines in fact have illegal integrity. the project sponsor owns both properties so they would have the ability to do that. i see commissioner chang's hand up again. do you have a comment? >> i put it back down. i was just going to say that i defer to deputy mr. sanchez on this matter but i think lot lines matter and as it relates to the public because there are
standard lot sizes and reviewing could i pliance with that you want to ensure that those it's consistent with my understand that it's two adjacent lots owned by the same property owner and you can this is explained to us by chief inspector duffy and we never get your title right. you know you can institute this both properties are understanding of how the easements and the i believe they
have control. vice president swig, do you have any comments? >> i agree with you you both on the lot line issue, yes, this is zoned by the same property owner and the is a developer and he is doing it to resell them and i'm growing my family into those two homes i'm developing. my assumption is he is doing this for profit and i'm a real estate person and i'm not going
to fault him with that. i again, i'm not necessarily comfortable but i can be comfortable if my fellow commissioners can get comfortable and moving forward with that this lot line issue has to be addressed and it would make me feel more comfortable if we addressed it tonight. as we move forward and if we deny the appeal ex issue the permit with the caveat that mr. kevlin and mr. kanter put fourth, i would also like to have something addressed to the lot line unless my fellow commissioners say let it ride and let someone else kick the can and let someone else deal
with it later. >> i'm somewhat in agreement with you, vice press, i would grant the appeal and subject to adopting the revised plans that have just been entered, right and that i don't have a problem if you want to condition it that the bay gets restored first. i don't think we need to address the lot line issue, again. clear ownership is with the owner and they can't sell it without it being resolved nor can they finish their permit without that issue being resolved. >> you are the residential real estate on the panel so i would defer to you but i wanted to bring it up. let's hear from the rest of the group to see if they agree with you and i? >> that sounds fine for my
fellow commissioners? >> i'd like to hear a motion? >> i will make a motion to grant the appeal subject to the revised plans or subject to the revised plans, do we have a date or a number to those plans? >> i believe it's may 26th, 2021, is that correct? >> mr. kevlin, mr. sanchez? >> they left. >> not at their price per hour. is that the correct date of plan? >> i saw that the date was may 26th, submitted for the hearing. i just want to confirm with you,
president honda, you were going to state nur second condition, go ahead. >> the second condition is that the work on the do you want to make it subject to this date being completed or not? >> i would like it made, mr. kevlin, what were your words, i'll let you scribe it for me. >> that's so mean. [laughter] >> i think what we had discussed was that no t.c.o. would be issued for 27. >> can you clarify t.c.o. >> yes, thank you. >> no temporary certificate of occupancy for 27 17th avenue until a certificate of temporary occupancy has been issued for 25
17th avenue including part of that the reconstruction of the bay. >> i see acting deputy director with a question. joe, do you have a question? >> we do not normally give t.c.o.s for single-family homes. for highrise buildings. >> i was wondering about that. >> we don't do t.c.o.s, normally, you know, i guess i could put something in the system in this case if they could just go for final inspection unless there's a block in the system but the t.c.o. -- >> honestly, the way i'm looking at it, sorry to interrupt you. this project has undergone a tremendous amount of process and has quite a bit of eyes on it and at this point, i don't feel the need that they are going to go left or right on this because i think the penalty would be so severe it wouldn't be worth it and so, you know, if this is
going to be so difficult to condition with the permit for that -- >> can i help you with that? (inaudible) one building on top of the other one. >> t.m.c. is certificate and sign off. we need that out of the system but if if it's hart of your decision i can do that. >> i hope it works for both sides. >> until they get that done anyway. i mean, until they build that bay, they're not getting a final anyway. if we want to condition it to that that's fine it's just a process. if it makes everyone feel like a
pound of flesh was given. i'm sorry, we're closed for questions, sir. rick, what do you want to do? >> i'll go with mr. duffy's suggestion, please. >> and we're able to craft our wonderful motion. >> it's changing it somewhat so they will be allowed to start construction and also addenda issued, they just won't get a c.f.c. until the c.f.c. for 25 17th avenue is issued? >> that's correct. >> exactly. >> ok. and on what basis are you making this? >> after months or years, this is the resolution. >> clerk: ok. do you want to add in terms of adopting the plans that revise
