>> clerk: thank you. good evening and welcome to the october 20, 2021 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president honda is absent this evening. also present is deputy city attorney zachary borianda, who will provide legal advice for item 25. also present is deputy city attorney brad russi, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice on all the other matters. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening.

scott sanchez, deputy zoning administrator, representing the planning commission. joseph duffy, acting director, department of building inspection, mathy green, senior inspector, with the d.b.i. -- members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda's long or there are a large number of speakers. we will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up.

four votes are needed to grant an appeal or modify a determination. if you have questions about requesting a board hearing, rehearing or board schedules, please e-mail board staff at sfgov.org. now public access and information are paramount, and sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to have public comment for each item on this agenda. sfgov is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. please note that it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 10:00 on channel 26. a link to the meeting is found on our home page,

sfgov.org/boa. you -- to enter public comment, you can call 669-900-6833, webinar i.d. 836-5118-2466. to block your number, dial star, six, six. again, you will have two minutes depending on the length and agenda of speakers. please note there is a delay between what is happening and

live streamed on the t.v. or internet. when speaking, please turn down your speakers to avoid feedback in meetings. now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without swearing in under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to swear during any of tonight's proceedings and wish the board to give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right hand if you are

available. do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? okay. so we will now move onto item number 1, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there any member of the public who would wish to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar? okay. we will move onto item 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner swig: commissioners, nobody besides my own? okay. then i will go -- we were talking before the beginning of the meeting about our san francisco giants and their unfortunate loss last week, but

i would like to absolute the slick giants for their fantastic season, but -- san francisco giants for their fantastic i'd like to recognize the staff at the park and the giants in general. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item?

if so, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment, so we will move onto item number 3, adoption of minutes. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the october 6, 2021 meeting. >> commissioner swig: commissioners, do i hear a motion, please? >> move to approve. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner chang to approve those minutes. is there any public comment on that motion? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment, so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0, and the minutes are adopted. this is item 4, peal 21-070, tim lieu -- appeal 21-070, tim

louie versus department of building inspection, at 120 dorcas way, appealing the issuance on july 19, 2021, to rich ruhland and rhonda cartwright, of an alteration permit; roof gutter siding sidewalk to comply with complaint numbers 202179383 and 202179572, place gutter down spout penetrating roof and replace roofing in light well. permit number 2021-07-19-4604. note. on september 22, 2021, upon motion by commissioner lazarus, the board voted 5-0 to continue

this item to october 6, 2021, with the eightation that the parties meet-and-confer and attempt to resolve any remaining issues. on october 6, 2021, upon motion by president honda, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner lazarus absent, to continue this item to october 20, 2021, at the request of the parties. >> thank you. during the most recent conversation that i had with the property owner at 120 dorcas, he indicated he is no longer working with mr. pullman. so if the homeowner is only going to be removing the down spout, we also think that there should be a permit pulled for 100 dorcas because the work will be done at 100 dorcas.

as of yesterday, the neighbor retained counsel. we played phone tag yesterday and were only able to get ahold of him about 15 minutes ago, so we are seeking a continuance so the attorney and i can have a meaningful conversation. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from mr. pullman. are you still representing the appellant? >> i am, and it is wrong, what was stated by counsel. >> clerk: okay. >> we have not had any conversations with miss zack's office at all.

they asked for drawings, we provided drawings. they asked for more drawings, we gave them more drawings. they asked for elevations in the front, we provided that. i've never seen anybody move the goal posts so many times than they have moved and yet have ever offered any resolution, so this issue is against the city and county of san francisco versus the louies on this permit. we obtained this permit to comply with the notice of violation. we do not need their access or their permission to do any work. we will not go on their property. we just want to finish this project. we will remove any encroachment without their help whatsoever. they don't want to help us, they don't want to do anything, we won't do that. it's raining now. there's water coming down that

needs to go into the sewer lines that's supposed to as per the city of san francisco plumbing requirements, and so we've been ready to do this from day one, so i would ask that the board allow us to proceed with our work. it will be done and inspected by the city and county of san francisco building department, plumbing department. if we pull an electrical permit, electrical will be out there. we will not enter their property whatsoever, and if we did enter their property, and when we did, we had their blessings. they let us into the property. so all this conjecture about us trespassing and all this stuff is just blown out of proportion. it's crazy. that's all i've got to say. >> clerk: okay. thank you. vice president swig has a question. >> commissioner swig: yeah, so let me get this straight.

you are willing to remove the errant down spout and then solve your problems in another fashion. so if we uphold your permit, we can condition that on the removal of that down spout and the repair of your neighbor's fence, and you'll move on in a different direction? is that what you're saying? >> what i'm saying is that the encroachment is the gutter and the down spout in a vertical direction. that's all we have to remove, and we can do that without accessing their property. we cannot -- they won't give us access to get onto their property, and we actually don't want that. we can put painter falls up and

hang it from the side of the building and remove the encroachment. >> commissioner swig: and that's what you're going to do if we sustain the -- >> that is correct. that is correct. >> commissioner swig: that was my question. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> hello. thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. we have nothing to add to this item, which does not have any outstanding planning issues. >> clerk: okay. we'll now hear from the building department. >> yeah, joe duffy, d.b.i. this is an easy enough permission. i think they want to get the work done, so i would say go along with it. if there's any issues getting the work done, the appellant

can go to d.b.i. the building code violations, we'll definitely investigate those, but we're not going to get caught in between a civil dispute between two neighbors. that's not what d.b.i. does. this work needs to get done, and the gentleman says they're going to do it all on their property. i don't see any problem with allowing the permit. >> clerk: vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: mr. duffy, can you help me out, please? the neighbor that wants to get rid of the encroachment, what do we do here? do we approve the appeal on the condition that they remove the down spout from the neighbor's

fence? [indiscernible]. >> the thing is, i wanted to add one thing. if they wanted to change the scope of work and change something, like, change something in the light well, they just come in and do a revision from the previously approved [indiscernible] scope of work, but i think the gentleman said they were going to remove the gutter and the down spout any way, and they were able to do it without trespassing, so i don't think we need to add that or not. >> commissioner swig: it's always good to memorialize things in my experience on this commission, but i'll ask the city attorney to make sure that you're done and after the other

commissioners have -- if they have any questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we're moving onto public comment. is there any public comment on this item, please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment, so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner swig: commissioners, comments, directions, please? >> commissioner lazarus: my inclination is simply to uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued, and you feel free to consult with the city attorney. i would imagine that getting into the issue of the fence is beyond our purview. >> commissioner swig: and what would you suggest about the removal of the intrusion on the neighbor's property with the pipe and the down spout? >> commissioner lazarus: i thought that was part of what this permit was going to do? >> commissioner swig: this is where i get confused. i need some clarification.

>> commissioner lazarus: mr. duffy, maybe you're the one to respond to that? >> well, the work that's going to need to be done to 120 dorcas, i heard them say that, so i don't think they're going to be trespassing. [indiscernible] and repairs roofing and lightwell, we assume that's what they're going to do, and if they need to change the scope of work, they can use the revision process at d.b.i., and all the work will be done at 120 dorcas. >> commissioner swig: and what you're advised is if there's a feeling that the down spout intrudes on the property line, that we'll leave it to them to create a civil dispute? >> they can sort that out

themselves, yeah. i mean, i think there's a survey going around or something. i'm a [indiscernible]. >> commissioner swig: okay. commissioners, any other comments? if not, i'm going to call on commissioner lazarus to make a

motion. >> commissioner lazarus: i would move that we approve the permit as amended. [roll call] >> clerk: on that matter, the appeal is denied. moving onto item 5, appeal number 21-073, sfmta versus the lung transportation corporation. appealing the issuance on july 22, 2021 to leung transportation corporation of sfmta hearing section statement of decision, leung transportation corporation, the sfmta taxi services division has not established that leung

transportation corporation holds a pre-k medallion subject to the transfer restrictions of transportation code. this is for medallion number 433 for hearing today. >> as the executive director read at the beginning, the sfmta -- the hearing officer determined that the sfmta did not prove that the medallion in question was a corporate medallion based upon an exhibit committed, which was the exhibit -- the medallion, the erge me -- the medallion submitted as part of proposition k. corporate medallions are

slightly different than proposition k medallions. prior to proposition k in 1978, there was no driving requirement. medallion holders could hold multiple medallions, and they weren't drivers necessarily. voters passed proposition k in 1978, which changed the rules vastly. proposition k medallions may only be held by a natural person, and they are required to drive. this is not one of those. this is what's called a pre-k medallion, and this allows holders to incorporate. section 5 of proposition k is where this 10% rule came from, and it's currently on the books with sfmta, where any transfer

over 10% of a corporate pre-k medallion renders it null and void. as i submitted in exhibits 3 through 12, over the years, the ownership gradually transferred from mr. leung himself to his sons and himself. it was a gradual process between 2003 and 2016. as part of my efforts as the enforcing manager in 2015, i reviewed all medallion files, including this one, and based upon my review of the prior submission, i determined that a transfer of greater than 10% had occurred from mr. leung's parents to his two sons. in total, that effort, we sent nonrenewal notices to 316 medallions. of those 316, 150 resolved their issues, 49 appealed, of which this was one, and there

were 121 medallions where there were no response and successfully nonrenewed. of the 316 medallions out of compliance, 57 were of the corporate variety, which is the kind here today. four of those tiered, and four filed for a hearing. again, the medallion here today is one of those. i looked back into the past police commission and also taxi commission for enforcement efforts. i was able to find some board of appeals decision back in 1997 and 98, appeal 97-092, for yellow cab cooperative, 97-093 for chang's incorporated, 97-095 for veterans, and 97-096 for lutzer. of these, veterans is still in

existence. i believe there were litigation subsequent to that determination by the board of appeals, which resulted in a settlement with the city, whereby veterans on a certain -- there's a formula. a certain number of corporate holders, a requisite number of corporate holders are returned. however, it's different from leung in that it held dozens at one point. the medallion here today is a corporate entity held by -- one medallion is held by one corporate entity, the leung transportation. i think that's pretty much what i have. as i mentioned in the exhibit, mr. leung transferred over the years 100 -- or 66% of the

shares of the corporation to his sons. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have questions from vice president swig and commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner swig: thank you. welcome to our meeting. wasn't the primary goal of prop k to prevent what we were discussing tonight from happening? >> to prevent the transfer of -- >> commissioner swig: yeah, to make sure that a license was held by one individual and then bifurcated into the transfer and ownership of multiple individuals? >> yes. >> commissioner swig: thank

you. >> clerk: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. it seems that much of this hinges on whether this is or is not a pre-prop k medallion, and i'm not sure i heard you address how that came about. i believe there was a lapse in the time that it was filed, and then, when the decision was made, so if you could address that a little more, i would find that helpful. >> sure. so the hearing officer denied our renewal request, as she erroneously found that this was a proposition k medallion. i reviewed the records and none of the shareholders have ever been a taxi driver, and proposition k prohibits more than one person from holding a pre-proposition k medallion.

the hearing officer erroneously found that it was a proposition k medallion. and section 4 of proposition k, 1978, stated that all persons, firms, partnerships, or entities who possess an outstanding permit to operate must surrender or exchange any such permits within 60 days of the effective date of this decision. and i included that as an exhibit -- i'm sorry. i don't have that in front of me, but there is the original medallion certificate dated in 1978, and i believe that's where the confusion on the part of the hearing officer came in, and she determined that it was a proposition k medallion, and so we did not establish that. [please stand by]

