Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Mr. Lamar, before we reach the preliminary matter, is this an item that would require public comment? Should we have the initial public comment first or go into that later?

I'm disclosing for the record that I serve on the San Francisco Planning Department's Community Equity Advisory Council, which advises the department staff on strategies to engage diverse communities. This work does not involve the appellant or the permit holder in this matter. I do not accept any honorarium or payment for my service on the council, and I do not believe that sitting on the council will impact my ability to be fair and impartial in this matter.

Mr. Chen, thank you for your comments on behalf of your mother. As we consider this request, you've stated that there are some questions that she has that relate to the planning department's program. If we are to grant this request, can we receive your commitment or her commitment, your commitment through her, that she will endeavor to meet with the relevant city agencies to address the questions that she may have prior to a later hearing date. The reason I ask this is because we've had a number of delays, not with us, but with the whole, this matter goes back to 2016. As I consider a hearing

Mr. Teague, if I could ask you, I appreciate your remarks and your perspective and your willingness to be of assistance to the appellant. Can you describe what is it that the city wants Ms. Chen to be doing that she's not doing with her property?

Are you aware whether the property is being rented out and therefore one can assume that the appellant is gaining revenue as a factor, not as a factor, but because of a delay?

And just one other question. Are there any public safety concerns that a delay would implicate?

Thank you. Colleagues, I am concerned that this matter has taken about 10 years. On the other hand, in the absence of a safety concern, in the absence of the revenue benefit to the party, I think it's I think it's enough of a bona fide request that we should grant it. And ideally, some of the issues that can be addressed can be addressed between the city and the appellant before they come back to us. So I would be inclined to and I would entertain a motion to continue this matter to September the 2nd. Commissioner Wong.

I would agree. I think it's important to take care of family. And I understand the stress that that could cause. I also just want to confirm that if we extend it to September 2nd, that would be the last time that we would grant extension unless there's something truly extenuating.

I'm not sure whether we need to put that into our motion, but if that's your intention, I certainly would, I would join you in that sentiment. And is there a motion to continue to September 2nd?

And on the basis... Commissioner Vaughn, do you have any comments? None, just concurrence. Thank you.

I think the extenuating circumstance of the family situation that her son had just mentioned.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I believe all of the items that are before us tonight are either re-hearings or the parties have been here before us recently. So I won't repeat what I usually tell people, which is that we come prepared and we want to hear you. We give you this opportunity. to make your case, highlight the points that you've already given us in writing. We have read the brief, so I want to just reiterate to that to the public. And second is I do want to share information that since the last time we were here, Mayor Lurie on my behalf, regarding me and President of the board Mandelman wit

I move to adopt the July 15, 2026 minutes.

You're entitled to make the request, but if it's on the basis that you just stated, aside from your secondary issue, if we can hear the request, Well, it is true we do not have three board members present. Our practice has been a practice prior to the time I got here, and it's been throughout this time, that if there is a matter that the absence of the other remaining board members would make a potential difference in the vote, then we continue the matter, and we do not decide, but we continue it until they are present. And they are asked at the beginning of the hearing whether they have watch

I'm sorry, could you speak a little bit closer to the microphone? Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for the request. I'm always happy to entertain. the request. I'm not happy to, I'm obligated to. I am happy to entertain a motion from my colleagues on these matters, but I will not be the one to make a motion to continue, and here is why. First, under our rules, our rules specifically state that The board generally will not reschedule a matter based solely on the fact that fewer than five members are present at the hearing. So that addresses part of the request that we do have, as I explained earlier, we do have a process to make sure that where the votes mathematical

COMMISSIONER ABBOTT. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRANSVIGNA. I'M ALSO INCLINED TO HEAR THE MATTER TONIGHT AS SCHEDULED.

ABSENT A MOTION TO CONTINUE, WE WILL PROCEED. OKAY.

You can discuss them within the time in which you're making your presentation. You should share them with the city attorney's office. If you are providing the copies to us to facilitate our understanding what you are saying, we can accept them and we can use them to the extent that we do not. To the extent that my colleagues and I need an aid to understand your presentation, they will be helpful. But other than that, they will not be formally part of the record any more than any other document that you would show would be part of the record.

