>> it is your duty to help everybody in san francisco. >> presidenthonda will be the presiding officerjoined by vice president rick swig, and lazarus and lopez . we expect tina changshortly . also present is brad rusty will provide the board with any needed legal advice. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director . we will be joined by representatives from the planning department this evening.

the zoning administrator. the board meeting is as follows. the board request you turn off all phones andelectronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings . appellants, permit holders and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for about. people affiliated must include theircomments within a three-minute period . members of the public have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. mister long way our legal assistant will give you averbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up . four votes are requiredto grant an appeal or modify determination . if you have questions about requesting a rehearing please email board staff and board of appeals at sfgov.org. public access is of paramount importance andevery effort has been made to replicate the inherent process . to enable public participation , sfgov tv isstreaming this

live and we will have the ability to receive public comments for each item today . sfgov tv is providing close captioning for the meeting. to watch the meeting on tv go to check cable channel 78 notes it will berebroadcast fridays on channel 26 . our link to the live stream is on the website at tram slip sfgov.org / boa. you can join the zoom meeting by computer, go to our website sfgov.org/boa or you can call him by phone. dial

>> caller: i'll get started. members of the board thank you forthe opportunity . to state the obvious the city needs housing andparticularly we need affordable housing . the property here came up for sale in separate 2019 and even someone with zero experience i can plainly see this property has the opportunity to be affordable housing. vacant land on the public right-of-way 4.3 miles away and after consultingwith affording affordable housing advocates

this is the idea we came up with . the first of its kind small-scale affordable housing project that would have two units of middle income housing and one ofdeed restricted housing . below market rateaffordable housing with the area of san francisco . [inaudible] we would need to subsidize a lot you see here which would require variance of a planning code and rear yards and before you today because the zoning administrator denied my request to build this mixed affordable housing project. i asked with all humility you consider thefollowing questions . should the zoning administrator follow their own precedent? what do i mean by that? as an attorney i always begin by looking at the text of the statute. section 305 lays out the criteria for granting a variance . read inisolation the text is not particularly instructional .

it's there like all laws, to understand how the variance criteria would or should be applied is necessary to understand how the criteria impacts. in order to do that first i submit an open letter to last one year of the precedent from the planning department which produced these 100 decisions. second i spent weeks reading and analyzing the precedent in order to understand what type of applications weregranted , whattypes were denied and in both cases why . the predominant theme i got holes from analyzing 20 years of decisions was that over and over the actual language was some form of a question. whether or not a given project was inconsistentwith its surrounding area or neighborhood . consistent in what way? by identifying these 12 factors with zoning administrator for 20 years i've relied upon some

decisions to grant or deny a given lot. for example lot size. was the size consistent with the area and would that division make it more or less consistent? with these factors in hand i went through each of the depositions and created a database. all portions of which you can see here. in order to implement a picture of how the zoning administrator works. at a very high level the last 20 years 89.3 percent were granted. at a granular level when i compare the details of my property with the way in which variant applications have been adjudicated in the past i found my project checks all 12 boxes of granting the variance. when i examined the 12 variants that were denied, i found my

project lacked a single factor provided by the zoning administrator to myvariance in the past . thankfully we do not have the time today to walk through all 99 decisions but you can see here examples typical of those made in the past. court of appeals decision was made 3000 square foot corner lot like mine with a vacant sideyard on the public right-of-way . two years ago subdividing another 3000 foot lot and the 15th of because of the unusual funding to allow two distinct buildings like mine. street is one of the 22 examples with the densification that occurred as a result of granting the variance. it's something the zoning administrator stated in his letter rejecting my project and quezada avenue anothercourt of appeals decision in another court allowed . subdivided in recognition of

the city's clinical housing shortage which has only gotten exponentially more critical since this court of appealsmade that observation 20 years ago . as part of my research i learned corner lots are frequentcandidates for various subdivisions . 24to 99 successful. applications in corner lots and the reason you can see here on my slide . in corona heights there was much greater building massing. i was able to identify at least 25 car lots withina half-mile with very similar patterns . on the other hand i was unable to locate a single lot within a half-mile that looked anything like itwhich is why when you walk by or drive by my house this vacant land sticks out . the undeniable fact is the next affordable housing project is fully consistent with 20 years granted subdivisionverification and fully inconsistent with those that were denied .

