Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds site permit for 25 Seventeenth Ave amid long dispute over restored bay
Summary
After a lengthy de novo hearing with dozens of public commenters, the Board of Appeals denied appeals to require a full in‑kind restoration of a 3‑story bay at 25 Seventeenth Avenue and upheld the site permit (5–0); the key dispute centered on whether restored windows facing an adjacent proposed house would conflict with residential design guidelines.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 5–0 vote denied two neighborhood appeals challenging issuance of a site permit (201707071206) for work at 25 Seventeenth Avenue and related new construction at 27 Seventeenth Avenue. The appeals focused on the demolition of a 3‑story bay without a permit, the Planning Commission’s discretionary review condition to "revert the existing building to its previous existing condition by restoring the 3‑story bay," and whether that restoration must re‑establish all original windows and doors.
Appellants and many neighbors urged the board to require a full in‑kind restoration of the Bay, saying the developer demolished historic elements without permits and that Planning Commission direction was clear. “Revert the existing building to its previous existing condition by restoring the 3‑story bay,” several speakers quoted and urged the board to enforce literally.
The permit holder, represented by counsel John Kevlin and project sponsor John Kantor, said the permit as issued implements the Planning Commission condition in a manner that complies with current building and design standards; counsel noted exact replication of early‑20th‑century windows and doors may be infeasible because modern codes and privacy concerns require modifications. Planning Department Deputy Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez explained staff reviewed the discretionary review outcome and found the department’s interpretation — restoring the bay massing but adjusting window placement to meet current residential design guidelines and privacy/egress/firecode — consistent with the Commission’s decision and applicable code. DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy added that windows on or near property lines require fire‑rating (plan check requested 60‑minute rated openings in the restored bay) and that some openings may be constrained by building code and egress safety.
Public comment was extensive and split, with many nearby residents urging strict restoration and many neighbors urging the board to allow the permit to proceed to reduce an ongoing eyesore and deliver housing and jobs. Appellants raised additional concerns about the legal status of lot splits and a certificate of compliance (DPW matters); Planning and DPW processes were referenced as separate administrative tracks.
After deliberation the board voted to deny the appeals and uphold the permit as issued. Commissioners acknowledged the developer’s prior unlawful demolition, the Planning Commission’s action, and community concerns, but supported the Planning Department’s interpretation that restoration must also meet current code and residential design guidelines. The board recorded the 5–0 vote and the appeals were denied.