>> of the medallions and you know, like, you guys have the

pre-k and then the k and then the p permit nowadays. and then even though i'm operating this myself, what i heard from my friends who are like still driving and all those, the p permits, as i understand were the ones that were purchased from the city. i don't know exactly when but probably after you guys have changed the laws and regulations of the taxicab medallion from non transferable to transferable. that's why the city can sell those permits. the k permits, same thing, they can sell it and then they can go

into the airport and pick a fare as well. for the pk medallions. i'm totally confused by all the different types of categories on the classifications of the taxicab medallions in san francisco. but i'm a simple person and i'm not trained to be like complicated, so i just want to let you know a little bit background of this taxicab medallion as i know of. i remember, i came to the united states back in 1972 with my parents and then, my father you

know was struggling and to get a job and all of those and somehow he got into driving a taxi and somehow he got into this opportunity who recited and forced the city back then. that's what i remember. anyway, so my dad purchased the medallion, you know, so he works 16 hours a day and try to payoff the loan and try to raise the kids, raise the family and all

that and then, 1978 came about and we got this so-called proposition k or something and then we understood it as a new rule that the taxicab medallion are not going to be transferable from that point on. so we, my dad and other taxicab medallion owner/drivers back then, went to an attorney somewhere in chinatown. i don't think i recall his name and then they were advised to form a corporation just, you

know, like just to retain investment like hard-earned money, ok. that's 36,000. nowadays it doesn't sound like a lot but back then, you can purchase a house in the sunset area or the richmond area. so, if you talking about investment, let's say if my dad would have invested into a house in the sunset area or the richmond area, nowadays it would cost at least $1.25 million. nowadays. we got this letters from the sfmta or something sake ok, we

condition renew your medallion so we can appeal so i say ok, i don't want my father to cry. i mean, even he is up in the sky now, you know, like, that his investment turned into just a piece of paper. after all these years. i appeal and then some guys you approved it and say yeah, we're going to renewal your medallion. and then, all of a sudden, two months later, i don't recall and i got this one again so wow, we're not going to renew your medallion and and different

decision 0 different departments and just by looking at different angles. >> you have 30 seconds. >> so that's why i'm here today on the line so i don't know what you guys. i think they should be grandfather and i don't think it's fair. >> that's your time. thank you,. >> clerk: we have a very from commissioner lazarus. >> thank you, do you agree with the sfmta you've had a transfer of shares of percentages of

ownership over the years since 1978? >> yes, because of my parents' old age. >> thank you. that's what -- thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. would anyone like to provide public comment on this item? please, raise your hand. >> clerk: i don't see any public comment so we'll move on to rebuttal. we'll hear from the sfmta. you have three minutes. >> to clarify for commissioner lazarus' question, exhibit 1 was included in the sfmta brief and the date it was issued was august of 1978 and that was sequence of events that i was describing. the information publicly on-line is proposition k passed on june 6th, 1978 so that would fall in line with and it was a

transfer ownership and it's greater than 10%. >> are you finished with your rebuttal. thank you, we have a question from commissioner lopez. >> thank you for giving us the context on the numbers of the kind of efforts the last couple of years and my question to you is in your brief you have these exhibits showing mr. long's filings over the years going back to 2003 showing these

transfers of ownership which have shifted around quite a bit over the years and can you tell us about any enforcement efforts that made occurred in conjunction with those filings or is that something that was overlooked and not chosen to be enforced not prior to your 2019 efforts i believe it's a oversight i don't have knowledge of that. i start inside 2017 and the reason it started in 2019 is because we had a vacancy and it was the first time i was involved in the rules. and that's when i started reviewing top to bottom and all of the medallion for compliance and just because about what is involved with the staff time of putting on a field hearing and

the decision was made to renew one more time and look over it and and it was so, we decided this before early 2020 and that why the non renewable issued is towards the end of 2020 so that's the sequence of events. so i guess, to answer your question i believe it was an oversight because above proposition k, and the current transportation code today that the medallion is null and void on 10% transfer so i believe at any point, 2003 was during the taxi commission so it's after sfpd and then i think 2009 is when or 2010 in that realm was when it came over to sfmta so, i don't know. i think it was an oversight. >> and then, i do understand correctly that it was renewed and the 2019-2020 period knowing

that there was a violation but i'm assuming did you did you notified folks that hey, this is one last time they were doing it and how did that occur? >> it was a large scale effort so no we did not notify them. there's no way, as i mentioned, there's no cure on this one. let me pull up the stat again. corporate there were 57 total medallions out of compliance and four of those cured and four appealed so for the most part we have no response. looking at the post case, which is another class, there were 173 of those and almost 100 of those cured 95. so they were given an opportunity to cure however there's no cure on this one because of the opioid transfer is long since occurred.

i think that's it for me. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. leon. >> clerk: you have three minutes. >> the way i look at this, it is confusing again. if you talk about proposition k, you are enforcing the proposition k decision. why are these new medallions at the city so to the drivers from the o drivers as transferable. so if this is true, the p medallions are super setting the k medallions. so, i don't know how you guys

are making the decision. since i'm, again, this is not a big corporation and it's just a small family-owned business. i don't think i can afford to hire any attorney to go deep into a situation. it's not fair at all. now, the new -- i shouldn't say new. i just want to find out if they are transferable, proposition k

is no more enforced. because proposition k's main seem is to make the taxicab medallions non transferable. that's why i said, i just get more and more confusion from the operations of the san francisco mta. again, i don't have much to say. i don't have much to say. all i can say is, oh, that's one thing i want to say. >> you have 30 seconds. >> i'll give up that. thank you. >> you still have 30 seconds. >> yeah, ok, depends the 10% transfers on the from my father,

my mother to my sons, i mean, those are not 10% transfer as i understood. our transfer no more than 10% each year for all these years and then i thought it was ok until i received all these from sfmta saying, oh, you already transfers more than 10%, 60% or whatever but if i recall it right, as long as you don't transfer more than 10% then it's ok. >> that's time, thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. leon. >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, any comment, please? >> actually, i'd like to go to council on this last point that mr. lund just brought up.

mr. porienda, are you on the line? >> yes, i am. >> did i get your name right, sorry about that? >> that's correct, you got it. >> can you tell us anything about this point that mr. lund just brought up the 10% transfer threshold? do we know if there's any kind of households, you know, aspects of the definition that would undermine that 10% threshold for transfers within a family or within corporal affiliates even i believe that section d1a states it's accumulative cell but perhaps you could clarify or confirm that. >> yes, that's correct.

119d1a states it's a accumulative transfer and it's not individual 5% transfers it's accumulative so provided the accumulative transfer occurs over 10% as an mta's position that that provision kicks in and the chatter 101 in order inform fully integrate a taxi-related functions into the agency should such a transfer occurs the agency shall have the same exclusive authority of the taxi related functions and taxi related and charges and budgets and personnel over municipal railway and when adopted agency regulations shall there after supersede ordinances governing motor vehicles for hire.

proposition k is codified in the transportation code. >> got it. i think that answers that question for me and commissioner tang has her hand up so i'll yield the floor. >> thank you. good evening, everyone. to me the medallion holder and it seems like there's been a slew of actions that are very confusing and the fact that mta continually renewed the medallion year after year after a submission of the tax and

exceeding the 10% and it's an exhibit that you provided and if i were the medallion holder i would assume that i were renewing this correctly and legally and it seems and i totally understand your position that to endorse on all the medallions and ensure that medallion holders and permit holders were appropriately renewing their permits or medallions or whatever the case might be. i think from a medallion or a permit holder, the process has been confusing, especially in this case. and i could -- to add salt to the wound or whatever the appropriate expression is, the

medallion holder appealed the non renewal and was granted a renew only to have that decision revoked shortly after and so i think this entire case is maybe a comedy of errors in a not so funny way and to the detriment of the medallion holders. understanding that mta is in a position to enforce the code and understanding the city has a requirement to do so, is it possible given all of the confusion that is clearly occurred and the understandable assumptions that the medallion holder has made to have to

basically require that the shares, not exceed or be transferred by more than 10%. so that makes sense? >> it's not possible. i attached this exhibit the last exhibit and i know it's hear say and the cost is one of the primary authors of proposition k and as he states. and it violates the rules and so, i don't have -- i can't say

anything about that. it's a clear violation of that rule. it says null and void in the event of that 10% transfer occurs. >> commissioner lazarus. >> you had your hand up first, i'm happy to let go. >> no, please, go ahead. >> thank you. i mean, this is going to sound a little harsh but my reaction when mr. leon was talking was that ignorance is no defense of the law and when you are holding something like a permit, issued by an agency, i think there's an obligation to try to understand and a benefit that has accrued,

granted one would say the lax in enforcement is not something to be commended and it was the issue that came out in our last taxi case as well. but from my perspective, i see that the sfmta position is the correct one. >> commissioner lopez, thank you for not seeing you before. >> no worries. these taxi cases even the hearing officer, was not sure about whether? my mind it's a pre k. the hearing officer seems to think it's a k and the sfmta is

of the position that it's a pre k as well so even amongst these three bodies, we don't have a unified opinion of how to characterize this medallion. and in that context, i do tend to be sympathetic to the plight of the ter might holder. it could be ignorance but it seems there's room for ignorance even among the enforcement agency that's are at play here. and you know, in that context, i do think that the permit holder, you know, making that -- they've made a full good-faith effort to be transparent about the way their capitollation has changed over the years if you go back to those filed since 2003, i'm assuming there's probably others

from that predate that but we have numerous transfers going back 18 years that are in violation of that requirement and we're getting around it and enforce it in the last couple of years. so i think, to me, it's -- i do think that the permit holder is entitled to rely on the determinations of that sfmta when it issues its renewals every year and after a certain point, it's not to say that the sfmta can never more enforce the transportation code but i do think that on this specific grounds, you know, you only get so many bites at the apple and in my mind, even just going back to the 2003 filings, i'm counting 18 bites and that is quite a lot and so i do think that at a certain point, folks like mr. leung who are running

a small business, they're entitled to rely on the opinion that is issued annually by the city as to whether they can run that business and that's how i see it. >> anyone else have an weigh? i'd like to weigh in if you don't mind. i agree with commissioner lopez and commissioner lazarus. i think commissioner lazarus is absolutely correct and saying this is the -- if i can interpret it commissioner, that this is the law and through a series of unfortunate mistakes, the permit holder had the benefit but it doesn't make the act of keeping the medallion a

legal one. at the same time, i agree with commissioner lopez saying, boy, this is what gives city departments really bad names because you go to someone at a department in good faith, because they're supposed to know the truth, and they're told over and over again, oh you are fine until you are not. and so that really sucks. that being said, if i am not in favor of continuing the medallion because that will set the precedent and as i've said many times, setting a precedent,

which is dense the statute in place, undermines the department no matter how many times the department -- it wasn't you, you know. but how many times has the department blew it, still, he is there and this undermines the department, undermines mr. crana and folks in the future are going to come out, well, you found from mr. leung so you have to find for me and you know what, yes, that's sets the precedent and undermines the department and the individual who is trying to maintain compliance so although i'm sim sympathetic and agree with commissioner lopez and somewhat with commissioner chang, i think i would have to side with commissioner lazarus but i will ask anybody who would like to make a motion and give us some

direction on this but i fear it's split. commissioner chang, would you like to further comment? >> i don't know if i'm necessarily ready to make a motion. i agree with what commissioner lopez just said. this is been 18 years of renewal and 18 years of assuming that one is following the law and doing ones' part to follow the law and i am not suggesting we shouldn't enforce the regulation but i'm seeing the livelihood of folks who have invested their life savings into a medallion and trying to maintain a business that is clearly being jeopardized just by the state of the economy and the state of competition which is also just

life. to the extent that there's an opportunity to enforce regulation from a certain point. i understand the intent of prop k but i think that there should be an acknowledgment and an understanding of someone who has held this medallion, albeit in your eyes, incorrectly. to figure out how to make someone whole. i mean, i think that for example, in whenever the first year was to renew it after prop k was passed, that it was made clear that a transfer of no more accumulative 10% was made clear to the medallion holder they wouldn't have done that and they wouldn't have done it coon sec consecutively over the course of

18 years. >> is there any wiggle room with this? is there any exception? clearly, many of the hands that touched this provided misguided information or misinformation or we're not clear on provide doing tales on the and compliance on the particular medallion. based on that, is there an exception opportunity or wiggle room or does that set you up for future failure because everyone will use this as a standard?

>> unfortunately, there is no exception it's a rule and that 10% has been crossed. i am empathetic to -- this is been in the family for as long as i've been alive. longer than i've been alive. the flip side is he has been able to operate for an additional 18 years. many of those years were the golden era of the taxis. so the family has been able to do other business, i don't know what they doment they're not taxi drivers. i have no records of any of them being a taxi driver ever so this is effectively passing income and you could hold one of these

and work a day job and they pay you passive income. >> i understand the concept and you heard my thoughts. i am just -- i use the word sent mentality that's what i heard. it's not it, it's quality of life and this is how my family owns and learns its living. this is the crucial nature of what is trying to be communicated by commissioner lopez and commissioner chang. so, this is tough decisions that come across to this panel when it comes to people's livelihood which is why we troy to bend over backwards to troy to ask for exception without compromising your department. commissioner lopez, i don't know who is first?

>> so my perspective is that, you know, i would feel differently if there was -- if the basis for the enforcement was safety-related, right. if it was a public safety risk. in my mind, essentially due to the nature of the way that the interest is held, that is what we're enforcing here. in my mind it's different. what's the countervailing interest? what is the harm? if you are telling me that this permit holder had safety violation that's were never enforced, i wouldn't feel the position is compelling in that instance because i would say,

let's get this guy off the street as soon as possible. with this, i'm more sympathetic given the reliance that developed over the course of the years and i guess i just want to say that i'm sympathetic to the position of coming in and trying to address she's enforcement issues that i think you probably found out on his desk when he got there. i've been there before and my own kind of professional capacities and so i'm sympathetic to that but i wish that we had mr. crana on the case starting in 1978 you know before this two-score plus years of lack of enforcement and reliance on that lack of enforcement had developed over the years. so, that's my position. >> commissioner lazarus.