many may say sowhat. let me start with facts about this neighborhood .the last year 10 years of population have increased dramatically, 20 percent and 79 percent respectively but housing has decreased over that same time , down 28 and down 222. they're facing eight housing prices and this neighborhood has more money and people combined while home valuesand rents have exploded . this is great news for a: homeowners but those that have been priced out of the neighborhood including disproportionatelypeople of color, those with limited or fixed income , working-class firstprofessions like teachers and firefighters. the purpose of thisproject is

to push back against those friends . >> 30 seconds . >> if you said yesterday the small piece of land will be mixed unit affordable housing and theonly unit in corona heights . you can undoubtedly take a look at theplanning code and kill this project .absolutely. but consistent with public policy the planning department itself and all the presents i shared you can say yes tothis project and you will solve this housing crisis for three people . >> thank you mister pluta. we have a question from commissioner lazarus and vice president swig. >> mister pluta is my understanding this project required a conditional use authorization whichwas not granted by the planning commission . >> that's correct and thank you for the question . the conditional use authorization has three triggers two of which i

triggered and less than 45 percent. if granted those variance i spoke with the planning department about this. it would reduce the project by 50 square feet or so i would rain in the rear of thebuilding and therefore i would no longer be subject to the special use district restrictions . i will not have to go in front of the planning commission again so all i need are these variancesto move forward with this project to bring the back of the building into 45 percent . >> but these decisions were rendered in conjunction with the project that required a cua andwas denied . >> yes, i understandthat . i put in a brief on that plan, i apologize. >> in other words there really is no project at themoment . >> i still have the ability to appeal and i have to double check on that the planning

commission piece. but i would have to check. on the details of that but again, i understand that these answers are good for three years. having worked with the planning department closely i would be able to come up with a project that doesn't trigger the spd. >> problem i'm having so you know is the experiences were granted in conjunction with a project that doesn't have an authorization until i see a project that is authorized , and that then maybe doesn't meet the variances for the variances would be granted i findmyself in a quandary so i want you to understand .>> i appreciate that question. i would ask to restart the process and come back here in 2 years. myhope is i know there's a city attorney on the call . if there is a way to contain these variances we can go back to the planning department and

come back with something. i'm not sure that's a condition to action here. that's not my area but i understand. >> we have a deputy city attorney and also the zoning administrator so we can hear what they have to say . >> vice president swig. >> vice president: i have the same question and rather than asking if i'm going to request of the zoning administrator to comment on the direction the commissioner lazarus went. the question that i would like to call to the attention of the project sponsor is are you aware? i hope you are aware that we are on thispanel are governed by the law . although we may agree with you fervently and aggressively on the spirit of your commentary with regard to affordable housing in a macro sense and

the need for affordable housing in the corona heights area, i hope that you are aware that we cannot create a new law. we cannot overrule precedent that is there. the primary person that i'd like you to comment on this or not is a variance is based on five findings which are explicitly described and commented upon in the document presented for thishearing mister t . in these five findings on the same five findings that the criteria to meet these five findings and theyare the same criteria for everybody that comes in front of us . they are rigid .

they are solid and they are on bendable. so one of the things that you did not address in your presentation was how your variance is justified by meeting any or all of the five findings. can youaddress that please ? >> i can commissioner swig. i appreciate both parts. the first part is i absolutely understand that youall have to follow the law . i-4 better or worse attached a fairly lengthy memo to my application which covers in detail the five points and i can dive into those but i think there's essentially 2 things that i can address.one is this ideaof a hardship . and as detailed the hardship

here is not established within the zoningdecisions . the hardship is a public benefit not being treated other similarly situated applicants. and again, don't treat me differently thanothers. there is no other compensating benefit . the second piece is that your zoningadministrator brought up during both earrings . his hands are tied because granting a variance, an area variance essentially granting a variance that would allow for gentrification over the original zoning and that use of the property and i think one of the signs that i put up their shows of the 99 successful variances the number of those that have created housing,

additional units created, 80 percent of those and 80 percent of those spaces the final number of units exceeded the original zoning of the original piece of property. and again commissioner i apologize. i'm falling back on my background. i listened to life. their helpful but i really looked at frankly the harder dilemma on applications. i read those andbased on that , with the numbers i've attached i felt strongly meeting each of the five factors, i do apologize would have been more helpful . >> i want you to understand that again, there's nobody on this panel and i'm sure somebody would speak up if they disagreed that does not agree

with your points of housing and the need for the housing and sometimes we'd all like to be a little bit more flexible to enable opportunities, but the five findings are rigid. and unless you can very quickly and clearly describe why you meet all the five findings, that would preempt any opportunity of approving the variance. on top of the fact and i will go back to how we started on this issue which will become evident by the zoning administrator. >> commissioner swig, give me three minutes and i'll go through. >> unless you can list the five findings i can't give you that

2 minutes because it would add to your testimony butyou have rebuttal coming up so your cover . >> i will use it for that, thank you for your time. >> we will now hear from the zoning administrator. >> corey teague, zoning administrator . good to see you this evening. just quickly we will start with property information in this 4317th street. this corner lot that is nearly 3000 squarefeet . it's within the rh to zoning district and the fulton district. it is also within the corona heights residents mixed-use district.the current property is developed on an existing building that contains two dwelling units consistent with our h2 zoning as a building that generally complies with

the planning code. it would also be allowed to expand that building within the control of the planning code and also to add an additional accessory dwelling unit creating a total of three dwelling units so the existing lot is fairly typical and has no real exceptional qualities and has additional developments into all remaining lots. the proposal is to create 2 lots out of this single lot and it's important to note both and lockswould then be substandard due to lot area . the new corner lot containing the existing zoning would then become nonconforming in terms of rear yard as that proposed lot line would run almost up to theexisting building then the new lot to the west would have new construction that would be nearly 100 percent lot coverage as well . and therefore be substandard in terms of rear yardand would result inessentially 100