Well, just so we're clear, the purpose of our receiving these documents is to aid in our understanding, not to aid your presentation.

Mr. Horcher, as you know, under our rules, hearings are considered based upon new facts or circumstances that were not known at the time of the hearing. Can you tell me and start with a sentence as to what the facts are? You can elaborate, but I want to know specifically what facts you are speaking of.

It's all ticking me off. They didn't do that. Let me be more precise. Our rules require matters, facts and circumstances, which if known at the time, would have affected the outcome of the hearing. The matters that you're, so I won't characterize the matters you've already described. but I'm looking for something. If we're going to grant a rehearing, it's based on something we didn't know at the time of the hearing.

So then should we take your presentation here not as stating that there are new facts, but you're hanging your case on that this is to prevent manifest injustice?

Are you saying that the documents that you received in public records are your evidence of collusion prior to our hearing and had an effect on our hearing? Yes, sir. Well put. Thank you. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation and addressing the points raised by the appellants. I have a question about these documents. On a Public Records Act request, does the city attorney's office typically review a response to a request?

So maybe somebody in the city attorney's office routinely sees a response to a records request before it goes out the door, but that doesn't mean you've seen these reports.

OK. Well, so I was hesitant to ask you because I just because your office sees them doesn't mean you do. But if you're familiar with them, then perhaps you can describe or I see a September 24, on the fourth page, September 24 email. It talks about a copy of our public comment card. That's a public comment for the DPH hearing?

Right. And then later on, there's email. I don't want to say the name of who it's from, because that might be a private person. It looks like their email address is redacted. But their name is there. In any case, it talks about seemingly facilitating testimony for a March 11 hearing. That is our hearing, isn't it? March 11?

It's a February 21, 2026 email from a person. And it attaches an email from Ivy Phan of DPH.

Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's to DPH. And is, can you, again, I'm hesitant to ask you any details on this because they may not be yours, but I'm just trying to get a sense as to, it seems to be alleged that DPH was coordinating testimony for our hearing by members of the public. And I'm trying to see whether That's a fair reading of what's here on the second page.

Well, it's to Ivy from somebody. I'm not going to say who it is. And then Ivy responds, only a printed copy will be provided to the administrative law judge.

That's that helps me understand what what's here Thank you Okay, thank you.

Before you tell us what you're going to tell us, I want to explain why we're asking the questions. The parties, the counsel for the parties, the parties are entitled to their time as the appellants The city is entitled to its time as the city. The public is entitled to their time. But we're trying to determine, since you have been assisting Mr. Horcher, whether you are, which category you fit in. Do you fit in as a member of the public?

I'd be happy for you to do that. That's what we're asking, what your status is.

Ms. Lamar, let's read the rule so that if we have to have a vote on whether this individual, whose name I do not know yet, will... be allowed to testify in public comment or or or whether she is not uh we can know what the rule is and she can if if she needs to address the points on that rule she can do that uh it doesn't help to talk about whether we're trying to hide or whether we're afraid of what she has to say uh if she's qualified as a member of the public to speak she will have her time just like the other members of the public will have time to speak. But if for some reason she is in t

Sorry. I see there's somebody on Zoom, and I will get to them first. Oh, no. I was going to ask if you could just, for everybody's knowledge, if you could just read the rules so we can be very clear.

SPEAKER 1, Can you speak a little closer to the microphone?

Thank you all. And do we have another speaker?

Thank you. Actually, I want to turn to my colleagues to invite them to speak before. I usually speak first, but I want to make sure that if they want to start, that they are able to. Commissioner Abad, do you seek recognition? Thank you, President Trasvina.

