Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

OK, good evening, and welcome to the May 20, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvina will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan, Commissioner Jose Lopez, Commissioner Robin Abbott, and Commissioner Lily Wong. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minardi, who will provide the board with any needed 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. From the planning department, we will have Corey Teague, the zoning administrator, Rich Sucre, the deputy director of current planning, and Xinyu Liang, principal planner for District 3. From DBI, we will have David Kane, the interim director of DBI. Matthew Green, Deputy Director of Inspection Services, Jimmy Chung, Professional Civil Engineer and Interim Deputy Director of Permit Services, and Carrie McElroy, Senior Building Inspector. From DPH, we'll have Bill Chen, Professional Engineer. From DPW, Ray Louie, Principal Engineer, and Javier Rivera, the Manager of the Private Sector Permits. Also from DPH, we will have Jennifer Caliwert, Director of Environmental Health, Megan Ryan, Deputy Senior Attorney representing Department of Public Health, Michelle Vega, Principal Environmental Health Inspector, and Ivy Phan Phan, the Code Enforcement Investigator. 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 the seven or three minute periods. For cases that have been previously heard, the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. 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 one or 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 boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. SFGov 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 click on 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 937-8430-5988. Again, SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're 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 one 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 that 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.sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. If this rule is violated, you may be removed from the hearing. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. 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 have 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? Thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. And I want to note that we do have an overflow room in the North Light Court portion of City Hall if this room gets too crowded. So we are now moving on to 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 not on tonight's agenda? I don't see anyone. OK.

My name is Mark Bruno. I attempted at 311 today, the phone number that you call for many city services. I had to call three times to get your phone number. I unfortunately didn't have it, and they couldn't find it. They had to go to a supervisor. They have all these other offices, commissions that say the word appeal in them, but they couldn't find yours. Finally, a supervisor did find it. You might want to clarify your phone number with 311 so people who want to call up the Board of Appeals can get a hold of you. Thank you.

Thank you. We will do that. Is there any further general public comment? I don't see anyone. 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. I think our protocol is not to respond to public comments, but Mr. Bruno, thank you for bringing that to our attention. It is of importance that we be accessible to the public, so we want to follow up on that, and I want to just welcome everybody here tonight. We have three items before us. Two are continued from earlier. It is likely that we will take a break before we go from the first item to the second item. So if you are part of the second item and you want to watch from downstairs, you will be able to do that. And it's heartening to see so many people here. We know that these matters are important to you. We've done our work. We've read the briefs, the supplemental materials, and we look forward to hearing from the parties, hearing from the public. to be able to provide answers to the questions that are presented. Colleagues, is there anything anybody wants to add? If not, I'll turn it back to Ms. Lamar. Thank you.

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 29, 2026 MEETING, AND I NOTE BEFORE THE HEARING PRESIDENT TRUZINA REACHED OUT AND PROPOSED AMENDING TWO SENTENCES RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT SEROYAN'S DISCLOSURE THAT ARE FOUND ON PAGE 4 UNDER ITEMS 5A AND 5B UNDER THE SECTION ENTITLED SPEAKERS. The first sentence under speakers needs to be amended to correct the name of the law firm. It should be the Mitzel Group, not the Mitchell Group. And for the second sentence, President Trasvina proposes that it be modified to state, quote, she stated that as part of that job, she performed a discreet assignment with unrelated work in November 2025 for the firm that represents the permit holder, Patterson and O'Neill. And I note for the record that, end quote, I note for the record that Vice President Soroyan agrees with these changes.

So we would need a motion to- I move to adopt the amendments as amended.