>> thank you. >> i see the possibility of a split vote on this and i'm executive director, maybe you can guide me. my inclination is to continue this item until we have a full commission because the fifth vote might result in a different outcome. is that the standard. >> clerk: it depends on what is split on? yeah. we should probably continue it to get all the votes. >> i anticipate at this point 2-2. if one were to come and go 3-2 one way or the other. >> it wouldn't make a difference in terms of granting the appeal. >> because we need four. >> we need four to grant the appeal and if two people are not willing to grant the appeal, we're not going to have enough. and the underlying decision will

be upheld by operation of law. >> i recommend that someone make a motion we take a vote at the end of the vote if it's in a unable to move forward then someone might motion to continue it so it can be further thought in another commissioner can come in with their points of view. would someone like to make a motion. >> quick question, if we have a motion and it's 2-2, can we come back with a subsequent motion to postpone this? >> you could. i mean, generally we would continue it if the missing commissioners vote would make a difference. it seems like voice president swig is suggesting that perhaps comments or observations by president honda might change the vow of the two commissioners who do not want to grant the a

wheel. his vote alone will not make a difference. >> yes, i understand. >> commissioners, anybody have a motion? >> i'm going to move to grant the appeal and reverse the decision on the basis that the permit should not have been renewed this past year despite what has occurred in previous years. >> clerk: do you want to addicts because it's a pre k medallion and 10% of stock opioid? >> yes, on those basis as well, thank you. >> clerk: so, we have a motion from commissioner lad russ to grant the appeal and overturn the decision. the hearing decision on the basis that the medallion was issued prior to the announcement of prop k and 10% has been transferred since it was issued. on that motion commissioner

lopez -- >> nay. >> commissioner chang. >> no. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> we do have a split vote. so it's either the underlying decision by operational law or we need three votes to continue this item. does someone want to make a motion to continue it or a different motion? >> the result of the hung jury so to speak, what would happen and what would be implemented please, can you make that clear. >> clerk: the underlying decision by the sfmta hearing officer would remain valid which means that the medallion would be able to be renewed. >> ok.

>> v.p. swig: anybody make a motion based on that result? hearing none, i think the vote stands. >> clerk: so we have a split decision so it's upheld by operation of law the underlying decision. so that concludes this item. i'm going to call deputy city attorney brad russy back in. let's make sure he gets back in. >> do you want to take a recess. >> who wants to take a recess. >> this a alex. i wonder for sfgovtv are you taking a recess? >> no, we're not. we're getting --

>> we are now moving on to item number 6. this is appeal number 21-080 rose fang versus department building inspections planning department approval subject property 1224 appealing the issuance on august 4th, 2021 to woods family investments lp of permittee recollect new four--storey single family residents and this is a front building and this is permit 21081228001 we'll hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> can i share the screen? >> yes, you can. we'll start your time when you are ready. the building permit was granted august 1st but there are several issues that need to be resolved. the top issue is the height of the building. the proposed the building plan with the reduce the satellite to the neighborhood property as one

to one avenue and this is the shadow analysis and issues that compare to a four-storey building, a three-storey building, where significantly reduce its impact on the (inaudible) but the impact of the proposed four-storey project our neighbors' windows varies from negative 19.7% reduction in sunlight hours to a reduction of negative to 8.7%. this is equivalent to blocking the sunlight over 45 minutes a day every day of the year. and also, the shadow shows that a three-storey project could reduce the impact on neighbors by an average of negative 7.5 with the proposed four-storey project the average reduction in hours of sunlight received on

neighbors is negative 20.7% and with a maximum reduction of negative 89% and also -- most of the additional shadowing would all in four and the spring when the sun is low enough to cast shadows and this is 3:30 and the four-storey object project and three story project and it was a

three-storey project and this 5:00 four-storey project versus three-storey project. so, to minimize the impact of neighbors' property, the proposed the building needs to be changed to a three-storey building. this is a reasonable compromise solution that allows the owner at 122 and our city to have more housing while at the same time significant play reducing the impact of the proposed the building and the neighbors' window and side. and the second issue is regarding the openings and property line work. the proper vacancy here the proposed building has three openings and the line doesn't grow with ab009. the openings should be located

above a joining rom or at least six feet laterally a joined any building. as we can see, that this is our neighbor's building. this building has no openings on the property line and this building has six feet laterally setback so my concerns like how come this proposed building can be an exemption? so that the designer or should be fixed right away. the three openings on the property line should be removed from the design. the third issue i'm going to raise here is about the pumping system of the proposed building. as we can see here, the adjacent distress located at 121 and the

1222 are like between in that they share a common distance the proposed building should have a separate stand alone pumps system so not to affect the home at 1218. the reason why i raised the issue here is because the building permit has been issued. so when construction starts, the pumping system of the proposed building will be built at the same time. i need assurance from the respondents that the construction of the proposed building will not affect the existing system at 1218 fungston avenue. the last issue i'm going to raise here is regarding this common entrance. as we can see that the properties located on 1218 and 1222 share the same entrance and

front yard. in other words, people currently living in 1218 are entitled to use the entire entrance. so when the construction at 1222 starts the entrance of 1218 will be reduced by half right away. and the front yard of 1218 avenue will be left open and insecure. so the owner of 1222funston should build a new front yard entrance foyer the owner of 1218 before the construction starts. when last seen i want to mention here is regarding the use of the property of 1222. as i wrote, we remember that the respondent continues to told us

in previous hearings that they are going to use the 1222 property as affordable housing and now how come this affordable housing becomes someone's office now? >> 30 seconds left. >> i'm going with that presentation. thank you. >> v.p. swig: any questions besides my own? a simple question ms. fang. could you, when you use the word plumbing, is that sewer and input city water or what -- can you please describe plumbing? >> the sewer system. >> v.p. swig: the sewer system? >> yes. >> v.p. swig: where do you get your water from and is that water separated at this point?

>> i don't know where i get water but i know under the ground is the common, we share the same system under the ground. i'm not professional, sorry, i can't answer exactly what that is. >> v.p. swig: maybe we can ask d.b.i. how they deal with that. thank you, very much. any other questions commissioners? >> clerk: we will hear from the permit holder. we have mr. morris who is the architect. >> thank you,. >> clerk: welcome. you have seven minutes. >> i'd like to share a screen. >> clerk: ok. >> we won't start your time until. >> i don't know if you see that. >> yes, we see that. >> great. good evening, toby morris representing the project sponsor who is here with me tonight to appeal the site permit.

this is the third appeal of this project by the appellant including the dr in july of 2020 for the planning commission. the appeal is body last october and in november, the project was upheld in the site permit. ask the board to deny the appeal. the planning commission and the office of the zoning administrator. first, sorry, here is a little history. the project was submitted in 2018 essentially as it is today. the demolition of the existing detached single car garage in front of this rh2 lot and the construction of a new single family home in its place for a total of two units. the cottage, the back of the lot is to be preserved. the cottage -- oops it shouldn't do that, sorry. the cottage is found ineligible

for the california register. in december of 2019 after several rounds -- >> clerk: can you inlarge the plans. >> pause the time, please, alex. >> the time is paused. >> clerk: here we go. >> i'll get those. in december of 2019 after several rounds of modifications to height, and depth of the building, the various hearing was held and they were concerned the backyard subsequent so the variant hearings the da approached us and asked us to make further changes to mitigate of the we moved the structure further forward away from the appellant and reduced the height. the project was renoted and is appeal to the commission. the dr was held in july of 2020 and recognizing the extraordinary effort we've taken to create a new dwelling unit

and saving the cottage and minimizing impact on the appellant the project received unanimous support at the commission. >> i will pause the time. >> i'm sorry. >> clerk: no worries. this is not an easy project. existing cottage on the subject lot and the property are intertwined and they're locked at the back of the lot meaning it will cast a shadow on that. physically, there's 11 inches of the appellant's home.

they also share a common entry gate at the sidewalk and a shared concrete block way and a common sewer line. given these constraints, we decided that the best approach to build the second unit was to build a new home as close to the front as allowed and take and the benefit of both. appeal variances last year's appeal the variance inspired a lengthy and lively discussion with many questions for us and mr. sanchez regarding shadow impact, and the board deferred the project back to the d.a. and for reevaluation and in consideration of the potential impact of the appellant and

saving the cottage and as logical as it seems does create a hardship and a loss of the little area and justify the green yard and the alternative to demolishing the cottage and building a conforming structure would increase the shadow impact and require demolition of the demising wall and it's reconstruction resulting in loss of space to the appellant. it's higher than most of the building on the block it's four-storeys of modern apartment and consideration of this broader context and that our four-storey is setback and in the allowable building envelope our proposal is sound. finally, the zoning add straight to be upheld the decision that the variances were just tied considering the additional vision we made to address the

impact oz the appellant and this was vote today approve the project when additional stipulation that no further roof be allowed. so this brings us to today. the appellant has raised these four issues with resolutions she'd like to see regarding the building height, windows and plumbing and entry gate. in your packet, we have heard nothing back from them and we e-mailed them today, asked if they wanted to talk about it and we haven't heard anything and she didn't acknowledge this offer in her presentation. so, assuming this body are current design and if she agrees, we will remove our property line windows. we will also put our cottage and the new home that we're proposing to build on a separate sewer line and we'll move or

replace the gate and secure her property from the sidewalk. we're asking in return that the appellant work with us and provide reasonable access during the construction for in sullation of sideing and scal folding. with respect we remove the-storey we're able to diminish the home any further. this is not a large home. the gross living area is less than $3,000 square feet and the mid block open space forces us to go more vertical. the combined areas of the proposed home, garage, existing cottage, will be about a third of the structure on the base. this is not a big proposal. we don't disagree with a basic findings of the shadow impact support. we referred it to a third party and basically this is true. or a third-storey home, a

three-storey home with shadows on 1218funston but that's not the point. >> 30 seconds. >> private property through prescriptive standards but a more holistic approach on the neighbors and their delays. [please stand by]

up >> that line runs down her front yard. >> commissioner: okay. we'll acknowledge this is one strange lay-out and it was created long before any of us were around, but this is still

-- there's some quality of life issues here and we've acknowledged that, in fact, the appellant is living on the neighbor's land which has acknowledged she's disagreed with that being said, if you look at the current lay-out of the gate, there is security provided by that gate. and when that gate comes down and construction starts, there will be further security and enclosure to her property will be interrupted causing potential harm to her. what is your thought about security and what goes on in

regards to that front entrance and also the common area? >> so we addressed that in the offer to her as well that we will move the gate and secure her property with new fencing as needed and modified fencing as needed. i mean, i hope it's evident that what we're trying to do here is actually establish civil neighborhood relations and i think in the last hearing, it was clear that that has been stressed and, you know, it's a little frustrating on our end that we do not hear back from her, but we are trying to do that. >> commissioner: i understand. commissioners, any further questions? hearing none. >> director: okay. we will hear from the planning

department now. >> thank you. the permit that's before you is for new construction. between the end of novembers, 2019 and of december with a variant hearing. the zoning administrator was expressing concerns about the side of the building and the impacts on the appellant in this case. the project was revised to push the building forward to farther separate it from the appellant's property on the adjacent lot of the rear. that required a new reduced section 311 notification 15 days that went out between the end of february 2020 and beginning of march 2020 during that notice, one discretionary was filed by the appellant in

this matter. the planning commission heard the discretionary view on july 23rd, 2020. at the hearing, the planning commission voted unanimously to not take discretionary view and approved the project has proposed. the variant description back in the rear yard on september 22nd, 2020, and the border of appeals on september 9th of last year. the board heard two hearings on this. one on october 28th and one on november 4th regarding the project, you know, did discuss it excessively at the hearing and the zoning administrator can reiterate that the zoning administrator did feel it was an appropriate design. the board did ultimately -- they took -- granted the appeal that there be no additional

decks on the property. the board has concern about potential roof top deck, but that would not be possible now because of the board's decision on that variance. the appellant uses four issues. second, the three property line windows, these are not new. they were on the variance plans as well. concerns about the sewer system and also the common entry, there's a shared walkway that's been noted and the gate. and so, in that case, the appellant would like a new entry and i think one of the things that's complicated here is some of the concerns that the appellant has are really in relation to the sewer and also

to the common entry and that -- this is for a building permit specifically for 1224 funston and through this, the board is not obligated to work on a subsequent lot. that said, the permit holder and i said -- like i said i've been impressed with the permit holder and their ability to work with the neighbor, first, shifting the building and last week submitting and offered addressing at least three of their concerns. felt fully addressing through their concerns. you know, they would like to keep the fourth floor understandable. that's long been apart of this project, but they would remove the three property line windows. they would investigate the sewer and we'll kind of take appropriate action to ensure the that the anybody's property is not adversely impacted and offered a new gate and path

which are all kind of going above and beyond. the good neighbors, they're doing the right thing i think in this case and going a bit above and beyond that. none of those are required under the code. they can have the fourth floor based on the variance approval and the code and maybe also how to deal with the sewer issue. i think what the permit holder has proposed here is quite reasonable. i think the only one of those three that could be integrated as part of this decision would be the removal of the property line windows and they can continue to work on the other matters and hopefully have continued discussions and a good relationship. so, with that, i'm available for questions.

thank you. >> director: thank you. vice president. >> thank you. although i was listening, everything expect the property line windows are really not under our jurisdiction so only the property line windows are within our jurisdiction although we might comment on the benevolence of the property owner, correct? >> yes, i believe deputy director duffy may have comments to the sewer. my understanding is that everyone has to meet their own requirements, but certainly the new gate and path is not part

of this permit. that would be on an adjacent lot. for sure, the property line windows, removal of those would be appropriately part of this, but yeah. >> commissioner: okay. and the issue of the shadowing and the reduction of light. the difference between three stories and four stories in your opinion with regard to shadowing the quality of life, can you throw some every pun intended light on that sub are we otherwise concerned about that? >> the project proposed is the guidelines. it's not going to in our opinion have an adverse opinion on the appellant's property which is itself an existing legal structure within the required rear yard. >> commissioner: okay. thank you very much.

