Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

OK, good evening, and welcome to the April 22, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvino will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan, Commissioner Jose Lopez, and Commissioner Robin Abad. Commissioner Lily Wong is absent tonight. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minardi, who will provide the board with any legal advice. At the controls is the board's legal assistant, Alec Longway, and I'm Julie Lamar, the board's executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. From the planning department, we will be joined by Corey Teague, the zoning administrator, Rich Sucre, the deputy director of current planning, Jingyu Lang, principal planner for District 3. From DBI, we will be joined by Matthew Green, deputy director of inspection services, and Jimmy Chung, professional civil engineer and interim deputy director of permit services. We should also be joined remotely by Bill Chen, professional engineer with Department of Public Health, and Ray Louie, principal engineer with the Department of Public Works. The board meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or if there are a large number of speakers. Mr. Longway, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. FOUR VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO GRANT AN APPEAL OR TO MODIFY A PERMIT OR DETERMINATION. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT REQUESTING OR REHEARING THE BOARD RULES OR HEARING SCHEDULES, PLEASE EMAIL BOARD STAFF AT BOARD OF APPEALS AT S OF GOV.ORG. NOW, PUBLIC ACCESS AND PARTICIPATION ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO THE BOARD. S OF GOV TV IS BROADCASTING AND STREAMING THIS HEARING LIVE AND WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EACH ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA. SFGov TV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGov TV, cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on Fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the homepage of our website at sfgov.org forward slash BOA. Now, public comment can be provided in three ways, one in person, two via Zoom, or three by telephone. To attend via Zoom, go to our website, sfgov.org forward slash BOA, and under the calendar, click on today's date, and then the blue rectangular box that says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to attend by telephone, call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 955-5716-0458. And again, SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you are watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star six seven, then the phone number. Listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called, and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. You will have two to three minutes, depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on TV and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on Zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to Alec Longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the room. We also have arranged to have an overflow room in room 400 in the event this room gets too full. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. Item number one is general public comment.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the feed for the Zoom video is not currently active, and I called the TV to SFGO TV, and they're working on it. I would not like to see that.

Okay, so we're just going to pause then for a few minutes, President Trisvane, until we get the Zoom feed working?

It should be up soon. I'm sorry about that.

We're having some technical difficulties with Zoom, so we're just going to pause for a few minutes.

We will suspend, hopefully shortly. Thank you.

OK. Thank you.

They've just stated it'll be up soon. Thank you. The audio works.

Okay, so since we have... Yes, we do have... Audio. So we will proceed with the items. I encourage anyone who's attending remotely, they can listen. And now I understand. OK, the audio is good. OK, great. So we are now on item number one. This is general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar? I don't see anyone in the room or on Zoom. So we're going to move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Board of Appeals. We have especially set tonight's meeting because of the importance of the issue. And I note a number of familiar faces here in the room and a number of unfamiliar faces in the room. So we have a But I want to assure everyone that my colleagues and I take this matter seriously. And as with all matters, we review the record. I think at last count, it was about 312 pages of material that had been provided to us. We will be asking questions of all of the parties, and because of the nature of this issue, there's individual, neighborhood, and beyond interests and issues of importance. So we'll be asking questions, and we'd like to proceed, but want to welcome everyone to the Board of Appeals. Colleagues, are there other comments?

Okay. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any, so we're going to move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the April 15, 2026 meeting. Note, prior to this hearing, President Trasvina reached out to me and noted there is one correction. For item 7A and 7B, the motion was made by Commissioner Lopez, not President Trasvina. So we would need an amendment to the minutes.

Motion to adopt as amended.

OK, is there any public comment on that motion to adopt? I don't see any. So on that motion, President Chesvena?

Aye.

Vice President Soroyan?

Aye.

Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

OK, that motion carries 4 to 0, and the minutes are adopted as amended. OK, so we're moving on to item number 4. This is appeal number 26-019, North Beach Tenants Committee versus Department of Building Inspection Planning Department approval. Subject property, 659 Union Street. Appealing the issuance on March 27, 2026 to Powell Partners LLC. of a demolition permit demolish three-story type 5 mixed-use building this is permit number 2026 is 0-3-2-7-8-4-1-8 and we will hear from the appellant first Julie the video is now up great thank you Ms Flandrich welcome you have seven minutes thank you

Good evening, President and members of the board. Theresa Flandrick on behalf of Appellant North Beach Tenants Committee, a longstanding volunteer organization committed to advocating for North Beach tenants. I am also here to speak for the tenants who were displaced. While we thank you for hearing our appeal this evening, we must restate that we object to the fact that our initial hearing was rescheduled from May 27th to today, depriving us the necessary time to commission our own independent engineering and other expert reports. Our request this evening is simple and eminently reasonable. We request that you grant our appeal and condition any demolition permit of this edifice on three things. First, that the project sponsor adhere to their own 2023 plans for the project, which the community found acceptable for this preeminent intersection from Washington Square in the heart of historic North Beach. The 2023 plan, which the project sponsor slow walked and never ultimately pursued, slide, oh thank you, incorporated the three sides of the exterior facade and respected the neighborhood. These plans are on file with planning and are in our brief. Second, the new project must honor the tenants who were displaced by the fire their right to return. The North Beach Tenants Committee has stayed in touch with many of the tenants who were displaced and are intent on returning as provided for by the law. This demolition is intended to extinguish their right to return as stated in the project sponsor's brief on page four. The project sponsor knew of the tenant's rights as evidenced by the fact that they filed a tenant buyout with the San Francisco Rent Board shown in the 2025 annual report. Overhead. I know of several other buyouts that were not filed with the rent board, as is required, however, by law. I also refer you to the April 16th email sent directly to you from former tenant Pete Epstein, which further substantiates their knowledge. Finally, we request that this Board condition the issuance of any demolition permit on the requirement that a replacement structure contain a minimum of 28 units of rent-controlled housing as existed prior to the fires. Our requests are consistent with the City's policies since the fires. The recent decision to greenlight the complete demolition of this structure is a massive, unprecedented departure from these policies. First, the city originally called for the preservation of the exterior walls and the owner filed plans to retain and incorporate the historic facade into the new building. DBI worked with the owner to install shoring to brace the exterior walls of the building specifically so they could be preserved and incorporated into the new building. Moreover, it's been the City's official position that even after the 2018 fire, the structure maintains sufficient integrity to be an historic building eligible for the National Register. The relevant portion of the City's Historic Resource Report is also part of our brief. The Board of Appeals should at a minimum reverse the issuance of the permit and condition it on the retention of the demolished brick material and require it to be incorporated into the replacement structure. Second, it was the planning department's long-held position that the project needed to accommodate any original displaced tenants who desired to return. I communicated with Claire Feeney, the planner assigned to this project, regarding the displaced tenants. Approximately 12 tenants out of 31 sent in their declarations of right and intent to return, which were then forwarded to the project sponsor. As I mentioned before, the project sponsor acknowledged the tenants' rights as evidenced by his attempts to buy out their rights. Although Respondent's brief asserts that the demolition, quote, does not trigger replacement housing requirements, unquote, we demand that the future housing units on this site be offered to the displaced tenants at prices they can afford. Please do not uphold this demolition permit unless the Board of Appeals conditions the permit on the tenant's right to return. Finally, Project Sponsor would like you and the public to believe there was some sort of clerical error in city public documents. This is far from an error. As set forth in our brief, the public has been misled by the city and the project sponsor. The planning department's website clearly stated on April 2nd that planning had approved a proposed demolition for only a 50-foot section of the southern wall. Thank you. Planning's website and public notice were so misleading that even SFUMB believed it to be, quote, partial demolition of an approximately 50-foot section of brick wall at the rear of the building. The CEQA Notice of Exemption, issued by the Planning Department on March 27, the same date the demolition permit was issued, defined the project as the demolition of only 50 feet of the southern wall, which is consistent with the 2023 plans that preserve the existing three exterior brick walls facing Columbus, Union, and Powell. If this building had been known by city officials, let me make sure I've got the pages, by city officials including Supervisor Sautter to be an imminent hazard to public safety since March of 2025 as set forth in DBI's submission, why didn't anyone tell the public over a year ago? If this was known to be an imminent collapse hazard, are we really supposed to believe that the city did nothing about it? and hid this information from the public for over a year? DBI could have easily required the owner to install additional bracing over a year ago rather than issuing an emergency demolition order last month. In conclusion, we ask you to impose the reasonable conditions we have set forth on the demolition permit that will uphold the City's longstanding commitments to the displaced tenants and the North Beach community at this vital site in the heart of one of San Francisco's most preeminent historic neighborhoods. Thank you.

OK, thank you. We have a question from President Chesvinia.

Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Flandrich. I have a couple of kind of procedural questions to ask you first before getting into your testimony. And first is, you noted that you requested the time for an expert report or an evaluation. Was the report that you contemplated one that would require access to the premises, or would it be a review of documents and records and visual inspection from outside?

We had initially discussed the idea of having an independent structural engineer also evaluate the situation at this site, and then didn't get much further because of filing this, so calling the appeal on the 31st of March, and then the correspondence, and by the 3rd, it was clear that that 27th date was not going to work, so did not discuss that any further.

Okay. Thank you. Second question I have relates to your organization is an existing organization that goes beyond the tenants of this property.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, for the past 12 years, and it is, I can't tell you the number of calls, the number of meeting people in parks during the pandemic.

I haven't asked a question yet. My question is whether you formally represent tenants of the building, or is your role, which is perfectly legitimate as well, to just represent tenants' concerns in general?

Today, it is to give the voice, because many of those tenants cannot come today, to give voice to their needs and to what they've lost. But generally, yes, all tenants.

And you mentioned, and a lot of people mentioned, the tenant's right to return. Can you describe... I'll probably be asking the city attorney as well. The nature of the right to return, is it in administrative code? Is it court declared? What is the right to return as best you can describe it?

Okay. Because this is a rent-controlled building, the San Francisco rental ordinance, tenant ordinance, is what covers that. And there are specifications. Again, with this fire, they had the right to return, and we're waiting for that return. Also, at their initial rent there, And that has also been discussed by the project sponsor in neighborhood meetings that I also attended, stating very clearly he understood that the tenants would have the right to return as well, that's in the ordinance, as well as, and that's what he had promised. Is that yes? He would you know have all of the tenants would have that right to return depending on how many will want that And depending on the size of the building that was something that he wasn't able to elaborate on So so so if we're considering the right to return yes, we would look at the rent control ordinance, but would also look separately at whatever the project sponsor may have told the tenants and I would hope so. And what he has said publicly in these neighborhood meetings, and this was our expectation, and that this was going to be rebuilt immediately following those plans being submitted in 2023, yes.

And can you remind us, and just so it's on the record, is the project sponsor, the current project sponsor, when did they show up?

So... A family and descendants have owned the building since it was first built. And my understanding is that in 2017 is approximately when Jeff Giroux came on having purchased a 12th interest and then became a managing agent. So he was present with the 2018 fire. The other family members, my understanding, they're still part of this. So essentially, it's one ownership of a group of people throughout since 1912 or whenever this was built.

So in your view, then, if something was said in 2018 or 2023, it's legitimate for us to hold the current representatives who come up here to those promises or those?

Yes, I would definitely say that, especially with the 2023 plans put in place. Been waiting.

Great. And one last question, and I appreciate your forthrightness in the answers. Separate from the right to return, what is your awareness of the right to be notified as a tenant on a demolition permit?

In terms of a demolition permit, I can't say that I can give you anything specific on that.

That's fine.

Other than that the tenants right now, this building exists and their rights still exist. For those tenants who did not take a buyout, did not release, sell their rights to the tenant rights that currently exist for them.

Thank you very much. And Vice President Soroyan has a question or more for you.

Good evening. I was curious about notice for the particular demolition. I know that DBI and planning, based on the emergency declaration, there are some reasons to not post it. But could you perhaps tell us how you became notified

Yeah, it's an odd story, in that suddenly I was getting calls from a few different people in the neighborhood saying, I just walked by the Verity building, and my god, they're demolishing. And I said, and this was maybe... Monday the 30th or something and I said oh, that's great because they are allowed to actually demolish this one rear wall, right? It's just one rear wall. That means they're finally going forward with the 2023 plans and Then the next day it was you know a few other people know they're demolishing It looks like you know, they're demolishing all of these things and that's when I thought what there was no notice there was No notice. People who lived actually just across the street had been, and I think that was in the brief, that they had received a notice that was dated March 30th. And they received it, of course, by mail on the 2nd of April. So yeah, it was not clear what was going on. And we had no idea. We had no idea.

Just to summarize, so it was visual notice by walking by, seeing the demolition going on, and then mailed notice to residents in the surrounding neighborhood?

Yes. OK. Yes. Thank you. After.

After. Thank you.

In process. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, now we have a few more questions, Ms. Flandrich. Well, from Commissioner Lopez, please go ahead.

Thank you for your testimony and for laying out your position and requests so clearly. I want to follow up on the right to return point and make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that that is... the right of return is somehow disrupted if this demolition moves forward? Or are you saying, hey, while we're here, while you have the permit holder in front of you, we want them to confirm and condition this permit on that right of return Just that agreement.

Yes, because as I had said, in the brief on, what, page four, the respondent's brief? Let's see. Their brief, not my pages, but... So respondents brief asserts that the demolition does not trigger replacement housing requirements. So with that and again I mean it's always been this thing of demolition if a certain amount of the foundation is still there it remains a rent controlled building. That's one part of it. Again for these tenants they have those who have not officially withdrawn or taken a buyout and that was filed with the rent board where they did choose to give up those rights of return. That is still in place. However, what they are saying is that the replacement housing that would be required also with any kind of demolition or capital improvement work, the tenants would have that right to return. And this is, when you demolish everything, it is sounding very much that is the intent. And the intent is that tenants would not have those same rights anymore.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Abad.

