>> clerk: welcome to the december 8, 2021 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president honda will be the presiding officer tonight. vice president rick swig is absent. also present is deputy city attorney brad russi who will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. we will also be joined by representatives from city

departments that will be presenting this evening. corey teague, zoning administrator, and tina tam, deputy zoning administrator, and matthew green, senior building inspector with d.b.i. also present is chris buck, urban forester with san francisco department of urban forestry. the board requests that you silence or turnoff all phones or electronic proceedings so they will be interrupt the proceedings. appellants and respondents will be given seven minutes to present their cases. public comment will be limited to two minutes.

for rehearing requests, the parties are listen three minutes each with no rebuttal. four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a determination or to grant a rehearing request. public comment is very important to the board so we want to ensure access by everyone, so every attempt has been made to replicate the public hearing broadcast. sfgov is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have public comment for every item on this agenda. sfgov is also providing closed captioning for this hearing. to watch the hearing on t.v., go to cable channel 78, and please note that this meeting will be rebroadcast on fridays.

public comment will be provided in two ways. one, you can join the zoom meeting by computer on our website or join by phone. call 669-900-6833, and enter meeting i.d. 853-5167-3692. to block your phone number when calling in, please first dial star, six, seven when dialing the public call-in number, and then when connected, dial star, seven to raise your hand. you will have two or three minutes to present your public comment depending on the length of the agenda and the number of public speakers. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on

t.v. and the internet. therefore, it is important that people turn down their speakers or t.v. i want to emphasize that 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 taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you wish to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able and right hand your right hand. do you answer or affirm the

testimony you will give tonight will be the truth and nothing but the truth? okay. this is item 1, public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction. okay. i see one hand raised. gershon levinson, did you want to provide public comment? gershon levinson, did you want to say something? >> i'm going to pass for now. >> clerk: okay. i don't see any other hands raised, so we will move onto item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> president honda: i would

like to welcome inspector green and tina tam as this is your first hearing. i know you have sat in on a few hearings in the past, and you predate my time on the board here of nine years. >> clerk: miss tam is the deputy zoning administrator. >> president honda: oh, welcome miss deputy zoning administrator. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment? okay. i don't see any hands raided, so we will move to item 3, adoption of the minutes. discussion and possible adoption of the december 1 -- [indiscernible]. >> clerk: i'm sorry. can somebody put their speaker

on mute. okay. so we're at item 3, the adoption of the minutes. discussion and possible adoption of the december 1, 2021 minutes. >> president honda: unless there's a change, can i have a motion to approve? >> commissioner lazarus: motion to approve. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion to approve. is there any public comment? okay. i don't see any hands, so on the motion to approve the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries 4-0, and the minutes are adopted. we're moving onto item 4, subject property at 100 larkin street, grove and hyde street frontages. kasey asberry, appellant, is requesting a rehearing of

appeal 21-084, kasey asberry versus san francisco department of public works, bureau of urban forestry, decided november 10, 2021, and the order that was appealed is 23528. so i will ask commissioner lazarus if she had the opportunity to review the hearing and review the public record request? >> commissioner lazarus: yes, i did. >> clerk: okay. we will hear from the

appellant, kasey asberry, first. you have three minutes. >> good evening, board. as an appellant in two separate d.p.w. efforts to remove all the mature trees around the library three years apart, i have written you on behalf of the expanded library grove working group. we urge you to halt the felling of any library growth trees to ask you to reconsider part a of your pending ruling of november 10, 2021, it was evident that you authentically sought a compromise throughout your ruling, however, based on inaccurate memory of the original proceedings of the library grove working group, which produced a consensus driven group to produce an alternate grove while a working

grove was established, this was asserted after our rebuttal time without giving appellants a chance to respond and reacquaint everyone with the details of the adaptive management plan we spent 18 months of combined resident time and voluntary hours and city workers' time to effect at your body's direction. that was unintentional, but your own previous rulings were not given consideration. we place it in the context of the budget analyst report of june 2021, the dangerous deficit of forests citywide and in the tenderloin, the declared climate crisis in san francisco, which could be addressed by realignment of

projects such as these, passage of california a.b. 1000, which is new, which immediately requires realignment of legacy injustices, especially important for the tenderloin and mid market area, and to understand that decisions with respect to trees occur on the 50-year scale, outliving all of us, for good or ill. we urge you to instruct d.p.w. to secure the egress surrounding the library as they will do any way to safely conserve half the trees as currently directed while we all take a month to bring the hard line consensus to the library grove back into focus. we support your call to the board of supervisors to correct the lack of cohesive action on behalf of our forests.

-- forests and we thank you for part b of your advance and thank you for your effort to bring our city and policy value back into alignment. >> clerk: thank you, miss asberry. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: you mentioned senate bill 1000. when was it put into legislation? >> it was not this year, but last year, and it is how we are coming as a city to create -- >> president honda: no, i understand. the reason why is you're asking for a rehearing, and one of the things is the bar is extremely high, and what would cause a rehearing would be manifest injustice, so i was wondering if that was available at the time of the hearing. >> it was available at the time of the hearing, yes. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the

department. >> good evening, commissioners. this is chris buck, urban forester with san francisco public works. just want to confirm that you can hear my audio. >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> president honda: yes. >> okay. great. it's always good to double-check. good evening. i'm going to read largely from the response that i provided. i won't read the entirety but just probably the first couple of pages to hit on some of the key points. so the rehearing request is for appeal 21-084, public works order 205-288, and our bureau respectfully requests that the commissioners deny the rehearing requests filed by the appellant decided on november 10, 2021. the hearing was regarding the removal and replacement of ficus trees adjacent to the main library at 100 larkin street as part of public works order 205-288, issued on august

9, 2021. our bureau has reviewed the rehearing request provided by the appellant, and we don't believe it meets the criteria set forth by the board. the draft document referred to is the library grove management plan was provided in the appellant's brief prior to the hearing. substantial public comment and opportunity for robust comment by the board. the application to remove the ficus trees was withdrawn by the main library, not public works, on june 16, 2020, and representatives from the library stated at that time they did not have resources to move forward with the proposed additional mitigations due to impacts from the pandemic,

aspects that were being considered by the grove draft working plan. there's a heading titled, significant points still to be resolved on page 14 of that draft plan. while public works has been monitoring the ficus trees since the library withdrew their permit to remove the trees, the crown failure at the main entrance really changed the narrative. our department was willing to monitor the condition based on the large amount of community support to remove as few ficus trees as possible, and it was the commissioners' last month

who really pressed hard and asked for some kind of compromise to removing all 17 trees, and we had pointed back to the management plan to the eight trees that we were proposing to remove at that time. thank you. and for that reason, we ask that you deny the request. >> clerk: thank you, and we are now moving onto public comment. i see someone raising their hand. this would be the phone number ending in 1126. please go ahead. you may have to press star, six to unmute yourself. the phone number ending in 1126, please go ahead. it's a 415 area code. >> hello. >> clerk: hello, we can hear you. >> okay.

thank you very much. yeah, my name is betty trainer, and i was part of the library grove working group that met as kasey mentioned in her presentation, and i do support the rehearing for numerous reasons, and i realize that, as mr. buck has said, to change the narrative when the trees were never properly maintained. you can just go down there and see the poor maintenance. they haven't been trimmed for years, and also, there could be some work done at the base to improve them, and we discussed some of this at the hearing on

november 10, but me personally, i was confused at the end of the hearing as to what the actual conclusion was, but the maintenance issue and the fact that we decided with the library members that were part of our meetings that the community would work together to suggest improvements, have a better look at the trees, maybe by an outside arborist, and maybe to have a plan, and we were never able to work on that because of the pandemic, but i feel we should be rehearing the whole order that was given. thank you very much. bye. >> clerk: thank you very much. we will now hear from lance

carnes, and i believe that mr. conway is going to be sharing some documents from mr. carnes. mr. carnes, are you there? lance carnes. >> i'm trying to -- >> clerk: okay. we heard you for a moment. >> okay. how's that? >> clerk: we can hear you now. welcome. >> okay. yeah, thank you for holding this rehearing request. my name is lance carnes, and let's go to the next slide, please. the library grove was inspected recently after the may 29, 2021 tree failure, and before that, nearly three years ago in august 2018. one has to wonder if the trees were inspect more frequently if the recent failure might have been caught and averted. after the recent failure, only 11 of the 18 trees were inspected when buck announced that all trees must be removed.

next slide, please. so here are the 11 trees inspected per the d.p.w. database. why didn't buck inspect all 18? next slide. arborists inspected the trees in october 2021 and testified [indiscernible] buck did not understand this. next slide, please. buck jumped the gun on announcing all remaining 18 trees must be removed. arborist roy leggett stated that this removal determination was premature and lacking in information and data. mr. leggett's report is part of

the public record. his report could be used to show buck and the city did not do a thorough and correct job of evaluating the trees. this matter needs to be re-heard, and a thorough tree assessment done. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the person whose name is labeled as guled. >> it's guled. >> clerk: thank you. welcome. never heard that name before. welcome. >> my name is guled, and i'm with the san francisco environmental justice committee. i'm calling in to ask to allow a rehearing on the removal of trees on this site. there's a huge deficit of forest citywide, and our community are hit the most.

with the removal of these trees, without a proper restoration plan, is another case of social inequity, so i ask you to grant another hearing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now proceed with public comment with the number ending in 4906. >> yes, hello. >> clerk: yes, welcome. >> hi, thank you so much. my name is kendra sharek, and i'm the founder of mission verde. of all the many lessons that

mission verde has taught me, the greatest is that true partnership between the city of san francisco and the various communities of san francisco is possible, and there really is no shortcut to sidestep that process. it takes a lot of commitment, and a lot of hard work, and a lot of open hearts and minds. now there was already a huge community process that initially went into the main library project plan, a plan that we know is now defunct, but this has signalled to the department of urban forestry that they are able to remove these trees at will and sort of disregard the comprehensive community process that took place over a period of time by a lot of dedicated individuals. the proposed tree removal at the main library, in my view, is a perfect opportunity, again, for the city and the

community to come together and to imagine better and greater solutions for our city, and solutions to the current concerns, and so i'm calling to respectfully request a rehearing for this item. thank you so much. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from crisel roguro. crisel roguro, go ahead. >> thank you. my name is crisel roguro, and i am here on behalf of the filipino community, and i am here to ask the commissioners to allow a rehearing of the library grove appeals. this inequitable distribution

of trees has deprived our community members in the tenderloin and soma, many of whom are seniors and disabilities, low-income, of enjoying the benefits that the trees provide. it's very demoralizing to have the trees removed, and it is more demoralizing to see community input through the library working group not being honored and instead being ignored. please support the rehearing and ask that community input be considered in this matter. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from mr. josh klipp. welcome, mr. klipp. please go ahead, mr. klipp. >> thanks. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thanks. it's ironic that the city agreed to monitor these trees

because if it had done so, we wouldn't be here at all. if we're going to give the city rehearings, doesn't this community deserve the same in all over the united states, cities are rushing to reinvest in their urban forestry. for the first time, we have a build back better plan that codifies the term tree equity, with a climate equity plan. in this city, however, we have business as usual, a bare minimum of what the department requires, 4% with a canopy, and

yet, despite all of those odds, we have a community that wants change, that works for change and shows up over and over again to do the work to make this a better place, and the case is demonstration gardens that spent 18 months developing a green plan, a green plan that the city now pretends never existed. i respectfully support kasey's request and that the civic center and tenderloin communities deserve. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. john nolty. mr. nolty, please go ahead. >> okay. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay.

great. okay. this is, again, three years in the process of these trees being heard since the first day of time that they were posted, and some of things that i've learned through my own diligence of looking into the -- what's going on, first, it was never really discussed that the city is at fault. the city put the trees up first, then, they planted them at the library. in planting at the library, they put up around the library earthquake proofing, and so that snipped off all of the roots on the library side of the trees, so there's no liability of the city here for what it did to the trees. that's something that's never been discussed, but i'm bringing it now to the table to

show the city, how it built the library and how it continue today monitor the trees over -- continued to monitor the trees over the years, and lack of pruning, lack of maintenance, lack of doing the correct maintaining of the trees. i wish the working group can put together their final plan and the board of appeals grant this appeal so that the working group can move forward with their work. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment for this item, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any other hands raised, so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: so commissioners, what's before us is a rehearing request -- >> operator: i think there's one more public speaker.

sorry. >> clerk: okay. president honda, do you want us to allow the public speaker? >> president honda: yes, why don't we. >> clerk: okay. so the phone number ending in 1696, please go ahead. >> hello. my name is justin johnson, and i am the president of my neighborhood [indiscernible] we had three small trees that are dead that replaced mature ones. i'm asking you to rehear this matter. there shouldn't be this much contention between a city agency and a community, and the fact that there is is why we're here today. the decision you guys made on november 10 was a compromise, but it wasn't a solution, and