percent lot coverage of the existing lot . as i've mentioned , a variance must meet all five required findings in order for it to be granted . i did not follow the brief of this case because the letter clarifies why each required finding was met in thiscase . the main thrust of the project sponsor's case for this project is really a policy rationale for more housing in the city and specifically for lots like this.that may be a supportable policy position. i think there'ssome support for that within the department and city overall and there'sa lot of work on housing issues in the city . however , variances are not really meant to solve policy issues at the individual property level . there are about alleviating very specific issues or properties that have

exceptional circumstances that create hardshipsthat impact property rights and also in a manner that's not detrimental to the surrounding properties . as was mentioned the planning commission heard this case already and dave required conditional use authorization. october 18 of last year they voted to deny conditional use authorization with several commissionersstating their rationale for denial . being essentially the same rationale to the variance denial . as you are aware aware overall the planning commission and board of supervisors have the authority to adopt land-use policy for the city and as you may know the city is currently considering legislation to increase to the four corner lots like this and if such legislation is passed this lot may take it vantage of that potentialadditional development capacity at that time . there was some conversation about prior variances.

there's a lot of information and data there but there's a lot of information that's hard to discern from theinformation presented by the project sponsor . there are many reasons why each individual case may be unique or have its owncircumstances that are relevant to that case and may not exist . it's really too impossible to evaluate that compared to the information divided by the project sponsor relative to other cases. each case really is case-by-case. each case is able to beappealed and come to this for and sometimes this board overturns or modifies the zoning administrator's decision . that reference to other projects doesn't capture projects that were informed early on of real challenges with their proposals that never went forward. the proposals were changed and never went forward. those are not reallyrepresented

in that information as well . regarding the planning code language in section 305 about thereclassification of property , if that's referenced in the zoning decision, it basically states no varianceshall be granted in whole or in part which would have a substantially equivalent effect to reclassification of property . that's from any new your score height or bulk so again, the lots permitted density and permitted height are kind of essential to the zoning itself whichis essentially a policy determination and that's really the purview of the planning commission and board of supervisors . that doesn't mean that language is not so rigid you cannot do

lots with variance that has a minor increase in development potential . that is an interpretation is made by each zoning administratorcase-by-case . in this case it was the nomination that because there were no exceptional extraordinary circumstances for this project and associated hardships and it was essentially a situation where you have a difficult corner lot that came to be developed with 2 units and the proposal was to allow a unit proposal, that is effectively a substantially the same as a reclassification of the property . so just to conclude, the project sponsors made no real substantial arguments on the subject lot suffers from any kind of exception or extraordinary circumstances or any hardships and additionally the planning commission found the project was not necessary or compatible or desirable for the surrounding neighborhood

and denied the conditional use authorization and it is the department's position that the variance were denied and we respectfully request the board denied it to. >> we have a question from president on data, then vice president swig. >> president: first of all welcome zoning administrator, it's been a while and first question is going through the material, this lot seems more suitable for maybe an adu. what is the allowable area for this particular lot ? >> this lot is zoned rh2 which allows for, it requires a rear yard 45 percent of the lot death depth which you can't average based onthe adjacent . i don't have the exact amount of funds that but there would be the ability to expandthe

building into the rear . in terms of having dwelling units this proposal does propose a adu within the existing building and that would be permitted even without the subdivision that adu could be added.additionally a adu could be a detached adu within the rear yard. either way it would be limited to one additional adu so the number of dwelling units would be that 2 that are existing now but one adu within the existing building or as a detached unit. >>. >> president: they mentioned several things that two or three have been reported but evidently i wasn'there 20 years ago. we can call frank and he may have the answer to that . my tenure has been nine years and i don't rememberanything similar to this . each state has its own specifics but generally the city doesn't flip-flop of only

3000 square foot. is there a policy for that? >> there's not a specific policy for that and some lots instead of requiring a variant actually require additional us . some go to the planning commission and don't come to the zoning administrator depending on circumstances but it is true we do see one or lots and lots flipped cases. i wouldn't say they are the most common but they're definitely not rare . a lot of times they are through lots where you have frontage . where the lot at the front and the rear, we do acase and its corner lots as well . again it's hard to really speak to any real detail about impairing this case to 90 something different cases because they are all have their own uniquecircumstances . >> that was my question.