Thank you, Ms. Flandrich. I'm trying to better understand what the property owner might have communicated to tenants at the time of the fires. There were two, one in 2013 and one in 2018. Some of the materials in the brief that you filed and supplements include letters from former tenants, one from Mr. Epstein dated April 10, 2023, where he says that at the time of the fire, we were told it would be six months to a year for repairs and that we would be allowed back into our units. Mr. Epstein then goes on to say, immediately after the fire, I notified the building manager and then the building owner's representatives, Hanford Friend and Company, of my intention to reoccupy and had confirmation of that from the owners. Mr. Taft, in a letter dated April 17, 2026, says that the owner had approached them about a buyout of their tenancy. Are you in receipt of any of these correspondences from the people you're advocating for? I couldn't find them in the extensive brief that we received. So I'm just trying to better understand at the very start of when the displacements first occurred what the expectations were, what had been communicated. Can you speak on that?

Yes, and because I have talked with the tenants and I have, I actually knew a few people that lived there, which was pretty devastating because they were told the repairs will be done in six months to 12 months. And then tenants kept checking back to see, so, you know, where are things at? And they were told, well, you know, we aren't doing anything just yet. There were four tenants who were allowed, four units that had remained without any fire damage and that was at the other rear side of the building. So they were able to actually stay through to November 2014 and then they were given constructive evictions stating that and showing plans of extensive work being done there to take that time to remodel everything. So Most of the tenants have told me that communication with the owners then ceased somewhere around 2016, so three years after. Again, you have to know that North Beach is pretty small village and a huge grapevine. And so through the grapevine, you know, they would check in with Atcoit Liquor, with that owner because he had the commercial unit there. Have you heard anything? Checking in with the former property management. So that was 2013 fire. And after with 2018 fire, the communication, there was nothing. There was nothing between them. And then, again, it wasn't until 2010 when I had contacted the tenants because I saw that there was a plan that had been filed and said, hey, you know, there's finally going to be some movement here. This would be a good time to again restate your intent to return, your understanding that you have the right to return. And that's when they submitted then to Claire Feeney. this document that was part of the insurance settlement with the Powell Partners LLC. So that's what they submitted. And that was, and again, still no conversation, although Claire Feeney had told the owner in emails that he would need to supply a full report of where things are at with the tenants, whether he's notified them about their right to return, whether he's had any discussions. And she had required that as part of continuing the process.

Thank you so much for recounting some of the chronology. I guess my question is, are you in receipt of any written correspondences between the displaced tenants and the owner property interests at the time? on the subject of right to return, or not the right to return, but basically to come back.

No, nothing.

Oh, so you're not. That was my only question.

Yeah, nothing with the owner's part in this. Yeah, just what the tenants have told me.

OK, thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. Welcome. You have seven minutes.

Thank you, commissioners. SFGov, if I could get the computer screen, please.

Computer. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. John Kevlin here on behalf of the permit holder. We're here tonight to discuss the twice burned structure at 659 Union Street, which currently poses a public health and safety risk due to its potential to collapse into the public right of way. I want to start by providing you with some background here. As has been discussed, roughly 75% of the ownership of the building are descendants of the original builder. The previous multifamily housing building was subject to the first fire in 2013 that made the building uninhabitable to its residents. The permit holder purchased an interest in the building in 2017, and along with that was tasked with repairing the building and bringing it back online. In 2018, the permit holder was only weeks away from filing a building permit to repair and renovate the building when the second fire struck the building. So the permit holder's intent in coming into this was to simply bring back the existing building online at the time the second fire struck. Now with respect to the demolition permit at issue. Since 2025, there have been three reports prepared by two independent structural engineers. These have concluded a number of things, including there are brick walls out of plane on Powell Street. The building is at risk of collapse in a minor seismic event. The walls have been weakened by the two fires and the firefighting efforts. Individual bricks in the walls can easily be removed by hand. And most importantly, the risk of structural collapse by the building poses an imminent danger to public safety. The San Francisco Building Code mandates that the chief building official ensure that structures in the city do not constitute an imminent and substantial hazard to the life, health, or safety of occupants or to other persons. We now have two structural engineers confirming that the existing structure poses such a hazard. DBI issued an emergency order on March 24, 2026. Per the order, the permit holder was mandated to obtain a demolition permit within 72 hours. The permit holder did just that, pulling a permit on March 27th. As explained by Planning and DBI in their briefs, this was clearly a permit to demolish the entire building. It was on a Form 6 permit application, which only applies to complete demolitions of buildings. Any alterations, even leaving one piece of wood standing, is a separate form. Reference to the limited demolition was crossed out and initialed by the permit holder's consultant during the permit review. And finally, the plans themselves clearly show the demolition of the entire structure. Standard planning code and CEQA provisions do not apply in this circumstance due to the imminent danger to public health. That danger has since been exacerbated as demolition was already underway when this appeal was filed and the demolition permit was suspended. Now, with respect to the hazardous materials brought up in the appellant's brief, the permit holder was required to obtain a J permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to demo permit issuance. which applies operating conditions on the demolition to ensure asbestos is not released. With respect to the hazardous soils at the site, the demolition is not disturbing the soil, so it requires no further review by the health department. In fact, once the walls are removed, it will allow for the contaminated soils on the site to be remediated, which would be very dangerous to do if the walls were still in place today. As the image of the interior of the building shows today, access to the subsurface is highly restricted because of the shoring that's in place. So to reiterate, two independent structural engineers have concluded that the risk of the building collapse poses an imminent danger to public safety. DBI has agreed. Partial demolition has already occurred, further increasing the risk to public safety. We respectfully request that the board deny this appeal and allow the permit holder to eliminate this threat to pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers on this high-trafficked block. Thank you. And I'm here if you have any questions.

OK. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President Strohan, then President Trasvina, then Commissioner Lopez.

Good evening. It's Mr. Kevlin. Thank you for being here today. I noticed that there is a bit of correspondence from you in the record for representing the owners or partial ownership for the Verity Apartments. And I just want a point of clarification. I noticed that in your brief to the board, you represented Powell Partners. And then in a subsequent correspondence, there's Red Bridge Partners. Can you explain to me, are they different or is one a special entity?

Yeah, thank you, and apologies for the confusion. Redbridge Partners is kind of the larger company that specializes in real estate management and operation. The LLC, specific LLC with respect to the property. So to a certain degree, they both reference the same party, but I understand the confusion and apologize for that.

OK. Is the building for sale?

No.

No.

No.

OK. Mike, I have some more questions. And I'm a little bit confused by, and I'll have the same question for city representatives, why the urgency in the last 30 days? If this building has been such an imminent threat to pedestrian safety, bicyclists, or whoever's ever coming by the building in North Beach, and that's been noted since 2025, why wasn't there an application? And I did notice that you had submitted a request to DBI for the emergency demolition permit, which seems to make sense based on your testimony. Why the urgency in the last 30 days? What changed so that normal channels for, I guess, a demolition permit that wasn't based on imminent danger wasn't applied for?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. So what you'll see in the public record is that it was early 2025 when we got an updated structural engineer report that first concluded that this was an imminent hazard to public safety. Since that date, the permit holder's position has been, we need to take down these walls. The context in which an emergency demo occurs is one I think is important to note here. For good reason, the city is very reluctant to demolish a building when there's not a replacement building. There's a ton of public policies in place why they don't want to. So I've tried to do demolition, emergency demolitions on other buildings that were fire damaged, and it's a very high bar. And so I think that our position since the beginning of 2025 is that it needed to come down. That required further conversation with the city. The appellant has pointed out that we've had quite a bit of conversation with the city. And we got updated reports from the previous structural engineer in early 2026. And then we got a second independent report just to kind of make this case that we now have multiple independent structural engineers saying this needs to come down. And ultimately, DBI was in agreement after much consultation over the past year and the additional evidence put on the record early this year.

OK. Has there been any evidence of debris falling since 2025? I don't know if you have cameras on the building, because it is a brick structure, which is probably the most earthquake prone from my understanding. Has there been any debris that's fallen or anything along those lines?

I'm not aware of any reports of actual debris falling. We do have that recent report that says bricks can be removed by hand, but I'm not aware personally of any debris falling.

OK. I have one more question. Regarding the appellant's position that demoing the building would eliminate the rights of the tenants, what is your perspective on that?

Thank you for your question, Commissioner, because I think this is important. After the second fire and after the time that has passed, the city has determined, in conjunction with the city attorney, that this building is essentially no longer a residential building with existing residential units. And the reason is that it has been destroyed so far that there are no residential units, legal or practical, on the site anymore. And so the result of that is that under the rent control law, that there are no longer those rights that were in place up to that point. Under state housing law, as well as the city's expanded recent expansion of the tenants' rights and protection law. It is not subject to that either because it is no longer a residential building now. It is essentially walls and not residential units anymore.

And was that determination by the city attorney's office submitted in writing to the Board of Appeals? Because I don't remember seeing anything of that nature in our documentation, but I certainly could have missed it.

No. We've been hyper-focused on what's in front of us, which is the merits of the demolition permit. And so we're happy to talk about this at this hearing. We've got the email. I'm sure the city staff have it. We can forward it. But there is a written email from city staff that confirms in quite detail this position.

I don't know what the protocol is for submitting something like that. I would certainly be interested in seeing it, and I'm sure my colleagues would be interested at the appropriate time. Thank you. I don't have any more questions.

Thank you. President Tresevino?

Thank you. I'll have a series of questions. You started off by saying in 2017 the owner intended for people to return. Are you acknowledging, and this seems to describe a pretty common threat of ownership over a period of time, what happened to the intent for the tenants to be able to return? What is the status of that intention now?

Yeah. I want to talk both about intent and the law, right? So the law is a bit more clear, right, in the sense that after the 2013 and immediately after the 2018 fires, it was still a residential building. It legally, if not practically, had a number of 36 or so residential units, I believe was the count. And that it was still, all of the rent control laws still applied. The only way to have eliminated that right of return of the previous tenants is if the project sponsor had gone to the rent board seeking a determination for a substantial rehabilitation or demolition, either of which would have eliminated the building or taken the building out of rent control. And the standard for substantial rehabilitation is the rehabilitation is more than 50% of the cost to build a new building today. Up until the decision by the city in conjunction with the consultation with the city attorney, it was a building, it had residential units, and it was subject to rent control and all of the rights that flow from that. Once that decision was made, it was no longer a building and not subject to those laws. With respect to the intent of the project sponsor, separate from the legal, As I said, they had a permit ready to file in several weeks' time when the 2018 fire occurred to rehabilitate the building. It was subject to right of return. It was subject to rent control. Even if some of the tenants hadn't come back, all of the units were subject to rent control. That was the business plan going into this building. And I will say the project sponsor, the permit holder, is not a traditional developer. Development is not their forte. Their development is holding property, owning it, managing it, et cetera. So this was their business plan. As time went on, the second fire happened. They did proceed with a project that would have brought the units back. And this was, I think, the 2021 or the 2023 project that the appellant's been mentioning. That plan had significant issues. There were a number of significant practical difficulties. And I'll just mention a couple.

Well, I'm not interested in the practical difficulties. I'm interested in the owner's intentions. And based on what you're saying and based on what I've read in the record, is it accurate to say that fire occurred in 2013, another fire occurred in 2018, no suggestion that it was caused by the tenants, and that for five, maybe 10 years. I think in 2023, 2024, there's the document and there's a letter saying that the owners had reached out to the tenant about buying out their tenancy. That after 10 years of that, now the project sponsor is figuratively kicking them to the corner and saying, we have no interest and no intention to assist you?

MIKE MCCORMICK, Commissioner, I think, from my perspective, what has occurred since 2018 has put this project in a much different place than it was immediately after the fire.

MIKE MCCORMICK, Well, we'll get to that.

MIKE MCCORMICK, So I guess, OK, so let me get straight to the point of what you're getting at, As a matter of law, I think we have concluded that there is not a legal right of return here. At this point, the project sponsor is looking to find, one, remove this legal liability that they've had for at least a year and a half now since the structural reports have been on record, and eliminate the walls. What that allows them to do, Commissioner, is to then proceed with an actual project. Because what we have right now is we are caught in a cycle of not being able to access the soil for remediation purposes. We're stuck in a place where we can't move this project forward. As you know, since the pandemic, there has not been one significant new build start other than a publicly funded project.

All that. You're kind of straying from what I'm asking you, which is the intention of the current owner is not to provide. replacement housing. Is that correct or not correct?

Let me finish one more sentence, and then I will get exact to that, which is we don't have any right of return, voluntary or legal, if there is no new building built. And so this is the next step in getting a building built. And I don't want to, I certainly have not been instructed by the project sponsor to say we have cut off any further conversations about this, but that as of right now, the emergency demo and that the legal liability that they have at this moment is the priority.

So I want to get to the point about imminent safety risk. Can you give us a definition of imminent?

I'm not the expert. I'm a simple land use lawyer. I've got two structural engineers that have written three reports saying that there is an imminent danger caused by this building.

Well, not even in terms of building. What do you mean by imminent? And the reason I ask is because the city asked us to expedite this hearing and cut the rights of The appellants reduced the briefing time because the situation was imminent. I want to know what imminent is in your view.

Well, I would say one kind of simple observation from reviewing the reports, that it sounds like at any moment, if a minor seismic event occurs, which we're in the Bay Area, is a relatively regular occurrence, the building could fall. And so eminent doesn't necessarily mean someone pulls a brick and it falls out. But I think it's at the edge of collapse.

Thank you for that. Likely at any moment, sense of urgency. I think we're in agreement on that. I hope others are as well. So when did it become imminent?

From our perspective, it was imminent in early 2025 when we got our first structural engineers report saying it is an imminent danger to public health and safety. That's when our focus immediately came to this needs to come down, and this meets the standard for an emergency demo.

Are you familiar with DBI report 2200124 that was dated in January 24, 2020? Yes. And that was... a response to, was it a response to the project to the owners declaring it was imminent danger?

No. If you look at the structural report that was prepared by the project sponsor's engineer at the time, it merely documented the existing conditions. And that report from DBI essentially said this should be handled. There's a number of ways you can deal with an imminent danger, one of which is temporary shoring. At the time, they had ordered the project sponsor to put up temporary shoring. We put up temporary shoring. and proceeded with working on entitlement of the project until early 2025, this second report came.