anybody else? >> director: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. is deputy director duffy with us? >> i'm here. so the deputy director of the inspection services, just before i start this case, i have joined by senior building inspector and matthew's going to listen in tonight as well. over the next few weeks. the senior building inspector kevin birmingham who will be representling d.b.i. and we'll be doing some calls to give them my experience through the board of appeals and i look forward to having some assistance and working with everyone on the board. and, with that, i'll begin on

my the disruption on this project here. erect a new four-story, single family residence. this is not a front building as you heard. it was filed on the 11th of december 2018. and suspended by d.b.i. on the 19th of august. it was reviewed by the planning department and the building department, dpw and puc and then a site permit was finally issued. it is a site permit and it will also be an agenda schedule that will allow the work to be performed if the permit is upheld. i did hear some issues on i think property line windows. the property line windows as you know and i spoke of it this many times are covered under

ab09 of the san francisco building code. a new property line on this building and any property line windows on an adjacent building that are going to be lost as part of the project and prevents things like the covid amendments the project sponsor can be able to work together on that. i have seen where it's not always necessary to have to fill in those windows. the building department at times does require it. and i think that was the issue. i accept any questions from the commissioners as a followup to that. i think the architect did address this issue and i do agree with them that a separate line will be provided for them promptly and that would be handled by our plumbing and obviously a conjunction with the contract and the water department as well.

so i am available for any questions if anyone would like to ask them. >> director: i'm not seeing questions from any of the commissioners. so we'll move on to public comment. if you would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand. i see mr. james iverson. please go ahead. >> caller: hello. thank you commissioners. can you hear me? >> director: yes. did you want to join by video? >> caller: i don't know how to join by video. if this is working, that's fine. i live right next door. 1216, and i'm very familiar with the property and i watched this development. i don't see the need to have that four stories. nothing has been proven to have that four-story i think it's a very important issue. the other issue seemed to be

dealt with if mr. morris will follow through adequately and honestly with the sewer line, with removing the windows, that kind of thing. but the four-story and the sunlight issue is a big deal. otherwise, this project has also moved forward without a really adequate neighborhood analysis, a big luxury home and that's really what this is. it's not really what we need here. we need another apartment. there's no -- they can do three, 1,000 square foot apartments there and have three stories. this is what the neighborhood really would like. this is not as your former colleague merriam melgar. your job is not to make sure they have a tidy profit as a

developer, but really to make sure it fits in the neighborhood i'm glad they make a profit. i hope they do, but this is not really well thought of and should be the four-story should be dropped. >> director: okay. thank you. is there any further public comment. so we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i think the commissioner i'm done with my presentation. thank you everybody. >> director: okay. thank you.

there are standards for shadows on public spaces. the planning code relies on other tools with respect to private property. i understand there's concern about the shadow but i think we've done what we can to avoid the worst of it we certainly want that fourth floor. the project sponsor is reminding me he has agreed to take out the property line windows. if that's a condition you want to place on this, we can live with that. and we're going to do the construction right. we are going to need some

cooperation from the neighbor when it comes to building this home. >> there was a notice for the first court of appeals. i think there has been some amount of process for this single family dwelling.

thank you. >> director: thank you. anything further from the department of building inspection. >> i did hear the architect saying he did want to cooperate. if they're doing it under construction, i would definitely encourage him to work with the neighbor. sometimes that's the hardest part of the project when it gets going and it does end up dragging d.b.i. into the middle of that and it really is important that if there's any additional work, anything at all that sounds like the architect wants to do that. i would encourage the neighbor if the project does get approved to try to get to work. it sounds like they do want to cooperate as well. thank you. >> director: thank you. we have a question from commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: yes. i just wanted to clarify what i heard you say earlier.

from your perspective, there is not an issue with the property line windows. is that correct. they could technically remain. >> well, the property line, thank you, commissioner lazarus, for your question. the property line permitted under projects under ab009 as long as they meet all the requirements of that. and that's usually checked by plan check. it seems like they're willing to give up the property line and it's not helping anymore. but if they did want them, they will have to comply with ab009 of the san francisco code. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. i'm just trying to sort out whether i want to put that in there or not. >> director: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner: thoughts please, commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: to put it mildly, i think this project has been through the ringer and i think that the

permit holder has shown good faith all along and in that vein, i'm not inclined to grant the issue of a permit. i believe they're going to do that and i think they're going to do everything that they said they will and so my inclination is to deny the appeal. >> commissioner: any other commissioners with any other thoughts? >> commissioner: i was going to say that i agree with commissioner lazarus that i believe the project sponsor will act in good faith. there has been an inordinant amount and i understand that change is challenging and, you know, recusing light where one has grown accustomed to it is incredibly challenging. i do think that the permit has

been properly issued. >> okay. anybody else? mr. lopez? nope. so is that a motion, commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: yes. i move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> director: okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, [roll call] so that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. so we are now moving on to the next four items. just checking in, does anyone need a 5-minute break? everyone's fine? okay. so we are moving on to item 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d. they are being heard together.

appeal numbers 21-074 and 21-075, willard properties versus the planning commission for the planning section 309 motion. subject property 530 sansome street of planning commission motion 209-56 adopting findings to planning code section 309 to allow a project greater than 50,000 square feet of floor area within the c3 zoning district with requests to certain exceptions. the project would demolish two commercial buildings and construct a new mixed use building. that is record number

2019017481. then i will give a brief description of the variant appeals. those are appeal numbers 8c and 8d. appeal number willard properties and 447 partners is appealing as well. and to reveal more detail on the project, it would have landing programs that could be implemented at the site. one a 238,000 commercial site. which would establish a 200-room hotel. 37,000 square feet of office uses. a 32,000 square foot gym and 7,900 square feet of restaurant use contained in a 19-story tower. inclusive of the sf fire

department uses which would construct 247,000 square feet of residential uses, 56 dwelling units. both variants would include construction of a new four-story fire station 13 as well as a low grade nonaccessory 18-space parking lot. the center of the site devoted to the new fire department is not fully compliant with the development standard and requires variances. the zoning administrator granted variances for the code requirement for the off street parking and loading. ground floor ceiling and height and transparency for street frontages in commercial districts. this is case 20190478 and i want to clarify for items 8a and 8c, the standard is error or use of discretion and only

three votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a determination. and for items 8c and 8d, the variants, the standard of review and four votes are required to grant an appeal. as an initial matter, commissioner chang would like to make a disclosure commissioner chang thank you. i work for a firm who's representing the project sponsor and i work with him on professional matters, however, my relationship with mr. abrahams will not affect my position on this case. thank you. >> director: okay. thank you. we will hear first from the appellant, willard properties and i understand their attorney, sky langs is here tonight. you have 14 minutes. >> thank you. can you hear me okay? >> director: yes. we can. welcome. >> thank you.

i'm presenting this evening on behalf of the appellant. i'm joined by my colleagues. representative to who is also here and he would like to take a few minutes to address the board before and after he presents his comments i will speak. stuart, mr. corbin, would you like to speak? >> yes. good evening. my name is stuart corbin and along with my brother and sister own that properties at 321-323 washington. so on the same block of 533 sansome connecting to the proposed relocation fire house. my family's third generation san francisco and i have run a construction related business south of market for over 30 years. i'm not anti-growth or development, but this private public project has been moving forward in violation of my understanding of notification

and hearings. i own the most impacted property of this development yet, i did not receive notification via mail which i can show because all my mail is copied by usps and i can e-mail or call until one week prior to submitting my objection to the project and planning commission. i do not have any opportunity to participate in an open hearing nor for any input. during the initial call related, only a few months ago, i was told my building was technically over the property line which i interpreted as a threat. and later stated the fire department not related designated the relocation. i took it upon myself to visit the fire department and speak with their officers. they could not have been more open and were shocked i was not included in the notification. they submitted specifications for a new fire house, but saw no reason why this new proposed

location is superior to the existing location on sansome. the r.f.p. went out did not include the relocation. it's only related as they purchased the two adjacent lots separately. i believe the r.f.p. went out in 2019. i was first contacted close to one and a half years later. at that time, the project was already and related contacted me in 2021. the project was too far along for my concerns to have any impact or consideration or change. who knows what might have been possible if i'd been included in discussion one year ago. i care about my property, but i also care about our city being transparent. this was not. i support any fire station, but a public private development does not give the developer the right circumventing the rules and contacting the most

impacted neighbor to seek support. i'm going to turn over the technical aspects over to my attorney, but i will reserve the right to follow up with london breed and the planning department to submit my concerns about this and other public private partnerships circumventing the transparent way this city operates. i will continue to pursue all avenues until i receive honest answers. at one point technically the san francisco fingerprint's responsibility to contact me and the san francisco fingerprint assumed it was the developer's responsibility. this is not a process that honors transparency and input. thank you. >> thank you. as the representative mentioned, the concerns over this development of the tower and the relocation and the placement of fire station 13 which is currently located at

the corner of sansome and washington. the project sponsor has attempted 0 relocate for 45 years. to help give us some visuals, i have a few pictures i'd like to show. so this is the current site and you can see the san francisco fire station located on the corner. there is also the lay-out which has the fire station here and the property that's located here. the proposal would move the fire station to the center of the block. this is a rendering of the proposed development which shows the high-rise tower occupying the corner and the end of the property with the fire station relocated to the

center. with that context, that should give you a better understanding of what's at issue here. when presented the proposal, they opted to relocate the fire station which opened up the corner of the lot to allow them to build their high-rise tower in the preferred location to take advantage of the highly visible street front and move the fire station to the interior. in addition, the tower was actually built over the roof of the fire station. so they get some extra space that they might not have had otherwise based on the design configuration. but it's because of this relocation of the fire station that we're here today, that decision was made as he alluded to without the full participation of the community and now related as using the

site constraints that were the result of the decision to relocate the station in support of this request for exceptions and variances even though related acknowledges that it actually could redesign the project and completely be code compliant. the planning commission -- the planning code rules exist for a reason and if there are going to be variances and exceptions, the proper findings need to be made and the fact that the fire station design decision is driving some of the need for these variances shouldn't be sufficient to cause the board to overlook the actual requirements for granting the variances or the exceptions. we don't think that those were met in this case and for that reason, the variances should be reversed and the exceptions should be denied. so moving first to the variances, there's a very high

standard version of variances which was not met here. there's two variances that were specifically concerned with. the first is the variance that allows floor to height of less than 14' on the ground floor and the second is the variance that allows -- would allow the project to screen the third floor so that it wouldn't be an active use, but would allow them to put showers, locker rooms, and gym facilities in that location. the justifications for granting the variants really don't support any of the five standards for granting a variance. there's weak showing of exceptional extraordinary circumstances. that's nonexistent. there's no real practicality and no substantial property right that would be impacted if the variances were denied. the justification for granting those variances relies instead

on the design constraints related to the decision into the fire station and the design of the tower and the mix of uses that it would provide. this isn't sufficient especially when as the respondent in its briefing would be able to move or relocate or even potentially eliminate some of these facilities to make a code compliant building and not require these variants at all. looking specifically at the ceiling height, i have a few exhibits that will help illustrate that. >> director: we can pause the time. >> yeah. i'm trying to be efficient with this. this is a diagram that shows where the ground floor ceiling

height exceptions are sought for i think this is the residential variant. there's also a similar diagram showing where the variance is sought for the commercial project. it essentially adds the project for the finishing kitchen on the left-hand side of this diagram and some other facilities related to the restaurant. however, primarily the reduced height is for the benefit of the fire station which appears here. while it's true, the fire station is benefitting from the reduced the height, so is the commercial aspect of the project and there's no real reason that this is actually required and that these facilities can be relocated 14' above or that the project be redesigned in some other way to fit on these facilities and

also be code compliant. moving to the gym and the screening facilities, or the screening. the third floor that shows where the screening would be along these edges here to make room for the locker room, showers and spas. part of the constraints related are doing drives this decision is the fact that a portion of this floor is shared in the fire department. the fourth floor is much bigger and indeed every floor above that is. so there is space in other parts of the building to put the facilities that they have

decided to put on level three all in the same location and that all require screening. the variants would allow the developer to build their preferred project. if that's really the only justification for the variants here, it's not exceptional or extraordinary that a building is bordered on three sides by a frontage road and therefore has an active use requirement that would prohibit screening. that's part of what the code continue plates by having an active use requirement in the first place. similarly, the size of the lot and the parcel size might make it a little more difficult to fit some of these facilities in. but, again, the space expands on the fourth floor and building over the fire station podium. so the variants here doesn't achieve the objectives of the

planning code which are to preserve, enhance, and promote attractive sign street frontages. rather, the variances are sought merely to accommodate the applicant's design preferences which they can feed, they could redesign the project in such a way that was code compliant, they would just prefer not to. so without the findings of exceptional extraordinary circumstances, practical and the unnecessary hardship or substantial property right that would be affected by not granting the variances, they shouldn't be granted and the showing wasn't made here. these variances are actually truly necessary for this project and that there would be a harm to the applicant without them. in contrast to that, you have the planning code criteria which are designed for the benefit of everybody in the downtown area.

they're simply being disregarded and in favor of the applicant preference preferred design. i'd also like to speak briefly about the downtown project authorization. there's two exceptions that were granted there that we take issue with. the first is the rear yard exception and the second is the exposure requirements exception. for both of those developer seems to be taking the position that the exception to those requirements should be granted basically as a matter of right because they are frequently granted for commercial -- for the c3 district and high-rise project like this one. however, that's not the way the code is written. the code contemplates that there is still a rear yard requirement unless the finding can be made that adequate light and air reaches all the residential units. in this case, the findings only state that about half the dwelling units have private

balconies. there's a shared solarium and the remaining units look out onto the streets of the courtyard. but there are four units that are seeking an exposure exception. so it's safe to assume that those are not getting adequate air and light and in addition, the planning code requires that the units get air and the fact that they're on the outside of the building doesn't demonstrate that they're getting air. similarly, the four units for which they are seeking exposure are on the fourth and fifth floor -- i'm sorry. am i out of time? >> yes. >> director: you'll have more time in rebuttal. thank you. we will now hear from the appellant from 447 partners llc. i believe we have mr. o'neil and mr. patterson here representing this appellant.