>> vice president swig. >> vice president: thankyou very much corey, good to see you . what we have here is a permit which has been denied. you also have a conditional use which has been denied. the conditional use to my knowledge has not been appealed to the board of supervisors where it needs to go. so that would stymie anything that wecould do tonight is that correct ? >> not exactly the conditional use authorization was denied . the appeal period for conditional use is 30 days and it requires paraphrasing here but it requires signatures from owners of 20 percent of the surrounding properties or in a case where the surrounding

properties don't disagree with the decision of property owner wants to appeal it in this case you would have to have 4 supervisors filing to accept an appeal. to my knowledge there's been no appeal filed or accepted and the appeal period for the conditional use is expired . i haven't looked at that specifically for this case because it hasn't come up but that's my understanding. >> to your point variance is part of this project overall just like to see all was. you would be within your right to grant the variance. it's not common but we've had products in the past where the planning commission rules one way on their piece of the project. it may effectively you need both approval going forward but

there's nothing that would legally prevent the variance from being granted because the cu, finding for a variant it's not going to be materially injurious to the surrounding property. it's not impossible but it's challenging for a zoning administrator to determine that you meet that fighting the planning commission is determined project is not desirable. again it's not impossible but that makes it much more challenging to find that. the other issue raised is if this appeal was granted and the variances granted, could it lead to a development potential where no cu was needed? i haven't beenable to analyze that . it's a hard thing to say that it's not the case. it may be the case that you

could split this lot in this manner and revise the proposal in a way to avoid the triggers under the suv. i haven'tseen any specific argument or proposal to that effect . it's hard to respond in detail. >> commissioner: >> vice president: i justlost my train of thought but i'll bring it back in one second . we heard in testimony from the project sponsor recognition that he has the missing element of the cu. he recognizes i think is what i heardhe's going to have the opportunity to this in about two seconds . that he has another plan that he thinks will allow compliance

to a cu situation. if where we sit, and i think if where we sit is that this is not anapprovable project , because it doesn't have a cu, even if we and and i don't see how it meetsthe five findings anyway . i'm still convinced of all. what is the opportunity with the permit holder at this point? is it one where he just says okay, you've been denied and he gives it up or does he have an alternative to cancel the permit and based on the feedback he got from the planning commission and potentially ourselves that he just redesigns and re-calibrates the project to a

direction where he knows he has the potential to get an approved cu and an approved permit. what is your advice and your advice is for ourselves and for him the permit holder. >> the specificproject that's been proposed does require both the conditional use authorization and the variance . for conditional use authorization if itis denied , you must wait at least a year to reapply for the same project or a project that is substantially similar . you can't just immediately get another bite at theapple . there's that one year cooling off period that is required. that's just on the cu front. we don't have that same requirement for variances . it hypothetically loses appeal and apply for the same thing tomorrow.

that might not be the best course of action but there is nothing thatwould present prevent him from doing that . the other is going backto commissioner on this question . the other is to do a project that needs to go today which is essentially maybe a building expansion plus a tramp adu. that could be done in a code compliance matter .or the other option as i mentioned is proposed legislation that's working its way through the process and there's also state law that then have to take affect that may apply to this lot. all to say that there may be alternative routes that my mom that he could take advantage of that this property owner could take advantage of down the roa . >> vice president: so the cu is already a nonissue because the appeal period has passed so the

project sponsors already in that one year mode, is that correct? >> i've not looked into that specific issue but i'm not aware of any appeal being filed and it is a 30 day appealfiling period andwe are past that at this point . >> vice president: and if he hasn't filed an appeal and 30 days has passed , that one year precedent is started, correct? >> correct. >> so at this point it might be that this project is not doable at this point without a cu and if the project funds are recognizes that he has some adjustments to make to make his project more appropriate at least in the eyes of the bank

and maybe an hour i that it might be he would reevaluate pursuing this particular permit and cancel it and start again. >> that's to be there to look at all angles. the appellant did mention that the variance would be on the ballot forthree years which is true . if the variance was upheld and the variance was granted for this project, there would be a three-year period where the project sponsor could wait a year and still have a valid variance in an attempt to get the matching cu to go with it and attempt to move forward in that manner. >> vice president: thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner chang.

>> good evening mister t. i believe you've answered the question but i want to make sure i understand. duringthe testimony there was , he mentioned he had been working with planning department staff to come up with an alternative proposal that does away with the cu and i believe you said if i understood correctly that you aren't aware of such a plan. did iunderstand correctly ? >> that's correct,it's possible we've had discussions with staff about that contingency . but if so to that effect i'm notreally aware of it . >> we will wait to hear in rebuttal. just taking a step back and thinking about the context of what we find ourselves in which is the housing crisis that i think everyone and the project

sponsor has made mention of , despite that it's not as simple as posing and approving projects that increased density including affordable housing that kind of flies in the face of existing zoning and legislation. what you're saying and the big picture why is the rationale for the variance denial has to do with the fact that there's legislation at the state, potential pending legislation coming up that could potentially provide pathways for increase in density but as proposed right now it simply doesn't meet the zoning requirements and there is no extraordinary circumstances that would allow for you as the zoningadministrator and planning department and

commission to get behind them . is that big picture wise? >> that's generally correct. thevariance doesn't reference that legislation . that's more just informational. that's kind of additional information relative to the bigger picture policy discussion .fundamentally the variance is thesame. this is a standard corner lot . it is proposed to be split 100 percent density with no extraordinary circumstances . if the rationalefor doing that is that there is a housing crisis and we should build more housing , then granting that variance would mean we should glass grant that samevariance for every corner lot in the city . 100 percentlot coverage, double density that is effectively a policy decision .that's basically a rezoning because it wouldn't be a variance decision because there aren't any real exceptional circumstances here.