Your characterization of the report is similar to mine from reading it. I don't have the underlying statement from the owner, but it certainly sounds like DBI was saying, No, it's not imminent. There are other ways of handling the problem on the property. In 2020, yes. So it seems to me that this line about imminent danger now is about six years old. But it's at least one year old, because we know from March of 2025, people were saying it was imminent. One last question, and that is the falling of the masonry, or I don't know if there's any windows left. Are there other ways to handle the current imminent danger other than the complete demolition?

The alternative is more permanent shoring, which is about a $3 million job per the structural engineer. And that would be to continue to hold up these walls without damage or injury to the public.

Thank you. And Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks. My first question is about the language characterizing the demolition is more limited in nature. It sounds like the initial application for the permit. I wanted to make sure I understood correctly. Are you saying that that language existed, but the plan that was submitted at the time of that application showed a complete demolition?

Yeah, unfortunately, that was language from a previous iteration of a demo permit that didn't match what was in the permit, but that the language hadn't been scrubbed.

But regardless of the language, you're saying that the, if any, I'm assuming plans were submitted as part of the application. The plans themselves did show a complete demolition. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And then... Let's say, and I'd like to, I think just amongst ourselves, I think I'd personally be interested in seeing the city attorney's communications with respect to the right of return. And so maybe we can, I'll tee that up for the panel up here to see how we can get our hands on that, if that can be submitted. now. But setting aside the legality, let's pretend that, or let's assume that, That opinion from the CAO does not exist. There is a kind of chain of title giving rise to a right of return for your client currently. In that world, how would that be impacted by this demolition permit?

CHRISTOPHER KREBS- It would eliminate that. In the world where those rights did exist, it would eliminate those rights, yes.

How so?

In the sense that once the building's been demolished, you're well beyond substantial rehabilitation, which would typically take you out of the rent control ordinance anyway. Demolition of the building certainly takes you out of the ordinance. And then you would do new construction, and new construction is not subject to rent control. OK. Thank you.

Thanks. We have a question from Commissioner Abbott.

Thank you, Mr. Kovlin. My colleagues anticipated a lot of my questions already. I just have one follow-up, and that's just to clarify, do I understand you correctly that it's your perspective that hazardous remediation on the site, which seems like it's an important thing to achieve, would be complicated but not rendered impossible by permanent shoring or other shoring strategies on site to retain the existing masonry.

So if you look at the last image we had up on the screen, you can see the context that we're working with then, Commissioner. And I think when we've talked to engineers about this, this isn't an exact science. I think the conclusion we've gotten back is we should not be excavating on this site in this condition currently. According to the structural engineers, as it is, it is already an imminent danger. Any excavation would be, no one would ever think to actually take that on and take the risk of doing that. So can I say here that there's no possible way to do that? I can't say that. I would say there's no practical way of doing it in which someone would take that risk of taking on.

Earlier you made reference to maybe a $3 million proposition to introduce permanent shoring. Why introduce permanent shoring then?

I mean, I think that's a good point, Commissioner. It's a lot of money. It's to merely hold up the remaining walls at the site. Frankly, it's unclear. I mean, this site has not been income producing. It may not be income producing without this project moving forward. And so whether there's even $3 million to spend on shoring to hold the site up and not move the project forward is a real question.

We have a follow-up question from Commissioner Lopez.

It's actually for you, Julie. If assuming that council can share the, I'd be interested in seeing the city attorney's office communications on the right of return topic, but if he's able to send that to us and obviously we'll turn to President Trezvena for his okay, but practically speaking, like how would we receive that at this point? I'm assuming electronically and then have the public be able to see it. Okay.

Right. So we want to formally request the documents that you referred to, you should provide them to us. And they should be provided for the public record. And that would give an opportunity for other people to comment upon them as we examine them.

Mr. Longaway, the best way to do that, I mean, I guess I could pull my email up on this computer.

Yeah, you can email it to me. Or I can email it. Oh, yeah, you can share it on the computer right there. Okay, I got it.

If you didn't want to pull up your email, though, you could forward it to him and have him show it.

Well, that would be on Zoom. That's fine. Yeah, okay.

I mean, this is public hearing. That's fine.

You can forward it to me.

Okay. So maybe I'll do that while the conversation's going. Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

And whether we need time to review them and others to review them, that will be determined by what they are. So thank you.

Thank you. Do you have something further, Commissioner, Vice President Soraya?

Not for counsel, but I do, I think this might be a good juncture to hear from our city attorney this evening as to a public outline of the standard review for the matter. Mr. Minardi, if you could provide us with that analysis, please.

Sure, Commissioner. This is a, before the board is a review of the demolition permit, so this is de novo review, so the board is putting itself essentially in the place of DBI in issuing this permit. So the board would be looking at sort of the reasons for the permit. The fundamental basis here is the emergency order. So it would be looking at the emergency order itself and whether the board thought that it was validated based on the record, including the impact on the neighborhood and what the permit would do with respect to the neighborhood.

So am I to understand that we would stand in the shoes of DBI to make a determination that, let's see, there are conditions of a serious and imminent hazard? Correct. Were the reason for the issuance of the emergency dimension? Correct. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. We will now hear from the planning department.

OK, good evening, President Trasvinia, Commissioners Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. So as you are aware, the appeal before you tonight is for an emergency demolition permit that was recently issued. And that permit was for the full demolition of the existing building. And it was pursuant to an emergency demolition order issued by the Department of Building Inspections. In terms of the Planning Department review of this permit, there are kind of three key provisions when reviewing this emergency demolition permit. One, from a CEQA analysis perspective, the CEQA review is statutorily exempt per state law, and that is a state law provision that essentially waives CEQA review when a building is deemed necessary to be demolished to address an immediate and imminent health issue. Additionally, Planning Code Section 311 would typically require neighborhood notice for the demolition of a residential building in this district. However, there is an exception within that section, specifically for when an order has been issued by another city agency for the emergency demolition due to an imminent life safety issue. Planning Code Section 317, generally, if you are going to be demolishing a building that contains residential uses, that requires a conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission, also an associated new project that's going to go up in place of the demolished building. However, there is also an exception within that code section as well. Similarly, when there is an order issued by another city agency for an emergency demolition for an imminent life safety issue, then the provisions of Section 317 and that conditional use authorization requirement is also waived. So in terms of the planning department's review of this permit, it was very similar to when we get these. Many times we see these permits because of a fire, oftentimes a smaller building. But these do happen, unfortunately, multiple times throughout the year. And this is generally the process that is used and the provisions that are used when reviewing and reviewing As you can tell, the planning code generally defers to the Department of Building Inspection on the issues of life safety issues. And when that emergency demolition order has been granted, then these provisions of the planning code are waived. So from that perspective, the permit was appropriately approved by the planning department. I touched on this in my brief, but I'll touch on it here as well, which is the unfortunate description of the project on our website. Again, that was due to an errant note that was on the cover sheet of the plans of the demolition permit. And because that note was there on the project scope on the cover sheet, the staff planner at the counter input that in the scope of work for our online system. However, it's important to note that the permit itself was a demolition permit. A demolition permit is only required and permitted if the proposal is a full demolition. If it was going to be removing a small portion of one of the walls, that would have been an alteration permit. It would have been a different type of permit. I can defer to my colleagues at DBI to expand on that issue. But additionally, the permit itself The actual physical hard copy permit was clearly for the full demolition. The planning department's approval on that permit did not include any notes regarding the scope being limited to a 50-foot section of the rear wall. The permit itself was clearly for the full demolition. And then as was referenced with the project sponsor, while that note on the cover sheet of the plans, again, was unfortunate and it was there, the actual plans themselves were clearly for the full demolition of the building. It's also important to note that after planning approval, The Department of Building Inspection reviews the permit, and their staff actually caught that errant note and ensured that the applicant removed that note before the permit was issued. Unfortunately, that wasn't communicated back, so we weren't able to update our system to take that errant description off our website. was caught, and again, just reinforces that the actual permit itself, what was understood to be proposed and what was clearly being approved through the permit was the full demolition of the building. Again, that was an unfortunate situation with that errant note, but the actual permit itself was correct. That concludes my presentation. Again, just in summary, the planning code very heavily defers to the Department of Building Inspection in matters of life safety and provides these exemptions when there is an emergency demo order issued by the Department of Building Inspections. And the approval was consistent with the planning code in past practice. And I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. President Trezevena?

Thank you, Mr. Teague. And I usually can count on you for your expertise. In this situation, your top line is there's a lot of deference by planning to DBI. So I understand there are things you haven't inquired upon or have the responsibility for. So if the answer is not planning's issue, then I certainly will accept that. I'm wondering whether you could shed light on the issue of right to return for tenants in this kind of a situation.

Sure. Essentially, I think as has been referenced, the right to return generally is the result of either the rent ordinance here in the city or a provision of state law and not necessarily the planning code. And specifically to this project, there's not a specific provision of the planning code where there be any first right of return. So anything that's related to interpretation and implementation of the rent ordinance, we generally defer to the rent board because that's their domain of interpretation. And again, from a state law perspective, there is not a state law that applies to this situation with a first right of return.

Are you aware of any other instances? I recall around the time of this first fire, there was a big fire like 29th and Mission. Do you recall any other instances that are similar to this where there was an extension of or consideration of the right to return that would have come up in your area?

I didn't work on that one directly myself. I believe there was a project, a larger building in the Mission. I can't remember the cross street on Mission Street that was destroyed by fire and ultimately had to be fully demolished. And I believe it resulted in the same outcome from a state law perspective in terms of not having the first right of return applied. But I didn't work on that directly, so I don't want to vouch 100% for that.

I think I've taken you out on a limb enough. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. We will now hear from DBI.

Good evening, President, Transvenia Commissioners. Kerry McElroy, Senior Billing Inspector at the Department of Billing Inspection. The case before the board this evening is the appeal of the Emergency Demolition Permit number 202603278418. On March 24, 2026, DBI issued an emergency order for the demolition of the structure located at 659 Union Street because the city's building official and two department deputy directors determined that the building is an imminent hazard to the life, safety, and health of the public due to substantial structural damage as a result of multiple structure fires. The emergency order required the property owner to file for a demolition permit and demolish the building within 72 hours. A copy of the emergency order was posted at the property the same day it was issued, and DBI mailed a letter to property owners within 300 feet radius on the next business day after the permit was issued. DBI issued the emergency order based on substantial evidence and the professional determination of more than six civil and structural engineers, including two veteran city engineers. The demolition permit was properly issued based on the requirements of the emergency order. And DBI requests the board deny the appeal and uphold the permit. And I'm available for any questions.

We have a question from Vice President Soroyan, then President Chesavino.

Hi, good evening, Mr. McElroy, and congrats on your first meeting.

Second. That was your last.

Sorry, second. I missed that one. I would love to hear from one of the authors of the field report dated March 18th, either Mr. Chung, Mr. Kane, Mr. Green, or Mr. Liu, as to their observations and why they recommended this path and ultimately why the demolition order was issued.

Hi. Good afternoon, board. Jimmy Chung, interim deputy director of permit services. I am one of the authors of the report, and I authored it as the structural manager at the time. We found signs of continuing worsening decay in the structural framing, shoring, including damage from mold, dry rot, and corrosion in vermin and rodents. We did see that. Basically, the present condition was charred wood members exposed to elements since 2018, structural redundancies were no longer present, and the lack of fire resistant protection due to the two fires. So since 2020, the project has continued to decay. And one of the authors of this field report DPW's engineer, Ray Louie, and he went out there. And that's when we found out that there's pending construction going on Union Street, which would have to be paused or canceled because of this building. The city didn't want to take liability for if this building were to fall.

OK. But why did it take to March 2026 for anybody from DBI to do a site inspection? I just don't understand. I mean, the building has been vacant since 2018, Mr. Chang. And then there was a memo in 2025. How could it have taken so long? Please explain to us.

It was on the borderline. We didn't have the number of reports that we have in 2026. We had one from, let's see, February 18, 2020, then March 7, 2025, then February 19, 2026, and March 2, 2026. And they are coming in more and more frequently. And just the decaying factor, just the reports from these engineers and from our latest field report, we just, and from other departments, we just had to act because if we didn't act, it would, the city would be liable.

I see. Had there been consideration to do a site or field inspection in 2025? We did. Oh, you did?

Yeah, we did.

Oh, you did?

Yes.

Did I miss that report?

We didn't write a report.

I see. OK. Tell us what the observation was.

Observations was it was in bad shape. We just deferred. We just noted that it's in bad shape. The redundancies aren't there. So if a car went through it, it would have fell down. If a big wind event like we've had in the last few years happened, the walls would act like a sail. It could fall down. But it didn't have the extra reports from the other city agencies.

Okay. Okay. So you conclusively determined that it's an imminent threat to public safety.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I'll pass on to my colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have questions for you. A little bit on the same lines as Vice President Soroyan. So the... Is it correct to assume that it wasn't the fire in 2013, it wasn't the fire in 2018, but it was an accumulated worsening of the conditions rather than those two things?

Yes, sunlight does things to plywood that delaminates the plywood. Yeah, it's just the passage of time.

In 2020, the department said there's not an imminent problem. And then in 2025, was it the project sponsors who said there's imminent danger? Yes. Yeah. Right. And that wasn't enough. It was other reports that you received in 2026 that brought about the order, correct?

Yes. And just because we didn't say it was imminent, it didn't mean that it was not in bad shape, really, really bad shape. It's not a 0 to 100. It could be 49.9. And it just brought it over.

Right. But the key on imminent is, if it's imminent, then notice rights go out the window if there was a window. The people right to return goes out the window. All these things happen because it's imminent. We had this hearing because we were told it's imminent. So I'm trying to get a sense as to, well, when did it become imminent? imminent, so that's the reason why I asked the question. The reports that you received that you just referenced in 2026, those were reports by other departments or other parts of DBI?

We got one report from DPW. It was in our brief. It was from the structural section of DPW, Department of Public Works, where they were going to do pavement work and sewer work, and they had to stop short because the building was going to be too much of a liability to do any construction. And if they were going to bring heavy equipment, if it were to fall, it just would have been worse. And we don't want to... perform capital improvements partially. We want to do it the right way.

All right. So OK. And if a building owner wants to demolish their building, Do they need an emergency order from the department to do it, or can they just say, we want to do it?

They could file a regular demo permit if that is an option for them, and it goes through the regular permit process.