[indiscernible] engage the community in order to come up with a solution. please don't enable their lack of community engagement by ruling in their favor. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay, so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: i see commissioner lazarus' hand first, so i will let her speak first. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you, president honda, and i will reiterate what you just said. there needs to be some additional information raised during this hearing or manifest injustice, and neither has been raised by the appellant, and my vote is to deny the request for the rehearing. >> okay. commissioner chan or commissioner green, do you have anything to add? >> commissioner chan: i was going to say, the only thing

was we spent a lot of time talking with the department of urban forestry, but i agree with commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda and deny the rehearing. >> president honda: thank you. first, i'd like to thank the community that has spent all the time on this particular project. i believe that commissioner laz -- lazarus and i were on the commission when we crafted this plan. unfortunately, we had a pandemic and a tree failure that was pretty severe. when there's imminent danger of health and safety for the citizens, unfortunately, we have to take that into consideration, and the

following trees, the remainder of trees, they're not going to be able to knock it down without a new permit process as per our last hearing, so just to reiterate, the standard for rehearing is manifest injust or new material, and there was none presented this evening, so would any commissioner like to make a motion? >> commissioner lazarus: i'll turn my statement into a question that i make a motion that we deny the rehearing on the basis that there's no new evidence or manifest injustice. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] . >> clerk: okay. the motion passes 4-0, and the rehearing is denied. we are now on item 5, appeal

21-096, at 1527 mcallister street. on november 17, 2021, upon motion by president honda, the board voted 4-0-1, vice president swig absent, to continue this item to december 8, 2021 so that the permit holder, one, can decide to either in-fill the space or to retain it with the proper structural measures, and two, can provide the board with revised plans reflecting the chosen course of action. so i believe we'll hear from the permit holder first.

mr. mcneal, you have three minutes. >> good evening, president honda and commissioners -- >> clerk: can you speak a little closer to the -- >> is that better? >> clerk: yes, thank you. >> good evening, president honda and commissioners. we decided we would fill in the excavation [indiscernible] and add some slabs, some concrete slabs and hard paving so that

cherie-- sherry [indiscernible] concerns, and i guess we'll leave it at that. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay. give that there was an n.o.v.,

and this is primarily a d.b.i. issue, we'll hear from d.b.i. first, and then, if planning wants to chime in, they can do so, and then, we'll hear from the appellant. so neville pereira, welcome. great. are you here? let me see... okay. let me -- i see what -- >> hello, commissioners. this is matthew green, senior building inspector from department of building inspection. neville did have some concerns with the plans that the permit holders have come up with. first off, the site plans are not representative of the current conditions. the vertical cuts are much closer than the property lines depicted in the plans. we'd like that corrected prior to the plans being submitted,

and we'd also like the references for any concrete walls or structural details. they're not relevant to this project, and we'd also like the applicant to remove existing shotcrete to 24 inches below the removal, but the department does believe this is a good resolution to the subject inspection. >> clerk: okay. we do have a question. >> president honda: okay. again, welcome, inspector green. >> thank you. >> president honda: so do you feel that we can just condition this permit and you guys will be able to manage this? we don't need to continue this, do we? >> i believe the appellant has some issues about the geotechnical aspects of the job. i've discussed this with

neville -- neville pereira, and he didn't believe that geotechnical soils reports were necessary, but you may want to hear from the appellant. >> clerk: okay. i'm just checking with the planning department. mr. teague or miss tam, did you want to comment on this case? >> no comments, thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the appellant, mr. father, and i believe mr. father has -- alec will be sharing a document from him. >> yes, thank you. i've prepared a small document. >> clerk: okay. >> so thank you for sharing the

approach. i did much appreciate it. i did find that it was lacking in geotechnical, not from a soils report. that's not relevant here. it's the process in which you backfill, and fill the hole, so if we could go to the next slide, please. so what i did this time was sought the advice of craig herzog, whose report i had submitted to the board for previous consideration. mr. herzog is a soil expert, and what he came back with -- next slide -- it confirmed some of my fears when i was reading the plan. first, that hole is not free draining. we'll be trapping water with gravel. it's flowing through the

gravel, it's porous, and it will be draining through the gravel. >> president honda: i'm sorry. could you pause his time. we have someone with a mic on or with their speaker on. could you please turn that off? thank you. go ahead and proceed. thank you. >> okay. thank you. okay. so typically, this could be a [indiscernible] approach or it could be a french drain. more importantly, the backfill process requires that the fill be applied in layers and then compacted. i don't know of self-compaction gravel. gravel is gravel. it needs to be compacted like gravel. i don't think you'll find a

geotech that says that gravel is compactible. you apply the level, it's compacted up to 90%, and then, the next level is applied. and third, this is surprised by a geotechnical, and it should also have special inspections, which mr. herzog has appropriately called out here. so i think the approach is fine from a macroperspective, but from a geotechnical perspective, i guess that these other areas could be addressed and implemented, and it's going to assure a quality job, and hopefully, there'll be no impact or quality concerns

going forward. >> clerk: okay. are you finished? >> yeah, i am, thank you, so my recommendation is that we take the report of mr. craig herzog, geotechnical engineer. >> clerk: okay. any other comment? okay. this matter is submitted. >> president honda: okay. first, i'd like to ask inspector green a question. if you have the gravel, that's pretty loose, it'll be like a french drain, but there will be no drain at the bottom. so is there a potential or did neville take a look at the fact that this would create ponding

or any other additional issues? >> you know what? i'm uncomfortable answer for neville on that. it's my understanding that gravel is self-compacting. >> president honda: okay. i saw that neville chimed in for a minute. is he available? >> yes, i believe he is. >> yes, thank you for that. so i did consider that, and i did consider that. i apologize for the background noise. >> president honda: that's okay. go ahead. >> the issue of drainage did come up. you've got to -- you've got to understand that there's no -- there's no paving at the bottom of this -- this excavation, and

so it's natural rock, so even if it was overlaid with the soil, in the existing condition, it would meet this strata of soil or rock in the existing condition, so there's no question of the existing condition in the previous condition. yes, there's going to be a little bit of ponding with excessive rain that could be a foot or two, but eventually, it would drain back into the underlying strata as it would before. so i did consider that, brought that up, and i got more information about it. >> president honda: okay. thank you, and so there is no gypcrete at the base.

it's just soil at the base. >> that's correct. >> president honda: okay. have fun at the game. i saw the coliseum in the background. okay. so commissioners, would anyone like to start? anyone? >> commissioner lazarus: well, it seems that we're going to grant the appeal and i would think condition it on the revised plans submitted by the permit holder? >> clerk: can i just chime in? i have concerns with what d.b.i. said because if the plans are not up to current conditions. he brought up a list of conditions, and that would kind of fix a mess. >> i can forward that e-mail to you. >> clerk: yes, thank you. i see it. >> commissioner lazarus: so do we need to continue this to have the plans revised?

>> clerk: well, if the plans currently aren't accurate. it was my understanding that there were just a few little details that had to be removed initially, but now, we're hearing from d.b.i. tonight. usually, we don't accept or adopt plans if they're not representative of the current conditions, so -- but i'm just chiming in, so -- >> commissioner lazarus: well, i think it seems to me, then, that it should be continued, but i don't know if there's a way to condition it on the plans to be further revised to meet d.b.i.s requirements. i don't know if that's an option so that we don't further have to continue it. >> clerk: we could do that. >> president honda: i mean, to save all the blood in the water from the permit holder and the appellant, from all of this.

i mean, madam director -- >> clerk: yeah, we could do that if d.b.i. would give the okay. >> president honda: okay. so does any other commissioner have any comment or, commissioner lazarus, would that be your motion? >> commissioner lazarus: that would be my motion. >> president honda: okay. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion to grant the appeal on the condition that the plans be revised and resubmitted with the adjustments by d.b.i., and on what basis is this motion being made? >> commissioner lazarus: on the basis that it will resolve the issues around the property. >> clerk: okay. so on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so that motion carries 4-0, and to the permit holder, let's talk tomorrow, and i'll tell you about the process to get the revised plans submitted. we'll move onto item 6. this is appeal 21-094, leana perez and francisco armas. subject property is 3421-3423-3425 20 street. note, on november 10, 2021, upon motion by vice president

swig, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner lazarus absent, to continue this item to december 8, 2021, so that the permit holder can submit revised plans that one, make the unit more desirable and liveable, and two, address the outstanding issues identified in the n.o.v.s on the property. and commissioner lazarus, did you have an opportunity to review the proceedings held on november 10? >> commissioner lazarus: yes. >> clerk: so we will hear from the permit holder, and is mr. yu going to address the board, or mr. chemoguz? [indiscernible]. >> president honda: we can, but it's pretty faint. can you raise your volume by chance? >> do you want me to speak closer or louder?

>> president honda: yeah, that opened it up. >> okay. >> president honda: not ready for dinner, yet, mom. give me a few minutes. >> yeah. so we took board of appeals recommendations into consideration. we had the kitchen [indiscernible] we've modified it slightly in modifying the hall between the kitchen and the hall way -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. you have to go closer to the speaker. >> sorry. so we modified kitchen by keeping it in the existing original location? we removed the wall between the hall way and the kitchen to expand the kitchen to make it larger? we are still keeping the project as in converting the entry into a bathroom, and we have since relocated the front

door and swapped it where a window was originally. the bathroom in the rear that was separated, toilet and shower, we've since merged those together, and then we've made space to add a laundry room -- i mean, a washer dryer, so now, every unit on the left has a washer-dryer and a linen closet, and i feel that those ideas were in keeping with what the board of appeals had in mind. so let me know if you have any questions. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question or a comment from president honda. >> president honda: i appreciate the effort that you and your client have put in. i do like the touch of the added washer and dryer in the unit and moving the door to the side.

it's very attractive, and the entry will be nice. >> clerk: okay. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. tina tam, deputy zoning administrator. i see no issues with the plans from the planning department's perspective, and the plans comply with the definition for a dwelling unit. i have no further comment. >> clerk: okay. so thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. does d.b.i. want to weigh-in? >> there was an issue about the updating the violation. there's a couple of housing inspections. the violations were mostly maintenance issues, and there was a concern regarding the

excavation and the a.d.u. to ground floor. and i think the remaining issues are sanitation and other issues that wouldn't require a permit to repair. >> clerk: okay. we will be hearing from mr. drohan. mr. drohan, you have three minutes. >> yes. just wanted to make sure that the plans that are in front of you that are updated -- i guess that are dated december 6 are identical to the plans that came out to us last week that were dated march 20, 2021. >> clerk: no. they're revised, dated december

6, and we sent them to you. >> the revised plans that we got were originally dated march 20, and you sent out a new mail saying that you wanted updated plans -- >> clerk: the revised plans sent first were dated december 1 -- [indiscernible]. well, let's pause the time. they submitted plans dated december 1. they wanted to make a few additional revisions, so i sent those to you dated december 6, regarding what the proposed changes were. >> okay. we have those plans that we received, and my only concern is there's a discrepancy of dates because the actual plans that i'm looking at are dated march 20, 2021. it has the changes that he

discussed, but the actual plans themselves are dated march 20, 2021. >> clerk: okay. the plans that we're talking about are dated december 6. president honda, do you want to allow mr. chan to chime in on the plans? >> president honda: yes. >> if you look in the upper corner, the revised plans are dated december 1, 2021. >> clerk: no, we need the plans from december 6. >> no, there was a revision. i think they're getting them confused. >> that's correct. i'm looking at the lower right hand corner. where was the revision date that you were referring to? >> upper right hand corner. >> clerk: it should say december 6.

did you not have an opportunity to review the plans? i sent them to you as soon as we received them. >> no, we did. we reviewed the plans, but i'm only hesitating because of the discrepancy. i see no date in the upper right hand corner -- >> president honda: director, the plans that are in my file also indicate the same -- oh, there is. it's under the u-flux engineering. there is a revision and description, and then, there is a date there of 12-6-2021. >> i see. i see revision 12-1-2021.