it would be easy to replicate and argue under any circumstanceanywhere . we can't really base avariance decision on a policy rationale . even if we may support that policy rationale in someform or fashion . obviously i was making note that that policy processis ongoing . >> i think it's important for everyone to understand that the city recognizes there is a housingcrisis . however, that doesn't make it necessarily easy to grant a decision to help solve that so thank you for that . >> we are now moving on to public comment for thisitem and we will hear from mister of paul allen first . you have three minutes. >> caller: good afternoon, thank you very much

commissioner honda, other commissioners. thank you for your time. speaking on behalf of corbett heights neighbors with filed our brief in opposition. we urge the board to deny this appeal. on merits the administrator was connected correct in denying the rear yardvariance because of the proposed new building would occupy the entirety of the newly severed lot which has already been discussed . that issue which has come up during the dialogue is central both to the variance issue and to the cua. we acknowledge this board has a de novo review standard but there is no bait principle to base this on which one could modify the administrator's decision. this is not a case where the applicant is only a few feet over code but perhaps was

unfairly dispatched by a zoning , zealous zoning administrator. to the contrary when the planning commission requested cu in connection with a rear yard requirement in the corona heights suv which has already been mentioned, one commissioner declared the project quote doesn't come close to being a code compliance projectas it completely fills the backyard of the lot being created . two other commissioners including the vice president immediately agreed and that is why the planning commission voted 4 to 2 to reject the cua's. i'm going to pass on the process issue and leave that to my colleagues but i want to note the neighborhood is unanimously opposed to this project. three months ago at the second planning commission hearing on this matter within 20 speakers waited several hours to testify in opposition. more than 200 letters are on file in opposition and not one speaker testified in favor

other than the applicant. finally a marketing fog of the terms of affordable and mixed affordable or below-market rate has enveloped this project for 33 months but the administrator declared in his decision the obvious and that is this project wouldhave no effect on the supply of affordable housing and why? because the two big units are market rate . . . there is no legally enforceable obligation despite appellant's occasional comments to the contrary to maintain or to ensure they are not made available as short-term rental . in short there's no principled basisto grant the appeal. i want to make two other quick comments . mandolins corner lot legislation would not even comply with that because you have again. lot coverage which under

minimum legislation is not even permitted. in short this project does not meet code and we fail to see a principal basis upon which to grant the variant orgrant the appeal >> thank you mister allen and we will go on to the next speaker. please go ahead . there is no number associated but i see your hand raised . please go ahead. it was awoman who spoke at the beginning . you may need to pressá6 but i don't believe you are a muted right now. we can come back to you. we will now hear from mister casey randolph. casey rando, please go ahead. one moment. casey rando, please go ahead. okay, we will go back to the

caller. >> caller: can you hear me? my name is casey rando, good evening. i'mnext-door neighbor to the developer and i live at 4302 17 . i submitted a written opposition to the appeal to you on behalf of myself and my husband and i'm here to reenter that opposition and underscore myargument . first it's not clear why we're even here. the developer really hasn't shown to me why or shown to us why he's met the standard of review. as i stated in my email he hasn't shown that there's extraordinary circumstances that exist and re-hearing his meant to prevent manifest injusticeor different circumstances that have arisen . i just am not sure what he thinks you all need to review.

second, the developer has not shown why he qualifies for a variance . i won't go into it because i do believe mister t stole my thunder so i appreciate his concise and excellent testimony tonight. third, the developer has marketed this project for a very long time as mixed affordable housing.the newly created lot that results from the zoning variances would result into market rate condominiums, not affordable housing. if he's interested in developing affordable housing he could do so right now with a simpleover-the-counter permit by the planning department. he does not need to see this variant . finally, the odious marketing scheme for this for-profit project it has had a personal impacton me and my neighbors we had to deal with this for the entire duration of the pandemic . the developers been quite toxic

without any consideration for the physical impact that this project would have on us. he has not been interested in any input, feedback or compromise. even when the planning commission instructed him to develop a code compliance project he refused. my hope is that the board upholds the decision of the planning commission, zoning administrator and supports the decision of over 200+ neighbors ofthe developer who said no to this proposed development . thank you very much for hearing me and i appreciate your time. >> we will hearfrom the caller without a phone number showing . press start 6. you unmute it yourself, please go ahead. >>. >> caller: my name is sonia renner and i live on the same block as the subject property. i'm calling to oppose this

appeal. the zoning administrator was right in denying the variance applications because they do not meet requirements. they would result in re-zoning and would also create two substandard lots. if all the variances were granted in our neighborhoods, most likely because they met the proper criteria. without looking at thiscontext it makes no sense to establish any precedent . more than 200neighbors opposed the project as currently designed and so do the san francisco land-use coalition . pleaseuphold the zoning administrator's decision and denied this appeal . thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now hear from the next caller whose phonenumber ends in 7246 . you may need to press ... there's a little feedback. can you turn the volume on your tv down or your computer because there wasan echo .

