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

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.