>> president honda: 12-6. >> oh, yes, 12-6. so we did have one question -- it's just a concern of what the thought was. in the entry foyer where the door has been changed, it's a loft and a window, and we're just wondering what the intent was there. >> we'd like to have a short discussion on this issue and then withdraw our appeal, so however that would -- >> clerk: mr. drohan, we're not going to do that.

if you approve the plans, the changes go in. you have three minutes to address the board. >> we approve the plans as drafted. we would like the opportunity to explain about the loss of the window. >> clerk: okay. so do you have anything further? okay. thank you. so is there any public comment on this item? i see one hand raised. brad gilbert, please go ahead. brad gilbert? you need to unmute yourself. please go ahead. >> is it too early to speak or can i go ahead? >> clerk: are you here to speak on this item? >> no, i'm here for the san

francisco sports and recreation. >> clerk: okay. then seeing no further public comment, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: fellow commissioners? >> commissioner lazarus: there seems to be a consensus around the revised plan, so i would grant the appeal and condition the appeal on the plans submitted on december 6, is it? >> clerk: okay. >> president honda: we're going to have the ann lazarus night tonight, but i also concur. i want to thank the project sponsors as well as the appellants for working together and at least resolving the situation. again, design is a personal touch. i'm glad that they revised this to look like a more traditional unit, and so with that, i will

let commissioner lazarus continue with her motion. >> commissioner lazarus: that was my motion, madam director. did you get that? >> clerk: yeah, i didn't get the basis for it? >> commissioner lazarus: yeah, on the basis that it meets the needs of the tenants and is code compliant. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and accept the plans on the basis that they are code compliant. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries 4-0, and the appeal is granted with those conditions, so we will now move onto item number 7. so this is appeal number 21-0 #

9, lan le versus department of building inspection and planning department approval, at 792 hayes street, appealing the issuance on october 22, 2021, to pat dianda, of an alteration permit, replace in kind bottom set of stairs due to dry rot. >> okay. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. welcome. >> so my name is lan le. thank you for the board to listening to this matter, and i wish everyone a happy holiday season. i'm here to appeal this permit that my adjacent neighbor has filed to pull a permit alteration on my staircase. this permit was obtained

through what i believe is misrepresentation or a lack of disclosure to the building department. this permit is actually invalid. if you look at the exhibit b that i have submitted, which is the application for the permit at 792 hayes. you have an address on the top, and there's a block next to it, which is 0805-018. then, in item number 15, you have mr. dianda being the owner of properties, and in item number 16, the scope of work is described as replacing stairs due to dry rot. there is only one set of stairs

that has dry rot, and that's mine. if you look at the set of plans that go along with this permit, it is clearly on my lot, which is lot 13, okay? so i do not believe that the plans submitted reflect the appropriate ownership of the staircase. when i inquired about this permit shortly after it was approved, the planner and -- both the planning department and building department appeared to be surprised and told me essentially that they only had five minutes to look at it on the counter and they heavily relied on miss zavala's presentation to get the item through. first of all, there's no

agreement between the owners [indiscernible] to take out the scope of work on my property. secondly, this permit is unnecessary because i already have a permit that was approved from may 17 for the reconstruction of this scare case that has dry rot, so i have submitted, as well, and the -- so that's exhibit g and h. those were my permit applications and my plans that goes with it. let me give a history about this scare case. it was built by my predecessor in interest around 2000 because around that time, the ground

floor commercial was converted from commercial space into a residential unit, and this residential unit has to have an open space. from the back door of 604 wester, which is the residential unit, you open the back door, and from the back door, you go out on the landing down to the backyard. now over -- i understand that at that time and for the last 20 years, the owner at 792 hayes listed, by the way, a house. they have this in-law unit on the ground floor, and they were

cited in the early 2000s, and they've [indiscernible] and i've seen those plans where there's supposed to be an interior staircase connecting the rooms [indiscernible] to the ground floor, but after the inspection, no work was done [indiscernible] and it's a violation [indiscernible] and the in-law unit was put back in business and rented all the way to last year, but, you know, i understand his motivation for , you know, using my staircase to go down to the laundry room because he does not want to use his staircase or didn't want to build it, so i think it's totally unfair, and for this reason, i have a permit that is issued, it was not appealed, and i am the rightful owner for

the permit, and i would like the permit to [indiscernible], and i'm asking the board to permanently suspend the permit that was issued to the owner at 792 hayes on october 22. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: yes. going over the brief, it was hard to see the separation. i believe at one time, it was one lot and then separated, is that correct, miss le? >> yes. the lot separation was done, i believe, around 1960. >> president honda: hold on one second. and i see, according to the permit holder, a permit was applied for and granted in 1987 for repair of the deck, is that

correct? >> well, i was not around then, but i looked into it. there was some repair permit that didn't have any plans, so -- >> president honda: okay. >> and this particular [indiscernible]. >> first of all, my name is abraham zavala, and i work with the owner at 792 hayes street.

i want to mention that according to the plans with the building department, the permit at 792 and 796 hayes street, those two buildings were built around 1900. one was built before the other, but by 1900, the two buildings were in place, and this was one lot. later on, in the 1960s, the lot was split. one for 792, that was a very small lot. only 905 square feet, and the remaining lot, 2700, is where 796 hayes is built. the first time i visit the property was about 2001, to create some plans for interior modern of 792 hayes.

they want to connect the first floor with the ground floor, but in 2001 [indiscernible] i noticed that there were some stairs coming from the second floor of the house and wraparound the northwest corner of the building and down to the little rear yard. also, the ground floor has a connection from the front of the house to the corridor on the ground floor. [indiscernible] contact me to request a copy of the old plans that we prepare for him in early 2000. later on, he asked me to remove

from plans that i prepared [indiscernible] his concerned was the plans to propose a fire wall [indiscernible] after looking at extent of work, i mentioned to him that there was a section of the san francisco building code that may allow him to replace the stairs in the same configuration as the existing stairs. another thing was the repair involved only a repair of the section of the stairs and not the whole property. back in 1985, a permit was obtained to replace the front and rear stairs of the building, and the permit was

finalized or completed in 1987. once the plans were prepared, i took [indiscernible] in the courtyard.

during the [indiscernible] and once again, once they approve it, [indiscernible] once i was at the building department, the building department approved the plans. i have to note that i did not know any of the plan checkers involved in the approval, and also after reviewing hundreds of plans and plan checking over the years, this is the first time that this happened. the main issue is it is possible to repair these stairs without repairing a full square

well. thank you for your time, and please let me know if you have any questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: given the information that you know now, it appears that the stairs are located in the neighborhood's yard. i believe after 35 years, descriptive easement may apply, but why would you want to repair stairs that are legally in someone else's property? >> i don't know. that's a question that i am going to state that he can probably answer better than me. he was concerned about having the staired -- stairs repaired

with the fire wall. >> president honda: and is he on this call? >> clerk: i believe he is. mr. dianda, please go ahead. you may have to unmute yourself. >> operator: he's muted again. >> clerk: okay. can you unmute yourself again? >> sure. >> clerk: thank you. now -- perfect. >> president honda: okay. granted, i understand that you folks have lived and owned the property for 35 years and had access for 35 years, but were you aware that these stairs are on the lot of the adjoining property owner? >> not until around 2011. >> and so given the fact that it's not on your property at this point, i mean, it's really

kind of hard to grant a permit on somebody else's property. do you understand that? >> i do. the judge requested that we go and get the building permit. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the planning department. >> the property contains a single-family dwelling on a substandard sized lot. the lot measures 17.5 feet in width and 51.5 feet in depth.

from looking at google maps, it does appear that the stairs may be located on the adjacent property. both of these properties, lot 18 and 19, were built originally for oliver christiansen. oliver lived at 792 hayes, while the previous mixed use property at 796 and 798 hayes were income properties. in 1960, the parcel was split into two parcels, and the stairs are in fact on miss le's property. at this time, i'd like to go

ahead and pass this presentation onto matt green for his report and recommendation. >> president honda: before you pass it onto building, i have one question for the deputy zoning administrator. when stairs were built in kind, there's one situation where the planning gets involved. am i correct in that? >> the permit that we have before us is the repair. >> president honda: so what -- is there a threshold of require that requires planning? >> you can correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe it's 50%. >> president honda: okay. >> it's up to 50%, it would be

considered repair, and over 50%, it would be considered replacement, and revised plans would need to be submitted. >> clerk: thank you. do you have a presentation? >> i do. so it does appear that the stairs are on the -- not on the permit applicant's property. i don't see any easement, and i also -- the appellant has an issue to replace, so apparently, we have two permits issued to replace the exact same set of stairs. there is an outstanding

complaint against the property at 792 hayes for the illegal unit. it slipped through the cracks that we have not investigated that. back in the early 2000s, there was a notice of violation for the illegal unit that was closed when the permit was issued to address the notice of violation. we closed the notice of violation, but apparently, the work was never done. these days, we would not close a complaint until the actual building permit to correct the notice of violation was completed. this seems to be an issue here that when the wall is built, it will be adjacent to a possibly illegal unit on the ground floor. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from president honda?

>> president honda: yes, thank you. inspector green, i'm looking at the staircase on page 45 of their brief, and i'm seeing no risers or supports. would that be more than 50%? >> i can make the argument either way if that's 50% or not. >> president honda: okay. and then, it looks like it's been repaired before, but the

steps and treads are gone. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. is there any public comment, please raise your hand. i do not see any public comment, so we will move onto rebuttal. miss le, you have three minutes. >> thank you. i can answer the questions to the staircase. so when i purchased the property in 2018, the back staircase was in a state of disrepair, and i pulled a permit in december 2019 to actually repair it, and what happened was that i was the one that removed all the steps that you see in the picture currently, and upon removing all the steps, the frame underneath has cracks and all kinds of problems, so it was

not repairable, and i had to go and get an architect to draw up the plans to rebuild it, and because of the pandemic closed the building department in the early 2000s, that was delayed, but i reached out to the original architect who designed those plans for the original remodelling on the ground and the staircase. he basically helped me pull the old set of drawings and submitted a new set of drawings to replace the staircase in kind. [indiscernible] and the

original staircase had a [indiscernible] wall attach today it, and it was for the protection, the fire protection of the 792 hayes street property, and i was not here then, but somehow, a section of that firewall went missing, and 792 hayes street, when i moved in, was illegally permitted [indiscernible] at 604 wester, and was initially using my section of the staircase to go down.

>> -- it is not. it is not. >> president honda: okay.

[indiscernible]. >> -- that's why we mentioned it was about 50% or less based on the whole length of the stairs as you come from the bridge out into the second floor of the unit, you have the stairs, damaged, then you have a landing, then you have another set of stairs and you have another landing. once again, i want to make it clear that we never meant to misrepresent anything, neither on the plans or at the building department when we obtained this permit. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. anything further? deputy zoning -- okay. and what about d.b.i.?

anything further? no further comments. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: okay. commissioners, who would like to start off first? commissioner lazarus -- no. i guess it will be me. commissioners, before us, we only have two permits for the same set of stairs but only on one property. the firewall that is going to cause some neighborly issues is unfortunately between the appellant and the permit holder. would anyone like to make a motion? >> commissioner lazarus: fire away. >> president honda: i'll make a motion to deny -- to -- >> clerk: deny the appeal? >> president honda: to accept

the appeal -- >> clerk: we would basically grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that the stairs are on the neighbor's property. >> president honda: that's exactly what i said. >> clerk: i could read you my -- okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries 4-0, and that motion is granted. >> president honda: this case is going to be rather long. would any commissioner need a five-minute break or seven-minute break? i'll call >> clerk: we are now on item number 8. this is appeal number 21-098,

appealing the issuance on october 15, 2021, to san franciscans for sports and recreation of a letter of determination, the zoning administrator determined that the removal of the s.f. tennis club tennis facility component of the large project authorized by planning commission motion 20492, is not a significant modification that requires planning commission approval of a new large project authorization. the removal is a change that may be approved administratively by the zoning administrator. this is record 2021-009391. as a preliminary matter, president honda?

>> president honda: i'm part of a firm that has hired reuben junius to do some work for the firm, but it will not impact my decision. >> clerk: okay. mr. giles, welcome. you have seven minutes. >> my name is anthony giles, and i am an attorney and member of the san franciscans for sports and recreation. on july 25, 2019, the planning commission approved this project, and its approval was in a large motion that specifically called out the tennis club, which was being retained in the bottom of the building, as one of four key amenities to a

counterbalance that some of the concessions that alexandra was getting on various code compliance issues. the other three were an affordable housing component, a recreation and community center with an aquatic annex, and a development of a public park, and finally, the retention and replacement of the san francisco bay club tennis facility. that, of course, is a facility that has been on that site for 45 years, since 1974, with 12 indoor tennis courts and originally 12 on the roof. so this was a key amenity.

they approved the building in conformance with the plans.

this is a recreation space, a tennis facility of this level which could host professional tournaments in the downtown area. it's quite extraordinary, and you're going to hear from a lot of people about how significant it is to them in certain ways, and i don't want to spend a lot of time on that significance issue, but there is a sort of, as it were, a moral significance to this which is quite unique. this was not a part of the project that alexandria decided

to put in out of the goodness of their heart. it was a hard won mediation by supervisor kim at the time, and there were cynics that said that alexandria were going to go in and bail out as soon as they could, and it seems that the cynics were right. alexandria recruited members of our organization to go to the planning commission, and they explicitly made the tennis courts front and center of their own presentation.

i think that you can see this is alexandria's slide, 88 bluxome, planning commission, january 7, 2018. >> request that you pause time while he rotates this, please? >> operator: i've paused time. >> thank you. these were alexandria's own site slides in order, and they represented that this was their number one site planning principle, so this is not only a deception of our organization but the representation that they made to the city two months before the city approved it and stated that the tennis club was a key amenity. so i would like to address a

couple of things in the brief from alexandria. one is the purported rationale for the change. they talk about the hange during the pandemic. they say that their main partner, pinterest, dropped out. alexandria has -- although it did have a bit of a dip in its value in 2019, it is a publicly traded company, and you can see the massive value of its company at the time that it entered into this contract. so the implication in the brief that this is a financial decision that's motivated by

new considerations seems pretextual. so on the legal standard that the zoning administrator used, what he seems to be saying is that he's going to use a proxy for the word significant. the planning commission used the word significant, if it's a significant change. there was no attempt by the zoning administrator to grapple with that. he used a proxy of whether it alters the appearance of the building, but if the planning commission wanted to do that, it would have said that the plan can be altered if it's not significant. >> that's time. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you.

