[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6587305,"mediaKeyId","5613004-20537b6a07caafae5017aae8b2371def","parentId",5613004,"title","Board of Appeals Rejects Rehearing Request on 111 Taylor Street Letter of Determination, 3–2","audioSeconds",3062,"startMs",6822000,"endMs",9884000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5613004-20537b6a07caafae5017aae8b2371def&start=6822&end=9884","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5613004-20537b6a07caafae5017aae8b2371def/thumbnail_6822000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6587305/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-Rejects-Rehearing-Request-on-111-Taylor-Street-Letter-of-Determination-32","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587305-305ba4ef14bc5379c5fa64f25dd93427/orig.mp4?Expires=1770654107&Signature=XNHUUFfxBhM7K4SHoqbrhcPTwMqxvT0AJttJrz70t6oWrwpbsAoaaUOPcxG~NnFaUg~scslPL3aV7o~PZMDgp5V4wjXzfYpfhPj6Lnw~4plyywtTZSw07RKw673zKNosgApgsgQCTsD2M31S1LFAWXG2Nhl3kV2-1eazPAVlZy5xdWhhB9dXlMkO8Ts4d0zj7y2Np77OVyzvIRjwjuYKl2226ovBIfwkH2gSTz2dLzumECMJBC4cB8332pf1Y3KbTuM-8r6Lg~ZomQfqNj~VrM7dPfSO8~zbF7gkj8SwhosWCTfEunQ-myZh0cJGpsGNJ-f2l~E84xWf3J3Mpufhig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-08-20T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 20 denied a rehearing request about 111 Taylor Street, rejecting by a 3–2 vote an effort to reopen a July 16 decision that upheld a zoning administrator’s letter of determination (LOD) finding the site a legal nonconforming group housing use. The rehearing requester argued newly gathered facts, community testimony and the July death of a person in the facility’s custody warranted reexamination.

Laura Strazzo, an attorney newly retained to represent appellant Chandra Laborde, asked the board for a short continuance and ultimately for a rehearing, saying staff and community members had uncovered new evidence since the July hearing. Strazzo told commissioners she had been retained the day before and asked for time to prepare. “There are new facts or evidence discovered after the prior hearing” she said, and those facts, she argued, could have affected the outcome of the original determination.

The requester and community groups said the facility operated by Geo Reentry Services had been used in ways different from a conventional group‑housing use: residents reported three people per room in many units, limited access to communal kitchens, and multiple transfers into the site from state psychiatric hospitals as well as carceral facilities. Several public commenters cited the July 14 death of Melvin Boulawan while in Geo’s custody as newly relevant evidence; Wilder Zeisser, a community organizer, said the death “speaks directly to the legal issue before you.”

Geo Reentry Services’ counsel, David Black, argued the rehearing request lacked the required “new and material” evidence and that the matters raised had already been litigated at the prior hearing and in written briefs. Planning Department Zoning Administrator Corey Teague told the board that the LOD addressed the narrow question of whether the authorized use of the property remained a nonconforming group housing use; operational or safety issues—density, kitchen access, alleged interior conditions—are the subject of separate enforcement processes. Teague said additional enforcement inspections and information requests were underway.

The board first considered a motion by Vice President J. R. Epler to continue the hearing to allow counsel time to prepare; that continuance motion failed on a 2–3 vote. Following public comment, Commissioner Rebecca Saroyan moved to deny the rehearing under Board Rule 9(b) on the ground the board did not find the required new facts or circumstances that could have affected the earlier outcome; the motion carried 3–2 (Ayes: Saroyan, Jose Lopez, Rick Swig; Noes: John Trezvina, J. R. Epler).

Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minordi told the board that, while a rehearing request was pending, the January letter of determination had been suspended; with the board’s denial, the LOD remains in effect and planning enforcement and other channels continue to be available to address operational or safety concerns the community has raised.