>> yes. good afternoon. can you hear me? >> director: yes. welcome. >> thank you. hello, good evening vice president swig and commissioners. this is ryan patterson, attorney for 447 partners. a local small business and the owner of the property located alternate 407 battery street. and this downtown project authorization and various appeal. i'll start by saying that the attorney sky ling is absolutely right. the problems that this project is trying to solve with code exceptions is prior to its own makings. these are voluntary issues not something that's a feature of the property. it's a feature of the design. the proposed project could potentially include a 19-floor 236-foot tall building hotel with 200 guest rooms and a fire

station where alternatively, the project could instead include 256 residential units and the fire station. we'll address the dnx approval first and the variants second. the project was proceed l forward from 2014 until recently when it was sandbagged at the last minute by a landmarking proposal without warning. and i'm going to share my screen if i can get that to work here. >> i'll pause time. >> thank you. okay. can you see my screen now? >> director: yes. we can see it. >> okay. thank you. >> the planning commission approved a dnx for the 530 sansome project. however, the planning commission aired in its interpretation of the code and used this discretion when granting the approval. the code exception's allowed

pursuant to section 309 are limited in scope and the exceptions granted by the planning commission are beyond those allowed by the code including the exceptions granted for the rear yard, dwelling unit exposure and off street freighting requirements. the dnx completely eliminated the rear yard which was improper. planning code section 309 allows for exceptions to the rear yard requirements, but only as permitted by planning code section 134. section 134 in turn allows for a reduction not to complete elimination of the rear yard requirement. the planning commission's findings acknowledge by completely eliminating the rear yard is not limited. the project's does not propose a rear yard and does not meet a strict requirement of the code. end quote. also, the code only allows for rear yard reductions so long as the building location and configuration assure adequate light and air to windows within

the residential units and to the open space provided. the project does not meet this requirement. as the project also seeks an exception to the dwelling unit. project sponsor's response represents other projects to support the proposition that the rear yard can be completely eliminated. however, in the examples provided, projects have included courtyards or other ground to sky open spaces and function equivalent of the rear yard. here, the project is not provided comparable ground to sky open space. the project does not meet the criteria to allow for reduction let alone complete elimination of the rear yard requirement. section 140 reference requires every dwelling unit to provide windows that face directly on to an open area such as the public street, alley or rear yard. planning code section 309 allows exceptions to the exposure requirements as permitted in section 140.

section 140 however only allows for the dwelling unit exposure to be waived being modified for historic buildings. and nonconforming uses in an existing building. section 140 provides no exceptions the dwelling unit requirement for new construction. here, the proposed project includes the construction of a brand new building and does not meet the criteria to allow for an exception to the dwelling unit requirements at all. in total, the project site is over 17,000 square feet and provides the applicant with maximum flexibility to meet the dwelling unit requirements. planning code exposure exception allowed pursuant to section 309 and acknowledge the project would not meet the standards of the code. again, the project sponsor points to projects that provide window and safety courtyards. this project does not include similar features.

one project referenced by the project sponsor provided exposure acceptance, but that's in acceptance specifically allowed by section 140. section 161 provides exceptions to the code's various off street parking requirements. it states that the exemptions shall be narrowly construed. section 161 also requires the planning commission considers specific criteria such as whether site constraints will not permit underground spaces with reasonable safety. planning commission did not make any findings or consider the listed criteria. the project applicant suggests that it's encumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate the criteria. to the contrary, section 161 requires the planning commission to consider and make appropriate findings. planning commission failed to make any findings as required

by section 161 which alone institutes an error in interpretation or discretion. in sum, the planning commission granted exceptions that are inconsistent with the code. the project sponsor argues that the planning commission be granted unlimited without any limitations. this interpretation is untenable. section 309 allows for exceptions to virtually every planning code requirement and provides no standards to determine whether an exception should be granted. the only potential limitations are those provided in code sections specifically referenced in section 309. these limitations must be upheld. the project does not meet the criteria to qualify for the exceptions and the planning commission to go beyond the scope. therefore, the planning commission aired its interpretation of the code exception pursuant to section 309 and used discretion when granting approval for this

project. the dnx authorization must therefore be revoked. i'll now turn it over to my colleague, attorney brian o'neil. >> with respect to the variants, the zoning administrator approved variants for multiple code requirements including off street parking's moding, active use, ground floor ceiling height and transparency requirements. the variants decision letter does not provide sufficient evidence to establish applied variance findings required by the planning code. and the five findings cannot be made because of the variants do to the own applicant's design. these findings are entirely related to the portion of the building that contain the fire station. however, the project site encompasses three different lots. covers over 17,000 square feet and encompasses over half a city block and the proposed tower is over 200' tall.

the shear size provides maximum design ability. in other words, the variance findings for the fire station do not establish that a variant is appropriate for the rest of the commercial portion of the development. first, they must provide substantial evidence where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances were applied to the property that do not apply generally to other properties. the findings do not establish exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, but rather state that the variant allow for a quote superior design of the tower. none of these findings are related to or establishes extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. to qualify for finding two, the z.a. must establish that the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances must result in practical difficult and

unnecessary hardship. again, the z.a. only made findings related to the fire station, but made no findings related to the rest of the variances. the commercial areas of the first floor are entirely structurally separate from the fire station and therefore there is no reason the commercial areas of the buildings cannot meet the ground floor height requirements. after the commercial area meets the height requirement or the other half highlighted in pink does not. there is no stated reason why meeting the requirement on the rest of the ground floor would cause an unnecessary hardship. the applicant chose to design the building with a gym and locker on the locker room on the third floor which does not meet the active use requirements and it necessitates windows that cannot meet transparency requirements. this design is attributable to the applicant. the project sponsor admits that the code requirements could be met but would result in a quote awkward plan of development.

however, the desire for a specific floor plan is not the standard. rather, the required findings is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances result in practical difficulty which is not the case here. to qualify for finding three, the z.a. must establish that the variant is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties. the z.a.'s findings do not compare the property rights of the subject property to other properties at all and made no relevant findings. while the project sponsor attempts to do so now by making reference to the projects in the financial districts that have been approved, there is no evidence that demonstrates the variants here are necessary to preserve any substantial property rent. for finding four, the za must

establish the material may be detrimental to the public welfare. the z.a.'s findings merely state the variances will quote provide a new state of the art fire station but also provide desirable position to the financial district skyline. the z.a. did not make any findings related to the detrimental impact, public well favor or injuring to neighbor properties at all. there is evidence in record including reports from eddie lou and a peer review report that the project will have substantial adverse structural impacts to our client's building at 447 battery. additionally, preservation architect michael has reviewed the project and determined that the project will have substantial adverse impacts to the views from our client's building at 447 battery. the za did not consider any of these impacts when granting the

variants. the za must establish the variants will be in harmony and will not affect the general plan. such findings are impossible to make because the project proposes two entirely different development schemes. the project could include the hotel. the project requires different variants. for example, the za findings states that the project provides significant opportunities with the restaurant, gym, office, and hotel uses. this finding would not be accurate if the residential variant is constructed. the za cannot possibly make the required findings until the applicant identifies which project will be constructed. in conclusion, the project

sponsor suggests that the variance requirements are not exactlying and the za does not need to make findings to support the variants. this is simply not the case. planning code section 309 states that the za should only have the power to grant variances to the extent necessary to overcome practical difficulty and must provide facts in his written decision to establish each of the required findings. there are no facts to establish the required findings and the variances proposed here are not necessary, but rather a result of the applicant's own design and desired floor plan. the fire station use is only a small portion of the overall development scheme, but the variances are applicable to the entire project. the variance approval was not to overcome extraordinary circumstances or unnecessary hardships. >> 30 seconds. >> but based on the allege

attractiveness of the project and to avoid an awkward design. therefore, the board of appeals must disapprove the variances. thank you. >> director: thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor. eqxjackson. since you are responding to four appeals, you have 28 minutes. >> thank you executive director and good evening, board. i'm jim abrahams and land use council for the co-project sponsor related to california. i'm also on the line with chief don dewit who is also a project sponsor. to this project who is the project architect. so this is the 530 sansome

project as we've been discussing which is the demolition of an existing fire station 13 and two adjacent nonhistoric buildings. the project would construct a state of the art fire station 13 and approximately 218' tall mixed use high-rise tower. as we just witnessed, the opponents are playing armchair architect and their objecting to commonly granted design that have no relation to their property interest. this is merely about delaying a fire station. as we just witnessed. all of their objections have to do with minute and discrete design use of this tower that have no relationship to the actual property or interest. s.o.m. is on the line and he'll walk you through the project design. >> thanks, jim. thanks vice president swig. i'll be brief here. the project side is at the corner of washington and sansome bounded on the south by

merchant street ending about two thirds of the block or roughly one quarter of a full city block. the photos on the right show the existing fire station constructed at the same time as the embarcadero center. next slide. the fire station sits at the corner of the site taking all three public frontages and so the project did begin with the idea of moving the fire station to more appropriate station mid block. and you can go to the next slide. if we look at fire stations through the city, they're very commonly mid block and that's because they require direct access to the street for their loading bays. but on the sides of those bays they're completely opaque since the fire engines can't come out 90 degrees to those bays. so this mid block location fits very well with the program attic requirements of the fire station as well as using as

little as possible frontage in the downtown district for use which is not traditionally considered an active use. go ahead, jim. what this allows is for the prominent corners of the two public frontages to accommodate a wide range of uses and the two different versions of the project. it also allows a great deal of ground improvement in the way traditional street scape improvements, but also the transformation of merchant street into a shared street. next slide. sorry, this shows the array of uses in the mixed use project which are stacked on top of this very compact site and showing these uses in section. you see the fire station in red which as noted by the appellant which only represents a small fraction of the total project but takes a very large fraction

of the site area and stacked upon the active uses of the ground floor at the left are gym, office, and hotel functions. this this order to be a feasible project and in fact envisioned by the city when the rfq was issued, portions of the building are built above the fire station. next slide. the residential variant has a very similar configuration only with different uses. go ahead. so the fundamental unique situation of this project, the challenge of the project is accommodating all of the street level needs of many different uses and grade on a very narrow side, approximately 100'. approximately 80' along the two long streets. the fire station is shown here in red with the adjacent service which services the entire project loading adjacent on washington street. the restaurant or retail use is

at the corner of washington sansome, office lobby, gym, lobby. the washington street reconfiguration was a suggestion and request at the fire department and the m.t.a. and this is not a feature of the original proposal. it came out of the long detailed process. next slide. this illustrates the very large percentage of the ground floor area of this project which is taken up by either of the fire station or required service infrastructure and building code elements. this includes the building stairses, vertical circulation, trash, gas meter. all of those things which must be on the ground floor of the building and cannot be anywhere else. the remaining space is entirely utilized by active uses envisioned by the planning code. go ahead. the residential project variant has essentially the same ground the use is along sansome street

are different. go ahead to the next one. very similar relationship to what we have discretion over. go ahead. so despite all that, we believe that the design accommodates the spirit of the planning code which is to provide active uses at the base of the building to provide a high level of transparency at the public street frontages. go ahead. and in both variations of the building. on washington street, the fire station is the primary identity of the building shown here with the fire station. and then go ahead. and then with those doors open. and then on the other side of the project, next slide, jim, merchant street is envisioned to be transformed from a loading alley into a shared street which can be permanently

pedestrianized at times. you can see here the transparent and active nature at the base of the building with multiple lobbies, retail spaces and significant public improvements. with that, i'll turn it over back to jim for details and i'm available to answer any questions. >> sure. thanks, mark. so the new fire station 13 would be a 28-square foot facility which would be extended by 21'. the architect, fire department, m.t.a. and other city agencies. the project timeline is significant given the assertion that the adjacent property owner was not aware of the project and the adjacent property owner is a sophisticated commercial property owner. so this project started in 2017 with the board of supervisors adopting the resolutions encouraging development of this site.