Okay. And thank you. Those are really helpful. I have another question regarding the notice on this emergency permit. The notice was to property owners. Was there a requirement for notice?

To property owners or to the previous tenants?

For property owners? Surrounding property owners.

Okay. I would say, let's see, emergency orders are issued to mitigate an imminent safety hazard and are processed on an expedited timeline. An emergency order does not trigger the same notification requirements as a regular demolition permit. The building owner posted the notice on the building on March 24th and DBI mailed a letter to property owners within 300 feet. on the next business day. This permit was approved at 4.09 PM on Friday.

But DBI did mail out to property owners? Yes. But did the notice also go out to anyone who, if you were aware of tenants or prior tenants

DBI was not required to notify tenants, previous tenants.

I didn't ask whether you were required to. Did you even know who they were?

I did not know that there were. I mean, this building was burnt down in 2018, I would say. I doubt there are any tenants living there right now.

I guess what is confusing to me is DBI didn't have to notify neighboring property owners, because you said the emergency process takes away that requirement, but DBI did it anyway. Sure, yes. But if it was a regular permit, they would have been required to send that out to anybody who lived there, if there were anybody living there, and the property owners. I'm just trying to get a sense as to what notice requirement went away because everybody was saying this is an imminent problem.

I would say, I guess this is an instance where DBI maybe did too much. If DBI doesn't have to notify for emergency demos, and we did, that's just over and above what was required.

OK. All right.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez has a question.

Thank you. I want to make sure I say your name correctly. Is it Mr. Cheng? Chung. Chung. Thank you. So Mr. Chung, I want to make sure I get the facts straight for myself. So permit holder has told us their engineer prepares a report in 2025 that shows imminent danger. They then show that report to DBI, which I'm guessing prompted that initial visit that you just referenced that did not involve a report. Is that correct?

Yes.

And in their words, you know, emergency demos, there's a high bar for those within DBI. And so you say, based on that 2025 visit, it looks like it's in bad shape, but it doesn't rise to the level of an emergency demo. Is that correct? Yes. And then, essentially, we have a couple of other reports. I'm not sure. Did any of those subsequent two reports involve subsequent visits to the site to see if there was now an imminent threat?

There were. There were a couple of. I didn't go to all of them. I went to some of them. I believe two of our plan checkers, supervisor plan checkers, went out there to take a look.

And I'm assuming that in those visits, which I understand also occurred in 2025, again, the situation didn't give rise to the standard of an emergency demo. Is that right?

Yes.

And then fast forward to this year. Earlier this year, we have DPW that wants to do this capital improvement project. They don't want to move forward based on the conditions. And I'm guessing that prompts another visit from DBI.

Yes, and that was when both DPW and DBI went out there together.

And then can you point to, thank you for that, can you point to any specific findings that existed in this 2026 visit that did not exist in the previous 2025 visits that did kind of lead DBI to then say, you know what, this project or this site now does meet the high bar for an emergency demo?

We had additional eyes. We had our previous deputy director, David Kane, go out there, as well as Ray Louie, who is a senior engineer at DPW. He's never been to the site. He does a lot of search and rescue stuff. And so he's seen a lot of damaged buildings. So those are just new eyes.

And can you point to any new facts that the new eyes saw?

They pointed out things like the redundancy. You're missing the redundancies if you don't have lateral bracing for your beams and you need that. And so just pointing out the condition of the char, how much char has occurred, and how much capacity a charred beam or post has. So it brought a little more clarity.

And Ray Louie is here on Zoom if you have questions.

Just to continue further, but things like the redundancy, those probably would have been eliminated in the 2018 fire, correct?

Yeah, I think the 2018 was the bigger fire.

Right. So we're essentially, is the position then or the findings then that due to ongoing prolonged exposure to the elements, things like that, that that kind of tipped the scales in between 2025 and 2026? Or what new facts were seen in 2026 that then gave rise to a different level of concern?

Just, again, different engineers coming out there, one my boss and one from another department.

So then potentially... It sounds like potentially it might have been relatively similar facts, maybe a change in degree, but maybe with these new sets of eyes looking at the current condition that exists in 2026, it was determined that, you know what, this is dangerous enough to proceed.

Yes.

OK. Can you speak to, I'm not sure if this would be you or Mr. McElroy or someone else, but I would assume given the testimony that we've heard about the interdependency between the right of return programs and laws on the books, that there is some interdependency between the right of return obligations and the state of the building, like the actual footprint and the sustainability of the building, whether it can be repaired, whether it requires a complete demo. Is DBI involved in that at all? And if so, how?

uh we are not involved in that okay um all right i guess that's that's my answer thanks thank you president chesvino do you have something further i have just one hopefully quick question um you've been very helpful and very and very forthright and all the information you have provided if we if We said, we really want you to do this, but on the non-imminent danger procedural standards. You go back to your office. It's April 23. How quickly could you have that process underway and a decision?

If it was non-eminent and they went through the regular demolition permit process, they would have to be reviewed by the planning department, and they don't fall under the exemptions that Corey mentioned earlier.

So can you estimate how long that would take?

I hate to estimate how long planning will take, but the DBI, we have a six-week backlog. We'll review it in the seventh week. I'm sorry. It'll take about less than two months.

For DBI? Yes. And if it's close to imminent danger, but not actual imminent danger, would that Would you be able to take it out of line in order to?

Yeah. Yeah. And that's what we did. We approved it over the counter. We gave them 72 hours to do it. And they came in on the third day, the 70th hour.

They were very responsive.

Yes.

Okay, great. I just wanted to get a ballpark as to how long, if we go down that road, how long it might delay things. Thank you. Thank you. Vice President Soroyan.

Vice President Soroyan has a question. Oh, sorry, DBI. Hi, thank you. Mr. Chung, I would love to know how many of the emergency demolition permits are issued annually, ballpark?

I don't have that number, but I do know that most are just wood frame structures, not a brick structure. But I don't have a number. Yeah, Matt, do you have a number?

Matthew Green, Deputy Director for Inspection Services. It's fairly rare. Most emergency orders are about boarding up the building and securing the building. I think the last emergency demolition permit we issued was about five years ago.

Okay.

Can you... I don't know who's best. I am not an engineer. So I would love for somebody just to give me a really quick explanation of what is the danger between a wood frame building and a brick building in this situation?

I'm not an engineer either, but I'll defer to Mr. Cohn.

OK, whomever can speak to that. I would love to hear the concrete.

I guess unreinforced masonry wall brick building does not have rebar in the brick. It's just held by gravity and weight and the 112-year mortar. So it's really fragile. And I don't know if the heat of the fire becomes too hot over a certain amount of time, then it just loses its, it looks fine, but if you touch it, it'll just move because it's glazed.

Okay, so how is that different from just a regular wood frame structure? Would that have rebar?

It doesn't have rebar, but it has mechanical connections like steel connections to hold the post to the column. And so you can shore up a wood building a lot easier than you can shore up a brick building.

OK. So maybe what I'm hearing is it's more likely to crumble.

It's more likely to crumble, yeah. And so there's not much left. It burns faster.

OK, I understand better. Thank you so much.

OK, thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. And President Trezevena, Mr. Kevlin sent the email to Alex. So before we move on to public comment, do you want to have him share it on the screen?

Can we get copies and make sure it goes to the appellants?

Well, we can't make a copy in the room, but we can send it to them, I presume. We can email and we can show it up on the screen. Sure.

Well, let's do that. And I'm wondering, once we find out how many people are going to be speaking in public comment in the room, I'd like to see how many that is, because it might be appropriate time to take a break now or after the people here give public comment.

How many people in this room would like to provide public comment? Raise your hand, please. OK. And I see on Zoom there are quite a few people, 24 people. We have some hands raised.

So what I would propose is to have a 10-minute recess, get the document available to us, available to the appellants, available to the public.

OK. Why don't we do that now so they'll have time over the 10-minute break? Yes. OK. So can you share that on the screen, please, Alec? And then we don't have a copier. So we're just going to need to share it on the screen. And you can forward it to the appellant.

OK. And we'll be in recess for 10 minutes.

Yes, we're going to take a 10 minute break. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

OK, welcome back to the April 22, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. And when we left, we were trying to get a document online for viewing, but President Chesvena has a statement.

We understood, perhaps incorrectly, that the document that we asked to be shared that was referenced earlier an evaluation or analysis from the city attorney's office. It turns out that that's not what it is exactly. So it really, in my view, is not dispositive of any particular issues. So we are going to proceed. At some point, we may Since we have it, we may add it to the record. But at this point, we're going to move forward.

Thank you. President Trusvino, since we have such a high volume of speakers, what would you like the time to be? One minute? Two minutes?

How many do we have? About 30 or so in the room?

We have 24 in the queue.

If people could raise their hand and zoom so we know the count, there may be two.

I see three hands raised in Zoom. Does anyone else on Zoom want to provide public comment? You need to raise your hand. OK, people are starting to raise their hands.

I think we've had a lot of good testimony so far. And we've had public testimony in the record already. I believe that we should go with one minute, given the number of people who want to speak.

OK, so we have.

And also, can they fill out, there's a sheet over here if you're going to speak, if you can write your name on that.

So we can be accurate for the minutes. If you can line up against the wall and just move along.

Yeah, if you're ready to speak, you can just write your name there and then go to speak.

So if you could just line up against the wall, that would be great.

Thank you.

And then after. One minute, is that right? Yes. So you could just write your name and then go up. Now you speak for one minute, and then the next person. So please go ahead. And then Supervisor Sautter, you can come up. Well, we know who you are, but... want to make a note.

Tell me when I can start. Thank you all for having us here. My name is Mark Bruno. I've lived in North Beach for 36 years, working from St. Peter and Paul Church with St. Vincent de Paul Society for the poor and the unhoused. And many of those people who I've worked with, the poor, were in the Verdi building. One person who was in that building passed away, unfortunately. and unlike mr epstein whose letter you have attached to the appellant's brief is not going to be able to relive his life in north beach in those units because after 2013's fire the owners of the building never repaired it and i think all laws the law about replacing and going back to your apartment depends on good faith a good faith effort by the landlords i don't think that's what occurred here Because of that, what occurred was the failure to fix the building after 2013, inviting a situation that resulted in this fire. Online, it says that the National Fire Data Center, without residential renters, you have a 37% chance higher of a fire and a much higher chance of arson. And that's what occurred in this building, not the arson. But lacking residential renters, it was more likely to be a fire.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Welcome, Supervisor.

Thank you. And President Tresevinia, commissioners, good evening. Thank you for your time and consideration this evening. I'm Danny Sautter, the supervisor for District 3, which includes 659 Union. This property stands in the heart of North Beach at the corner of Columbus and Union, right across the street from Washington Square. And I can't stress enough how busy of a corner this is, across from the park near a very busy 45 bus line. Since my first day in office, the future of this site has been a frequent, frequent topic of discussion for me with constituents, departments, and property owners themselves. And that topic deserves robust conversation and community engagement, but it is a topic for another day. This emergency order is solely focused on the current dangerous structure. And as you have heard from DBI and planning, this demolition permit was issued with full knowledge of the full scope of work required to mitigate this imminent hazard. The clerical error in the on-land permits note was unfortunate, but it should not change the validity of the actual approvals. I appreciate all the other context, but the demolition and that permit is what is at hand here tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Welcome, former supervisor.

Thank you, President Trasvinia and members. I am indeed former president of the Board of Supervisors and District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin. I really appreciate the seriousness with which you're taking this and want to direct you to a letter written less than two years ago, May the 3rd, 2024, from the planning department, from Clarifini to the project sponsor five-page letter, which I will give you, and specifically directs the project sponsor to work with the previous tenants on right-to-return plans. That was known relative to the contention by DBI with all respect. How is it that when DPW shows up and says that this is an imminent danger, DBI all of a sudden, a year and a month after the previous information that it may be an imminent danger, agrees with DPW and does not even tell the SFMTA where there is a bus stop, that there's an emendator. Since that emergency demolition order, we had a 4.6 magnitude earthquake that woke many of us up in the middle of the night. Thank you. Not a brick fell off that building. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Baskin.

And I'll give this to you.

Thank you for signing the sheet.