we will now hear from the attorney for the property owner. mr. kevlin, you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. john kevlin of reuben, junius, and rose, on behalf of alexandria. [indiscernible] the pronling was approved by the planning commission in july 2019, but removed the facility during the pandemic -- during the pandemic after its anchor tenant live. the matter before you tonight is the technical issue of whether the z.a. was correct.

the analysis here is two steps. first, is the change to the project in conflict with any of the conditions of approval in the planning commission's motion, and second, is the change considered significant for the changes and modifications condition in the motion. with respect to the first question, the answer is clear. eliminating the tennis facility is not in conflict. the private agreement that led to the replacement of the private tennis facility is not required nor even contemplated by the planning code, and it was not required as a condition of approval, and as such, the

elimination of the private tennis facility does not breach any consideration of the project, and the elimination of the tennis facility is not termed significant. as a result, the current and previous zoning administrators have developed a series of guidelines as to what types of changes are considered significant. one type of example that is well known is that on a residential project you can increase its unit count up to 5% without going back to the planning commission for approval. virtually all modifications make [indiscernible] provide a clear coherniate basis for project sponsors to make decisions on how projects can be modified. as discussed in our brief, the elimination of the facility is not unique nor a question of

first impression. precedent provides that it can be eliminated so long as it does not affect the above grade building. we are still providing two below grade levels, same as the original project. so the z.a.'s determination was not a significant change that requires new planning commission approval is consistent with very recent precedent. now these guidelines and precedents are critical in our work. without some objective rules and standards, the meaning of significant change becomes completely subjective. the fact as the appellant

suggests, uniqueness, irreplaceability, importance to a group of people, would make the zoning administrator's completely subjectible. since the elimination of the private tennis facility does not trigger either factor for the planning commission approval, the z.a. correctly issued his letter of determination. first, the appellant entered into a voluntary private agreement with alexandria. we outlined what the agreement provided for in our brief, but just to cover it again, alexandria pays close to $2 million for public recreation, including resurfacing 24 public tennis courts throughout the

city, requiring them to construct another tennis facility at another location, the cow palace parking lot, that the public is currently using. this was an agreement that the appellants negotiated with help from legal counsel, and they voluntarily executed it. certainly, it's not the board's duty to try to uphold one party's ideal scenario under an agreement that they negotiated themselves. contrast the desire to maintain this tennis facility with the very real benefit that a public project will provide, a land donation that will provide 118 affordable housing units, and a linear park along bluxome. all of these were highlighted

as key goals of the central soma plan, so there's a lot that this project is carrying, a lot of public benefits, so this is not some standard project and can't make decisions like a standard project because it is carrying so many benefits. i'll conclude here on the key issue, the zoning administrator correctly decided that this does not require planning commission approval. the project will go back to the

planning commission for an informational neighborhood and will allow the soma neighborhood to move forward. thank you, and i'm here for questions. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner lazarus has a question. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. actually, i have a few. would it be fair to say this is a financial decision? >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: and it is because of the loss of the anchor tenant? >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: and is there any interest or effort that has been made to replace the anchor tenant? >> yes. you'll note that no construction permit has been issued yet because i don't think any of them have found a tenant yet. >> commissioner lazarus: but it's possible that you could

find a replacement tenant? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner lazarus: and do you know what the savings is to the sponsor by not building the tennis courts? >> i know it is a major component, and just stop me if you don't want to hear anymore. the tennis courts need to have beams that are separated -- >> commissioner lazarus: okay. that's probably sufficient. it would be more than the $7.5 million that you're having to pay in lieu of the eliminating the courts? >> i don't know for sure, but my guess is yes. >> commissioner lazarus: and is it true that as we were shown during the appellant's presentation that this factor was a key portion of your presentation to the planning commission and in the approval of the project? >> i would disagree with that.

it was not front and center in terms of -- >> commissioner lazarus: we have to replace them, i don't understand what you mean in that context. >> because of the agreement with the appellant. >> commissioner lazarus: okay, which is a voluntary two-way agreement, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. that's sufficient for now. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: i have a couple of questions. so was reuben junius's presentation during entitlement? >> yes. >> president honda: okay. so i'll rephrase the same question that commissioner lazarus asked. if you had not represented the tennis courts being replaced, would you have gotten entitled? >> this project has more public benefit than any other central soma key site. i don't think it was -- frankly, commissioner honda, i

mean, we're getting into speculation here. i don't think there was ever a question about whether we'd be approved by the planning commission, but the appellant did have a ballot initiative in place -- >> president honda: several thousand votes were secured, and the appellant has stated that the removal of the courts is about 11% removal of the total square footage of the property. you mentioned a project. do you have anything else that would remove parking that removed services? >> i would question that. we have a facility similar to any other private tenant that services its private customers. 988 harrison is the most recent one that i'm aware of. that one had a 13% reduction in floor area -- >> president honda: the question was, is there anything

that you have that has that similar footage that was changed over the counter or changed in this process that wasn't just the removal of parking? >> i don't have -- >> president honda: you have time in rebuttal to think of that, but that would be my question. >> okay. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> good evening, commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator. it's good to see you tonight. so the appeal before you is the property 88 bluxome street, and as noted, it's in the central soma mixed use office district and within the central soma special use district and the cs 130 height and bulk district, and it is recognized in the central soma plan and the planning code in that it allows more flexibility for development on the site in

exchange for more development on the key site. the zoning administrator granted the project a variant for parking and loading entrances and microretail on september 11, 2019. i won't restate all the exact details of the project, but it was generally a large office development, 775,000 square feet of office space, and the project also includes retail, a.d.r. uses, child care, and recreational uses, and finally, the project also dedicated a portion of the property to the city for the development of affordable housing. of note in this case is the project proposed to include a nearly 135,000 square foot replacement facility for the s.f. tennis club which previously occupied the lot. on august 26, 2021, the sponsor filed three different permits to eliminate the tennis courts.

on october 15, 2021, i issued my written determination in response to the request, and that letter is before you tonight on appeal. more specifically, a standard condition in exhibit a of the approval motion states that the changes to the approved plans may be approved by the zoning administrator, but that significant changes and modifications of conditions shall require planning commission approval of the new large project authorization. however, as has been noted, this provision provides no specific criteria for review for the zoning administrator to use to determine what such changes may be deemed significant. as explained in my letter, it was my determination that the proposed elimination of the facility from the project does

not qualify as a significant change that would require a new large project authorization. however, my determination also included a requirement that the permit holder provide an informational presentation to a joint hearing of the planning commission and zoning administrator prior to the planning department taking any action on the three permits submitted to implement this revision. my determination only responded to the question of whether the proposed revision rises to the level of requiring new planning commission approval. as explained in the letter, the rationale for this determination was made on the following guide. first, the elimination of the tennis facility will have no impact on the above ground design because it's located strictly in the basement levels. secondly, the elimination will not affect the layout of the

project or other uses of the project. and finally, the inclusion of the tennis facility was a negotiation between the property owner and the appellant, and replacing the private tennis facility was not a goal or objective of the central soma area plan, and was not a condition of approval through the large project authorization. so to conclude, i recognize and acknowledge that this situation is unique and challenging, and that some people reasonably disagree with my determination. this determination was not a given or automatic, however, i do believe that the final determination was reasonable and that the determination does not represent an error or abuse of discretion by the zoning administrator. therefore, the planning administrator requests that the board deny the appeal, and i'm happy to answer any questions

that you may have. >> president honda: thank you. i'm going to let commissioner lazarus go first. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. unmute myself. so mr. teague, just to be clear, is there a requirement for an informational presentation or is it optional? >> that is a requirement, and that is also common. when we have projects that are kind of close to the line with their changes, we do often ask those to go back to the planning commission for an informational. it is of note, and we want the planning commission to be aware of that. >> commissioner lazarus: are they able to change a decision or is it -- it's not an action item, it's just informational. >> it would just be informational. there's no requirement that they go back for approval, but the planning commission does have discretion to request if they wanted to see certain

alterations to the project as being proposed. >> commissioner lazarus: and if the decision is to overturn the l.o.d., then a hearing before planning becomes mandatory? >> correct. if a hearing is reversed, then, if the appellant wants to remove the tennis club facility, they would have to file a new large project revision application, and that would go before the planning commission as a new stand-alone authorization just to modify the original approval. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. >> sure. >> president honda: so zoning administrator teague, it's tough being the sheriff in town. so same question i posed to the permit holder's counsel is that the planning commission chose to use the word significant in their approval process, but yet, there's no determination of significant. according to the appellant's brief, 11% of the project has

been altered, and according to project sponsor's counsel, reconstruction or redesign of the project because of the post and pillars. what in history have you done that's 11% that's not considered significant? >> as you can imagine, any time we are seeing requests for letters of determination, it's very slight shifting in doting features. if we're going to have reduction, it does typically involve around parking and below grade parking. i don't know of any other situation off the top of my head that's been this much

square footage that's not parking that's been removed, so i don't have an example off the top of my head that's kind of an apples to apples comparison. we definitely have had entire floors of parking removed from projects without being deemed significantly. >> president honda: understandably, because san francisco is not a parking friendly city at this point, but, you know, the planning department decided to use the word significant, but there's no definition of that. it decided to use the zoning administrator's interpretation of that. i find that 11% is pretty significant of this project. were you part of this process when they got approval in 2019? >> i did review the variant and grant the proposed variant? >> president honda: were you the z.a. or the deputy z.a. at

the time? >> i was the z.a. at the time. >> president honda: you've been the z.a. for quite a while. a sublevel removed strictly for parking. it's like retail. we don't mind if there's an apple store, but we may if it's something else. this potentially is precedent setting? >> well, i just want to clarify that i don't necessarily -- we don't review what's being removed based on kind of a city policy analysis, it's really what are the indications we have in the approval motion, and other documentation that gives us information about the significance of the portion of the project that's being removed. in this motion, obviously, the

replacement of the tennis facility was addressed, but there was nothing else in the motion, whether it's a condition of approval or any other specific findings that were part of the motion that were really -- imbued any other significance. >> president honda: the community benefits were significant going through the brief, but the modification is something significant to the project. it's not if you're getting more, but what we're talking about is is 11% considered a substantial or significant alteration to the project, but we'll hear more later on. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we are now moving onto public comment. i see that there are 121 people. can you please raise your hand if you want to provide public

comment. if you've called in, and you press star, nine. >> executive director, is there any way we could recognize brad gilbert who tried to speak on another item? >> clerk: yeah. he pressed in first. is there anyone else here for public comment? please raise your hand if you're here for public comment. >> president honda: it's like a jackpot machine. [indiscernible]. >> president honda: so i think at this point, because of the length of -- our volume of speakers, that we're going to limit of time to two minutes. public comment, you're able to speak on whatever you want, but to have repetitive comments is not productive. >> clerk: okay.

so we're going to hear from brad gilbert first so you can show your video if you want. mr. gilbert, please go ahead. >> thank you. i'm brad gilbert. i'm a bay area native. i first played at the san francisco tennis club over 40 years ago. it is an iconic tennis club, the first of its kind in san francisco and the bay area. the club provided an opportunity for kids in san francisco through the y.t.a., who never would have had an opportunity to play tennis in an indoor facility and use the facility that was doing some great work for the city.

it is such a crime for the members, the passionate tennis players of the bay area, what has happened. i was always under the impression that, no matter what happened, there would always be 12 tennis courts there. no matter what happened to the new project, there would always be 12 tennis courts there, and that obviously is not the case. it's nice that they're doing some other things, but the number one thing for all of the lifetime members was replaced tennis courts. fine. whatever is above us is above us, but put the tennis courts there, and this missed opportunity for the kids of san francisco to be playing at a facility like this where they would never get this opportunity is something that, you know, needs to be looked at really hard.

i'm not just a tennis player. you know, obviously, i grew up a professional tennis player. i was a professional tennis coach. i coached agassi, roddick, and i'm a lifelong tennis person -- >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. gilbert. your time is up. we will now hear from jacqueline apple. please go ahead, miss apple. >> hi. thanks for having me. well, i'm first up, so i'll just do the best i can here. first of all, i'd like to say that alexandria is reneging on their word. the san francisco tennis club has been around over 40 years. it provides clinics for disadvantaged children for over 40 years. it provides tennis courts for

high schoolers in our city who don't have enough tennis courts, so when tournaments come around, the san francisco tennis club is available, and they help to create those healthy not just provide people -- that's what really bothers me about this conversation, is that it really does help the public. the san francisco tennis community is a very inclusive community. i invite people to come to this club from all over the city, from outside the city, and it's a very inclusive place, and we have to keep that in mind. and at the end of the day, this is an amenity for the city. anyone can join. it's not like you have to be on some special list. anybody can join the club, anybody can visit the club with a member, and it provides an additional space for tennis. and as our city gets more and more congested, and we continue to add more and more people to this city, we need more

amenities, and this provides that amenity, and i'd just like to say i'm thoroughly disgusted by alexandria partners, but i'm also very concerned that this got through the zoning administrator, and i don't understand how this could be considered not significant. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from david demaines. mr. demaines? >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> so my wife and i have been members of the san francisco tennis club for almost 30ers i can't -- 30 years, and we're very passionate about the club and all it has to offer. the kids, andre agassi and brad

gilbert, and the national and international tournaments -- >> operator: did we lose him? >> clerk: okay. mr. demaines, one moment. >> operator: i paused time. >> clerk: okay. let me see where --

are okay. we can come back to him later. >> -- this is the elimination

of a world class tennis facility, and that is a significant change. it is also -- it would also be the only indoor tennis facility in the city of san francisco, and san francisco is currently one of the few major cities that does not have indoor courts. when alexandria accepted the terms of this contract, it promised the community that it would construct a tennis facility. with the planner vision, they have broken this promise. when the planner promises to build building, they make promises to the city and the planning department. if the city allows alexandria to go ahead with the project, it sets a precedent that developers can break their promises that they make to the community. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from tricia lever moss.