Okay. Is there any public comment on that motion to adopt as amended? I don't see any. So on that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Vice President Soroyan? Yes. Commissioner Abad? Aye. Commissioner Wong. Aye. So that motion carries 5-0, and the minutes are adopted as amended. So commissioners, prior to moving on to item number four, the appellant for item six, appeal number 26-020, would like to make a request to continue his appeal to August 12, 2026. He will have three minutes to address the board, and the permit holder and departments will also have three minutes each to respond to the request. So welcome, Mr. Bethel. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Neighbors on Homestead Street submitted a formal request to postpone this hearing, following up on a suggestion by the executive director. Department of Public Works undergrounding coordinator Eric Thrasher requested by email dated April 24 that the honorable board postpone this hearing. His rationale for postponement involved utility undergrounding, postponing temporary new overhead utilities while a Rule 20B petition is pursued. In particular, he was waiting for the city attorney's office to help him interpret and apply Rule 20B because he didn't have any experience with it. It's so rarely invoked in San Francisco. The city attorney's response was moving slowly due to the retirement of the knowledgeable attorney last July and to a vacation. We submitted our Rule 20b petition two weeks ago without waiting for the city attorney. The city attorney has not yet authorized DPW to tell us who's working on this for the city attorney, so we don't have any particular guidance. To briefly review, Rule 20 covers three approaches to undergrounding utilities. Rule 20A funded 42 miles of undergrounding utilities before it ran out of money five years ago. Rule 20C applies to developers. Rule 20B applies to Homestead Street. It requires us to pay a substantial part of the cost of undergrounding. Just submitting our Rule 20B petition required us to pay a $10,000 application fee to PG&E. We submitted our 20B petition within a month of stumbling across PG&E's plans for new primary voltage utilities on our street. The projected timeline for submitting a petition is four to six months. We proved our ability to move quickly. We propose that you postpone this hearing to August 12 to allow the Board of Supervisors to declare Homestead Street an underground district. In an underground district, new utilities will go underground. DPW's position that sering should be postponed is well-founded. As a second independent reason to postpone, we cite Section 808 regarding street trees. I have three pictures to show why PG&E needs more time to meet the street trees, to meet the requirements of Section 808. 808 regarding street trees.

He paused the time. It's still unclear, so.

OK, well.

OK, that looks good.

OK.

I have three pictures that show why Rule 808 applies.

The first picture, is from PG&E's application, but it's submitted to the DPW. It shows poles that are clearly in the drip line of trees. Those poles are right underneath trees.

The second picture shows the condition of the actual tree.

This is where the pole is now. The plan that I held up just a second ago calls for that pole to be moved between the two trees as opposed to going straight through the tree as it does now.

Thank you. That's time.

OK, thank you. We have a question from President Shasvinia and then Vice President Soroyan.

Mr. Beff, I have a question about your date for proposed continuance is August the 12th, and you stated it's to give the Board of Supervisors an opportunity to take an action. If they don't take an action, can the appeal go forward, in your view, or would you want it later?

Yes, then the appeal can go forward at that point. I think there are compelling grounds why the appeal would be granted. But yes, I think giving the Board of Supervisors until April, August 12, to act is sufficient time. We've been working with Renal Bejoie in Supervisor Mandelman's office. Thank you.

Vice President Soroyan? You have one more question, Mr. Beffle. Mr. Beffle, one more question.

Hi, Mr. Beffle. Thank you so much. I thank you for your pictures. They're large. It helps. So let me ask you this. Do you understand why there's opposition to the continuance?

There has not been any opposition to the continuance. We have the Department of Public Works having supported the continuance in the email of April 24th. We've had complete silence from PG&E. There has not been any written objection to the postponement by either DPW or by PG&E and there have not been responses to six emails from the executive director to PG&E asking about a continuance.

So no response rather than an objection.

No objection to postponement that we've heard.

OK, thank you. OK, thank you. I do believe there are some PG&E representatives here tonight. Is any PG&E representative in the room or on Zoom? Raise your hand. They said they were going to be here.

Hey, my name is Felix Gonzalez. I'm a little unfamiliar with Zoom and don't know how to use the raising hand option, but just wanted to make everyone aware that I am here online.

Okay, great. You have three minutes to address the board. Do you oppose the continuance request? You have three minutes to address the board on that question.