I'd like to speak a little bit more about our supervisor who has been supportive of the demolition of this historic building. The amount of self-enriching dirty dealing in our district and fleecing of San Francisco that our supervisor has been consistently attempting to shove through out of sight from public scrutiny is outrageous. The scam he is trying to pull with the historic Verde building is an incredible injustice to our community and all of San Francisco. This building had 28 rent-controlled units and no construction should be considered for that location that does not include the same affordable housing that allows fire-deplaced tenants to return. And whatever is built there certainly should be in character with the neighborhood and not a behemoth eight-story luxury housing development in place of a two-story historic ready building located at one of the most iconic corners in North Beach. Our supervisor is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He pretends to be an affordable housing advocate, yet he's repeatedly setting dangerous precedents for destroying affordable housing, rent-controlled housing in North Beach, and this has precedential implications for all of San Francisco. This eight-story luxury house that has been planned is not affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Anthony Landis. I live at 575 Columbus Avenue, as displayed right here in this image. I'm trying to get the angle. I live right next door, approximately 15 feet from where the demolition was happening. I received no notice of this. My window was wide open. I know they were doing remediation for the dust and pollutants, but I could still smell things coming into my window, and I was coughing. I was shaken awake by a excavator tearing down this wall. I was rolled awake. It was not just a simple, oh, they're tearing down the wall, and it's a little bit of noise. No, I was moved, and then it was a loud grinding and cracking of stone and brick against brick just falling right outside my window. I didn't know about this, and I don't know anybody who did. And I was just getting conversationally talked to by business owners like, hey, you live there. And I don't know why no one was given notice about this. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Thank you, board members. I'm Apollo, a North Beach resident. I live within a block of the Verity Building. This is a letter from Dan Maccarini. Attention, SF Board of Appeals. Please be aware that several years ago in 2023, owners, along with their developers of the burnt-out Verity Building, request to attend one of our North Beach Business Association board meetings and make a presentation about rebuilding the Verity building. At that time in our meeting, they presented the plans, which also include the addition of a small restaurant on top and have no negative impact on surrounding views nor cast any shadows on Washington Square Park. The plan looked very good. We welcome their commitment to restore the historic character of the building, reestablish both former tenants and businesses since the building had been a burned out shell for many years. We voted unanimously support the plan. As they said, it was needed community support to go forward. However, years have passed and no action to take to rebuild the building. Thank you. That's time.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Thank you, commissioners. I live within one block of the Verde building, and I got my notice in the mail five days after the supervisor began to demo it, same day as that guy. This case is indeed about safety. We in North Beach do not feel safe with a supervisor who's willing to have a high-value historic resource declared an imminent hazard and then spend the next 15 months privately with a paid lobbyist and a luxury developer while our resources waste away and then have it declared beyond the pale, unsalvageable, in need of a total demo that would eliminate these rent-controlled units. We North Beach residents do not feel safe with Danny Souder as supervisor. If it's such an imminent threat now, if this is much of a danger when he was meeting with lobbyists and developers multiple times this year, weeks ago, please grant this appeal and please get the full picture of Souder's malfeasance and some real community notification of our options. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Dr. Sarah Lugar. I am a resident of North Beach, a property owner, and a landlord. North Beach is a unique neighborhood that attracts tourists and artists because of its charming architecture and historic character. Other neighborhoods in our city do not have this benefit. And we need to fight to maintain the cultural heritage that keeps us a tourist draw. Globally, many cities do incorporate facades into new builds. This has been a power and money play from the beginning to use these systems to demolish and totally gut the area. Facades can be kept. This is a solder ill will project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is Judy Irving. I'm a filmmaker. I made the Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill. Small business owner right near the park and right near the building. You ask what has changed. What has changed in the last year is that we have a new supervisor. And what has changed is that the developer hired a lobbyist and that that lobbyist met with that supervisor 15 or 20 times to design these semantics and get the politics working so that the agencies in the city would collude to approve this emergency demolition. It's wrong. It's unethical. It's unfair. We were not apprised of any of this. Please deny the total demolition. It's wrong. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

I'm Stan Hayes from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. This developer has had eight years to improve his property. Why has he done so little to safeguard it beyond the original shoring and bracing? Why was this building safe and without incident for eight years, but suddenly it's deemed an imminent hazard in 2026? Why was the demolition permit granted behind closed doors without public notice or community input? We'd all love to see the building rehabilitated and its life extended, but if not, Maybe the developer could go back to the 2023 plan, which retained the historic facade and had the support of the neighborhood. If you're going to deny this appeal and allow this demolition to proceed, please add some conditions. Maybe remove and save the historic bricks of the exterior walls and incorporate them into a new building. Complete remediation of the toxic materials, the dry cleaning fluids, human carcinogens, and contaminated soil. Thank you. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Scott Hayes, and I live at 757 Columbus. And no protections seem to have been put in place for the residents of our building. We received no notice. There were two days where our building shook, literally, far more than the 4.6 earthquake that same week because of the backhoe picking up debris and slamming it down. So I urge the board not to let any more demolition be put in place, to occur until protections are put in place. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Gina Stella Della Sunta. I'm a former inaugural San Francisco Youth Commissioner, a former member of the LGBTQ Advisory Committee to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and a twice recipient of the San Francisco Artist Grants from the San Francisco Arts Commission. I've lived in San Francisco all my life and in North Beach since 2020. I live on the block of 659 Union. I'm here first and foremost today to voice support for the remaining tenants at 659 Union and their right to return. And I also have to say, it is impossible for me to address this issue without referencing what this city government did to the Fillmore District and the Western Edition in the 60s and 70s. We don't need to repeat terrible history. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker.

And if you can fill out your name on the thing over there.

Hi, there. I'm Blondina Farley. And I'm an artist and tour guide in North Beach. I love North Beach. I've lived there most of my life. And I was there the night of the fire. And I just want to say that people come on my tours to see the beauty and history of San Francisco, and especially North Beach. So much community spirit made it through pandemics. And we've always come back resilient. This building, the promise is made to 28 tenants to return to their homes are now in question. Community-supported plans have been disregarded and efforts to designate North Beach as an official historic district continue to be pushed aside. And I just want to say, I can't believe that in 1849, St. Francis Church could be rebuilt, and in 1854, St. Mary's Cathedral could be rebuilt, but we can't rebuild Hold of the Sod and rebuild a relatively community-based building, once again, for these people to live. Thank you.

Thank you. And ma'am, did you write your name down for the? Thank you. Next speaker, please.

I just want to voice my concern about the economic impact of having this be a vacant building and an eyesore in the neighborhood. I'm a school psychologist working for the San Francisco Unified School District, but I also have an MBA and a degree in psychology. And just seeing the colossal inefficiency of how a landlord can be allowed to have one fire And then it's just carelessness that the same owner has another extensive fire and doesn't have to pay for that. But the economy does, because tourism is our major, major tax base in this town. And we're not going to have that if we have a big high rise in North Beach. Nobody's going to want to come.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Bridget Mailey. I'm a former president of the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, appointed by Mayor Newsom. I'm a 33-year resident of San Francisco. I have 35 years of professional experience in historic preservation. I've worked on and researched places ranging from Spanish-era buildings in the Presidio to William Worcester's iconic prototype Safeway in the Marina District. I support this appeal to revoke the demolition permit of this building. As your questions have unearthed, the imminent nature of this is in serious question here. To approve the demolition with no plan for replacement building and no plan for the displaced tenants sets a terrible, I repeat, a terrible precedent for the neighborhood and for our city as a whole. I ask you to revoke the permit. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

evening, Georgia Shudish. As I wrote in my letter about the developer not working with DBI on those permit applications for the restoration and the wall, the one wall to come down, in the meantime, they applied for the SDB, the state density bonus, before they got the emergency permit. And there's only 15 BMR units out of 89 luxury units in that building. What's the problem with that? The problem with that is this is the priority equity geography neighborhood. And that priority geography neighborhood is in section 249.97 of the code. And it's where the city needs to expand permanently affordable housing investments. That's in the code. This is the only public hearing that will be had because they've applied for the SDB. So it's all in your hands, unfortunately. And I hope you'll consider that, because it's very important for this site and this city. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Peter Kwan. I've lived in North Beach for about 20 years. I live about two blocks away from the site in question. We've heard tonight from a set of experts about the deterioration and the danger of this site. These experts have said that this building, what's left of this building, is a structural hazard. It's no longer viable for repair. It poses a serious risk to neighbors, pedestrians, transportation, and surrounding properties. I have sympathy for the former tenants. I hope we can find some way to preserve their rights. But right now, I hope you will pay give priority to the safety of the neighborhood and I for one I'm grateful for supervisor Soda to um to to make that of primary concern to make sure that the the neighborhood that people who live around there are safe thank you thank you next speaker please

My name is Hazel Gonzalez. I moved to North Beach to 524 Columbus a year ago from Montana, where I worked in construction doing remediation. I feel like a lot of what I heard today was misleading, and I'm aghast, honestly. I feel like making the tenants whole should have happened years ago. The beauty of this neighborhood was why I chose it after spending a week touring San Francisco. And these backroom dealings are not the politics I was expecting from San Francisco, from Montana. I'm worried. Thank you.

Thank you. We are now moving to public comment on Zoom. Zach, please go ahead.

I'm a 29-year-old living in the area, and I fully support the demolition of this building. I think it is a complete blight on the neighborhood. I believe after hearing today SFDBI's comments and the evidence shown, I think that they are correct in their statements that it is a danger to the public. And I think that they are the experts. And as the public, we don't have a lot of the insight into the inner workings of construction. And I think that because they work in construction every day, work in the planning department, that they are the experts and really know best at the end of the day. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is labeled as attendee guest. Please go ahead. You need to unmute yourself at

attendee guest there's no name okay can you hear me yes please go ahead okay i am an attendant who's been displaced by the fired 1656 powell 659 union the building that encompasses the verde building location i've never terminated my tenancy and the owners have still got my deposit I haven't sold or agreed to release my tenant occupancy rights. I have actually provided multiple notices of my intention to return since the onset of my displacement by the fire in 2013 and have been waiting for reconstruction to begin ever since. I ask that my rights to return aren't circumvented or demolished along with the remaining walls of the Verdi building. I have committed a substantial amount of time and energy over the course of the 12 plus years to ensure my right to return is protected. Please do what you can to ensure tenants displaced by fire, like myself, don't have their legal rights to return evaded or nullified due to delays and or changes in reconstruction or new development plans. I also fear that by not doing so, this could set a very dangerous precedent for fires in apartment buildings as it relates to the safety, security, and vulnerability of tenants.

Thank you. That's time.

I ask the board respectfully to please uphold fairness.

Thank you. Next speaker, please, Samuel Woodworth. Please go ahead.

I'm Sam Woodworth. I'm a homeowner in North Beach, and I'm here to urge you to vacate the demolition permit. The Verity Building is a very important historic resource and one of the most prominent locations in North Beach. And now, really to my shock, this stately treasure is to be demolished quietly with no public review that I'm aware of other than this hearing, which was secured by the diligence and really in some ways luck of concerned neighbors. This represents a really disturbing failure of public officials to involve their constituents in shaping the future of their neighborhoods. And to my mind, to me, to my experience, Supervisor Sautter's comments to the contrary ring totally hollow. The harm here would be irreparable. Buildings like the Verde building are part of the lived experience of the neighborhood, really for people far beyond the neighborhood, and they provide a deep sense of place. They're not fungible or replaceable, and demolishing these buildings demolishes continuity and history. And frankly, this is to say nothing of the jarringly out of scale and architecturally tone-deaf monstrosity, forgive my language, extreme language, but I think it's warranted, that's been proposed to replace the structure. So I'm just urging you to slow this down so that people can be involved.

Thank you. Next speaker, Bruno Cantor, please go ahead.

Oh, yes. My name is Bruno. I've lived in North Beach for over 30 years, and I definitely appreciate the charm that the Verdi building brought to the neighborhood. Two of my favorite restaurants were in the building. When the fire occurred in 2018, my son was a one-year-old baby. He is now nine years old. The burned-out husk of a building is all he's known for all these years. The Verity Building's time has come. It's time to move on, especially in light of multiple inspections and professionals who report that the building shell is in such a dilapidated state that it could fall down at any moment. I was struck in reading the submitted briefs that Public Works was concerned enough to not carry out utility improvements next to the building because of its perilous condition. The safety of our community should come first. I encourage the board to reject the appeal and protect the citizens of North Beach. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker, Catherine Petron, please go ahead.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm sorry I can't be there with you in person. I had intended to be, but couldn't make it. As a District 3 business owner and architectural historian who's surveyed and documented the buildings of North Beach, I respectfully ask this board to revoke the demolition permit. We ask that the board hold the developer to the past agreements and support the 2023 scheme, which would preserve the historic building facade. The Verde building is inspired by the classical architecture and it epitomizes North Beach. The reconstruction of the neighborhood between 1906 and 1915 was an epic triumph that is still legible in the buildings that comprise the neighborhood today. And this building has a critically important relationship to Washington Square in the way that a bland, new 10-story structure will never have. Elected officials say that, well, I have to skip ahead because I don't have a little time. Thank you, that's time.

OK, thank you. Is there any further public comment on Zoom? I don't see any, so we're going to move on to rebuttal. Ms. Flandrich, you have three minutes to just. There's a couple. We have one more person.

Yeah.

I don't see the hand anymore.

It's gone now. Thank you.

OK, Ms. Flandrich, wait, sorry. The phone number ending in 8243, please go ahead. 8243, you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. The phone number ending in 8243, your hand is raised. Please press star 6 to unmute yourself. OK, go ahead. You did it. I saw you were unmuted. Now you're muted again. Do you want to try it again? Yes, now you can speak.

This is Kathleen Courtney, Chair of the Russian Health Community Association. I call to the Board of Appeals' attention that you have a right to a unique de novo mandate And you have the ability, a unique ability, to direct the developer to proceed with its 2023 plan. The Russian Hill Community Association, along with our sister organization, the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association, to exercise your unique right. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any further public comments. Ms. Flandrich, you have three minutes to address the board.

President and members of the board, while the North Beach Tenants Committee obviously cares about public safety, either Supervisor Sautter and DBI have willfully hidden the deteriorated condition of the building from the former tenants and the public for over a year or have all of a sudden conveniently exaggerated the safety threat to eliminate the tenants right to return and the obligation to replace the 28 units. The community and the tenants rightfully feel betrayed by our city and elected representative. We are shocked to see the proposed new plan presented in the respondent's brief to this board and to the public for the very first time. A supersized 100-foot high luxury condo replacement structure here in the historic heart of North Beach will also cast shadow then on Washington Square. We only knew of the 2023 plans on file with Planning Department and have been anxiously awaiting reconstruction to begin. Those plans had the uniform support of our community that welcomed the project sponsor's commitment to restore the historic characteristics of the building and to restore both former tenants and businesses. Please remember also that this site is located in the Priority Equity Geographies, PUD, under Planning Code Section 249.97. Again, it is where the city needs to expand permanently affordable housing investment, where zoning changes must be tailored to serve the specific needs of the communities that live there, and where programs that stabilize communities and meet community needs needs to be prioritized. This hardly fits. In closing, please do not uphold this demolition permit unless you condition the permit on the following. A requirement that the replacement of rebuilt structure contain a minimum of 28 units that would be for rent and housing that is affordable to the tenants. just as those existed prior to the fires. Number two, the requirement that the displaced tenants will have the right to return to housing units on this site at rents that they can afford. And again, you just heard from one of the former tenants talking about security deposit is still in the hands of the owner. His commitment or his intent has been declared, his understanding of a right to return, and the promise of replacement housing. So lastly, number three, a requirement that the demolished brick and historic building material be retained and incorporated into the replacement or rebuilt structure. Thank you so much. I'm so happy that we got to have this public hearing, which is so important as so many are being left out of really important decisions. So thank you. Very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. You have three minutes. Thank you. OK. I noticed that someone in the chat has twice left public comment, and we advised you not to do it. So next time this happens, you're going to be removed from the hearing. Thank you. Sorry about that. Please go ahead. Three minutes.