The rehearing request and the public testimony underscore tensions between local land‑use rules for legal nonconforming uses, the city’s interest in preserving housing, and community concerns about the operation of facilities that house people recently in custody. Planning staff said they will continue enforcement investigations and the Board of Supervisors has signaled interest in further fact‑finding on the site.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 20 denied a rehearing request of a January letter of determination that found 111 Taylor Street a legal nonconforming group‑housing use. The rehearing request cited new information including community reports of overcrowding and a July death of a person in the facility’s custody.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6587309,"Board of Appeals Upholds DBI permit for retroactive siding work at 870 North Point Street",4130,1901000,6031000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5613004-20537b6a07caafae5017aae8b2371def&start=1901&end=6031","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5613004-20537b6a07caafae5017aae8b2371def/thumbnail_1901000.jpg","/articles/6587309/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-Upholds-DBI-permit-for-retroactive-siding-work-at-870-North-Point-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587309-451ff4c127ee04b624bc35d66ccc1539/orig.mp4?Expires=1770654107&Signature=P30D2BEcqALt3XNFCzPhUROwHmZHV88MWODCN0E95Y6uowAj5z9kFzyIXCPk7IBmlf67tVcdc6ZWhEuq6H0zDX3-~9HiCI8agClH3SjgqrsucPCaTBNgb2MleQLXL8Kjm90g069925nlqnPdPdrx~R9kVxe3Y5wU6FteOvfm6cPRc7t6sJgF3Zr0JF2zrnoXgyxy8ufjL1lEfsvWMQOhkbUrcAftol3Qa7SpV6E2I9HmYAK5C9fzCGEA8VHNkEb4aOhp8jhuwxVYDM6HM2EKLJVwPmcjeM8~3tnkoSMh2HnqCqhL~YFzddjOl8RZfydwgI-e7c~qjn45XTioAMVnDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 20 denied an appeal by Ali Shafi, representing the homeowners association for 870 North Point Street, and upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit that retroactively legalized the replacement of vinyl siding. The board voted 5–0 to deny the appeal.

The appeal (No. 25‑010) challenged permit application 202502069786 and a notice of violation, No. 202317515, issued for unpermitted replacement of exterior siding. Ali Shafi told the board the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) had known of problems at the property for more than a year but had not inspected the site and had underreported the project value to the city. “If they knew about it over a year ago…they issued the permit in 1 day without doing their due diligence,” Shafi said during oral argument.

Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the siding permit was not routed to Planning because DBI intake staff determined the work was “not visible from the street.” Teague said that even if a Planning review had occurred, the work—an in‑kind siding replacement on a non‑historic building—would have been approved over the counter. Joseph Ospital, the Department of Building Inspection speaker at the hearing, told commissioners the permit was issued to legalize unpermitted work and that the department’s records show the project was inspected and completed under DBI procedures.

Board members and staff discussed practical effects of revoking a retroactive permit. Commissioners were told that, if the board overturned the permit, the siding authorized by that permit would need to be removed and the property returned to its prior condition unless a new permit were obtained; the cost and logistics would fall to the property owners. Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal and uphold DBI’s action; the motion carried 5–0.

The board’s decision upheld the narrow administrative question before it—whether the permit had been properly issued and processed—not other enforcement matters raised by the appellants. Planning and DBI staff noted that operational or safety issues not resolved by the siding permit (for example, alleged roof or window defects) remain subject to separate enforcement or permitting channels. Shafi asked the board to refer broader concerns to the city attorney’s office; President John Trezvina and DBI staff pointed him to the deputy city attorney for formal follow‑up and advised that the homeowners association can also pursue new permits to do additional repairs or improvements.

The appeal record and pleadings list the permit and the DBI notice of violation as the controlling administrative documents. The board’s written order will be entered in the appeals record.","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 20 denied an appeal by the homeowners association for 870 North Point Street and upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit that retroactively legalized replacement of vinyl siding.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Appeals Rejects Rehearing Request on 111 Taylor Street Letter of Determination, 3–2

Board of Appeals Upholds DBI permit for retroactive siding work at 870 North Point Street