Sure. Do we oppose the request to delay this hearing? Yes, we do have a Rule 16 request Request that we have to try to get done through construction aside from Mr Ernie Bethel's Rule 20 application, which is still in the application process. Part of the Rule 16 job that we are trying to. that we are trying to get done involves a replacement of three poles, an installation of a new pole, and which is why we requested the excavation permits. Those are aside from Mr. Ernie's Rule 20, and it is our position that Ernie's Rule 20 application is outside of this Rule 16 job. Therefore, it holds no bearing. And we are mandated by the CPEC to deliver on this Rule 16 in accordance with the OIR, which pretty much means that we must get the job done in a timely manner. We also do have somebody from our Enterprise Public Works Department, Chandra Shah, and I will allow him to add on within those three minutes.

Okay, what was your name, sir?

Felix Gonzalez. I'm the Service Planning Manager.

Okay, great. So now we're going to hear from Chandra. I guess you guys are sharing an invitation, so please go ahead, Mr. Shah.

Hi, yes, this is Chandra Chow. I'm the permitting supervisor with PG&E for San Francisco. The only thing I have to add to Felix's comments is that I agree that we are not in agreement with Mr. Bethel's request to reschedule the hearing just for the sake of getting this work done for the Rule 16 customer. And I'll ask that, you know, the hold on the DPW permit is lifted so that we can resume said project.

OK, are you finished? At this point, you're just addressing the request to reschedule. So do you have anything further? You have one minute on that issue?

Only in addition to that, I just want to also refer to the fact that the excavation permit was revoked and placed on hold at the request of Mr. Bethel's appeal that we just don't think was done properly, just given that the excavation permit is a ministerial permit and the reason for which it was appealed just holds no bearing for what the excavation permit is for.

Okay, thank you. Are you finished? Yes. Okay, President Trasvini has a question.

Thank you. Either to Mr. Gonzalez or the other speaker. You mentioned Rule 20 and Rule 60. We have our own rules. And one of the rules is that permit holders respond and file briefs. Can you explain? I'm trying to evaluate the reasonableness of your request to deny the continuance request. And I'm wondering what's the reason why PG&E did not file an opposition to the request or an opposition to the merits of the appeal, or as I understand it, respond to our executive director. If you know.

You know, I'll take that. And, you know, I do apologize for the non-responsiveness to the appeal request. our reschedulings but uh we were a little unsure this is the first time we've encountered this and you know i'll be honest here i was a little unfamiliar this unfamiliar territory for me and we didn't really know how to respond uh all we really knew is that we had to uh state our opposition to any delay in getting this permit issued so that we could deliver to the customer for the set rule 16 project

Well, no matter how we roll on this request, I encourage you to get in touch with your government affairs office and be responsive to our requests.

We'll make sure that happens in the future.

Thank you. Commissioner Abad.

Thank you. To the folks on Zoom, Mr. Gonzalez at PG&E, the infrastructure that is being replaced, these transmission lines, what's the typical lifecycle of these? Are we talking about a project that occurs once every 20 years, every 30 years?

I'm not sure I understand that question.

The scope of work involves replacing transmission lines and electrical poles. Is that fair to say?

Yes. Specifically with this project, the reason we are replacing such infrastructure is because of the added load, and we want to increase safety and reliability in that area.

OK, safety and reliability project. And so after a project like this, what is the lifecycle? When would the enterprise agency need to come and service these facilities again? What would you anticipate? Is this something that happens every two years, every 20 years?

So I'll be honest, that's a little bit out of my expertise. What I do know as far as the infrastructure and the maintenance cycles, I believe that poles are at age 30, they're due for an inspection, but we do inspect on other cycles that I am unfamiliar with, but I know that they do happen frequently. Thank you. I don't know if that answers your question.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Is there a representative from DPW? Welcome. You have three minutes to address the continuance request.

Oh, sure. Thank you. Good afternoon. So I'm Javier Rivera from Public Works, the permitting section. So we do support undergrounding, and we would assist with any applications coming in for undergrounding any utilities. However, we do not have the authority to mandate undergrounding when we review an excavation permit. And because of this, everything that was submitted to us by PG&E was compliant. They provided the required information in a timely manner. It was basically approved within 24 hours originally. So we do, in general, we can't say that we can tie this mandate to underground to the excavation permit. And because of that, we recommend that we not continue this to a later date.