>> caller: is there still an? >> know, it's perfect. >> caller: my name is greg rando, i am casey's husband. we do live right next door to it and i'd like to speak about the personal impact it would have . if the project is allowed to go forward as the developer planned he would lose all of ourlife , air and privacy on the eastern side of our building. that is right here in the city and i believe that the other comments that were made with the opposition of the neighborhood and the comments ofthe commissioners on the board of appeals, i believe this appeal should be denied . >> we will now hear from the callerwhose phone number ends in 2133 . the caller whosephone number ends in 2133 .

try pressingá6. go ahead. >> caller: my name is bill holtzman, i live about four minutes from the developer. i've been active from beginning to end and i want to add a little colorbecause i think it's been skipped over in the process . in april 2020 the planning department soundly rejected this proposal. and instead of taking that input and changing the proposal, the developer marched on and in november 2020 and before the planning commissioner and zoning administrator and lost and lost badly. as referenced before he was askedto bring back a code compliance proposition . that never happened. one year later november 2021 revised proposal was submitted with minor changes and once again it was voted down bythe planning commission and zoning

administrator this is not a new dance . this has been going on. it sucked up a tremendous amount of city resources and local resources you should consider turning this proposal down and i want to add one more reference and that was to the reference that this year we had 202 objectors that are on file with the city. the year before there were 43 so this is going bad to worse relative to the community so i would reject it very quickly . thank you. >> is there any further public comment on this item? i see mister tim wu. please go ahead. mister tim wu. >> caller: thank you commissioners. my name is tim wu and i am seeking to express my opposition to the project at

17th street. i'd like to address the appellant's claim about affordable housing.at the 2020 hearing the planning commission directed the appellant to achieve a healthier balance between affordable and market rate housing by increasing its share of affordability but the exact opposite happened. thenumber of adu's was reduced from 2 to 1 representing a mere 11 percent . meanwhile the market rate portion increased in absolute numbers. this development will not make housing addressable to any significant number of disadvantaged students and both the zoningadministrator and planning commission concluded this project would have no impact on affordable housing in the city . time and again we've seen senior citizens and the sick neighbors have to wait like speculators. although those in the city wish

to see more affordable housing this is nota solution . thank you for your time >> thank youmister wu. we will now hear from eric murphy . you have three minutes and you are unmute . we can't hear you . mister murphy. please go ahead. you are no longermuted , mister murphy. one moment. mister murphy, areyou there ? i see you are withus at the meeting .we can come back to you . we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 5415. please go ahead. you you may need to goahead .

>> caller: my name is dirk aguilar and i live at 34th street which is the same block as the subject property. according to a post appeal to the zoning administrator and planning commission pointed out there are compliance ways of adding housing on the site. as aresult very insist have no merit and the zoning administrator was right in denying them . as my other neighbors pointed out we oppose the project and not only that also the san francisco coalition. please uphold the zoning administrator's decision to deny this appeal. thankyou very much. >>we will now try to hear from mister eric murphy mister murphy would you like to address the board ?you have three minutes . eric murphy. >> i think he disappeared.

>> mister murphy. are you still there? we can't hear you or see you. >> you're getting a lot of feedback from your might. is it just me? >> i am hearing it to. >> it went away, madam directo . >> please step back from the mic alittle bit . >> how is it now? >> it's perfect. >> let me try something. sorry about that. eric murphy, last call for eric murphy. unfortunately we can't hear or see you. is there any other public comment forthis item ?

>> there is one inthe queue. >> marion drexler, please go ahead . >> that evening. i am calling regarding this matter at 4317th street. i'm going to emphasize once again that the sponsor seems to emphasize the fact that this should be granted becauseit's affordable housing. that affordable housing claim is without merit . the two units and the new building proposed at market rate, there's no guarantee those units will be made available as short-term rental. please understand i have been informed that short-term rentals either did occupy or now occupied the original buildingsubject to thisproject. i joined my neighbors and our neighborhood association orbit

heights neighbors in opposing this appeal . pleaseuphold the zoning administrator's decision in this matter . >> thank you, we will now hear from mariahutchins. please go ahead . go ahead. >> i'll be brief. i am a teacher and artist . i live in a neighborhood on lamont street and i was about this project because icare a lot about affordable housing. i met with the sponsor early in 2020 . to learn more about it and at that time he told me in his description of the direction, the trajectories that's been on the head of the language about diversity and language justice after the uprising in the murder of george floyd. i hesitated to raise this but i find it not only disingenuous but offensive that he has kind of hung that issue on his project, especially when as has been mentioned the planning

department gave him multiple opportunities for ways to make thiscode compliant if that was his true objective . thank you. >> please go ahead. >> fellow members of the public, my name is joseph academia. my family and ilive next door . >> someone needs to go on mute. >> my family and i live next door and we been in the neighborhood but i've been struck by the conviviality of this community that shares holiday cookies, hosts block parties and goes on walks together.