Thank you, commissioners. I really appreciate the thoughtful conversation that this commission has been holding here. This is a very sensitive issue, a very passionate issue. And this type of conversation is completely appropriate for a matter like this in front of this board. I want to bring us back to what is in front of us, which is the approval of the demolition permit pursuant to the emergency demo order. And now the board, they have de novo authority here. The authority is within what the law says. And in this case, it's a relatively narrow question of, does this building pose an imminent threat to public health and safety? And I will reiterate that you all know we have two independent structural engineers that have both concluded that point. You have members of both of the senior officials at the building department that have signed off on that and agree to that, the experts here. And we've heard tonight that there's possible legal liability with this building in its current state. And that wasn't from us. That was from city officials. And we've also heard that, forget all the talk, this city right now is avoiding public infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of this building because of the danger that this building poses. And so this is all more justification for why the demo permit was issued. either in the appellant's brief, the public comment, or any discussion tonight, heard any sort of rebuttal or any other expert evidence or actual evidence from the site justifying why it should not be a demo permit, why a demo permit is not appropriate here. We've got a number of expert sources that have provided justification, but I haven't heard any actual evidence, technical, expert, or otherwise, that supports the alternative. And we have this on the public record. And again, I think it's challenging to make the findings in this case to not issue it. So I appreciate this board's careful consideration. I know it's not an easy issue, but I appreciate it. And thank you, commissioners.

Thank you. We have a question from President Trasvina.

Thank you for your presentation. And you come here a lot. And your presentations are very helpful, on point. I appreciate that. One of the things you mentioned was about that you commented at the beginning of your rebuttal about this was a good discussion to have here. Can you describe the nature of the discussions your client has had with the tenants, the community, in the past two years?

I appreciate those comments very much, Commissioner. I can't really speak in detail about the conversations with the neighborhood in the last two years. I've been focused on the entitlements as well as the emergency demo situation. So I apologize. I just can't speak to that.

So, and I guess then you wouldn't be able to comment on the testimony we've had about offering of a right to return and arrangements and existing rental agreements or existing deposits. That's unfortunately beyond your knowledge.

I can't speak to those specifics, no.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez?

Thanks. I'd like to close the loop on the city attorney communications related to the right of return. So I understand that you shared that, and it sounds like we may not, the folks who have seen it may not understand those communications in the same way that you You shared with us that you understand them. So can we just close the loop on that? Now it sounds like you probably had a chance to look at those communications again, presumably, when you were sharing them. From your perspective, what do they say? What's your client's takeaway from those communications?

I think the bottom line, there was quite a bit of analysis, but the bottom line conclusion is that there are no residential units that exist on this site as of today because the structure has deteriorated to such a point that in essence it was demolished by the fire and the time following the fire. And so there are not rental units for the purposes of the rent control ordinance, which is the ordinance that provides the right of return. I would also mention, Commissioner Lopez, let's just say, theoretically, in a world where there was still a right to return, this building very clearly would meet the standard of substantial rehabilitation under the rent control law. which I provided the standard before, it's more than 50% of the cost of a new structure. And so that in itself ends the application of rent control on a building as well that had previously been subject to rent control. I don't think that's what applies here, because our position is that the building already has no rental units and is not subject to the rent control ordinance and the right of return. But even if it was, there is a very clear aspect of the rent control law that would eliminate that rent control to allow for the reconstruction of the building.

And if the position is that the fire basically broke the obligation, are we referring to the 2013 fire or the 2018 fire?

I think we're talking about both the fires and the time that has passed and the current state of the building. But certainly, the two fires themselves are the but for. component of that conclusion.

When you say both, is that cumulative damage, or the 2013 standing on its own would have broken that obligation?

No, I don't think the 2013 on its own. As I said, the project sponsor's intent was to simply renovate the building at that time. The 2018 fire took it further, further deteriorated it, further damaged it to such a point where there's simply no building left. It's mere walls and a structure.

OK. And on the kind of preservation concerns that have been expressed this evening and then the briefing and public comment, what's your client's position or commitments, if any, with respect to preserving whatever is possible Are they to be interested in preserving in terms of bricks, facade? How are you guys thinking about that?

So the emergency order is obviously for the entirety of the structure there today. I'm glad you asked that question, though, because I think it goes also to what President Trasvino was talking about in terms of what's the intent? What's the further conversation from here? We are at such an acute point, both because of the emergency demo situation, but also because of the passage of time and the complications with this site because of these walls for the entitlement of a new building, that the permit holder really doesn't have the ability to have any conversation about anything because there is no project today because a project cannot be built today. And so what I want to say is that The demolition, the emergency demolition, opens up the opportunity for these conversations to be had again. I think we all agree that the permit holder has had conversations with the neighborhood. And we have been working on a project for the last five years. We're at a point where there's not really much to talk about because we have an acute issue in front of us. I would say with respect to what you just asked, Commissioner Lopez, To the degree there is a desire to reuse these bricks in a decorative way in a new project on the site, I would imagine that the permit holder is open to having these types of conversations. The permit holder had been talking to former supervisor Peskin when he was in office. The permit holder has now been talking with supervisor Sauter. We've got some interesting ideas of interim uses for the site in the meantime. All of this is just to say, permit holder is not in isolation, not working with people. They've demonstrated that they have been having conversations. At this moment, this is kind of the acute point that needs to be resolved to open that up.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from Vice President Soroyan.

Yes. I have a few, just a couple more questions. Thank you for producing the email. I just wanted to confirm, I didn't see anybody from the city attorney's office copied on that.

email chain is that your understanding the correct there was no city attorney cc'd on it we were told that the email was drafted in consultation with the city attorney's office

OK. All right. I'll take your word on that. I'm not sure. Anyway, all right. Is there any use to the building right now? I read somewhere that there is a parking lot on site. Is that generating a parking structure? Is there any revenue generated from the building at all?

So the site has two buildings on it. One is the one that has been subject to this hearing. There is a separate public parking auto garage on this site as well that is under operation and was not, to the degree it was damaged by the fire, it's still operating.

And I should ask you, is that owned by the same partners, the Powell partners? Yes.

It's all one single lot. So it's the same ownership group.

OK. So that is generating some income from the property. All right. And then finally, What happened to the 2023 plans that are on file with Planning Department? Why were those not addressed in the brief? Or what is the status in terms of your client's position on that?

I really appreciate the opportunity to respond to that, Commissioner. So thanks for asking. I think that what the... The public process we've been through in the last five years shows that this was not an owner that just said, let's sit on this and let it decay, right? They've spent significant amounts of money with architects, very good architects, by the way, lawyers, consultants, environmental consultants, trying to entitle a project. And what is happening on this site and what is so challenging on this site is between the walls that we all agree today that are historic, have historic value, The restrictions involved with that, the difficulties in terms of maintaining those walls in a new project, combined with the fact that the site's on the state Cortese list, which means the soil needs to be remediated, these all have come together to a point where we can't move the project forward in its current state. And so that is why, and in the meantime, the building continues to be in worse and worse situation, and that's why we got the first opinion in early 2025. So I think that's the best explanation I have for you on that.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Bodd?

Thank you. So there was a state density bonus application that was filed earlier this year. Is that right? Do I remember that correctly?

I'm sorry. In 2021, there was a state density bonus application filed to preserve the existing walls and reconstruct the interior. I think it might have had an additional floor. I can't remember. not much of an expansion if there was one. And that was what we've been processing for the last several years and hitting these road bumps in terms of trying to find a project that can actually get built. At the end of last year, or throughout last year, we have been working with the planning department. And the project sponsors have their architect draw up new plans that would be subject to the protections of SB 330, provide some ways to work through some of these issues based on the new state streamlining housing laws. But that has not been allowed to be put on file yet because the 2021 The 2021 project is still on file. And so we'd have to remove that. But in addition, we can't take advantage of that law without remediating the site first. And that's another one of these kind of we're stuck in the circle of, trying to get something moving.

So in both proposals, the one that was filed in 2021 and the one that is under development, there's replacement housing. Housing is part of the land use program on this site. Can you remind us what the unit count is in the 2021 proposal that's on file and ballpark what the current proposal that's in discussion, I guess, with former supervisor, current supervisor, some discussion with community. What's the net unit count for that proposal right now?

CHRISTOPHER KREBS- Commissioner Rod, let me say, I'm going to give you some rough numbers. I'm not standing behind these exact numbers. But this is my recollection. The building had 30 to 35 units in it when it burned. Historically, it had 30 to 35 units. One of the challenges with the 2021 project is that to meet current, we have to build it to current building code. And we were even having trouble fitting in 30 units in the, or 35, whatever it was, into the structure. And so we, and now we have state, a lot has changed in five years. Now we have state law saying you have to replace all of the units that are being demolished in a new housing project. So that was one of the critical issues that came up. So that was the 2021 project.

The project that- Sorry, 2021 was about 30 units then?

I think it was like 24 or 25. We could not get back to the replacement number of units.

Generously 25, retaining the historic masonry facade. And then you've been in discussion about an augmented, a larger program, development program at the site. What's the net? number of housing units?

I think we get to about 81 units. 89, I've heard from someone in the crowd. That could be right in the 80s.

Eighty-something units. And did I hear something like in the order of 15, affordable, accessible? What is the ratio? What's the composition, especially in terms of accessibility of the units in that new program?

There's technicalities about the state density bonus law. And it's also changed in recent years to allow for a full 100% density bonus, which is why we can go up to the taller height. But essentially, spread across the entire project, both base density and density bonus units, it's 15% affordable of the newly constructed units.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No further questions.

You can be seated. We will now hear from the planning department.

Okay, good evening again, President Trasvina, Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. I think a lot of the conversation and questions have mostly tonight been outside the purview of the Planning Code and the Planning Department, so I don't really have a lot to provide feedback on, so I will just be available for questions. The only thing I would provide maybe a little bit of information on though before that is in regard to the email that was referenced. You know, we saw that. And that did come from a staff person in our department, Kate Connor, who her position is to work with state laws and projects on housing projects. And that email was her communicating the city's interpretation of state law as it applied to this type of situation. I can't speak for the way the email was described by the permit holder, but my understanding is there was an understanding and a communication that where we land on our interpretations of state law, we definitely consult with our city attorney's office on that. Specific city attorney communication is privileged with clients, which to us, I mean, generally, Their communication is not shared publicly unless they choose to share it. We all choose to share that publicly. So I just wanted to provide that context, which is the information that was provided in that email was the city's interpretation of state law as it applies to this property and other projects in the past like it, including the 2558 Mission Street project that we referenced before. So I just wanted to provide a little more color on that, but otherwise I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez has a question.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. So based on, and I'm not sure if you're in a position to disclose or not, but based on that communication that you saw or anything else that you've been able to review from planning's records on this, to the extent you've been looking at materials at your chair, Can you convey any kind of conclusion or perspective from planning or from your colleague as to whether the right of return would be applicable given the current condition of the building?

I don't think I would be able to add more than earlier, which was from the planning department's perspective, we're going to rely on the planning code and then the state law as it applies. Again, the planning code does not have a first right of return provision that's applicable to this project. And that communication was there to show that the state law doesn't apply in that way either. The remaining source of that requirement would be the rent ordinance. which, again, is not an ordinance that the planning department interprets or implements. OK, thank you.

And then kind of a corollary to a question that was asked of DBI in terms of timeline, if this appeal was granted and they had to reapply on a non-emergency demolition basis, what would that look like from a planning perspective If this came before you on a fresh application, what would that timeline look like?

Sure. And just to make sure I'm understanding the context, if we were thinking of, let's say the fire happened more recently and this was the first time. They're coming in now and they're applying. for a new project. Part of that's going to depend on what kind of project someone's applying for and what they qualify for, theoretically, again, like under certain state laws. Because there are some state laws that give you streamlining that allows processes to move faster. And whether or not the project will qualify for those laws depends on the project itself. And I think the applicant referenced, some of those are dependent on certain levels of remediation. And it's hard to know. I don't know how long the remediation would take either. So that's hard to say. I would say that it would not be super fast. We're looking at nine months to a year and a half total, depending on the kind of project application that they submitted.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Abad?

Thank you. Good evening. Can you just remind us what the historic resource evaluation status of this structure was? I understand that because of the emergent structural conditions of the building. It provides for demolition irrespective of whatever the you know, to class A, class B, but could you just, like, high level, what, you know, what is the status of the building? What does that status accord it in terms of some of the procedures we're contemplating tonight?

Sure, thank you for that question, Commissioner. I will happily defer that question to my colleague, Rich Sucre, who is joining through Zoom. He does coordinate our preservation review, and he has a much better understanding of the preservation context and history for this property.

OK, Mr. Sucre. I previously saw him. Oh, okay. Here he is. Please go ahead.

Hello, board members. Can you hear me?

Yes. Welcome.

Welcome. Apologies. So, yes, the planning department defines this as a Category A historic resource. It is designated, or I should say it is currently classified as a historic site.

Hi, Mr. Secre. This is Commissioner Bodden. Thanks for that response. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit more on that? So there's sort of like a designation or an evaluation of a site versus the architecture versus like fabric of a building or maybe notable historic events that might have happened in a place. What is historic significance can mean a bunch of different things. Could you specify a little bit what that does mean for this particular location?

sure so it would basically be analyzed if we were to be receiving any type of discretionary permit it would be classified as a historic resource under the california environmental quality act the building obviously is well known for its architecture an assessment of the property was done and offered in its current state so recognizing that it's kind of a ruin So that falls within our classification of a site using our basically state and federal guidelines that analyze historical resources. So we noted that it's individually eligible, mainly for architecture, as well as association with events such as the neighborhoods, Italian American history. And so we currently have that as part of the record. Thank you.

OK, thank you. Vice President Soroyan has a question.

Yes. Well, Mr. Sucre or Mr. Teague, so if the building is demolished and flattened, what does that do to its status as a historic site?

So I'm happy to opine on that. It would no longer be a historic resource. Since there is no longer a historic site or object there, if it's demolished, then we would no longer have a historic resource. So the site would get reclassified to a category C.

OK. And then so because there was this emergency demolition notice order, basically the status, and just I'm trying to understand here, the status as a historic site was set aside based on the imminent threat. Is that a correct? Correct. Accertation? OK. Correct.

So in this case, we issued a statutory exemption that was related to DVI's determination as basically qualifying for an imminent hazard in this instance.