in 2019, the bureau of real estate published rfp and related the development applications. throughout 2020 and 2021, there were inner agency project design. there was conditional property exchange at the board of supervisors. there was mailed neighborhood notice and then there is the commencement of a preparation of the ceqa mitigated declaration. in the spring and summer of 2021, there was public noticing and publication of the mitigated negative declaration. there was separate public notice of the planning commission hearing which they did receive because they participated in the planning commission hearing. so there was a public hearing in denial of a ceqa appeal to the planning commission of the 447 battery. and just a few weeks ago, there was a board of supervisors

hearing unanimously denying the ceqa appeal raised by 447. there's also been a significant news coverage of this project starting in 2017 in the san francisco chronicle. 2019 in the business times. again 2019 in the chronicle and again 2019 in the business times. these are just a selection of articles that are actually additional chronicle articles that were published to talk about this site. there have been numerous public notices. there was mailed notice commencement in the ceqa process in november 2020. in april 2021, notices had been completed. there was newspaper notice. there were also posters placed all around the project site. three posters on washington. three posters on battery. two posters on sansome. in june 2021, there was a whole separate round of noticing with posters placed throughout the project site. at the beginning of this

presentation, contended that they were not able to participate in the public hearing process because of a lack of notice and that's incorrect. they did participate in the planning commission hearing and they were able to file this on the basis of appeal. so the ceqa appeal i think is worth commenting on. the department of determination. the board unanimously denied that appeal and the board of supervisor's reaction was that the appeal was meritless. everything at the kitchen sink to see what sticks and these exact same arguments that apply here tonight. and so what you see here is that 447 and ywlad are attempting to hold the property. not homeowners or persons in

other professions. at the core of their argument is an attempt to have this board adopt the planning code and over turn years of practice. argue as they did tonight that a variance cannot be granted unless it is quote unquote truly necessary which is absolutely not the legal standard and to ignore a usually robust project case file supporting the next motion and the variants. so first turning to the dnx motion, the dnx motion grants code compliant design exceptions. they're extremely common to developments downtown. the standard applies to the board's review tonight. the appellants challenged three exceptions. one of the modifications in the rear yard which allows for in our courtyard in lieu of the rear yard access to light. there's a dwelling unit exposure for four of the 56

units. and there's partial release from off street mode requirements. so first turning to the rear yard, the planning commission's motion sets forth a justification for the rear yard notification. it's consistent with the rationale that each project over the last 15 years. the project and you have seen throughout this evening has a minimum 25' setback from the adjacent properties over the fire station and the units that look out east, look out over that large setback over the fire station. for technical reasons, that's not technically considered to be a rear yard in the planning code, but those units absolutely have access to light and air. there will be nothing built over the roof of the fire station. so here's a nonexclusive list of downtown high risk projects that receive this exception. some of them include things like transbay parcel f which was just approved last year.

it's probably -- i think it's the second tallest building in the city. these are major projects that the planning commission is considered and approved this exact same rear yard exception for. so for dwelling unit exposure, the project uses 2018 legislation that was clearly intended to broadly permit the planning commission's exposure exceptions. again, this exception applies only to four of the 256 units. don't need extremely technical requirements and those units are located at the base of the building for reasons if i spoke to the technicality of it, it would be extremely boring. the purpose of the 2018 legislation as stated by the planning commission is to remove an additional layer of review for quote most large residential projects in the downtown c3 districts by

eliminating a need for billions in most cases. if you go to the last line of this. it also says the dwelling exposure are routinely granted to accommodate the construction of the high-rise. it was to allow the exposure as opposed to variances giving him the shear number of projects that were receiving exposure variances. it was nearly every project in the downtown district. so this exception to the process was put into place. so the appellant prefers that you read the code differently than the planning commission and they prefer you to read it to only authorized projects for existing buildings. conversions of nonconforming buildings and existing buildings and these examples are clearly not most large

development projects in downtown in the c-3 districts. there's numerous projects that have received these exceptions. off street loading, i think it's even less worthy of further discussion. the planning commission clearly granted the exception. the argument that were unique site constraints making it feasible of adequate off street loading stations. they relieded on a study by the transportation consultant and the loading internal building was unnecessary and designer project that was consistent with those exception requirements. so at last, we turn to the variants. again, the variants, the appellants are challenging extremely particular requirements in the planning code and so they're challenging partial relief from the ground floor ceiling height requirements for part of the building and so there's a minimum 14' ceiling height

requirement. and also on the third floor, a variance from facade transparency requirements. it's only on the third floor where there's a gym, locker room so that people are not taking showers visible from the street. again, these variances do not adversely affect the appellants or the property. and so the legal standard for the variants is exceptional. and the va and this board. the requirements are there's some kind of physical necessity and in this case, the project requires the feasible design for a fire station and a mixed use tower at a site that's

bounded on three sides by public streets. there's no project here without a fire station. this project requires a fire station to be constructed on the site in a physical constraint that's shown by the block and the streets. the san francisco fire department and public safety requires that the floor plan of the new fire station be sufficiently large to accommodate fire trucks. so the fire station can be a vertical building. so what happens is 70% of the ground floor project is occupied by the fire station. two things are happening. one is we have a fire station. we must have a fire station that's horizontally oriented and we must own a tower building that pays for the construction of the fire station. all of these things must happen and those are exceptional circumstances. most projects in downtown services do not have fire stations in their base. so this illustrates the constraints. i think mark went through these. this is the block that's bounded on three sides by

streets. and i think as you look closely at this diagram, you also see that merchant street is 13' north of the midpoint of the full block. so the block is compressed even more fully than most blocks downtown where these alleys are running through the middle of the block as opposed to the upper third of them. so, again, the attorney from could belin showed you this diagram which is correct. so shaded areas are the areas where the floor to ceiling height is lower than 14'. in most instances, it's 12'. and things like a kitchen, finishing kitchen and trash. things that cannot be provided on the first floor building. so the lobby areas, they're all compliant with ceiling heights and, in fact, most of them are 26' tall.

so they're almost double the required floor to ceiling height in the planning code. the residential variant is similar. same issue, different configuration. there's again the standard uses that would normally be on the first floor, things like that. the people who are coming in to the front door of this building will need to use or either need to be serviced by. so then we turn to the gym screening variants. so this is again a pretty technical design exception. so the planning code requires that the building have nontransparent frontages and active uses for the first 15' of the building. and the building meets this requirement except where there's gym locker rooms on the third floor which are appropriately screened for public view. if you look at the third floor, given all of the fire station

requirements and basic building core, if you impose a 15-point setback, there will be no space for these uses and it is appropriate and it is perfectly acceptable for the project to request to have these uses on the floor and it would be a hardship if they were not. they could also be located on the fourth floor which, again, the attorney showed. if you apply a 15-foot setback as well, you run into the same issue. there's not enough space on this to have the back house you would need. so, again, excuse me. the various criteria are met. there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. it's created by the fire station 13 program requirements. the fire station must be horizontal and not vertical. we have a narrow site. the surrounding highway structures are not subject to constraints. they do not have fire stations on their base.

the second standard is not necessary or possible to not operate without the variants. the standard is. so putting back at the house serving the base of the building where people have to go up on elevators to use the restroom or the kitchen on the first floor is certainly a practical difficulty or a necessary hardship. wha when will the project conceivably be redesigned, that's just not the legal standard. the appellants are again asserting that we've conceded that the project could be redesigned to meet these requirements. i think that that's probably correct. when it causes practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that's the standard. the various preserves substantial property rights chlgt other high-rise towers are not subject to lower

constraints. it's could xh to have a house use on the same floor and all the act its proposed permitted or otherwise. that's detrimental to the public or to neighboring properties. that one is given in the nature of the appeal. this doesn't show it affects the locker room or not. it's irrelevant to the injury of the neighbors. and, again, i think as we can all see, the foundation of this appeal is the basis of the appeal is that the -- they don't want a fire station next door to them to be honest. so finally, the variance has to be in the general code and the project's design and uses further the policies and the general plan and the code as written in the variance decision and permits a mixed

use of development with a new city fire station. things like the double height lobby spaces on the ground floor that are almost double the required ceiling height is how this project is consistent with the general plan. that's our presentation and i appreciate your attention for something that's confusing but extremely important. >> director: okay. thank you. we do have a question from commissioner lazarus and then vice president swig. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. i have several questions. i won't claim they're related. why the two variants with m.t.s. proposals? why and what will be the process for determining which one goes forward? >> so the variants were identified in the city's conditional property exchange agreement in a way of ensuring the project has the best opportunity to move forward. so the board when authorized

the project and executed the conditional property exchange agreement anticipated that the tower might be a hotel or residential building contemplated both and given what we're experiencing now in the marketplace, i think that was a smart decision. what we did was similar to a large development or the project was subject to contract with the city. we fully entitled both versions of the project in terms of the tower program. the planning commission motion as a result of that is extremely detailed and has full sets of elevations, full sets of plans for use projects. detailed description of everything. so related we'll determine which program is preferable and which one will proceed. i think at this point, they are continuing to think that a hotel is a better use for this property. but the idea was given the market uncertainties we're facing right now the importance of this fire station required every benefit in order to be financially feasible.

>> so ultimately, it is related to the decision. >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: second question, i believe the original rfq spoke about affordable housing. if you go to a residential one i believe it's not affordable and i assume it will be in lieu fees paid. will the city benefit in terms of the contributions to the affordable housing fund. >> yes. so for the hotel version of the project to pay the jobs and housing and linkage fee. when the board of supervisors initially conceived this project, they desired that those fees would be potentially contributed to a site in chinatown and it was identified in the authorizing documents for this project and it was based into the original idea of this project that the proceeds from this project, the

affordable housing either from the residential project could be used to build affordable housing. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. and my last question concerns the location of the fire station and i thought you said you had maybe somebody from the fire department who was on the line as well. >> yes. chief john de witt. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. chief, are you there? >> i am here. >> commissioner lazarus: hi. would you speak a little bit to the relocation -- well, to the relocation from battery around the corner, but also maybe briefly as to why a new fire station is needed at this juncture? >> certainly, i'll speak to the first issue first of all. it's crowded, it's out dated

it's in a state of pretty poor repair at this point. all of our funding to do major capital improvements or replacements comes from the easter bonds. the only current bond that we have right now, the new bond coming is the 2020 easter bond and all of that funding has been allocated for the tear down and the rebuild in the mission seven division which is a very important station and the building of the new fire training facility because we're losing our training facility over on treasure island. our capital needs at this point are such that any other moneys that come from bonds will go to focus scope projects, for example, we need to replace generators, emergency generators. redo roof systems, hvac systems and replace windows. there's really just not an opportunity for us to tear down fire stations at will.

and this opportunity has provided for us to build the station is really a unique opportunity for us and we are 100% behind the project. we have been working in lock step relating to get the design as needed. we have a thick book of designs and standards and criteria that have developeded over the last several years and they have agreed to work with us to it does not affect us operation alley whatsoever. and so we are more than happy to move to the washington side of the block. it is very uncommon to have a fire house on the corner as it stands currently. and we believe that turning it over onto the washington street side will be no detriment toward the department and it

will function for us just fine. you know, we talked about moving it over to merchant street, but there's not enough room on that side of the building to get the fire trucks and engines out of there, and so washington street was the next best option. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. one followup question back to mr. abrams. >> yeah. >> commissioner lazarus: so my deduction would say that the design of the tower and the seizebility of it financially drove the move of the fire house around the corner. would that be a fair conclusion? >> i don't know if that's a fair conclusion. i do think that it was probably most significantly driven by a preferable design in terms of having the corner of them be back to back uses.

and i think it probably would have been very challenging to have the city improve the fire station with nonactive uses along both of the frontages of the fire station and moving into the center of the block as he showed us solves that problem. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you, that's fair. >> director: thank you. now we'll hear from vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: thank you. i think the project is a very favorable project. i think it serves the city of san francisco as the chief just noted. i have a long history in the hotel business. i know from once the designers come with regard to the challenges of having services onto same floor where you noted

and the use of merchant street in a much more favorable fashion really enhances in my view that block. so all that being said, i've got a big problem and that is the five findings. the five findings for the variances as presented for for our review fall short. one, their bookkeeping and administration, the clarification, who's going to write the five findings here other than i agree that they are ambiguous. i agree that at this point, they really don't suffice, but i can't -- i'm not going to write them although i see quite

frankly many areas that the five findings are met. so who's going to write the five findings? the project sponsor or the zoning administrator? because i think that's where the harm in this project is. i can -- again, i'm not going to write the five findings and i'm not going to tell you what they are. you did a pretty good job representing them. who's going to write them in a clear fashion that supports this more clearly than they are right now, sir? >> is that a question for me? >> commissioner swig: yes. >> so given that this is a general -- sorry i didn't want to presume. given that this is a standard of review, i think that you could direct the zoning

administrator to draft the five findings consistent with our presentation and materials in the record. so i think that would be appropriate. i would defer to the zoning administrator in your council on that issue, but i do think that that would be an appropriate way of making the record for robust and more keeping with your logic. >> commissioner swig: have you worked at all with -- the five findings as they have been presented so far, did you work in -- i say 'you,' but did the project sponsor work in any collaboration or any intent with what you have presented with the zoning administrator to make the five findings more clear. >> we did have a discussion about the merits of this appeal and discussed the variants and

i think what our thoughts were about making the variants more robust, you know, mr. sanchez is i think on the line and, you know, i'd be curious to hear what he has to say. but i think that the exceptional circumstances relating to a fire station being a condition precedent to any of this happening is something that could be better explained in the variance. [please stand by]