we met severalyoung parents and are excited to be raising our kids together. all this sounds corny but itis true and we feel privileged to be part of this special place . when i started asking neighbors their thoughts i was surprised to hear the universal opposition . there were more than 200 letters of opposition to the last planning commission hearing largely from the immediate neighborhood here. the opposition seemed to spend less from how the housing and more from the specifics of this proposal and its many issues . a proposal which has had years todevelop into something that would meet the rules and has been granted multiple hearings in front of the zoning administrator the latter of which has been rejected twice now. scott, your neighbors are tire . this has been aprotracted legal battle that strong opposition from every corner of your community . it's an opposition that's taken time from our families, our jobs and our friends . i onlyask that you drop the

compliant project and to be part of this community . >> wewill now try to hear from eric murphy again. mister murphy, please go ahead . >> caller: can you me this time? >> you have three minutes . >> caller: thank you. so i am the owner of 4304 17th street adjacent to the backyard of 4317th street. i urge you to denythis appeal. i had a lot of comments prepared but i'm not going to keep them because much of it has already been said . i think what i like to land on is that there are significant concerns about thisproject . and i think that given the zoning exceptions the project sponsor is seeking the massive neighborhood opposition and the questionable marketing tactics that the projectsponsor has employed to push this development through , i have major concerns . i urge the board to reject the appeal.

>> any furtherpublic comment, please raise your hand. i don't see any further comment so we will move on to remodel . mister pluta you have three minutes.>> thank you. i wanted to returnto your question which is our run through the five points quickly . number one is exceptional circumstances and here are five we recognize. inconsistent lot frontage, these are all things that were captured in the slide . the second efforts are all tied up in parity of treatment and the fact that property rates are attributed and we deny those to the homeowner. the fourth one is whether or not it is consistent with othe

properties in the area . as detailed in previous sections, and then five, granting such variance would be in harmony with a memo which goes into exhausting detail. you've heard from, it's the same group of fivepeople. the details they shared about corona heights , [inaudible] there a small group of active anti-development folks who show up to all these things and the same who have opposed the project for years. i understand their opposition. i would not want ... [inaudible] but my previous

complaint is to the city so i submitted animplementation which allows the appeal to be granted . i think it is a public policy strong argument which is the need for housing in the city. it feels like you should get somedeference here . we never received notice of the planning commission so there are some legal issues that the city attorney pointed out when we had our lands fee but again it has been an exhausting three years. i could do the state program, put 1000 square foot market rate. i've chosen not to do that because i am trying to be part of the neighborhood here. i am at a loss here.

if this goes down which i totally understand and i'm totally supportive of everyone's comments i will use one of those other twooptions but the sad thing is we will lose out on affordable housing . so thank you foryour time commissioners . i know this has been a long item on theagenda . >> president honda didyou have a question ? >> president: i lowered my han . >> we will now hear from zoning administrator mister t. >> i will be brief. the only two things i'll add are just that someone touched on this but the variance challenges with this project are really uphill in nature of granting these variances. they were committed from the beginning once the project was initially filed and initially reviewed. and it's been pretty much

consistent since then so it's been unwavering from the department's perspective and from my perspective communicating to the project planner and sponsor that it was a very challenging variance to be ableto grant for all the reasons that have been discussed tonight . the other thing is just irrelevant to the findings. to grant a variance you have to make all five findings so if you're not making any one of them can be a fault on the variance and cause it to be denied but there is a relationship and it is a bit of a waterfall in the sense that finding one flows into finding three and by that i mean there needs to be exceptional extraordinary circumstances associated with the use of a lot than his suffering from or creates hardship practical difficulty that's not created

by the property owner. that is not granted a variance would deny them property rights that are enjoyed by others. here there are no exceptional circumstances with the lot. and all of the hardship has been created by the project sponsor by proposing . [inaudible] in terms of property rights this property is being treated like other artbeat 2properties by being developed as it is with the two units and the ability to add a third adu. so to have those points i'm also available for any additional questions you may have . >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted . >> president: if you don't mind i'd like to start. first, this particular project has had quite a bit of process throughout and a bit of guidance has been given to the project sponsor and project sponsor has decided to continue

with the existing plan or a barely modified plan. i would keep in mind commissioner lazarus has told us to not get too much in the weeds. this is a totally non-code compliant project .for us to allow or approve a variance or an exception, there's a lot of different things that come into play. in this particular case i don't find any of the five findings have been met. if any, maybe one have . my opinion is that to deny the appeal as the variance was denied appropriately and the commissioner would like to ... i see commissioner chang. >> thank you president honda.

i tend to agree with you on your point about the variance this is. i do want to say the project sponsor very much appreciates he has to be part of the solution. i think there are more people who need to be part ofthe solution and think creatively and outside of the box . i do think that while we need to think out-of-the-box we still need to play with in the sandbox rules which is a little bit of an oxymoron but i think that's the biggest reason why this cu was denied. it's too far outside of what is allowable in the zoning and the special allowances that have been provided by the legislation, etc. but as mister teague mentioned and alluded to, perhaps there are windows that areforthcoming .