And that was the CEQA? Correct. CEQA exemption document? OK. OK. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I don't see any further questions. You can be seated. We'll now hear from DBI.

Good evening, Commissioners. Kerry McElroy, Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection. DBI's main responsibility is to protect the life, safety, and health of the citizens of San Francisco with regards to building safety. DBI feels it's important to note that the emergency order to demolish the building remains in place. We believe this building is an imminent threat to public safety and anticipate a new permit to be filed as required by the emergency order. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. I don't see any questions at this time, so you can be seated. Commissioner, is this matter submitted? One second. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Lopez has a question.

Thank you, Mr. McElroy. Can you, we had some discussion in public comment about whether, for example, the MTA was notified of the imminent danger associated with the site. Can you speak to that? I mean, it sounds like if this reached the tipping point of imminent danger earlier this year, and given that there is the, The bus stop there, that seems like it would have been something that would have occurred. Could you speak to that?

Mr. Chung? Jimmy Chung, interim deputy director. Once MTA has moved that bus stop up a block or back a block, but they have moved it, it's temporary. It's going to expire, but they're just going to renew it to move it. So, yes.

But specifically with respect to communications on the part of DBI, it sounds like we understand that it's a high bar, you know, it was considered for some time and it finally kind of reached that, passed that threshold. Does that then trigger a kind of notice or heads up to other departments to say, hey, we've we've declared this thing in imminent danger and respond accordingly?

Yes. The relevant departments were notified of this, and they know about it. Yes.

OK. And I know that there's other representatives from the department, it sounds like, online and maybe also in the room. Is there anyone within? Maybe I'll extend it to Mr. Ting as well. Is there anyone in the room from the city that can speak to the rent ordinance and its impact potentially on this site? No. OK. OK, I think that's all I have. Thank you.

We do have questions from Vice President Soroyan and Commissioner Bodd.

Actually, is Mr. Louie here? Raymond?

Yes, he's online. He's on Zoom.

Oh, excellent. Hi. Good evening, Mr. Louie. Are you available? Yes. So what I heard from Mr. Chung was that you were the fresh set of eyes on the site visit for the building. Could you share with us, in your opinion, what classified this as a serious and imminent hazard to justify the demolition permit? We've heard that from a couple of people, but you're our city engineer, and I'd like to hear from you.

Sure, sure. So first off, this is a three-story brick building, right? It's unreinforced masonry, and brick buildings have been known to not do too well in earthquakes. What we have in this case is there is no roof diaphragm. So that means there is no out-of-plane resistance up at the roof level. The third floor diaphragm is largely gone. There's a little bit of pieces left on the edges, on the, I guess, the east and west ends. And then the second floor diaphragm was a little bit more intact, but largely gone as well. I also observed a significant amount of burning and charring of the wood that is still in place. There's some dry rub, there's some water damage, obviously. And then there's a little bit of water left in the basement. The shoring that was put in place, the rakers, basically, diagonal braces were... uh decent um but they only held the middle portion of the building right so the other portion of the building wasn't really held the roof level also was not held in place um the the shoring was anchored uh into a surface mounted dead man um and basically giant concrete blocks um and You know, it'll do a decent job, but I think in the case of significant vibrations, whether the vibrations are caused by an earthquake or by a large equipment excavating next to it, I felt that it was, I didn't feel comfortable putting my people in to investigate the basements. as part of the Public Works project that we have going down Union Street. I think Jimmy mentioned earlier that Public Works has a project in the stages of design right now that runs all along the entire Union Street from Lyon all the way down to Columbus. um this is a paving and sewer project um and when my guys came to me and said hey uh do you think we should go into this building i said what building um and i took a look at the building i said no we're not sending our people in there um not for the sub-saharan basement investigation that we need to do and so i told the project manager said hey you know what uh stop your project uh at at uh at powell street or maybe even further up um let's not mess around with this building

OK, great. So what does that exactly mean? I understand it's a public works project, but what are they doing? Ripping up the street, and they'd have to go into the basement so that they could dig? I mean, what are we talking like,

Yeah.

Major construction equipment that's going to vibrate it and you're afraid the building is going to fall down. Speak to me in layman's terms.

Sure. Absolutely. That's a great question. So a vast majority of the project is to put in new sewer pipes and then put new paving in. So that requires excavating to get to the old pipes. I shouldn't say replacing. Some is replacing, some is repairing and so forth. But we've got to excavate down to get to those. Pipes and the way we normally do excavation is either With sheet piles which are vibrated into the ground which causes vibration in the in the ground and that vibration permeates over all over the Intent to the neighboring buildings and we usually take a very very great care when we're around these older brick buildings. In fact, our specifications actually pinpoint or spell out that if you're near a brick building, we have to do monitoring of that building to ensure that we don't get significant vibrations. Now, the complication on this particular site is that there are also – as part of this paving projects, we also do accessible curb ramps. They're not currently under – meet code requirements, and we go and rebuild those curb ramps. And so as part of this project, we would have been doing curb ramps that are over the basement of this building. In other words, this building actually has basements that extend under the sidewalk, right? And so we would need to potentially demolish a portion of that roof in order to execute the construction of a new curb ramp.

Thank you so much. That was very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Abbott.

Yes. Thank you to Mr. Chung and Mr. Lui for bringing to our attention that the city's infrastructure project is impacted by this site being in this sort of delicate and sensitive condition. That didn't quite come through in the materials that we were able to review in advance, and that's a significant consideration. We want our city infrastructure to be upgraded and so forth. So I'm still not hearing, and perhaps DBI and DPW engineers can help me understand, Why it seems like this is being characterized, preservation of this historic fabric, is somehow a technical impossibility. There is environmental remediation that needs to happen with soils on the parcel. There is excavation and other activities that need to happen in the right of way in order to execute on our public infrastructure project or projects. But what I'm hearing is that the current shoring strategy was old. It was maybe hasty, and it's inadequate even now. Like a seismic event or a wind event, like the current shoring that's keeping this pile of rubble up in the air is inadequate. So I'm curious from city engineers, either DPW, DBI, is further shoring something that is that something that can be contemplated? I mean, it does not seem that demolition is the only option, technically. And so I wonder if either department have a perspective on that.

So if I may, before Mr. Chung chimes in, shoring is intended to be temporary. I think that's the first and foremost thing that you've got to think about. Shoring is intended really to kind of help the structure to kind of withstand a little bit of load. I usually refer to shoring as a life preserver, right? So most humans can float in the water, but shoring kind of helps you flow a little better. And so that's what shoring does in this case. It kind of holds it all in place. But in this case, actually, it's the only thing holding it in place, right? Yeah. And so that's why I was reticent in terms of trying to allow my folks to go in to investigate the basement. I think, you know, it depends on the operation. I think Mr. Chung referenced my search and rescue experience. If we were trying to rescue somebody right now, a live person, absolutely, we're going in, right? But if we're trying to long-term do something, then maybe it's not so much. And so I think you have to look at in terms of time of exposure, duration, and risk factors when you're looking at something like this. And so, you know, as time has gone by, the risk gets higher and higher, especially when the wood that's inside it continues to basically fall apart.

Ray took the words out of my mouth. Nothing. I do want to just add that the shoring is temporary. And it's just to stabilize the building for when new construction goes in. And you heard that there was a permit filed in 2021, 2023. So we dealt with this. We accepted this temporary shoring because we thought there was going to be a building coming through. It hasn't happened. So what we're saying is this temporary shoring And you heard from the project sponsor that it's going to cost $3 million to do permanent shoring. And what does that give you? You're not going to have a building there.

There are degrees of intervention. There is a type of shoring. There's a shoring strategy in place. I think I heard earlier that diagonal bracing is really only addressing the middle of the structure. And because there's been deterioration of diaphragms that help with shear and all of this, there hasn't been any other shoring that has been undertaken, it seems, to address the risk and the degradation as that has progressed over time. So I'm just observing, I mean, do we know when the current shoring structures were first installed and have they been augmented since then? Was that 2018? 2018 when the first shoring was installed, yes. Nearly a decade. Okay.

Thank you. President Trusvino?

Thank you. I was not planning to ask you any questions, but Mr. Louie's testimony about this infrastructure project surprised me. One, because it's literally at the last minute of this entire hearing. We've got hundreds of pages of material. This is the first time we're really hearing the importance and the significance of it, and it's clear from the questions from my colleagues that we should take this into account. But what I'm wondering is, when did the, the way it sounds, and please correct my impression, it sounds like DPW was just about to get, was just getting there, and then they said, oh, we better not do this because of the nature of the building. How long has this project been planned, and how is it that nobody really said anything about this until March?

The project has been planned. I can't tell you when it was started, but it came to my desk around the summer of last year.

So had anybody gone out to look at this location in the planning of an extended infrastructure project?

I don't think any of my staff went out there, but other public works engineers did go out there, too. And when they came back, they asked me, are you going to send anybody in here? And I looked at some of the pictures, and I said no.

And that was in when?

My recollection is the summer of last year, 2025. Oh, so...

So DPW has been aware of the dangerous nature of the building since last summer?

Yeah. OK, thank you.

OK, no further questions. Thank you. So Commissioner, is this matter submitted?

Well, I want to thank everybody among all the various departments and the residents, the project sponsor, and the appellant, everyone who has really moved quickly for this proceeding and this hearing. And I think there's still a lot of questions. We have questions about the right to return, questions, I think, about what the nature of the imminent danger is. And for me in particular, I've heard the project sponsor, at least in the record, since 2020 saying there's imminent safety risk. And then 2025 imminent safety risk. And since last summer, DPW has known about an imminent safety risk. Normally, I would say, you know, we should go back and get our questions and get the best, give everybody the opportunity to give us answers. Except we're talking about an urgent situation. We're talking, everyone's saying it's a dangerous building, etc. So where I am right now is after reading the material and hearing from everyone tonight, I would vote to grant the appeal tonight rather than go out and get more information. Now, if my colleagues, and I'm always informed by my colleagues, and my colleagues need more information and we can't decide this tonight, I'm certainly open to that. But what I'm hearing is a property owner who is asking for extraordinary procedures, a property owner who has stated its imminent danger. And based on that, based on the imminence of the danger, then notice goes away, a variety of other considerations go away. The property owner gets a separate process in light of the imminent danger. And yet, there are a lot of questions about the imminence of the danger. a lot of questions about, well, if it was imminent, that means we've got to act quickly. That's the reason why we held this hearing early, because we wanted to act quickly. We're conscious of the risk and certainly more informed now than we were going into this proceeding. But there are more and more questions about how imminent it is if the imminent has been That card has been played by, and I say that crudely, and I know this is a serious subject, but that's been stated by the property owner since 2025 and even before. And then we drill down and say, well, what is it that makes it an imminent safety risk? The type of things that are described are either things that have occurred already. Like I say, oh, it's the fire. It's the second fire. Well, those things occurred in 2013 and 2018. And then as well, the accumulated damage over a period of time because of the rodents, because of the weather, because of the deteriorating conditions of the substance of the wall, the ability now to be able to potentially pull a brick out of the wall. But those seem to me to be the things that were in the control of the building owner. And we are now at a point where, because of this long delay, the building owner is saying, we've got to move quickly. We have to act urgently. And left out of this equation? are the very victims of the fire from 2013 and 2018. Let's proceed in a way that addresses whatever nature of danger there is or whatever danger there is and the risk. I would hope that the city, in the same way that MTA was able to move the bus stop, take a look at other ways in which to address whatever risk there is for a period of time to have in place of this permit, a process that respects the right of the neighbors, the right of the tenants to be able to be heard. And that would also give the city attorney, the rent control board, the departments, the permit holder, the neighbors, the tenants, to be able to determine what is the status of this right to return. Now, I lauded the permit holder's attorney's presentation. But what's disappointing to me is that they said, well, we can't really talk about the new building, or we can't talk about people moving back into the new building. It's not ready yet.

Well, there's been a decade of reliance

by the original tenants upon the ability to move back in. Up until 2024, they were talking about buying out the rights of the tenants and acknowledging. So even if it's not a, my initial question was, is there a statutory right to return or has the, property owner created a right by acknowledging it and allowing the tenants to rely upon it. So I think that if this can be, my preference would be to grant the appeal and to really encourage everyone to move quickly to address these matters and have a subsequent application for this with the typical and regular procedures rather than the expedited one that we have before us. Vice President Soroyan.

Vice President Rosvenia, I certainly agree with pretty much everything you had to say, but I am inclined to actually asked for a few more points of information before I'm prepared to vote on this matter this evening. And I can be fairly articulate about what that is. But I think that this doesn't happen very often in the city. From what we heard, it happens maybe once a year. And I do think that there are some very important safety concerns about the building. And I don't want to minimize those at all. But I also understand that we've uncovered quite a bit today. So I would like to... dig in a little bit more. And the top of the three items, and this is for your consideration and my colleagues' consideration. Number one, absolutely, I would like to hear a little bit more about this right to return. I'd like to hear from our city attorney, understanding that there is some confidentiality and privilege, but I can't take it at face value. So I'd like to know about that. I'd actually like to hear. what the property owners and developers, if they would like a second chance at maybe perhaps having a plan, if the building is demolished, what might they do? Or what are the considerations that go into some of the existing tenants? Whatever the outcome is, I think I'd like to hear. I'd also like to hear a little bit more from DBI. I truly am a little frustrated that it took into the third hour of the hearing to finally understand the city's perspective from DBI that we are doing major construction and we can't go into the building. So I don't remember reading that in the materials, but I'd love to give DBI an opportunity to inform this board about what the project is, how long it's going to take, and why this demolition of the building is critical to the success of the project. So I think those three items I need more information on to vote.

Commissioner Bott, in a second, I do want to thank Vice President Soroyan for your comments. My, not a rejoinder, but my observation is I would, I agree with you on the importance of those points. I am solely looking for the quickest vehicle for there to be a final determination. If it is a continuance on, and the matter stays here, I'd want to map out how long that will take, if it's sending it back to DBI for a different type of hearing. And everyone knowing these are the kinds of things that are important to the Board of Appeals, and they could hopefully anticipate and address them, I would want to see if that was faster. So I'm open to making sure that we have a place for your concerns and answers. I'm just wondering, and I don't have a final decision about What's the fastest route?