>> -- i will say that while i did participate in the planning commission hearing -- so they -- regardless of whether or not they -- they received notice or not, they were aware of the hearing, and they showed up, and they actually participated in the planning commission hearing, so they

suffered no injury or harm as a result of the failure to receive notice that they're contending. and i think that that's critical because it -- the way that the presentation occurred, it sounds as if they're saying that they were denied some sort of right by not receiving the notice, but they did participate in the planning commission hearing. >> can you explain what the -- >> clerk: if the commissioner asks you a question, you'll have an opportunity to respond in rebuttal, as well. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so they did reach out to wilad. it was not years before the planning commission commenced -- or planning department commenced their review. again, this is a downtown commercial district, right? this is a district where we have sophisticated special

property owners. this is not single-family homeowners that are fighting amongst each other, and i think there's an expectation that people pay attention to what's happening. i think that -- so anyway, i'll stop there, but that's the way we see it. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we are now moving onto the planning department. mr. sanchez, you have 28 minutes? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i'll try to respond to vice president swig's question as part of my presentation. what we have before you is a project at 530 sansome street in the downtown 3 -- c-3 zoning district. it could be an allowed height up to 220 feet. it's located on block 0206, the

subject site comprises three lots, which are border washington, sansome, and merchant totality. more than half of this block or a subset of this block, this project site's about 99 feet by 178 feet. the appellants are at 447 battery and 401 washington, which are the only other two lots on this block, which is bound by, you know, washington, sansome, merchant, and battery. there are four appeals before you this evening, two each of the planning commission's downtown project authorization and two of the zoning administrator's variance decision. the project includes the demolition of three existing buildings, including san

francisco fire department station 13 and two buildings, and a mixed-use building. there have been two very detailed variances provided, what are known as a commercial and residential variance. both would include the construction of a new fire station 13, approximately 21,000 square feet in area. i won't go into extensive detail about the two variantance -- variances, but note that it's 19 stories with approximately 141,000 square feet of hotel use, 200 rooms, and approximately 37,000 feet of office uses, 32,000 of gym

uses, and 37,000 square feet of restaurant uses. the residential variants in comparison are approximately 283,000 square feet, including the fire department uses, and about 21 stories. it is overall the same height but the floor to ceiling heights are different. they are able to get two more stories into the residential design, and that would propose 256 dwelling units of varying sizes. we'll try to jump into the main issues that have been raised on the appeal. there was an issue raised about the neighborhood notice. i'm not aware of any error or defect in the neighborhood notifications that were provided for this project. we do use the mailing address that is on the assessor's records, and the wilad ownership is shown on the mailing list for the items that are on appeal before you now.

i can't speak to their knowledge before these required neighborhood notices, but the code required neighborhood notices do appear to have been properly performed. in addition to mailing, there are posters. given the size of this, there were numerous posters installed on the property, and i do believe the owner mentioned the notice the project has received over the years. looking to the downtown exception -- maybe i should comment on kind of both, from my reading of the briefs, and the appellant can correct me if they believe i'm wrong, but i generally see them focusing on kind of the related aspect of it. there's more concerns raised about the -- you know, the commercial or the residential and its code compliance. i haven't seen that many concerns raised specifically about the fire department proposal, but, you know, in looking at the issues that were raised on the appeal, the rear

yard, there's an exception under 309-a-1 for exception to the rear yard requirement. i think in briefs, they noticed that it references subsection d of 134. that's slightly outdated because in 2014, section 134 was amended, and now it's subsection 134-g, which was the relevant review provisions, we have flagged that for code cleanup, but that does not in any way invalidate this review or approval, and the findings of the commission must make, as part of the exception for rear yard, it comes down to light and air. is there adequate light and air for the dwelling units? so this exception only applies because of that to the residential variance, so the commercial variant is code

compliant with respect to the rear yard. they are providing this 33-foot wide courtyard, which is laterally open to both merchant and washington, and that is completely unobstructed from level six to 31. so you would call it an outer courtyard, you can also call it a rear yard. that's open space, and that provides the required exposure on floors six through 21, so the -- it's less than the code requirement. the code would require a 45 foot, quote, unquote, rear yard, that is 33 feet, but that does satisfy all the requirements for units on the six through 31 floors. for the units on the second

floor, there's no rear yard for the fire department. on the four and fifth levels, there's a small rear yard that's reduced because of some equipment of the fire department. the only units that require exposure are four levels on four and five, and i'll get to that in just a second. but in this case, there's no required rear yard at the second and third floor where one would be required under the code because it's required at each level with a dwelling unit. the planning commission can give a complete exception to that. in that case, all the units are facing onto either merchant or washington or sansome, so they're all exposure compliant. so the next issue that's raised is the exposure, and the

downtown exception. 309-a-14 allows the planning commission to grant exception to the planning exposure requirement. there is no specific provision in section 140 about specific findings that need to be made. that was not added when the ordinance was adopted in 2018, which was added by ordinance 179-18 to standardize and streamline the process. again, this is something that is only applicable to the residential version of the project. it would not be applicable to the commercial version of the project, but i did review kind of the argument made by the -- by the appellants about the reference in a-14 to exposure in 140. i think the code language there could have been a bit clearer, but there's nothing in 309-a-14 or section 140 that would prevent the planning commission from giving the exception as

they have done in this case for the four units. again, it's four out of the 256 units that don't meet it. it's probably the two units that are on floor four, maybe slightly more impacted than the two units on floor five. they look out on a very small area of about 6.5 feet to the structure that is the roof of the fire department. in reviewing this with the zoning administrator, this has been employed by other projects since that time, to grant an underexposure review exception, and this has been reviewed by the department for this exception. all the units on floors six

through 33 are code compliant. there's concerns raised about offstreet freight and the findings contained in the planning commission's motion. i think the planning commission's motion clearly considers the impact due to the inclusion of the fire department, and i would note that actually the residential version of the project is compliant with this requirement. it's only needed for the commercial version in this case, but it was very properly analyzed and fully analyzed by the planning commission, and there was a plan developed in order to address potential freight loading given the access that was granted, and they considered the project holistically in respect to all of the code requirements. moving onto the variants, there

are four variances that are sought. two only apply to the fire station and two would apply to the fire station and the commercial variant. focusing on the two that apply to the commercial variant which i think were most prominently raised by the appellant, the code requires 14-foot floor-to-ceiling height for the level. they're wrapping the facade, providing more than what is required by the code, but it is the interior area where they have less than the 14 feet that is required. and i believe that this is justified in -- as part of the project because when you're looking at the project in its totality, you have a unique situation. usually, when you have projects on the ground floor, they get more slender as you go up the floors, but in this

case, i believe the floor levels at the lower levels, floors one through three, where it shares that area with the fire station, it's actually less than the upper levels. it's a pinch point, and it's very appropriate to consider the impacts of the fire station as part of the findings. finding number one, it does say whether there are extraordinary circumstances applying to the fire department involved or other general uses that do not apply to the same class use district. not every project in san francisco is going to have a fire station on it and have the impacts of that. the fire station has very specific operating requirements, location requirements. you can't have the fire station on the 21 floor. you can have a pole, i guess, people could come to the fire

trucks below, but maybe a little long for the pole to be, but there does seem to be i think very long, considering the impacts of the shared ground floor areas. another one is the active use of the third floor at the gym. you know, in most buildings, it will have one facade, maybe two facades if you're at a corner. this building has three facades, so you have very little space -- so if you actually have to have that 15-foot set back as negotiated by the sponsor, that's where the core is, that's where the elevators are. so i think looking at the impacts and the needs created by the fire station, would very much justify the granting of those variances for the commercial version of the project, as well. you have -- it's pretty unusual

to have three facades, a tower where you have a smaller available footprint than on upper levels. i think looking at their design, you can see how it balances the code requirement to comply with any additional requirements, and i think they've done a very creative way of minimizing any potential impacts that could be caused by not meeting those requirements. lastly, in, i think, one of the briefs, there were concerns raised about the general plan findings and how can they make findings about key projects. we were provided very detailed plans, very detailed proposals for the two. there's no way or reason why the department, the planning commission, and the zoning administrator couldn't make the

findings as they did. oddly, i think the brief only mentioned concerns with the variance findings for the general commission letter, but they're spoken in the downtown exception and the letter, and they were properly made in both. in regards to the question that vice president swig had regarding the findings, this is a de novo hearing. it's solely for the board. if the board has concerns about the findings and the variance and would like me to supplement the findings or provide additional thoughts, i would defer to your deputy city attorney, but that's within the board's jurisdiction to adopt additional findings in addition to what's already in the variance decision letter if you feel that additional findings are necessary. so, you know, with that, i am available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

vice president swig has a question. >> commissioner swig: first of all, thank you very much for your testimony because in a wonderful but very complex project, you've clarified that it is exactly that. it is complex, there's reason for that complexity, and it leads to a couple of questions. one, is it advisable, in your opinion, to do a one-size-fits-all variance, you know, list of findings according to the variances required based on -- based on two completely different directions? or should there be a -- a five

findings explanation based on one, and then one based on the other project? what's -- what are your thoughts or what are the legalities associated with that, and maybe the city attorney wants to chime in on that if you're not comfortable giving your opinion. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. in terms of the variance, and i believe the variance is only required for the commercial version. so the variance is intended to apply only for that project. the variance is needed for the fire station either way, so you'd have the -- so four of them are needed for the variance specifically for the fire station in either case, but only two of them are needed

for the commercial version of the project. and if the board has concerns -- and it is a complex project. it's not -- you know, it's not completely unusual for us to get two versions of a project and to analyze those. it does happen, has happened, but it does add complexity, and so if the board feels that the variance findings, you know, could be improved, could be strengthened, i believe as a de novo hearing, the board would have the ability and make the findings that you feel is correct and appropriate, so i do feel you have that jurisdiction. if you feel either clarification or kind of -- if you more information is needed in that decision, if the board doesn't feel comfortable, the board can take that decision and make any changes that you feel is appropriate.

>> commissioner swig: i think your presentation, again, was tremendous, and it clarified a lot of things for me. i don't know about the other commissioners. they can chime in, but the -- but the question, clearly, i'm having trouble articulating because i'm still not confused but trying to develop a direction that is clear to, certainly, the appellants and of course the public. so help me with this, please. in -- in both cases, regardless whether it's [indiscernible] or otherwise, there are the same findings that will apply to the fire stations -- the same

findings that will apply to the fire stations, correct? >> yes. the variances that will apply to the fire station in either the residential or commercial, and in the commercial, two additional variances are required for the commercial version of the project. >> commissioner swig: so as we leave this tonight, we will not know whether there's going to be the commercial option or the hotel option, correct? >> that's correct. that decision will come at a later date, as i understand what i heard tonight from the project sponsor, they're leaning toward the commercial version, but they would have the ability, under the approvals, to do either. >> commissioner swig: okay. would it be your recommendation or do you think that that is unnecessary that if we were to support the variances, that we should have a -- a separate set of findings, one for the

commercial examine one for the hotel, just so that it will be clear in any alternative -- either of the alternatives is selected, that we will have been -- there will be a clear record that we were aware of that, and that we had findings set for -- for either alternative? >> i think their record is clear as to the kind of findings, but again, i'm not an attorney, and whether it goes to litigation is something i'm not aware of or involved in. i look at the city attorney and how they feel, or the project sponsor. should the findings be

documented in a different way. >> commissioner swig: yeah, mr. russi, can you help us out here? we're not to the deliberation point, but it certainly would help in the further discussions in the second half of this hearing to understand whether your advice to have two separate sets of findings contingent on one set of findings or the other? >> good evening, commissioners. brad russi on behalf of the city attorney's office. i believe the [indiscernible] identify which need a different variance from the variants of the project, and it's clear which applies to which, so i don't think it's legally

necessary that you reach -- have two different variances based on the two different variants of the project. if you feel, though, that there's something confusing or they're not sufficiently supported the way it's been drafted, then i think you should revise it. as the zoning administrator said, you are in the same position as the zoning administrator is when he grants a variant. so if you feel the evidence is stronger and there's sufficient evidence to support granting of these variants, it would be advisable for you to give instruction to the zoning administrator, the project sponsor, and myself and do the modifications that you feel would make it stronger. >> commissioner swig: thank you. i know we have the whole second half of this hearing for you to chime in later. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay.

thank you. we will now move onto public comment. if you would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand. i see a hand raise, the phone number ending in -0666, please go ahead. you may need to press star, six. phone number ending in -0666 . >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, good evening. >> my name is kevin -- but also

will generate economic vitality for the surrounding businesses. hotel guests spend more money outside of the hotel than inside, which will benefit other small businesses in the neighborhood, as well. the recognition of an under utilized hotel will be important for this project, and again, thank you so much for your time and all your work that you're putting into this. i appreciate it. take care. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the phone number ending in -6273. please go ahead. -6273.

you may need to press star, six. we'll give you a moment. phone number ending in -6273, please press star, six. okay. go ahead, please. >> good evening. this is alec bash, and i'd like to thank the deputy director, the members of the board of appeals, and other city staff that are present at this hearing. i am speaking on behalf of the gateway tenants association, and we have written a letter to you indicating our support of the 530 sansome street development either for the hotel or the residential variant located adjacent to the proposed development, the gateway complex is comprised of 1,254 apartments and townhomes.