maybe this isn't the right moment but there could be something that allows perhaps not exactly what you proposed but a variation of it to increase housing. so i just wanted to share those remarks. >> president: vice president swig. >> vice president: i thinkthe commissioner summed it up. nicely . we see a lot of dissent on lots of projects but i always go back to thefundamentals . did the project meet the five findings? this project did not. it is further exacerbated by the fact that the cuhas missed the window of that appeal . so even if it really stretched and i don't see how we would to approve a variance, this probably wouldn't be a legal project anyway.

i would recommend to the project sponsor that or review all the feedback he's received from the zoning administrator or ourselves. and re-task the projectif he still wants to go along with it . so i would support commissioner honda's direction. >> president:commissioner lopez . >> i'd like to echo those comments. i think when i hear affordable housing i think like a lot of us on the board i'm inclined to support but also appreciate that we are bound by policythat exists today .so i'd have trouble supporting the sponsor given the issues that have been raised. but i think the alternatives that have been raised can be pursued to still meet the project objectives.

>> president: thank you and again, as the zoning administrator mentioned this project may benefit from future legislation but currently where we stand now i can't be supportive. would any commissioner liketo make a motion ? >> i will make the motion to deny the appeal on the basis of the five findings that variances have not been met. >> we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal on the basis of findings required under 305c have not been met. on thatmotion commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 5 to 0 and the appeal is denied. president honda will you adjournthe meeting . >>.

>> president: i will adjourn themeeting and we got up just in time so one commissioner can go . >> thankyou, have a good evening . >> my background is in engineering. i am a civil engineer by training. my career has really been around government service. when the opportunity came up to serve the city of san francisco,

that was just an opportunity i really needed to explore. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] i think it was in junior high and really started to do well in math but i faced some really interesting challenges. many young ladies were not in math and i was the only one in some of these classes. it was tough, it was difficult to succeed when a teacher didn't have confidence in you, but i was determined and i realized that engineering really is what i was interested in. as i moved into college and took engineering, preengineering classes, once again i hit some of those same stereotypes that women are not in this field.

that just challenged me more. because i was enjoying it, i was determined to be successful. now i took that drive that i have and a couple it with public service. often we are the unsung heroes of technology in the city whether it is delivering network services internally, or for our broadband services to low income housing. >> free wi-fi for all of the residents here so that folks have access to do job searches, housing searches, or anything else that anyone else could do in our great city. >> we are putting the plant in the ground to make all of the city services available to our residents. it is difficult work, but it is also very exciting and rewarding our team is exceptional. they are very talented engineers and analysts who work to deliver the data and the services and

the technology every day. >> i love working with linda because she is fun. you can tell her anything under the sun and she will listen and give you solutions or advice. she is very generous and thoughtful and remembers all the special days that you are celebrating. >> i have seen recent employee safety and cyber security. it is always a top priority. i am always feeling proud working with her. >> what is interesting about my work and my family is my experience is not unique, but it is different. i am a single parent. so having a career that is demanding and also having a child to raise has been a challenge. i think for parents that are working and trying to balance a career that takes a lot of time, we may have some interruptions.

if there is an emergency or that sort of thing then you have to be able to still take care of your family and then also do your service to your job. that is probably my take away and a lot of lessons learned. a lot of parents have the concern of how to do the balance i like to think i did a good job for me, watching my son go through school and now enter the job market, and he is in the medical field and starting his career, he was always an intern. one of the things that we try to do here and one of my takeaways from raising him is how important internships are. and here in the department of technology, we pride ourselves on our interns. we have 20 to 25 each year. they do a terrific job contributing to our outside plant five or work or our network engineering or our finance team. this last time they took to

programming our reception robot, pepper, and they added videos to it and all of these sort of things. it was fun to see their creativity and their innovation come out. >> amazing. >> intriguing. >> the way i unwind is with my photography and taking pictures around the city. when i drive around california, i enjoy taking a lot of landscapes. the weather here changes very often, so you get a beautiful sunset or you get a big bunch of clouds. especially along the waterfront. it is spectacular. i just took some photos of big server and had a wonderful time, not only with the water photos, but also the rocks and the bushes and the landscapes. they are phenomenal. [♪♪♪]

my advice to young ladies and women who would like to move into stem fields is to really look at why you are there. if you are -- if you are a problem solver, if you like to analyse information, if you like to discover new things, if you like to come up with alternatives and invent new practice, it is such a fabulous opportunity. whether it is computer science or engineering or biology or medicine, oh, my goodness, there are so many opportunities. if you have that kind of mindset i have enjoyed working in san francisco so much because of the diversity. the diversity of the people, of this city, of the values, of the talent that is here in the city. it is stimulating and motivating and inspiring and i cannot imagine working anywhere else but in sannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

>> chair haney: i am joined by supervis s