And the one other element I wanted to speak about was you had granted an expedited hearing based on DBI's request. And that would also, a little bit more, maybe it's a week or two, it would allow the appellants to perhaps get their own independent expert testimony counter, mitigate, present to the board.

Commissioner Abad. Thank you.

For my part, I actually, as a consequence of this hearing and testimony that we've heard, don't have questions about the imminence of the danger. This thing is an unreinforced pile of bricks that borders three public streets and is a sensitive structure in its current condition. So yes, it seems imminent. The wind could blow. The earth could shake. Those two things happened with extremity in recent months. And so we're concerned about that. But I guess what I'm also observing is that the structure is in its current imminent state of ruin because there has not been, it seems, in the record or the testimony, proactive responses to the ongoing degradation of the fabric of the asset. So I just have questions about that. I could speculate why the project sponsors didn't seem to address that or to forestall the degradation. So we wouldn't necessarily be having this kind of conversation today, I think, if perhaps there was a different kind of diligence exhibited by the owners of this property. So to President Transviña's point, your point, President, about what's the decision before us tonight? Do we grant the appeal? Maybe that means we can get to more constructive, transparent discussion that has a just outcome sooner. I don't know what the soonest path is. Or maybe there's another... option, which is to condition the permit. I'm thinking about what the appellant has suggested both in the initial presentation as well as in their rebuttal, which there are kind of three ideas. One is about justice and sustainability for the living, surviving former tenants. There are only a few left, as I understand. Some thought about the historic fabric and how it might be retained or new architectures speak to it. I don't know. There's a bunch of different design strategies, maybe, and then keeping the old facade And then there's an idea for a unit for unit replacement. But some gesture towards balance and justice, I guess, are the words that I keep coming back to. And it seems achievable. It might not be inexpensive or I'm not in the depths of the pro forma. And God bless the folks on the project team who have to do that. But I haven't heard enough tonight to convince me that bulldozing this thing tomorrow is the only option. I just am not convinced. So whether that means it's a continuance with a request for more information or a conditioning, you know, of some sort before we leave this room, this building tonight, I'm not quite sure. I do know that I am, I agree that we haven't gotten a sufficient analysis about the the ordinance and how that impacts right to return and how we somehow get around that because of the physical danger that's presented by the state of ruin at the site. So I want to know more about that and potentially would have more legal analysis. But even if we did, to me, it doesn't absolve us of having to think about what the obligation was and maybe currently still is to folks who are displaced by fire. Thank you.

Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you. I'll share my views in a second, but I guess I have a point of information. Maybe I'll start with Mr. McElroy, if you can come back up for a second. I'd like to understand, and then I'll turn to our deputy city attorney for a similar line of questioning, but Mr. McElroy, from your Understanding, do you know if DBI would have been in a position to add conditions to the permit?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay, thank you.

The emergency order was issued, and that was it.

Okay, thank you. And then to Mr. Minardi, can you comment on that? Thank you, Mr. McClure. Can you comment on that at all? If we'd be able to place conditions at this point?

So I would defer to DBI in general, but I would say that if the permit is essentially effectuating an emergency order, I don't think you would add additional conditions to the permit.

Thank you. So yeah, hopefully that helps us think through what we have on the table here. But my view is that ordinarily, I'm inclined to trust the experts, to trust the representatives from DBI, from DPW, by way of The testimony and what we have in the record, however limited, I agree it was limited, but there are a couple of references to DPW's activity and then we have the testimony that, MTA even moved the bus stop. And so I don't believe that this is something that would be the subject of a conspiracy to align the various city agencies to find an emergency if one didn't exist. I think we've heard testimony that it is a high bar in that It was a close call from the very beginning, at least from the perspective of one of the representatives from DBI. And that meanwhile, another representative says, just by looking at pictures, we're not going in there. And I appreciate that there can be differences of opinion. I think it's good if the city stays nimble enough to change its view. on questions like this, particularly when they relate to critical issues of public safety. And so I'm generally inclined to support the department's position that it is an imminent threat. With that being said, I think the fact that this has taken over a year to reach that conclusion and that we haven't heard with specificity what's different now compared to the 2025 reviews of the site, I think does point to the fact that it's a close call, given that it's a close call with the lens that I applied to this situation, I think the right of return is of central importance. I think the appellant dealt with that issue in a very robust way. I think the permit holder, I felt like it was a little bit more, at least in the briefing, a little bit more dismissive out of hand. It was just like, hey, this doesn't apply. Unfortunately, we don't have a full consideration of whatever communications the permit holder or appellants or anybody else may have received on this question with any kind of conclusive legal determination from local and state legal questions that may apply with respect to tenant's rights. And to me, if it was that close of a call that it took DBI several months, perhaps upwards of a year, to declare an emergency state here, and if we do have testimony that this could potentially be dispositive in terms of getting rid of a potential right of return if it exists. And so I don't feel comfortable supporting a denial of the appeal on that basis, even though ordinarily I think I would. I think I would defer to the experts. And I think we heard that testimony from Mr. Louie, who I think very quickly made that determination based on a very, I think, high level review. And so in my mind, I would love to have that question answered, whether it's by more briefing or sharing on the part of the permit holder or the appellant on that question, whether it's in the form of having a representative from the rent board or some more time to have either DBI or planning present on potentially with the assistance of the city attorney's office on just what questions remain, if any, with respect to the existence of a right of return. But given how close of a call it is from the experts, as evidenced by the time that it took to reach this conclusion, if it's really dispositive for a potential right of return, I don't feel comfortable with denying the appeal just yet because I do think further to Commissioner Abad's comments and some of the comments shared in public comment as well, I think we face a danger of creating a moral hazard and not making any kind of allegations one way or another about the permit holder. But I do think that that possibility exists for someone to sit on their hands and say, hey, let's wait this out. Let's wait out the right of return shot clock. And you look up 10 years later, and due to that deterioration over time, the right of return lapses. I don't want to create an incentive for that. And I'm worried that if we deny the appeal and proceed on the emergency basis without having that completely flushed out, I think we do have that danger of failure. setting up a system that reinforces that moral hazard possibility. So I would like to continue to get some more briefing on that specific question.

So if I hear my colleagues correctly, We want this resolved. We want more information. There are a lot of interests and equities. The highest one being safety. Some question about whether, not so much the safety part, but the imminent part. The imminent has been known for over a year. It calls into question how imminent is imminent. But it sounds like my colleagues want to continue to hear more on the right of return. And perhaps in, well, sort of giving the property owner the opportunity to rethink their thoughts on The right to return is extinguished because of the nature of the building and not giving value to the statements and the reliance that has been built up over a decade. And perhaps there might be some, as we, I think, probably continue this matter, give the people who are on the other side of the dais some opportunity to dialogue and come up with some solutions that will address the valid and heartfelt concerns that have been expressed in writing and orally and over Zoom. So I would entertain a motion to or I will make a motion to continue this matter and I would like to get my colleagues enumeration of what matters we want to hear and from whom and set a date. We had an earlier date when this was scheduled. Once I hear what those matters are, we can see whether it's realistic to set a date. that previous hearing date for the continuance, assuming we have a majority that is in agreement?

It was originally scheduled for May 27th.

Okay, May 27th. Vice President Soroyan, what's your thought?

Yes, I'm in agreement with a continuance.

It sounds like we're in an emerging majority to pass the motion to continue. With that assumption, what matters do my colleagues want to hear about? Right of return, legal analysis from the city attorney, and then the city attorney can decide what departments are going to weigh in as the client matter. Do we want to hear from the parties? We do want to hear from the parties on that same issue. What else do we want to hear?

I think Commissioner Bodd, please go ahead. Okay. So right to return. If the appellants want to get an expert testimony about the building, give them an opportunity to do that. And let's see, what was my, oh, I actually would like to hear a little bit more from DBI about the master plan for the construction that is impacting the building.

I'm sorry, DPW. More from DPW about, can you say that again?

About the scope, the nature of the project, what does the time mean of it? And if the building is not demolished, what are they going to do?

OK. Commissioner Abad.

Yeah, I'm interested in what the project sponsors. And there was allusion to it tonight, but there were scant on specifics about what this future project that we can't get to. I'd just like to know more about what their orientation is to the neighborhood. It's been referenced that there's been community engagement over the years. This isn't the first time. That's tied for me, I think, in understanding intention and possibility with regard to the surviving former tenants. 15% of 85 units, so we go from 30 units to 85 units, 30 units in 2013 to 85 units at some future date, 15% of which are affordable. That's half of the, what is that, 12 out of 30, 12 out of 24. I don't know. I'd like to understand a little bit more about what the thinking is and what the community engagement heretofore or between now and our next hearing, what that renders in terms of the attitude of the project sponsor. And I'd also like to understand, similar to that, what intentions there might be, what's possible in terms of retention of the historic fabric. We've just been told it's too expensive to keep up. and I'm sure it is very expensive to integrate and run reinforced masonry facade into an entirely new development, but we've seen it done all over town. So I'm curious if when we reconvene, we'll discern any movement on either of those three issues, and I think that those are going to impact, I think, how I respond at that time.

Mr. Lamar, does that...

I think I have everything. So Vice President Soroyan, do you want to incorporate then? Or who's making the motion? Let's start off. It would be who? I can make the motion.

Yes, I'm making a motion to continue this matter until May 27th. And Ms. Lamar, if you could reiterate back to us what the additional criteria is for the rehearing.

so that the board can get a legal analysis on the right of return from the city attorney and the parties, and so that the appellants can have an opportunity to hire an engineer to evaluate. the property and so that the board can get more information from DPW about the scope, nature, and timing of their project if the building is not demolished and what will they do. I'm sorry, what was the last point for DPW? If it's not demolished, what's the impact on the project, I believe? Yes. And then four, adding from Commissioner Bodd, more about the plans for the future project, taking into consideration tenants and the historic nature of the location. OK. That's the motion I have, President Trasvina.

Could I just add one thing? Mr. Green, welcome back.

Thank you. Matt Green, deputy director. Just could you, as part of your motion, could you insist that the property owner secure the building? We consider this an unsafe building. And if it's going to be a month, there was already evidence of squatters there. So I'd like to ensure that the building is secure and nobody's getting in there. I don't know if that's in your authority.

Doesn't the department have that power anyway?

Yes, I do. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. I want the building secure. I do not want anybody to get hurt.

We can put it in our motion to direct the department to do that.

Well, I'll defer to Jessie.

Yeah, I mean, we can't compel them to do it, but we could request that DBI compel them to provide some fortification for safety.

Take all measures necessary to secure the safety of the building.

Yeah. OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So.

Yeah, just one thing for us to consider in terms of timing. I think we have a meeting on the week before on the 20th. And given that, I mean, we've got a massive record that we went through. And there is a lot of testimony about the conditions of the building. I'm wondering if, given that we have a more limited focus for this next hearing, if we might consider the May 20th meeting rather than the 27th.

We can certainly consider. I think we also, before we vote, we want to make sure that the parties are available for May the 20th.

And would this be a single issue hearing again?

No. We have a few other. We have one, remember the massage permit revocation, that case, as well as one other case, I think, involving an excavation permit.

In the interest of The parties and the time and the safety issue, let's start with May 20. And are the parties available May 20? Great.

I use a paper calendar. And so I don't have it with me right now. So I would need to check for that May date.

Well, let's proceed with that May date. You have so many people here who are able representatives that really want to make sure that you are here. But we do need to now, in the interest of expediting this, everything you can do to be here on the 20th.

Of course. I just did not want to commit to something that I don't know that I can commit to.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Is the project sponsor available? Yes.

OK. Yeah. OK.

Within the motion, do we want to set times that the materials are made available to us and to the parties?

Yeah. Typically, they would be due the Thursday prior to the hearing. And we should specify, it doesn't have to be part of our motion, but how long the briefs that are permitted on this matter.

I think because there are so many different issues, I think it'd be just a guess to put a page limit on it. So I think I'll leave it up to the parties to

Well, I mean, we should put a limit on it. So 12 pages, like our typical briefing?

Well, I don't know. How many issues do we have? We've got right of return. We've got alter.

OK, if you want the brief longer, that's fine. I mean, typically, it's 12 pages. But when we continue it, typically, we either allow for three, sometimes six.

I realize that, but the reason we are continuing this is because we are desiring information, and we're desiring information because of the important stakes that are here for everybody. So I have faith that both sides and the city agencies will not bombard us with a lot of long brief, and I don't want to put a page limit on it.

Well, honestly, I respectfully disagree with that, because when one side submits 75 pages and the other side submits 20, they're going to say, well, the other side, you know, I think we should put a limit. Not to exceed 20 pages? 15 pages? I'm just trying to make the process fair so everyone knows what they're coming into.

It's a fair process because they both get to decide how much they want to tell us. And they also can guess that we can be overburdened with material that when it's overburdensome or when it is burdensome, we're less able to focus on it. So I think that's true with all kinds of litigation.

Okay, so no page limit then. Okay, so we have a motion from Vice President Soroyan to continue this matter to May 20th for the reasons previously stated. The briefs will be due the Thursday prior to the hearing by 4.30 p.m., so that would be May 14th.

And Commissioner Abad has asked to be recognized.

Thank you. Would it be reasonable to say maybe a 10-page narrative exclusive of addenda? I would like to get a packet where each party succinctly lays out what it is their points are with supporting documents, but maybe no more than... eight or 10 pages for their statement. The page limit not including attachments, because they're diagrams of other things that we might want to see.

My experience on this board is that the parties know how to sneak in a lot of stuff into the attachments and that the page limit is of limited value of presentation. And I think the parties have heard pretty clearly We want responsive material. We don't want a lot. I will leave it up to their judgment. In this case, I do realize we have a tradition of page limits. I don't think in this case the parties will abuse their ability to provide further information. And we can take that into account, whether it's in the body of the narrative or whether it's in the attachments.

So on Vice President Soroyan's motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. President Trezeguina? Aye. Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

Okay, that motion carries four to zero, and I'll send an email out to everyone tomorrow, and I will include in our minutes and in the email the request that DBI impose fortification requirements on the permit holder.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lamar, and there's no further business before us tonight. We are adjourned.