we support this public private partnership between the city and county and the state of california for a mixed use building on top a four-story fire station, and construction of this fire station is long overdue and can only come to fruition as a result of fire department as a result of this unique partnership. i would note that i am a veteran of city and council service, 30 years, 25 years at the planning department, where i wrote more than my share of

variance appeal letters, and i appreciate this proposal and all of your service to the city and county of san francisco and its people. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. dash. is there any other public comment on this matter? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any more public comment, so we will move onto rebuttal. we will hear first from wilad property. miss lang, you have six minutes -- or mr. corbin. >> i don't mean to be petty, but i do object that my intention is to install a project. only i can state what my intention is. i did take the time to tour the san francisco fire department, and i understand the need to either remodel is or for an entirely new building. i don't in any way want to hold that up, and i'm not trying to do that.

my point is with complete lack of notification, that i was not able to participate in a process that i think could have benefited all. yes, an r.f.p. went out, but at that time when it went out, it was only for the san francisco fire department presentation, so maybe i wasn't laser focused. there were two adjacent lots between me and that, not knowing the related purchase of those, so when the r.f.p. went out, maybe i wasn't laser focused. with regard to the mailings, i think i can provide copies of what mailings i received. they aren't there. my property manager is there every week during covid and they did not get them. the posters went up, i believe, two weeks before the hearing. during the height of covid shutdown, nobody was downtown, nor did they want to be, nor

were they expected to be. i participated in the project in 2021, after the entire project was baked. i had no opportunity for people to listen to me and really think they were going to change a 20-story building because of my needs. there were things that could have been done that we'll never know. i was never given the opportunity to make small suggestions that i think could have benefited everyone or at least benefited me and not in any way affected the fire station. i've since found out in june 2021 that the parking has been -- is to be eliminated in front of my small building, and to expect fire trucks and city trucks in front of my small building. i am not objecting to this project in a new fire station. i am objecting the way that it went about. i think it completely goes against how san francisco talks

about being transparent, that we can talk and come up with a solution. it was not done, and i think it was purposely circumvented and taken advantage of the public and private process. i congratulate the fire department if they get their fire department. i want them to, but i think that was used to circumvent this process. >> just to add a few other points, primarily, the limitations created by the fire station are not as great as the developer would lead this board to believe. there are three parcels. the base of the tower occupies two of them, the fire station the third. the remaining part of the tower actually gets more space than it would have had it only been built on the two parcels and not given the opportunity to be built on top of this fire station podium. so to the extent that there's a size limitation in the lobby of the building, that limitation is based on the two parcels

that it's being built on, not the fire station. and additionally, the fact that they want to include multiple uses in this building reduces some of the space for the back of the house unit, so it's not that -- it's not that the fire station creates limitation, the lot size creates limitations, and they get a benefit from being able to build above the top of the fire station podium. so just when we start looking at the variances and what is necessitated by the fire station, really, nothing was necessitated by the fire station. there were only benefits to be able to be built above the air space. the planning code provisions for existing uses and heights exist for a reason: to create

the kind of streets that san franciscans want to see. knowing that the fire station was going to be relocated, wilad should have made a better effort to get the input of the community and inform them the impact of what the fire station would do, instead of informing them once the plans were finalized. so to the extent that this board decides to revise the variances, i do absolutely think that needs to be done, but i urge you to take them seriously because i don't believe you're going to be able to make the findings that they need to actually support these variances. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the attorneys for 447 partners, mr.

patterson and mr. o'neal. >> yep, ryan o'neal with 447 partners. just quickly, the d.n.x. variances, they allow for pretty much every code requirement in the planning code, but those exceptions are only allowed as specified in the specific section, and specifically with the rear yard, it's that the rear yard can be provided by useable open space. the courtyard as provided is not ground to sky. it's not covered by exceptions allowed in the code. with the variance, again, i agree that the variance findings are not adequate. as the project sponsor notes, the project and the exceptional

circumstances as compared to other properties, as noted by the other appellant, the lots here, the portion not taken up by the fire station use is 100 feet by 100 feet, almost 10,000 square feet. so comparing that to other properties and other lots in the financial district, they had plenty of space to design their project and meet all of the code requirements. and as far as impacts, as we noted in our main presentation, we have serious concerns about the structural impacts to 447 battery and also as noted in

the presentation, the project would severely impact and block our westerly views. and generally, we agree that one of the main points of this appeal is that there hasn't been an outreach to the neighbors, there hasn't been a collaborative process, and the 447 partners have been going through a similar process from 2014 and has had extensive outreach with all of the neighbors and was required to meet all of the planning code requirements to a t, and there's not just exceptional circumstances to allow for variances. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor attorney, mr.

abrams. >> yeah, hi. just quickly, i think you're hearing all sorts of statements that are not relevant to this appeal. this appeal is relevant to the 309 and the variants, and we're hearing all sorts of arguments about geotechnical issues and wind and just issues that, again, have no relevance to this appeal. miss lang is, again, playing armchair architect, and i'd like mr. [indiscernible]. >> thanks. i'll keep this very simple. the notion that somehow the tower is enabled by being on top of the fire station is -- is a strange one. the project is enabled by the combination of the allegation

of mr. o'neal. i think those that are on the commission know that less than 10,000 square foot is a very small floor plate, in fact, an exceptionally square floor plate. so one could imagine mirroring the project and pushing it to the corner, pushing it to the east up against the adjacent buildings would certainly be a lesser design solution in terms of the public realm, the base of the building, and in fact would have significantly greater impact on the neighboring properties. so the fire station does greatly complicate the ground floor of the building, and it is those complications and promises which lead to the solution that requires these minor exceptions and variances.

>> i think also, i just want to mention that, again, while ed was able to participate in the planning commission hearing like any other citizen, and they made their concerns clear to the planning commission, and the planning commission rejected those concerns. so again, the planning commission could have decided to, you know, modify the project or do something in response to wilad's concerns and to mr. corcoran's concerns, and they chose not to do so. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez, you have 12 minutes. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. i'll be pretty brief on this. i believe the requirements have been met for the planning department's requirements and the zoning administrator's requests. understand the board has heard

what we've presented at the hearing tonight and also what the project sponsor put forward in their brief, and i would defer to the city attorney and their decision. you could also incorporate those arguments by reference made by the project sponsor at the planning commission hearing if the board feels they need to be supplemented in any way. whether subsection d or subsection g, you can't find anything in there. i kind of appreciate those arguments, but overall, the project does comply with all the relevant requirements. there have been concerns raised about lack of outreach and acknowledging the board of appeals is generally the last step in the process. they've had the planning commission, they've had the

board of supervisors already, but this is the opportunity to very explicitly express these concerns and what should be done about it. i still don't knee fully about their concern -- know fully about their concerns what solution should be done about the parking, about the impacts and what could be better done to address those, but i think overall, this is the conclusion of the process. we've had multiple hearings on this. i believe that the project was properly reviewed, properly notified, properly decided by the planning commission and the zoning administrator, and we respectfully request that the board uphold those decisions, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted, and we will have to take two separate votes on each determination. first, we will do the section

309 motion, and only three votes are needed to grant an appeal or modify a determination. if you do decide that you want to modify a determination, then i would recommend that you continue the item so that draft findings can be considered at a future meeting. >> commissioner swig: commissioner response, please, or a motion? >> happy to start. so first, starting with the d.n.x. motion, i have not heard how the department has erred or abused their discretion, and i would like to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the decision on that basis. >> commissioner swig: any other commissioners have thoughts on that or are we ready for a vote? hearing none, we have a motion.

>> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeals and uphold the planning commission 21-076 that the planning commission did not err in their decision and the variant was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries 4-0, and that appeal is denied. we are now moving onto the variance decision. >> commissioner swig: commissioners, thoughts, comments, please? any motion? >> before i make the motion, i just want to commend the project sponsor for the design on the complicated work. i think it's complicated to be

situated on a corner lot and to have three facades work, for everything from loading to heights to ground floor heights and things like that. i think it was thoughtfully put together, and i'm excited for a hotel project to come to downtown and breathe new life in a hopefully post pandemic environment, so i just want to put out there for a note of conclusion on tonight's hearing, and on that note, i would similarly move to deny the appeal on the variance decisions on the basis that they were properly issued. >> commissioner swig: any other commissioners have any other thoughts?

commissioner lopez? >> commissioner lopez: yeah -- >> commissioner swig: commissioners, my thoughts were i was somewhat underwhelmed by the findings, but i think the

project is a great project. i think that, based on mr. sanchez' presentation of the various explanations, i am leaning in the direction to support the motion as put forward. [indiscernible]. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the planning commission on the basis that the five criteria have been met.

on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that would conclude the hearing, and we don't have anything else on the agenda. vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: based on that, this meeting is adjourned. >> clerk: okay. thank you very much. good night. a city like no other, san francisco has been a beacon of hope, and an ally towards lgbtq

equal rights. [♪♪] >> known as the gay capital of america, san francisco has been at the forefront fighting gay civil rights for decades becoming a bedrock for the historical firsts. the first city with the first openly gay bar. the first pride parade. the first city to legalize gay marriage. the first place of the iconic gay pride flag. established to help cancel policy, programses, and initiatives to support trans

and lgbtq communities in san francisco. >> we've created an opportunity to have a seat at the table. where trans can be part of city government and create more civic engagement through our trans advisory committee which advises our office and the mayor's office. we've also worked to really address where there's gaps across services to see where we can address things like housing and homelessness, low income, access to small businesses and employment and education. so we really worked across the board as well as meeting overall policies. >> among the priorities, the office of transgender initiatives also works locally to track lgbtq across the

country. >> especially our young trans kids and students. so we do a lot of work to make sure we're addressing and naming those anti-trans policies and doing what we can to combat them. >> trans communities often have not been included at the policy levels at really any level whether that's local government, state government. we've always had to fend for ourselves and figure out how to care for our own communities. so an office like this can really show and become a model for the country on how to really help make sure that our entire community is served by the city and that we all get opportunities to participate because, in the end, our entire community is stronger. >> the pandemic underscored many of the inequities they experienced on a daily basis. nonetheless, this health crisis also highlighted the strength in the lgbtq and trans

community. >> several of our team members were deployed as part of the work at the covid command center and they did incredit able work there both in terms of navigation and shelter-in-place hotels to other team members who led equity and lgbtq inclusion work to make sure we had pop-up testing and information sites across the city as well as making sure that data collection was happening. we had statewide legislation that required that we collected information on sexual orientation and our team worked so closely with d.p.h. to make sure those questions were included at testing site but also throughout the whole network of care. part of the work i've had a privilege to be apart of was to work with o.t.i. and a community organization to work together to create a coalition that met monthly to make sure we worked together and coordinated as much as we could

to lgbtq communities in the city. >> partnering with community organizations is key to the success of this office ensuring lgbtq and gender nonconforming people have access to a wide range of services and places to go where they will be respected. o.t.i.'s trans advisory committee is committed to being that voice. >> the transgender advisory counsel is a group of amazing community leaders here in san francisco. i think we all come from all walks of life, very diverse, different backgrounds, different expertises, and i think it's just an amazing group of people that have a vision to make san francisco a true liberated city for transgender folks. >> being apart of the grou

allows us to provide more information on the ground. we're allowed to get. and prior to the pandemic, there's always been an issue around language barriers and education access and workforce development. now, of course, the city has been more invested in to make sure our community is thriving and making sure we are mobilizing. >> all of the supervisors along with mayor london breed know that there's still a lot to be done and like i said before, i'm just so happy to live in a city where they see trans folks and recognize us of human beings and know that we deserve to live with dignity and respect just like everybody else. >> being part of the trans initiative has been just a great privilege for me and i feel so lucky to have been able

to serve for it for so far over three years. it's the only office of its kind and i think it's a big opportunity for us to show the country or the world about things we can do when we really put a focus on transgender issues and transgender communities. and when you put transgender people in leadership positions. >> thank you, claire. and i just want to say to claire farly who is the leader of the office of transgender initiatives, she has really taken that role to a whole other level and is currently a grand marshal for this year's s.f. prize. so congratulations, claire. >> my dream is to really look at where we want san francisco to be in the future. how can we have a place where we have transliberation, quality, and inclusion, and equity across san francisco? and so when i look five years from now, ten years from now, i

want us to make sure that we're continuing to lead the country in being the best that we can be. not only are we working to make sure we have jobs and equal opportunity and pathways to education, employment, and advancement, but we're making sure we're taking care of our most impacted communities, our trans communities of color, trans women of color, and black trans women. and we're making sure we're addressing the barriers of the access to health care and mental health services and we're supporting our seniors who've done the work and really be able to age in place and have access to the services and resources they deserve. so there's so much more work to do, but we're really proud of the work that we've done so far. [♪♪]

>> chair bustos: this is regular meeting on committee of community investment and infrastructure for tuesday october 19, 2021. i like to welcome member who are listening to us live as well as the staff and those presenting in today's meeting. following the guidelines set forth by local officials at this time, the members of the commission are meeting plotely to ensure the safety of everyone including members of the public. thank you all for joining us this afternoon. please call the first item. >> clerk: first order of business is item 1, roll call. commission members please respond when i call your name. [ roll call ] chair brackett is absent. commissioner