miss moss, you have two minutes. please go ahead. >> hi. i'm a longtime member of the broader tennis community in san francisco. i currently reside in the central soma neighborhood with my two young daughters. i'd like to make two brief points. number one, the tennis facility is a public resource. to say it's not a public resource because the courts are privately operated is not correct. for example, golden gate parks course are now privately operated and memberships are sold to the golden gate park facility, and i don't think anyone would argue that the golden gate course are a private club. the club provides numerous public benefits, including over

40 uswta tennis competitions and competitions from around the bay area. second, the facility that's part of the cow palace is a temporary facility, part of a five-year lease that i believe will expire in three years, at which point it will revert back to the cow palace. and i'd like to state that the central soma plan still lacks significant sport access, something that supervisor jane kim recognized when she authorized it, and 18,000 san franciscans recognized that when they signed the ballot initiative, and that's all i have. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from debbie

gerston. miss gerston, you have two minutes. >> hi. i've been playing at the san francisco tennis club for 30 years. as other people have said, it wasn't just a tennis club. it was a place for people to come, for young people to play tennis, and i think defining what significant is is really important as you judge this case. i'm told that the developer and heard from corey, the z.a., that they think that excluding the tennis club and court isn't -- >> clerk: okay. we're having a technical difficulty. miss gerston. >> operator: i paused the time.

>> clerk: okay. okay. we will call her back -- oh, i see her. miss gerston, one moment. miss gerston, if you want to start your time over.

>> thank you. this ballot initiative, i personally gathered thousands of signatures for. it's important to identify that, and as people spoke before me, because they reneged on an agreement -- just based on the z.a. saying this isn't significant enough. the numbers, 11% is significant, and if you ask any member or anyone who's ever set foot in this club, it is a significant tennis community and tennis club for everyone. i was gutted to hear all the work that we did to save the club was destroyed by just having the developer to pay a significant amount to keep the tennis club out of their plans. they got $89 million from

pinterest, and then they just have to pay us back. we don't want our money back, we want the tennis club. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. troy rondeau, you have two minutes. >> thank you. speaking on behalf of the usta, 17,000 members live within an hour of san francisco, and about 2,000 of those are all san francisco residents. it doesn't take into consideration any of the nonusta tennis members that are playing tennis in san francisco. since 2017, sftc has hosted 40 tournaments, and it doesn't take into consideration any of the adult players that have

participated in sftc. we've heard about youth tennis advantage, but it doesn't also consider all the other opportunities that are before them. sftc is a staple in the san francisco and northern california tennis communities. sftc was one of the very first indoor tennis facilities and one of the only ones in northern california. it's also helped with the uspta in northern california, which has hosted over 1,000 different tennis professionals from all over northern california as well as the united states. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from tom yankowski. mr. yankowski, you have two minutes. you're on mute.

i put you in the panelist position, mr. yankowski. i see that you're here -- okay. we're going to come back to mr. yankowski, and we're going to go onto mr. deamer. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, mr. deamer. go ahead. >> thank you. i've been a member of the sftc

for 40 years. these are one of 12 indoor tennis cloerts -- courts available in san francisco for the past 45 years. they're a normal commercial sports facility open to all, not any kind of private membership organization. their deletion will have a very significant impact. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from sam lau. >> hi. this is sam lau, and i really appreciate the time of the board and president honda. since we only have two minutes, i'd like to just point out my

unique perspective. i've been a resident in the district 6 south of market area for 15 years. 11 of those years, i've been a member at sftc, and that was my community. moving into soma, i didn't realize that there were tennis courts right there, so i really used that to rediscover my love for tennis that i got as a kid and a teenager and found lifelong friends, all walks of life, all incomes. i think it would be a huge deprivation of existing residents and all the new residents that are going to be populating the new housing and offices that are going to be built in the district. the tennis club and all tennis courts are safe spaces for recreation. it's safe because during covid, we realized that tennis was one

of those rare activities we could enjoy safely, and during the increase in wildfires and smoke, the indoor space actually provided some protection from that while allowing us to still recreate. so i would encourage the board to overturn the ruling that this is an insignificant change and thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. we do have a participant who wants to provide public comment, but they are in a very loud area. it's a neighbor. they said i'm a neighbor but i'm not able to comment because of background noise. if this change is not considered to be a significant change, i do not know what is. i strongly hope that the board of appeals find this change as

a significant change as commonsense would suggest. okay. so the next speaker is steve jamison. >> thank you. am i unmuted? >> clerk: yes, sir, i can hear you. >> okay. i am very uncomfortable with the way that alexandria is trying to extricate themselves from the promise that they made. their representative earlier took us into the deep weeds and small print and, in the process, tried to change the meaning of words, such as significant. significant, if you look it up, like i did with a dictionary, means important, and one of the points we've been making is this is an important aspect of what they promised the city they would do in the -- building this proposed project. and when they got permission, it was, in part, because of the san francisco tennis club's continuance at 88 bluxome.

under cover of covid, if you want to call it that, they erased it or are asking to erase it as if it's nothing. the san francisco tennis club is why the whole movement citywide began to preserve recreation, and we gathered almost 20,000 signatures and at the head of the line was the tennis club's preservation. now, suddenly, it's not important, it's not significant. in fact, having it number one on their highlights last night on the news apparently doesn't mean anything. number one is not number one in significance. doesn't mean significant. i think the way that they're doing this is indicative of the way that they know what they're doing. we tell children, do what you say you'll do, keep your word. i hope that the city says that to alexandria. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from lois

salisbury. lois salisbury, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> there we go. thank you. good evening. i'm lois salisbury. i am the cochair of the tennis coalition in san francisco, which champions public tennis in san francisco, which champions and advocates for the public tennis playing community, which certainly showed up tonight. we are very proud of the role that we played with rec and park and the parks alliance to, over a six-year effort, brought about the rejuvenation of the golden gate tennis park there now. i do want to correct one misstatement of fact. there is no membership required. this is a public facility in san francisco. we are grateful to san

franciscans because they gave a $27 million contribution to our capital campaign, and they also resurfaced 20 courts throughout the city, which is a great assess, especially because tennis is having a tremendous resurgence. the public is turning out and occupying these courts to the max. the loss of the 12 courts indoors would be a serious, serious blow to the tennis playing community. and i want to say, the constant emphasis by the alexandria representative of private, private, private, misrepresents the community. we are not private. we are a playing community that turns up in all kinds of places to play. you heard of the tremendous public benefit that the historic tennis center has

provided, and that's why this movement has the firm support of the tennis coalition because we are dedicated to the public. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from richard quesada. please go ahead. >> thank you. i believe i've unmuted myself. >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> i was asked to speak by one of the members of s.f. sports and recreation. i'm a member of the tennis club, bay club, and have been for a long time. i'm a native san franciscan, began playing at the club in 1974, as an 18-year-old. i'm still a member, and i'm rather upset because of the loss -- i apologize -- the loss of the community that was there. it was a place we could go

gather, play tennis, exercise facilities. cardio rooms, employees that we became friends with, so it was a whole community, and we've lost it, and it's just terrible to think that a corporation is breaking their promise to san franciscans, to the city, and what was once there, vibrant tennis community, of different people -- obviously, i'm hispanic. born and raised in the city, went to public schools, but i was able to become a member. even though i had to pay public dues, it was not expensive. i also object to the description of this being a private, private, private.

no, it's open to everybody. we were allowed to bring guests, etc. so this is a loss of huge community, and i hope the planning commission or the -- that you overturn this decision. >> operator: that's time. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. [please stand by]

>> with the claims clinic at 6:30, we could playat 9 am. it's a possibility which is unparalleled . in summary i'm calling on you to support this that these tenants courts are in fact significant and in addition to that their prospective share i urge you ... >> thank you, we will hear fro karen mack , you have 2 minute . >> caller: can you hear me? great. thank you for your time and also i'll build on the comments many of my other colleagues who are presenting have said especially debbie christian. in terms of significance as someone who spends many hours gathering signatures, donating

money, trying to get this on the ballot andbeing part of the negotiations or at least coordinating with people i guarantee you it was absolutely significant . we were trusting alexandria would follow through on her word and we were trusting jane kim and let them go through so for them to say now it's insignificant, that's denigrating the access. i think this project is significant for the city in terms of recreation, in terms of indoortennis facilities . many of the peoplehave talked about this so i'm not going to go into that . i would say that i have been of the club member for 13 years and a property owner in district x for 20 years. it really matters and you know, in terms of i guess i think that is not significant, i would implore the planning commission to grant the appeal. clearly it's significant.

it's significant to thecity and significant to all of us . we wouldn't have goneon board with this and why not let more scrutiny, ? they're trying to parse words and make this under the table and i think that's not the case. ithink it's disingenuous and a bait and switch and it's a bad precedent for thecity . thank youfor your time . >> we will now hear from mike skinner , please go ahead. >> caller: good evening, i am mike skinner, executive director of youth tennis advantage. a few speakers have talked about us saying ymca which is what we are commonly called. we support thesan franciscans for sports and recreation appeal .the lost 12 indoor tennis courts are significant organizations like us who have relied on these courts forabout 40 years . these courts were are, were and are important community

resource.the temporary courts the cow palace aregreat but they are temporary . why ta, use tennis advantage is a nonprofit that runs year-round tennis programs for over 300 under resourced youth ages 8 to 18, san francisco glenn and berkeley.we also provide college prep assistants and grants to college scholarships each year . all of this relies on partnerships like we had with as ftc.so not having that is huge for the low income families of san francisco. please consider reversing this decision, losing 12 indoor courts would be a huge loss for the community.

thank you very much. >> thank you. mister soto you are an appellate andagent for the appellant. you filed an appeal so you can't speakduring public comment . you will have time in real . the next speaker is william short shorts and no more comments in the chat function. it's for technical assistance only . mister swartz, please go ahead. >> caller: i'll show my face. i everybody. just one comment since so much has been said. this is a pasadena company that's a billion-dollar company . that thinks that well, we are a big company. we can do whatever we wantand that's the message that i think they're putting out . we can do this. we don't have to worry about some stinkingtennis club. oh well . we are the big players and we

can do what we want. we don't have to keep ourword. why do we have to keep ourword? it's of noconsequence when money is concerned . and it's like a billion-dollar company . that's my comment . it's right in our society, isn't it that big players think they can do what they want and this is an exampleof that and i think that we should takethis opportunity to put a stop to that and say no . keep your word . behave . thank you. >> we will now hear from the caller whose number endsin 0550 . you may need to press start 6 to unmute yourself. please go ahead.0550. pressásix.

okay, we can come back to you because i don't see thatyou are unmute it .so the next speaker we will hear from his michael delgado. mister delgado please go ahead. >> caller: thankyou so much, can you hear me ? >> welcome. >> caller: thank you for the conversation tonight. i'm here in mexico and on holiday but i'm deciding to spend my evening instead of having margaritas with you because i have my friend lauren here who i met through our tennis club and not only have i lauren but so many people of such diverse backgrounds and san francisco hasalways stood by its citizens . we think back to harvey milk, think back to the way san francisco has always been there for us and this feels like an cisco is gaining to the interests of big business and i just have to say that this is a pivotal moment for us and is not just about recreation.

is not about tenants, it's about community and making friends that you find yourself on vacation with that you're attending a city hall meeting instead of being out because this is important to us. absolutely. i have actually worked in real estate and there is a responsible outcome for development. i have a city planning background in urban planning when i went to school and a city that throws out the livability concept for office buildings and condos down the long road is not going to bea place for people that they want to live in and spend money and . and i also seconded so many young kids have close over the past 12 years from disadvantaged backgrounds being

mentor, doing clinics and gettingto hang out like myself and others .i watched them grow into solid people and this is a result of the welcoming environment for the community. >> i think more peoplecould be met, people from all different backgrounds . >> thank you alex. >> remember tohave a margarita for me to . >> will do. >> we have one comment i'm going to read out loud. i'm a native san franciscan grew up playing tennis and i support the comments today and wants to repeat them. the decision to allow the product is premised on developers promise to restore

the indoor tennis facility. that shows their reneging on that express promise with a significant change. the decision clearly should be reversed . that is darrellwu. >> maybe you can announce how toraise your handagain . >> for people calling in on the phone pressá6 and that will unmute you. we can try one more time the phone number ending in 0550 .ásix . do you want to give it a try? try right now. we could always call you later but we're going to move on to the nextperson . someone from santa key productions. please go ahead. that's the name that we had. central key productions. your panelist now, you need to unmuteyourself . youshould be able to do that . >> caller: sorry. i was messing with my settings. my name is grace on.