Yeah. We granted the rehearing request to hear this once more. I don't see anything, even in the fresh material that was submitted this evening, which I'm not sure how precisely we treat that if it wasn't part of the packet, but in any case, that supports the idea that there was any collusion or misconduct it's quite it's quite common for the public to reach out to department staff when there's a hearing coming up to understand what procedure is going to look like how they could conduct themselves that's all that I see here is that the department was acting responsibly to help members of the p

Yeah, I've been looking at it in terms of is there any new evidence, right? That's what our standard is for granting a rehearing. I read through all 500 some odd pages. A lot of it was similar to what was submitted before or is exactly what was submitted before other than the opening of why they wanted a rehearing. I don't see anything new. A lot of the things that were cited were things that we heard during the May 20th hearing. And I remember for this case, I also watched the hearing that I missed before. So I think we've granted a lot of time. I think that there's been a lot of opportunitie

Or I don't see any new facts basically Thank you Thank You Commissioner Wong and Commissioner Abad I Come at it from a slightly different perspective And in part as you recall from the underlying hearing though, it was three to two Vice President Soroyan and I were in the two. I Felt that there were a lot of injustices and not in our proceeding, but in the overall matter. We had a police officer. We had a police operation with no apparent regard for, they said it was a trafficking operation. No follow up with a potential victim who was working at the facility. no real follow-up with the establ

Thank you, President Transvenia, for recapping a little bit. What transpired in our last hearing, you did remind us that many of us on the board did have concerns about how the investigation itself was conducted, questions about follow-up regarding potential trafficking. But at this time, I'm inclined to deny the rehearing request, and I'm prepared to make a motion.

Make a motion to deny the rehearing request on the basis that there is no new evidence to be examined and that the arguments made tonight by the appellants that there was a miscarriage on the part of the departments is unsubstantiated.

Yeah. I'm disclosing for the record that I serve on the San Francisco Planning Department's Community Equity Advisory Council, which advises the department staff on strategies to engage diverse communities. The work has not involved the appellant or the permit holder in this matter. I do not accept any honorarium nor payment for my service on the council. I do not believe that sitting on the council will impact my ability to be fair and impartial in this matter.

Again, I will yield to my colleagues if they choose to make any comments at this point. Seeing that they don't, I will start. And I will say that we've just been through a discussion of the rule on rehearing requests, new information that was not known at the time of the hearing that could have changed the outcome, manifest injustice, or extraordinary cases. In this matter, I don't see that these requirements have been met. Candidly, the appellant describes wanting to file a brief prior to the hearing. That seems to me that he had arguments. prior to the hearing. Those arguments he now wants t

Well, then I will make the motion to deny the rehearing request on the basis that it does not meet the requirements for under our rules.

YES. I AM DISCLOSING FOR THE RECORD THAT PG&E MADE A DONATION IN EARLY 2026 TO MY NONPROFIT EMPLOYER FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUNDING THE SUNSET NIGHT MARKET. I RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THAT DONATION. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT DONATION WILL IMPACT MY ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS MATTER.

I'll yield to Commissioner Abad. Thank you, President Trasvina. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Just a question. You've advised that we might contemplate the appeal based on Public Works Section 808 or making reference to 808. What then would the consequence be of us granting the appeal. Do I understand correctly that the enterprise agency would then need to come back to DPW? Maybe there's some other interaction with the neighborhood about how the project is designed or conducted or where poles are or if we hold off so that we can dig a trench through the middle of the street. I don't know what that co

And would you kindly remind us again, I know you made brief reference to this, but Public Works Section 808 and what the implications of that are specific to this case. Could you just detail that?

I thank you for your presentation, and particularly acknowledging the error that's been brought to the city's attention about the tree protection plan. But what I'm wondering about is you described in your PowerPoint that there's a role for municipal coordination. And I'm trying to get a sense as to where the Board of Supervisors fits into that coordination.