plans represent the agreements for the appellant for 21039 and the permit holder. >> that's exactly what i said. >> and mitigates the impact on the property. >> that's what i heard him say. >> so amazing having a super smart director with a law degree. >> well, ben, do you also just maybe want to add that the project has been going on a long time and this will ensure that the bay window is restored? >> yeah. >> ok. >> so we have a motion from president honda to grant the appeals and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plans dated may 26 the, 2021 and submit it for the hearing tonight. and further on the condition that no c.f.c. will be issued on this permit until a c.f.c. is issued for the permit on the joining property at 25
17th avenue. and can we just specify for the record, what that permit number is on the a joining property on 25? just so we have it in the record because there's a lot of permits flying around. >> yes, i believe that will make sure there's no confusion. >> i have that permit number. >> are we ok taking it from -- >> let's get it from d.b.i. thank you, mr. kanter. >> i've got the permit that installs the bay window over the property line is building permit application number 2020-09224726. there is an identical permit on 25 17th avenue and that was the subject of the discretionary view before with the planning commission and that's 2017-07071206. so together, those permits are
the project for 25 17th avenue. just to note, as your deputy city attorney noted, this permit doesn't have anything a cross the property line. those two permits have what was across the property line and the board has already approved those two permits. so, i think the board hazarded that property line issue through those two permits. >> thank you, scott, very much. >> thank you. so that second condition was that we'll reference those two permits just mentioned by acting, zoning administrator sanchez. and then this motion is made on the basis that it in term of adopting the plans it represents agreements between the appellants for appeal number 21-039 in the permit holder and mitigates the impact the project on the property and further,
with respect to the restoration of the -- this project has been going on for a long time and this condition will ensure that the bay window is restored. ok. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> vice press swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is granted with conditions. >> honestly on a side note, i hope we don't see this case before us again, mr. kenter, please. president honda, this concludes the hearing, would you like to adjourn. >> thank you, everyone. have a wonderful evening. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> see you all in two weeks. >> do you mind hanging on for a second or would it be easier to just call you. i have a quick question
following this? >> yeah, i can just call him. >> the motion covered both appeals because there's one permit. we can't have two separate motions to make a change on the permit. thank you. >> thank you. >> so -- >> are we good to go? >> yeah, you are good to go. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> have a good evening, everyone.
i am a small business owner. i own a company called vandigo van rentals. it rents vans to the music industry. i am also a member of the small business commission as appointed by mayor breed in 2019. i am a musician and have worked as a professional musician and recording artist in the 90s. [♪♪♪] >> we came up in san francisco, so i've played at most of the live venues as a performer, and, of course, i've seen hundreds of shows over the years, and i care very, very deeply about live entertainment. in fact, when i joined the commission, i said that i was going to make a particular effort to pay attention to the arts and entertainment and make
sure that those small businesses receive the level of attention that i think they deserve. >> this is a constantly and rapidly changing situation, and we are working hard to be aggressive to flatten the curve to disrupt the spread of covid-19. >> when the pandemic hit, it was crystal clear to me that this was devastating to the music industry because live venues had to completely shutdown. there was no way for them to open for even a single day or in limited capacity. that hit me emotionally as an artist and hit me professionally, as well as a small business that caters to artists, so i was very deeply concerned about what the city could do to help the entertainment committee. we knew we needed somebody to introduce some kind of legislation to get the ball rolling, and so we just started
texting supervisor haney, just harassing him, saying we need to do something, we need to do something. he said i know we need to do something, but what do we do? we eventually settled on this idea that there would be an independent venue recovery fund. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this resolution is passed unanimously. >> and we were concerned for these small mom-and-pop businesses that contribute so much to our arts community. >> we are an extremely small venue that has the capacity to do extremely small shows. most of our staff has been working for us for over ten