that's my daughter archie i don't want to belabor the point but the bottom line is iwant to thank all of you . commissioner lazarus and the administrators who are obviously you've heard that the idea that this is insignificant isludicrous . as aninvestigative producer with decades of experience coming from manhattan , it looks like a duck and quiet. alexander real estate absolutely knew what they were doing. categorically when they accepted the help . they negotiated an agreement with the group. they knew they were going to do an end run around the ballot initiative and now as debbie pointed out in the dark of night they're trying to escape accountability. the bottom line is this is about accountability and as mike elgato saysthis is about our community . it's about recreation inthe city of san francisco . i came from manhattan where you cannot play tennis or recreate.

the entire city is lacking a core, a heart where everybody of every age and economic backgrounds can come together and recreate together. and what the board of appeals has to think about and what corey should thinkabout in terms of redefining the idea of significance is once this is gone , i know what the city lookslike when the heart has been taken out of it . when the opportunity for community has been taken out o the middle of the city . we don't want to be manhattan. we are supposed to be san francisco. i would implore the members of this committee court of appeals to hold alexander real estate accountable. they put number one in their presentation in may . they said tennis retention was there number one principle. so let's hold them tothat . >> we will now hear from rohi

dawan. >> caller: can you hear me? >> welcome. >> caller: thank you for the time. i've been a 30 year city resident, 20 year member of the tennis club. both my children learn how to play tennis there. they have birthday parties there with many friends from the school. we had the opportunity to meet tennis players around the country.anyone from major international cities and the one thing that stood out were the number of people part of

the tennis club who played there around the world so when we say this is a private club i know private clubs are hush-hush and there's no way you could think of stepping foot into the private facility. the san francisco tennis club on the other hand is a public facility known around the world. my question is is the other 89 percent which isjust a building of which san francisco has thousands of and i can assure you that the address of the building people of new york, london and san antonio will not care but the 11 percent we're talking about is known throughout the world and it is incredibly significant . to not only this community but the city and the other thing i would like to emphasize isthat i was very vocal with alexander that i do not want this to go through. they showed us that this would go through if there told us that they're not going to build a tennis facility you would have heard somuch louder from this community beyond the san francisco at . >> we step back because

alexandra made promises to us that they are now reneging . i consider that completely unacceptable and i implore you to use your judgment . i know technically you can't hire a lawyer, technically i'm not responsible this is completely unacceptable. and thank you for your time. >> we will out from the domain, welcome back. sorry we lost you earlier. >> i hope you heard about to convince you already that there is a substantial change that is being suggested here or proposed and it's not a good idea. you can hear me? okay. i want to put at least these terms. appearances can be deceiving. someone can come up to you with a nice suit and talk smooth but they can be grifters. they can be scam artists. that's exactly what's happening here this company. this company. the club while privately operated is a public benefit and a shining star or san

francisco and the people who live there. this private company simply wants to line their pockets at the expense of san francisco. don't let them do it. we have too much to gain. too much to benefit and keep the san francisco tennisclub alive . thankyou . >> we will now hear from af. please go ahead, af. you have to unmuteyourself . >> caller: can you hear me now? >> please go ahead. >> i've been living in san francisco 47 years and i'm a member of this club almost 40 years . i son joined high school. the entire team of his high school played at the tennis club with no training

whatsoeverand moved on to play college . what we are seeing right now and what i heard from our membersand everyone else , the agenda is not ... [inaudible] telling each one of us the club is no longer a priority. they backed up. where is san francisco. we're losing our club. we're losing our facilities and the facility is becoming more a ghost town for us. i heard rich earlier and he wa crying . [inaudible] so pay attention.

whoever is out there, pay attention. thank you verymuch, commissioners . >> thank you and we have the next person labeling them selves #whereispengshoui. please go ahead, wecan't hear you . okay. we can go back to you. lance johnson, please go ahead. >> caller: my name is lance johnson and i work at the san francisco tennis club for 15 years and i want to say to the club began trying tosave the club many years ago. there were so many movements

trying to save the club . this agreement was entered into upon trying to save the court and save thefacility . everything else brought on was in addition to. these were things that made the deal better. so acting as if those things are moreimportant than the court is a big risk . and i want to just highlight that. second, it's going to be difficult to build those courts underneath . this deal for 80 millionthey paid is very odd to me . third, the club is used for many different things. it's been used to raise money for the police department. it'sbeen use to raise money for the fire department . it's been use to raise money for ymca. fourth, there's been so many different tennispros it's a

historic place. even lentil, boris becker, brad gilbert, andre agassi . venus and serena williams . they've asked me to coordinate with the williams sisters there many times and but with that, thank you. >> we will now hear from mark sondheimher. mister sondheim please go ahead . >> thankyou for considering this matter . excuse me. i've been a member for 25 years and i know you for quite a lot about what the significance of this club is to a lot of peopl . what is 12 tennis courts, 12 tennis courts is 50 people per hour.50 people per hour times 12 15 hours in a day. hundreds of people every single day coming to enjoy the facility. ricky waters was one of the

football players for the 49ers and he asked for what? i ask you for who, for what we will rule in favor of alexandria. for whom, for what for the shareholders of alexandria for the people of san francisco. for whom, for what you you. >> we will now hearfrom brian short, please go ahead . >> caller: i'm a 20 year resident of san francisco and i live three blocks away from the site and i want to say acouple of things . you've heard so far today and it's been fantastic that there's certainly a community and to the community this is significant. i was thinking about this in a little bit different direction. not to belabor that and it's obvious there's a strong community. to me this is more with us a few minutes ago about what san francisco is.

to me i live with this issue. san francisco it's always claimed to be a 24 hour city we compare ourselves economically and against a lot ofother metro areas .as offering something the others can't to me this is more the quality of life that we can offer and that we have here and with really galvanize thecommunity . in that manner. i really compete as a metro, as a city moving forward. obviously right now we're in, there are tough times in san francisco. we're losing our downtown. drug stores are closing. everyone on this call has had restaurant or retail location that's close the last couple of years and we're starting to lose that race . to me i think without question this committee that everybody'

described i agree for every walk of life from the programs and retirees , i think we should strive. for me i can't understand why the citywouldn't strive for this vitality . and to a point that was raised earlier i think it's inextricable in the planning commission documents that this tennis club was supposed to remain in this location. i agree that counsel is not a suitable replacement nor doi think this team was would ever agree . >> thank you, please stop. we have a lot ofpeople, your time is up . we willhear from mindy . >> caller: can you hear me? >> yes, welcome. >> caller: my husband and i havebeen san francisco

residents for 15 years and members of sf pd most of that time . the club laid a major role in ourday-to-day lives insan francisco . we were a big part of that community and it meant a lot . i know we already heard a lot about the appointments of the children in this community and i want to act on that more importantly , i want to turn the floor to our nine-year-old daughter darcy who was very active in the club and i think it was one of her first outings as soon as she was a baby was at sf tuc and she's grown up there she's been begging during this whole session to say a few words herself so i'll turn the floor over to her. darcy, you want to say a few words ? >> the club means a lot to me and when i was a baby i always went there. and it was all about actually where i wanted to go. i always felt happy when i had tennis practice there.

with all my best friends. it was amazing and we would always have snacks and things. and then we would just go to each othershouse. it was so fun . the club is like asecond home to me .>> we will now hear

>> i wanted to make the point that the inclusion of the word significant who said the word significant should be included understands there's going to be plenty of occasions where you cannot account for it ahead of time, you cannot accomplish the standard, and what alexandria is doing is taking this and saying that there's a standard, but you can't rise to it. i believe that the intent of the word significant is that you would go and examine the significant of each change for a scale of this size, and the idea that you would use that word as a weapon as opposed to a way of starting

[indiscernible] as opposed to that is reprehensible. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. bobby carter. >> hi. i'm sitting in my car outside the temporary facility. it doesn't have any heat. it's so cold in there. 15 years ago, i came to the club. i didn't know anybody. 90% of the people that have spoken, i know. i feel like i'm probably, for good or bad, one of the most popular members in tennis, and i miss everybody. it's not -- it's -- we're in daly city. it's cold. i'm wearing, underneath my

shirt, it's a shirt called winning ugly. brad gilbert wrote that book. jonathan said he was going in the wrong direction, age 13 or 14, joined y.t.a. they teach them tennis after school and life skills, and that he just graduated from cal law school. this kid was lost, and y.t.a. and san francisco tennis club found him. i had my wedding reception at the tennis club. why? because all my friends are there. i'm a lifetime member. that means that i bought a membership for myself, my wife, and my children to have a lifetime membership at a club

that is -- it's not here right now, and my life will be lost if this club is not here, and i love you guys. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. maggie thompson? miss thompson, please go ahead. maggie thompson, you need to unmute yourself. we can't hear you. >> okay. >> clerk: yes, we can hear you now. thank you. >> i'm coming from a little different perspective than i've heard others talk about in the fact that i'm a senior citizen. i've been a member of the tennis club from the get-go, 50 years, and it's been a part of

my life, friends, family, tennis. and i think particularly now, where the city is so dangerous to go outside, i feel safe at my tennis club, and i would be very unhappy in that didn't exist, and i really do encourage, especially if you care about us seniors, i hope you do, because we're a big part of the san francisco arena, that you will overturn this -- or this appeal thing, and so thanks for listening to me. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from venita louie. miss louie, go ahead. >> okay. i'm hear. i just want to thank executive director rosenberg and president darryl and commissioner lazarus and the

panelists. i am calling as my husband is a member of the tennis club. 26 years ago, i bought him his membership there because this is someone who was tired of the rain in san francisco and having to call off playing tennis, so indoor tennis is a necessity in san francisco. it is a privilege, it is a unique thing that cannot be found in very many places, so i am calling to deny the appeal. i am also a newly appointed commissioner of the recreation and park department of san francisco, so i'm calling on behalf of recreation, i'm calling on behalf of youth, of community, and the nonprofits -- many of the youth, the underprivileged play

at the tennis club, and many of the players volunteer to coach them, so it's a very viable and stable youth program. so weather doesn't permit you to play at golden gate park, even though it's beautiful. this is significant. thank you for your time. >> president honda: thank you, benita. >> clerk: okay. we'll hear from tom yankowski. we couldn't hear you earlier. you were on mute. if you send a phone number in the chat, we can call you and take your comments, but i'm not sure why you're unable to mute.

mr. yankowski, send your phone number in the chat, but we're going to unmute you. miss holbrook? please go ahead, miss holbrook. >> yes, hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we are going to hear from linda holbrook first. >> i am linda holbrook's significant other. >> clerk: okay. can you turnoff your devices? >> how about now, can you hear us okay now? >> clerk: okay. perfect. >> yes, i'm a psychiatrist, a physician of the community, i don't want to talk about the double cross and all those things that happened. i think that's wretched, but i want to talk about what makes

the city great. we have the greatest views. see those victorian houses looking down at the high-rises and the golden gate. we have maybe the best symphony in the world. our baseball team just won 107 games. i teach at the university of california medical school. we have nobel prize winners down each hall, including einstein's daughter, and this is a great, great city. great cities do great things. our tennis club is a great facility. very unique. let's do the right things. the truth of the thing is to do what is right, that's what to do. this is tennis club must remain in san francisco, a great city. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from lucas

wang. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself -- yes, please go ahead. >> hi. i'm michael wang, speaking on behalf of lucas wang, my son. >> clerk: hold on. i'm hearing someone else. >> so i'm not lucas wang, i'm michael wang, i'm lucas' dad. i met some of my best friends at the club, and i can't fathom a world without it. the club is definitely significant not just to me, but to my friends, my family, and the community at large for many of the reasons that you've already heard. i would like to share a perspective as a tennis dad who relies on the tennis club to change their dreams. my boys specifically, tennis is their passion, and they're

aiming to be competitive tennis players, whether it's junior or more. taking the tennis club away from them would take them away from their passions and send them to their screens, and there's really no other way. thank you for hearing my comments. i appreciate it. >> clerk: okay. at the -- >> operator: julie, somebody gave me a phone number to call in. >> clerk: yeah. do you want to call mr. yankowski? we've tried to call him twice, and why don't you hold up the phone. thank you for your patience, everyone.