Getting there right with the excavation permit is was just viewed for is precisely that it's just for the polls and nothing else Well, maybe maybe this is figuratively above your pay grade But I'm at a loss as to How the department doesn't file so we held our hearing and And we said, we want to hold off because we want to give the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to act. They acted. We now have this proceeding. No response from the department. No brief. OK. But let me just continue. But substantively, the department's position is that's separate. It doesn't matter. And what I'm hoping to g

Okay. Thank you for that. I just want to have one follow-up, and then I'll yield to Commissioner Wong. The PG&E said this more than once, I think in writing and also verbally, that they have a duty to provide service. As I understand it, the customer request was not a request for service. It's a request for a heightened level of service. So I just want to make sure that we're not saying that if this doesn't go through, PG&E is breaking its duty. They're just not satisfying a request for more than what everyone else is getting.

Yeah. I'm just trying to get a better sense of this undergrounding process. So you referenced it a little bit earlier, about two years. But can you talk a little bit, like, help me understand this undergrounding process and why it's so complicated?

And then similar, I think, to what President Trasvino was asking about, can you talk to me about your understanding of the Board of Supervisors' decision and its impact?

And then last question. What do you think would be the impact if there was a delay to allow for undergrounding?

If basically we waited, like that the pole replacement didn't happen and we did the long process to underground, what would be the impact?

Thank you. Yes, question for PG&E. Thank you for being here available for technical questions. The president of the Board of Supervisors office was here and made reference to rate payers needing to pay twice if this overhead infrastructure upgrade were implemented. And then somewhere along the road, down the line, we got an assessment district together to pay for underground in Can you help us understand how the enterprise, what are the finances of this for the neighborhood for both of these implementations? Could you speak to that at all?

Thank you for clarifying that the current project associated with the current excavation permit This upgrade, I guess, in capacity, this increase is paid for by that project applicant and not borne by those generally in the vicinity of what would be a future assessment district for undergrounding. That's good to know when we say that someone's paying twice who precisely that would be. In this case, it's the applicant for the current Upgrade. Can you talk to us a little bit about what the life cycle is for your putting in new transformers? They have higher capacity. Is this infrastructure that

One final question, and then I know President Trasvina also has his hand up, which is that the current project is associated with an increase in capacity. I'm assuming maybe to serve a new development or a project in the neighborhood. Can you help us understand the scale of what this new addition of capacity? Is it 20% more? energy available to the geography? Or what are we talking about? And what would happen if the upgrade associated with the excavation permit were not implemented? Does that imperil safe operation of a new development nearby? Or what are the implications?

I appreciate your dialogue with Commissioner Abad, but I've come to an opposite conclusion than he did based on what you've said. So given that PG&E is often confused and people get confused by PG&E's representations, I'd like you to make it a little bit more clear. On the issue of duty to serve, Is it a duty to serve at a particular level or a duty to serve?

So anybody can request an increased load and that would lead to another poll or change in transformers for our neighborhood?

What it all takes is one person to do that? It's not your planning? No. OK. So that educates me as to the point that you raised with Commissioner Abad. And then to the next step of if, in fact, The individual's request triggers an increase in service, and it requires transformers. It benefits other people. the cost is shared with those other customers, correct?

So the individual requester triggers costs for more than just himself or herself?

Right. But they're forcing other people to pay for a portion of their project.

OK. Great. And just one final question relating to does PG&E have a position on the action by the Board of Supervisors? With regard to the street.

Thanks. I think you've addressed this a little bit, but can you again talk a little bit about what would be the impact of a delay? So instead of doing the polls, like giving it time to do undergrounding, what would be the impact?

Okay. Thank you for that. And then another question. You'd mentioned several times that the benefit is an increase to the neighborhood, not just the street. If that's the case, was any alternative locations sought versus just Homestead?

have to look at the drawing yeah and then do you know if both both of those sorry i'm sorry sorry i'm sorry it's not your turn to speak are are both of those locations do you know if both of those locations are within this new special district uh we have work that's being taken on 25th as well okay but do you know if the the 25th transformer is also in the proposed special district undergrounding district

Thank you to the parties and the city for, and also those Board of Supervisors. We did ask for the Board to, we gave the Board of Supervisors time, or we didn't give them time, we delayed so that they could act. It appears to me the Board of Supervisors did act. They could not be more clear. They passed this ordinance. I think it's a resolution or ordinance, but they started the process unanimously, quickly, precisely to the street. So to the extent that we delayed to give them time to do something, they came back and they've delivered. They've made it clear what the legislative branch's desir