years. there's very little turnover in the staff, so it felt like family. sharky with the small business commission was crucial in pestering supervisor haney and others to really keep our industry top of mind. we closed down on march 13 of 2020 when we heard that there was an order to do so by the mayor, and we had to call that show in the middle of the night. they were in the middle of their sound check, and i had to call the venue and say, we need to cancel the show tonight. >> the fund is for our live music and entertainment venues, and in its first round, it will offer grants of at least
$10,000 to qualifying venues. these are venues that offer a signature amount of live entertainment programming before the pandemic and are committed to reopening and offering live entertainment spaces after the pandemic. >> it's going to, you know, just stave off the bleeding for a moment. it's the city contributing to helping make sure these venues are around, to continue to be part of the economic recovery for our city. >> when you think about the venues for events in the city, we're talking about all of them. some have been able to come back adaptively over the last year and have been able to be shape shifters in this pandemic, and that's exciting to see, but i'm really looking forward to the day when events and venues can reopen and help drive the recovery here in san francisco. >> they have done a study that
says for every dollar of ticket sales done in this city, $12 goes to neighboring businesses. from all of our vendors to the restaurants that are next to our ven sues and just so many other things that you can think of, all of which have been so negatively affected by covid. for this industry to fail is unthinkable on so many levels. it's unheard of, like, san francisco without its music scene would be a terribly dismal place. >> i don't know that this needs to be arrest -- that there needs to be art welfare for artists. we just need to live and pay for our food, and things will take care of themselves. i think that that's not the given situation. what san francisco could do that they don't seem to do very
much is really do something to support these clubs and venues that have all of these different artists performing in them. actually, i think precovid, it was, you know, don't have a warehouse party and don't do a gig. don't go outside, and don't do this. there was a lot of don't, don't, don't, and after the pandemic, they realized we're a big industry, and we bring a lot of money into this city, so they need to encourage and hope these venues. and then, you know, as far as people like me, it would be nice if you didn't only get encouraged for only singing opera or playing violin. [♪♪♪] >> entertainment is a huge part of what is going to make this city bounce back, and we're going to need to have live music coming back, and comedy, and drag shows and everything
under the sun that is fun and creative in order to get smiles back on our faces and in order to get the city moving again. [♪♪♪] >> venues serve a really vital function in society. there aren't many places where people from any walk of life, race, religion, sexuality can come together in the same room and experience joy, right? experience love, experience anything that what makes us human, community, our connective tissues between different souls. if we were to lose this, lose this situation, you're going to lose this very vital piece of society, and just coming out of the pandemic, you know, it's going to help us recover socially?
well, yeah, because we need to be in the same room with a bunch of people, and then help people across the country recover financially. >> san francisco art recovery fund, amazing. it opened yesterday on april 21. applications are open through may 5. we're encouraging everyone in the coalition to apply. there's very clear information on what's eligible, but that's basically been what our coalition has been advocating for from the beginning. you know, everyone's been supportive, and they've all been hugely integral to this program getting off the ground. you know, we found our champion with supervisor matt haney from district six who introduced this legislation and pushed this into law. mayor breed dedicated $1.5 million this fund, and then supervisor haney matched that, so there's $3 million in this fund. this is a huge moment for our
coalition. it's what we've been fighting for all along. >> one of the challenges of our business is staying on top of all the opportunities as they come back. at the office of oewd, office of economic and workforce development, if you need to speak to somebody, you can find people who can help you navigate any of the available programs and resources. >> a lot of blind optimism has kept us afloat, you know, and there's been a lot of reason for despair, but this is what keeps me in the business, and this is what keeps me fighting, you know, and continuing to advocate, is that we need this and this is part of our life's blood as much as oxygen and food is. don't lose heart. look at there for all the various grants that are available to you. some of them might be very slow
to unrao, and it might seem like too -- unroll, and it might seem like it's too late, but people are going to fight to keep their beloved venues open, and as a band, you're going to be okay. [♪♪♪] >> to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this live. for opportunities to speak during public comment are available by calling (415) 655-0001. and access code
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on