>> president honda: that's fine. why don't we -- >> president honda: yeah, we're going to move on. >> clerk: i don't see any more hands raised. we do have another public comment in the chat. it's not clear -- >> operator: julie, he's calling me right now. >> clerk: okay. let's hear -- >> hello? hello? >> hi. thanks very much for connecting me. i'm in costa rica, and that's probably a statement to why -- >> operator: well, you've got two minutes, if you want to

go -- >> okay. can i start right now? >> operator: yeah, you can start right now. >> okay. first, i want -- i want one of the hundreds of people that collected signatures to qualify a ballot measure that would have required developers like alexandria to replace any lost tennis spaces in the city. people that signed this petition believe this is a key issue that the board of appeals needs to consider. the soma district is vastly underserved regarding recreational opportunities as it has the lowest percentage of recreational space when compared to all the other

neighborhoods in san francisco. i'd like to respond to the attorney for alexandria. they have a facility build near cow palace. he knows it's not relevant to this issue, and it's a temporary court. and secondly, i believe the decision making process available to san francisco residents and community groups to counter real estate development companies is sorely lacking. today, we are forced to rely upon one individual's determination, the zoning administrator's determination. that renewal of projects is not significant. there are more than 100 people that have been trying to speak to you on zoom about this. they have written hundreds of letters on this issue. i believe this volume is a statement of significant alone. in my opinion, the benefits of maintaining a community recreation far outweigh the

benefits of any development company. lastly, it's indoor tennis -- >> operator: that's time, sir. >> clerk: i'm sorry. your time is up. >> operator: thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from diane eisenberg. >> yes, hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. thank you. i'll make my comment very brief because so many of my friends and tennis club members have spoken before me. i just wanted to say that i understand from his presentation that the zoning administrator gave this matter serious consideration, and i do appreciate that, but i was puzzled when i was listening to it because what i heard was an emphasis of the fact that the tennis courts could be eliminated without changing the facade of the building. and i understand why changing the facade of the building could make a change

significant, but conversely, the fact that something doesn't change the facade of a building doesn't mean that the change is insignificant, and i think you've heard all of these other people speak to the very broad and deep significance of preserving the tennis club and having these indoor courts in san francisco. so i would just suggest, because i understand the meaning of significance here, is an issue that the board has to grapple with, but i would hope that you would take all of these other things into consideration. you know, i think that, for example, if it had been possible to eliminate the affordable housing component of the plan or the two indoor swimming pools without changing the facade of the building, i think, likewise, that would not have been considered an insignificant change. thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. and so we just had a few

comments in the chat that i believe were there for technical reasons, so i'm going to quickly read them. from romin, it says, i totally agree with all the public comments. as the father of two children, this could provide an opportunity for my two children to learn tennis. this is more than significant to us. then we also have a come from vin ngo. i'm a bay area native, ucsf trained doctor, and a condo owner and member of the tennis club for years. 11% of body weight is something, and the tennis club is significant to the community of s.f. please preserve it.

the next one is from [indiscernible] san francisco tennis club is where i started playing tennis as an immigrant. it is heartbreaking to see the only indoor tennis club being torn down in a world class city like s.f.. we need to put people before profits. this is our time to shine as a city and right the wrong. i hope our request and appeal can be heard, okay, and i do see one more hand raised. zainab, i'm going to promote you to panelist, so you can go ahead. >> hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: you're a little allow. can you speak louder or closer

to the microphone? >> is this better? >> clerk: a little bit. >> i just want to say, i'm a member of the san francisco bay club for 16 years, and i just want to remind everyone that alexandria, they just look us in the eye, all of us, and they made all of us believe one by one, one by one, saying that they will build these courts no matter what. this is called bait and switch, and i can't even believe that actually the city is even considering to let alexandria get away with this. if we will let them as a city to do this, this is going to set the tone for the rest of the big corporate in s.f. and also, i want to say that alexandria is such a cheap company that they will terminate not only the only indoor courts in bay area, but

they're also going to terminate the temporary ones because it was on for five years with three years left, and they just going to take those away. going to leave san francisco with outdoor courts and another high-rise. at this point, i am just begging, begging all of you to standup for us because only you can do this, and our faith is in your hands, and this is all i have to say. >> clerk: thank you. we're back to peng shuai, the person that has that hashtag. please go ahead. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, please go ahead. >> hello. i live a few blocks away to the now demolished sfpuc.

visit the website aredestroyscommunities. tennis players across the globe have shown incredible heart and spirit in standing up to the chinese communist party after they attempted to make one tennis player disappear. a.r.e., or alexandria real estate is trying to make an entire tennis community disappear, which should make them have to resubmit, but the zoning administrator decided to sign off. throughout the letter of determination, mr. teague could not have the decency to keep our name straight, nor did he

have the knowledge to determine that this should not be decided by him alone. i do have faith in you, commissioners, to see this moment as significant. this court was significant last year when the city asked the p.u.c. to use the courts during covid, now, the developer has the gall to say that the tennis courts are not significant. the history and legacy of the tennis at this club go back over 30 years. a.r.e., take your money and shove it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from shahan. please go ahead. you're on mute. we can't hear you. you're a panelist, so you

should be able to speak. shahan? we will come back to you. we do have another comment from jana cline. i am a high school student in s.f. the facility allowed us to play there during the pandemic. please do the right thing for our youth. one more from lance johnson. many colleges and most of the local high schools to practice regularly and hold matches. okay. is there any other public comment? please raise your hand. now's the time. if you called in, you need to press star, nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand, and we'll try again, shahan. okay. we have a phone number ending

in 2547. can you please go ahead? the phone number ending in 2547. try pressing star, seven. >> yes, robert wells, long time life member at san francisco tennis club. i agree wholeheartedly with the people, the members of this club, and i want you, the board, to reverse this decision and to make sure that the club does go -- that it is continued, going along with the building because the original agreement from alexandria was to put in the court. that was made clear. we worked years and years on this. we were shown plans, and it is a complete bait and switch. it's unethical, and this is the heart of san francisco, the tennis players, the community, and people like darryl honda,

who have been in real estate for 40-plus years, who i happened to have worked on on one particular deal, should know better what it means to have this type of facility for all members of the community. i was a teacher in san francisco unified, and i relied on that place to be able to go and work with a lot of the youth in the bayview. you know something? this is the time for you to standup to the plate and do the right thing because if you don't, you are literally throwing away the fabric of the tennis community and exactly what this city is all about. this is your time to make the stand, so please go ahead and take the right vote. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

we will now try shahan. i see that you're raising your hand. try pressing -- can you unmute yourself? maybe you can send your phone number in the chat and we'll call you? i'm not sure why you're having technical problems. >> hi. can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. you have two minutes. >> all right. awesome. i had technical difficulties in the most technical city in the world. this is shahan, and i'd just like to say i've been, like, a member of the bay club and sftc for almost five years. i am an immigrant originally coming from iran and studied in

san francisco, and found my home finally in the east bay and oakland. san francisco tennis club was not just a place for people from san francisco, it was a place for people from oakland, berkeley, and farther. it was a beautiful place by the bay bridge, to go there after school with your friends and play tennis or watch tennis and mingle. when i came to the united states, i did not have any friends, and i found my very close friends, who spoke already on this panel earlier. so it was such a lovely place for me and for all of us, and it's really sad to drive by and see the whole building is demolished, and the promises that have been made is not

going to happen or was a lie. please help us bring our city back. thank you very much. i yield back. >> clerk: thank you very much. we'll hear from dan newmark. >> thank you. don't want to echo too much of what has been said, but you've been a member for many years, as well. great place to meet friends and connect with the community, not just with private club members but with youth programs and college tournaments and all that kind of stuff, too, and would just simply say it's obviously a very large change to remove the club from the plan. that was the original deal. it's the only place in san francisco to play indoor tennis, and moving it out is a significant change from the original deal, and it feels

like it was wrong not to call it out. >> clerk: thank you. we will hear from bertrand. >> my name is netty bertrand. i learned to play tennis at the bay club, and i played my first tournament there, and i met three of my best friends there that i'm still friends with today, and i built the most amazing community at the bay club. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i don't see any other hands raised -- i see one hand, of course. okay. so the phone number ending in 8284, please go ahead. try pressing star, six to unmute yourself.

the phone number ending in 8284. phone number ending in 8284, now you unmuted yourself. please go ahead. >> yeah, my name is abe yang. just want to say at the end of the day, if the developer builds out the tennis club, they will still be around tomorrow and in the future. if they do not, this resource will not be replaced. that's all i have to say. i agree with what everybody else said, and thank you for taking all this input. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have some people putting more comments in the chat, and they've already spoken. if you want to -- so please don't use the chat to reiterate

what you've already said. is there anyone here to provide public comment, raise your hand. i'm going to just read one more chat message. i'm not sure why they're putting it there and not speaking. this is from mana. the san francisco tennis club is more than a tennis facility. it's a diverse community where people thrive. alexandria is materially impacting our community, not just the tennis facility. please, please do the right thing and reverse the decision. so i don't see any hands raised, so i'm going to be closing -- >> operator: julie, somebody tried to share their screen. >> clerk: yeah, don't share your screen at this point. so at this point, public comment is closed, and we will go to rebuttal.

you have three minutes. >> thank you. am i unmuted? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> so look, we understand very well the particular legal issue that the board is facing, and it's not a question -- they're not there to decide did alexandria do the right thing or is this a place that matters? they're there to decide whether or not the zoning administrator abused his discretion in coming to the particular decision that he came to, and i think he did, and i think it's quite clear that he did. mr. kevlin, in his presentation, stated that there are very clear standards in this area, and that the zoning administrator followed those standards, but he didn't provide a citation in his brief. there's even no prior decisions as to what those standards are, and the standard that he says

exists is that the zoning administrator can look at the conditions of approval, and if the change doesn't affect the condition of approval, then he can approval, and he sort of backs that up with well, it doesn't affect it from the outside. but people have pointed out that using these proxies -- first, considering what the word significant means will not lead to the type of chaos that mr. kevlin says will lead to because most things don't lead to this. this one is obviously self-evidently significant, and what the zoning administrator failed to do is even consider the word significant. his own analysis doesn't even look at that word, and that's the word in the motion that he has to look at. he can't say, well, we look at underground parking lots by various proxies, and according

to the same kind of logic that allowed a level of parking to be taken out at 988 harrison, we're going to take out this tennis club. he did not consider the meaning of the word that the commission actually used in its own document. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from mr. kevlin. you have three minutes. mr. kevlin, are you there? okay. yes, i see you. we're moving you back to the panelist position. >> there you go. i'm back. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. thank you, miss rosenberg, and thank you, board members. so let's touch on a couple of issues here. so first, the legal standard.

there is, in fact, you know, decades worth of the word significant. we are not discussing this word in a vacuum. just like any administrative regulation, not always, you know, published on-line, not always easy to find, but certainly is a standard for administrative regulations. we do have a precedent, you know, to the degree that it's not apples to apples, but it is a precedent, removing 13% of the project, not impacting it above grade but below grade. putting a policy decision on the zoning administrator would make these decisions very challenging. we haven't engaged in that on this case, but just think about this. we have a public benefit zoning

project which provides three major public benefits. i think we're over $100 a square foot in impact fees. even this decision, if we were to put it before the zoning administrator, is not an easy decision as to what is more significant. and maybe it does make sense that the board of supervisors should pass more specific guidelines in the planning code, but we are where we are today. to speak to the issue of alexandria's intent in this process, we entitled a project with the private tennis facility. it was at significant cost. the structural requirements were such that we needed to modify the size of the largest tower on this site in order to provide the structural support and the space separation for these tennis clubs. alexandria spent a year seeking a site permit for the tennis

club, and only after we hit the pandemic, only after the anchor tenant lost, was this process followed. the fact is -- and i understand the tennis community here, their passion for this, but the fact of the matter is their private agreement that they negotiated and voluntarily agreed to expressly recognized this potential scenario, for this to happen, so this is something that they negotiated and is in the agreement that they negotiated. last thing, again, back to the community, i totally understand the passionate views of this tennis community. i just think that if we're going to consider that, we need to also consider the ten years of work that went into the central soma plan, the thousands of people in the south of market involved in that, and the -- thank you.

i'm here for questions. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: yeah, so mr. kevlin. i told you i'd ask the same question after rebuttal. so 11%, has there been a project that's been 11% removal other than a parking garage? >> and let me be clear, president honda, the project is not removing 11%. >> president honda: what percentage would you say is removing that tennis court? >> i don't know, but there is another floor in this project, so it's not a net loss of floor area, so we still have two below grade basements. >> president honda: okay. and then, imagine if this -- if the l.o.d. is approved, what are you doing with that space? >> it's building support for the project, the million square foot project with six different uses in it, so there's quite a

bit of need of building support. >> president honda: so you would not be using that for leasing support, so if we put that in perpetuity, that would be no problem. >> no, there's no use for this space other than support for above. this project has p.t.r., child care, retail, so there's a lot going on. >> president honda: so a member of the public presented a thing that this company's stocks have gone up, so covid did this company good, didn't it? >> i'm not really qualified to speak to that. >> president honda: if it's a million square foot project, the area that we're talking about is, give or take, 100,000

square feet? >> yeah. >> president honda: okay. thank you. thank you, mr. kevlin. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from mr. teague, the planning department, and public comment is closed. >> hello, again, commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator. i'll be pretty brief. i do just want to touch on the fact that, again, this was a unique situation. i don't think we're going to find any apples to apples situations here, and this was not an easy determination. it was definitely a bit of a line call, kind of no pun intended. i think part of the challenge is the fact that everyone wants to interpret significant in their own way, and the question is, significant to whom, and the planning commission motion does not really provide a lot of guidance there. it's just whether or not the modification itself is

significant, and it's revieweds as significant in terms of the representation of the overall project, so if significant changes need to be brought back to the planning commission to consider, then the consideration is really from the planning commission's perspective, a modification that would be deemed significant by the commission. so that's why in this case, we didn't review this based on alexandria's perspective, we didn't review this based on the club members' perspective because they would have their own perspective. it was an objective technical review of the removal of this component relative to the overall project context, and the specific informtion and kind of criteria and information that was provided in the presentation.