Thank you, President Transmigna. Yes, starting broadly and then getting to the narrow parameters of what we're here to contemplate, yes to undergrounding. And the elected official for this district and his colleagues on the board have, as you mentioned, acknowledged that and are looking beyond Homestead and really at 20B, which has implications for the entire city, So formulating a framework for other neighborhoods beginning to. So I guess we can thank Homestead for helping the whole city get started. But it's evident that that is a really complex technical project. It requires financing. And

Well, I think I'd like to hear from Commissioner Wong, and then we can decide whether Commissioner Abad's motion or my motion passes with insufficient votes. And then we can continue it for when there will be, if we need the additional votes. But I want to observe though that At least my individual expectation is that the department will listen to the action of the Board of Supervisors. We have many matters that come before us where we have compelling stories of merchants who sell tobacco. And we tell these people. The Board of Supervisors made very clear they don't like tobacco sales. On othe

Yeah, I think I'm aligned with both of you on granting an appeal. I think what I'm also stuck on is the Board of Supervisors made the decision. We did give time for it. They made a decision. They made it very quickly. I get where you're coming from that this originally was a ministerial process and that you went through that simple process and that there was the tree issue that is coming up now. I'm also just stuck on one person can make this request and then that impacting the entire neighborhood. It seems like there should be more involved before something so major happens. I also really do

Commissioner Wong and Commissioner Bott, I believe that we can incorporate the views that we've all expressed. in a motion to grant the appeal based upon that it was improperly granted related to the tree matter and leave it at that, understanding that the rest of the issues will come up in the future in the subsequent proceeding, assuming we have four votes to do that. So I would make the motion to grant the appeal based upon that it was improperly granted

I'm happy to go the way you're recommending or my way, just for clarity. I wanted to have a complete record for the benefit of the public and the benefit of the parties who are here, as well as our colleagues, who will then know that when they come in, the part where they're coming in is the board has voted, whatever the vote is, and they're picking up from there. But if there's a reason just to continue it before that step, I guess I'd want to know if we continue it before a motion is made, do we begin at the next meeting with more presentations? Or can we just pick it up from that point?

I don't feel like we need more. But if we can start the proceeding, With, we have public comment on everything, so that's a given. We start at the point where we are in deliberation, then. Right.

Okay. Then I will withhold on making a motion, but I will, other than to move to continue the matter for the purpose of.

On the grounds that it was improperly issued.

I see Commissioner Abad wants to be recognized.

I was just going to suggest, I mean, why can't we do both? The three of us can take a vote or make a statement, and then that closes off the hearing that our colleagues will then be reviewing asynchronously. And I also wanted to express my support for our continuance not including a whole other round of presentations. I think our absent colleagues can see, can review what happened tonight and see everything and we can move directly into public comment and just a vote at the time of continuance.

Great. We'll proceed consistently with what you just stated.

No, I didn't understand, Commissioner, about insisting on a vote. I think we have... stated our intentions that if we were to vote, we would vote to grant the appeal. The motion says we're continuing for the purposes of having a full body of commissioners here and a motion to grant. Agree. Concur.

Yes. Thank you, DCA and Minardi. I agree. Yeah.

Well, commissioners, do you want to have everybody here? Or are you willing to risk having four? When will we have five?

I won't say I'm not concerned about the cost, but I am more concerned about getting this done, and I don't want to also inadvertently put pressure on whoever is the other commissioner who's going to show up that then it becomes, oh, we'll have to continue it again because you're not voting, quote, unquote, the right way. So let's continue this to September 1st.

I think given that this matter will only be deliberation and a vote, it shouldn't take that long. So I think we can do that on September the 16th.

Okay. On September 16th then, would we want to do this one first? Yes, we'll put it first. Assuming that it would be the short one? Okay.

I think the motion should also say and deliberation Okay and deliberation

That concludes the hearing. And therefore, we have no further matters before us. We are adjourned.