my review was very much intended to be an objective review as more of a technical call, but again, you know, i understand the views of people on both sides, and i'm definitely available for any other questions that any of the board members may have. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: of course it would be me. so since john kevlin, counsel for the project owner, was unable to say whether or not 11% was significant, can we say this is a one-off? >> i think the challenge there is it is really difficult to pin down the total universe of

precedent in these situations because most of these determinations are done by a review of a revision permit, and obviously, if a revision is approved without requiring to go back to the planning commission, then the approval of that permit is the determination itself, so for many of these cases, there aren't kind of clear written records of that. in this case, there will be because obviously there is the specific letter of determination and the appeal, but we don't have, like, a database of these decisions to draw from, obviously, there are cases that i know just from my own experience and research. same thing from mr. kevlin, so it's not really easy to say that this is a one-off, so to speak. again, as we mentioned, this is relatively unique. you don't see projects reducing components too much, and when you do, you see small amounts,

and it tends to be parking and below grade parking. >> president honda: i respect your opinion. you've been my zoning administrator for several years and my deputy zoning administrator for several years before that. many of the people in the public have mentioned that this is the only indoor public facility. is that correct? >> is that a question? >> president honda: yeah, that's a question. >> i mean, i can't 100% confirm that. i'm also a tennis player here in the city, and i'm not aware of any other -- >> president honda: the question would be, if it is -- if it is the only -- and i'm not a tennis player here, and the last time i played tennis i was in junior high, and pancho

gonzales was my tennis coach. if that is true, wouldn't that be significant? many years back, when the giants facility was being proposed, you know funny how certain sports entities around, they didn't want a hockey rink, they didn't want a facility to house hockey. having the only indoor tennis -- what i've heard -- and again, i'm not a tennis player, tennis courts are being challenged because pickle ball is a competing sport, so wouldn't the only indoor facility be somewhat significant? >> again, i want to be really

clear. my call on this was not a value judgment on the tennis club itself, right? whether or not it's a -- it's good policy or a good facility to have. for whatever reason, the planning commission did not apply the replacement of the tennis club. if they thought it rose to a level of that significance, they can make that a condition of approval. now making that a condition of approval doesn't mean it couldn't be considered a significant modification, but it was definitely part of the consideration in this case, so that's not really the perspective that i was looking at, in terms of is this particular, you know, business itself or facility significant in the larger context, it was

looking at the project as a proposed project, and whether the modification itself was significant, so that -- >> president honda: i'm not trying to put you in the hotseat, it's just whether the zoning administrator erred or abused his authority, and what was said at the planning commission was if there's any significant changes, any minor changes, that the zoning administrator can do. so the onus that's thrust upon us is if it's a significant change, and if it is, we're at a different space. i apologize. that finishes my questions. i believe that commissioner lopez has a question. >> commissioner lopez: yeah, thank you. mr. teague, i just want to make sure that i'm hearing correctly. it sounds like because these prior decisions haven't always been carried out through an l.o.d., it sounds like we don't

have, you know, a ton of kind of, you know, clear precedent or standards in this area. if i heard you correctly, it kind of seemed like you were, you know, just relying more on, you know, the little bit of, you know, your experience and maybe some of the prior decisions that weren't encapsulated in an l.o.d., am i right? >> not really. we've been entitling projects in san francisco for decades, so we have hundreds and hundreds of projects. so almost all projects change between the time of concept and permitting, so this kind of thing is happening all the time. there's no kind of formal database of these decisions. there are some that are more well known, right, because they

were either more challenging decisions, more, you know, larger changes, much more of a line call. is it significant? is it not significant, and i could provide some examples of those. i'm sure mr. kevlin could, as well. part of the challenge is that this is a somewhat unique proposal, again, removing this much of a basement level of a project and it not be parking. again, most of what we see typically in these situations is a building design that wanted to change. maybe some of the materials, the architectural style's going to change, or they're proposing to shift some of the massing or maybe add a little bit of a mass, and again, the same situation, like when they're proposing fairly significant changes, you have to look at the written record to see how

much value did the planning commission place on the design? sometimes the design was very meticulously required to be what it was, and that change was deemed to be significant on the record, so it's very much case-by-case. mr. kevlin referenced that we have these kind of standards, rules of thumb, and as commissioner honda mentioned, there's very little guidance. the z.a. may make this determination. is this modification significant or not? this one, again, was a tough call, and it was fairly unique, and it was very much just based on the information available in

the record, and primarily the motion, and also the hearing itself. >> commissioner lopez: thanks. that's helpful. and in terms of itself, you know, the variables that you weigh, the ones that jump out, it's the percentage of the footprint, the subterranean nature of the space, the fact that it's not visible from street level. like, which ones kind of weighed more heavily in your balancing kind of formula? >> i don't think there was any one that had anymore weight. any time you make one of these decisions, you're trying to look at everything in context, so i don't think there's any

contemplative way to say that one is weighted more heavily than the other. these are all areas of analysis, and in all of those areas of analysis, it kind of pointed to one side. of course, the appellants have pointed to other side of the equation, and that's why we're here today, and that's going to be for the board to determine where was it appropriate to land in that final decision, which is admittedly a challenging call. >> commissioner lopez: thanks. >> president honda: corey, i have one quick question -- go ahead, commissioner chang. i'll let you go first, since i've occupied so much time. >> commissioner chang: thank you, president honda. i think it would be helpful to

describe to us how you came to that decision and understanding that it wasn't an easy decision to make, i think that would help the public and the commissioners make our determination. >> as was explained in the -- in the letter, one part of the analysis was looking at this as what is this project? fundamentally, it's an office development, but as mr. kevlin described, it's an office development that provides a lot of other components. whether it's the child care, the park, the community recreations center with the pool, there's a lot of other components to this project. so when looking at the motion to kind of gauge the relative importance and significance of this component, you compare it to those other extra components, right?

and that's where there was contrast because those other components were called out specifically in the central soma plan, and at least one of them had to be provided to get the exceptions that were obtained by this project, and they were required as conditions of approval. you know, the flip side to that is, you know, i think it's pretty clear that the development would not include the replacement tennis club unless they came to the private agreement to do that. like, the city would not have necessarily required that to happen, at least not by -- not pursuant to the planning code or central soma plan. there's no -- there's a

component of the project, a very clear component, but that was part of that analysis. just reviewing, part of the other review, too, is the planning commission, when approving this [indiscernible] making a lot of the findings that were necessary to approving the project, so i think -- and that was a challenge. like i said before, it was very clearly part of the project, it

was a unique and -- feature of the project that kind of stands out, obviously, and there was public comment from people who supported the cause of that. there wasn't a lot of conversation at the planning commission about that component, it was a challenging call, but that's in part how i landed where i did. >> commissioner chang: thank you. that was very helpful. >> president honda: thank you. so -- >> clerk: so commissioner's, this matter's submitted. >> president honda: no, no, i have one more question. >> clerk: i thought you had started deliberating. >> president honda: no. so the question is if we ruled that the l.o.d. was given incorrectly, what is the consequences for that, zoning administrator? >> sure. i'm glad you asked that,

because i wanted to point out the question here is not whether the tennis club should be replaced or not, the question is should the planning commission make that decision? if you make that decisio that the letter of determination should be overturned, it would go before the planning commission for a formal hearing and official determination, but it wouldn't necessarily bring the entire project open again. it would just mean on this question of whether or not the tennis club should be removed would require approval from the planning commission. >> president honda: okay. thank you for clarifying that.

thank you. okay. that's it. no more questions, madam director. >> clerk: okay. this matter's submitted. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus, please step up to the plate. >> commissioner lazarus: just for consistency's sake during the meeting, so when i read through this the first time, i found the z.a.s reasoning fairly compelling, and i thought from a technical point of view there was quite a bit of merit in how he reached his decision. but then, i started thinking it through a little bit more, and there was a few issues bothered

me. -- that bothered me. i just see this decision as potentially setting a very dangerous precedent for large projects going forward, and frankly, i see no harm in asking the planning commission to revisit this with the revision that's being proposed.

>> president honda: agreed. so basically punting this back to the planning commission so they can determine what significant actually means. i see commissioner lopez' hand up. >> commissioner lopez: yeah. i won't echo everything that commissioner lazarus just said, but i was thinking about the precedent setting, in terms of tucking everything in and then the project sponsor pulling out at the last minute. that prospect, it just seems problematic to open that door going forward. and the only other thing i'll add is my reading of the

planning commission's lack of aspect on this project, in my mind, i can easily see how, if they had a decision before them, where a -- essentially, a deal had been struck, right, and a deal that had, you know, this public, you know, ballot initiative in the background and, you know, there was an alternative path, i could see how they could have just, you know, taken it as hey, this is one of the easy parts of the project that we don't have to worry about, right? and so i think that's -- that's the part where i'd hesitate to assume that it wouldn't be deemed significant by the body where they'd reassess, you know, the change dr -- i think

it's a call for them to make, and i wouldn't read into the contingent or the lack of contingent aspect of this that it wouldn't be deemed significant by them. >> president honda: thank you, commissioner lopez. commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: thank you. i just want to acknowledge that i can absolutely see why this is a difficult decision. i think assuming out of it and taking this project in the context of central soma, and it had been raised before that central soma was a project and planning area compromised of several projects that took years and years of negotiation with the city, with the developers, and the community, and there was an incredible emphasis on affordable housing and creating a new employment center for the city and

recognizing the importance of that, and i want to support that amidst the reality of the pandemic, as well, is something that i'm thinking about, as well. and i know, mr. teague, that, you know, you were trying to make a very technical call. it's challenging to ignore that, you know, remove that from the context of where we find ourselves. the reality of that is a lot of office development does move out affordable housing and resource commitment that the city is struggling to find, and undoubtedly, there's so much passionate testimony from all of the community, so i just want to emphasize with the

tough decision that you made, given that the over -- you know, if the l.o.d. is overturned, the decision goes to the planning commission to make the call, it seems like it adds an additional burden, but given the outpouring of all of the community members who came out, it seems like that would be the fair thing. i would hope that there are other voices that are heard at that commission hearing, as well, because i do think that a missing voice in all of this is the voice of housing advocates and just thinking about that and the central soma plan at

large, so i wanted to offer those sentiments, as well. >> president honda: thank you, commissioner chang. and before someone makes a motion, i want to acknowledge all the people that sent letters, whether support or against to our body, including supervisor ahsha safai. he's the only one that sent a letter, and his was in support. so with that, keep in mind, commissioners, that this is a decision on l.o.d., so our decision would be if the zoning administrator erred and abused or erred or abused in making his decision. so with that said, would anyone like to make a motion? you came out strong, ann. i'm looking for you. >> commissioner lopez: go for the clean sweep. >> commissioner lazarus: yeah, i guess so. i'm deferring at the next meeting.

all right. i'm going to move to grant the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in his determination. >> clerk: i think the deputy city attorney would like to address -- >> yes. brad russi, deputy city attorney. i think the commission should lay out why the zoning administrator erred in his decision. obviously, it's up to you in how to frame your motion, but i would suggest motion, framing it as voting to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination based on the -- on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in

his determination concerning the significance of the proposed change to the project on the specific facts and circumstances of the unique facts and circumstances of this specific case due to the prominence of the tennis center in the presentation and proposal that the planning commission considered at its meetings, and the size of the proposed change in relation to the overall size of the project. and you may also want to check with the zoning administrator to see what arguments he may have considered on the other side of the argument. >> president honda: thank you, brad. you're amazing.

>> commissioner lazarus: i'm happy to go with that. >> president honda: did you want to ask the zoning administrator if there were any factors on the other side, commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: i feel a little awkward about that, given that we're overturning his decision. >> president honda: there is no abuse, there's only error, and lucy is going to be mad for keeping her daddy up this late. >> i can quickly point out those were basically the counter points, right? it's just weighing those factors, i don't think there was any kind of other specific factor beyond what was cited there that was kind of the counter point to make an alternative determination. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning

administrator erred for the reasons stated by deputy city attorney brad russi. >> commissioner lazarus: to be transcribed later. >> clerk: yes. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. >> president honda: i've got to say, watching laurel here be so excited as a young teenager, watching everybody here, it's been amazing. thank you, all. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you so much.

>> welcome everybody. i am rudy, executive director of the violence prevention organization unite players. born and raised in san francisco. we have pretty much everybody from every walk of life in every sector from the sfpd to the private sector, community-based organizations. brothers and sisters on the other side of the wall. mothers who have lost kids to gun violence. brady campaign. mazda action. we have the sbip. my two brothers, guy and gary,

yo