OK, thank you. I do see a question from Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. So I'm sorry, DPW does not recommend?

We do not. No, we do not recommend it continue. So originally, the request did come from us. And as we were speaking to the city attorney, we did find several things. So again, we would be supportive of any undergrounding. But the current permit is issued. We cannot legally mandate undergrounding to that permit per Article 2 of the Public Works Code.

Did you communicate this change in position to Mr. Beffle?

We did through the brief that we submitted to this board.

OK. But when he was in front of us, he wasn't aware of that.

Correct. Which seems problematic. OK. Understood.

Folks, we can't have the door blocked for fire reasons. So if you can stand on the other side, there are some seats.

So when then did the position change?

It was shortly before the brief was finalized, actually. The city attorney is continuing to work on the Rule 20 and how it applies to the city and how we could help with that. So we don't have that's correct. We do not have a definitive answer there. But as far as Article 2 of the Public Works Code, we also have to apply that. And this was a compliant application.

I see. Could you accommodate the August date?

We could. We could. I do have to say, and this was in the brief as well, that we do open ourselves up to the potential of lawsuits if we extend this or try and mandate it through something. Because there are franchise agreements that exist between the city and PG&E and other utility companies. And basically, we do not review whatever is on there. So if CPUC has allowed them to do certain things, those items are not reviewed by Public Works. We basically are there for the public right of way and to ensure that it's restored properly and that it remains safe during construction.

OK. Thank you so much. OK, I don't see any further questions, so you can be seated. Is there any public comment on this request? So commissioners, you have the option of taking a vote on this request or not taking a vote. If you don't take a vote, then we will hear this matter last on the agenda.

Thank you. I'm interested to hear my colleagues' views. My own impression is that given the absence of PG&E and its inability to respond, any substantive position they have would only be available starting now, and it would only orally rather than in writing. And I think it deserves our process to have that kind of a proceeding. So I would support the request to August the 12th. Vice President Soroyan.

I concur with President Tresvena. I think it's a matter of fairness. We don't have anything in writing, which is according to our rules. So if PG&E failed to submit a brief after six emails from our executive director, we don't have the written matter in front of us. We only have oral testimony. So I'd be inclined to support the motion to continue.

Commissioner Wong.

I also concur. I think there's also a lot of information missing. When you asked the question earlier about, or sorry, when Commissioner Abbott asked the question earlier about the process, the people on the line didn't seem to really understand how things worked. And it would be helpful for PG&E to have more experts to speak with us.

Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks. I'm also interested in hearing where things land with the opinion or the viewpoints that DPW is waiting to hear back from the city attorney's office on with respect to Rule 20 interpretations. And I'm inclined to rely on that missing information Just for the record a little bit more than you know giving the opportunity to any party to submit a brief that Submitted a timely brief But but I do think that there's enough kind of gaps in missing information that Makes it so that Continuance would be appropriate

And I do think we want to accommodate the Board of Supervisors as well. If they take an action between now and August the 12th, then we certainly should be aware of that occurrence or lack of occurrence by then. So I would move to grant the continuance to August the 12th.

OK, the PG&E did miss their briefing deadline. Do you want to allow them to submit a brief? Usually we don't do that, but maybe in this case it's worth it to get the information.

Yes, I do want them to. I want all sides to.

To re-brief the matter?

To re-brief the matter. OK. It only disturbs us if we insist that they've missed their time.

OK. So we have a motion on the table from President Trasvina to continue this matter to August 12 so that the parties can provide new briefs on this matter. And so we can also hear, wait, so we can see what happens with the Board of Supervisors regarding the undergrounding. SO ON THAT MOTION.

JUST ONE POINT OF INFORMATION. DID WE WANT TO PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE ON THE LENGTH OF THE BRIEF? ON THE WHAT? ON THE LENGTH OF THE BRIEFING.

I THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST START IT NEW BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T EVEN SUBMITTED AN ORIGINAL BRIEF. KIND OF RESETTING THE PROCESS. SO ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER LOPEZ. AYE. VICE PRESIDENT CERROYAN. AYE. COMMISSIONER ABBOTT. AYE. COMMISSIONER WONG. THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THIS MATTERS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 12. IT MEANS THE PERMIT IS STILL SUSPENDED AND YOU CAN'T DO WORK UNDER IT. I WILL REACH OUT TO THE PARTIES TO LET THEM KNOW THE BRIEFING DATES. MR. BEFFLE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED A BRIEF. YOU CAN SUBMIT A NEW ONE AND PG&E CAN AS WELL. THANK YOU. THIS MATTERS CONCLUDED FOR TONIGHT. YOU CAN LEAVE. We are now moving on to item number four. This is appeal number 25-059, Jing Wang and Liang Wang versus Department of Public Health, subject property 3446 Balboa Street, appealing the issuance on December 19, 2025 to Richmond Serenity Spa of a DPH director's order, revocation of a massage establishment health permit and imposition of administrative fines for solicitation of lewd conduct or prostitution and engaging in lewd conduct or performing sex acts. The business owner shall be ineligible for a massage business permit for five years from the date of permit revocation. This is permit number 120465 for further consideration. Note on March 25th, 2026, upon motion by Vice President Soroyan, the board voted three to zero to one. Commissioner Lopez absent to continue this matter to May 20th. So that one, DPH can provide a revised transcript of the underlying DPH hearing that is transcribed by a person. to DPH can provide a copy of Sergeant Robert Glenn's recording of the incident, which allegedly took place on June 17, 2025, and also so that Sergeant Glenn can attend the hearing via Zoom or in person. The board further directed that the recording and revised transcript be provided to the appellants And the board allowed for supplemental briefs that primarily addressed the revised transcript, the officer recording, and the penalties found in San Francisco Health Code section 29.45 , and section 29.45 , and the extent to which those penalties are discretionary or mandatory. So as a preliminary matter, Commissioners Lopez and Wong, have you read the materials and watched the video for the hearing that took place on March 25, 2026? Yes. Yes.

Yes, I did, and I'm prepared to proceed.

OK, thank you. So we will hear from DPH first. Welcome. You have three minutes to address the board.

Good evening, Commissioners. Commissioners must decide whether Richmond Serenity Spa's DPH-issued massage permit should be revoked due to a worker's lewd conduct and sexual solicitation of Sergeant Glenn during a June 2025 undercover operation. The essence of Appellant's argument is that Sergeant Glenn is a liar. At the last hearing, commissioners asked for the police audio and a better transcript of the underlying hearing. This evidence supports Sergeant Glenn's sworn testimony. In the audio, the masseuse tells the sergeant to take it off and responds to his question if he should get naked. It is quiet as he gets a massage. Around minute 22, the sergeant asks the masseuse, how much? She says 60. He says 60? Is that good? While appellants say that 60 means an extension to 60 minutes of massage, it's illogical. That would be the answer to the question, how much? Sergeant Glenn then immediately gives the signal to have his team call him, pretending to be his wife so he can exit. His team misses the signal, and he gives it again seconds later. He then says he has to go pee to try to stop the encounter. The call comes, and he says he has to go, but the Mizzou says, I'll help you real fast. There's only one plausible explanation for that statement. The sergeant declines and leaves. The audio confirms the solicitation, The audio corroborates the events described in the incident report and sworn declaration. Appellants have never produced their two workers to contradict this testimony. Appellants' attack on Sergeant Glenn are speculative, don't concern whether he tells the truth, and are not supported by the evidence in this case. There are also dozens of online sexual service reviews about the spa from the past five years. They come from multiple websites and dozens of different reviewer names. There is a lot of detail, including the repeated information that the masseuses at the spa start with a massage and end with a hand job. PD looks at these. Appellants do not dispute the relevancy of the reviews, but argue they are fake. But the volume and detail of the reviews suggest otherwise. Appellants' credibility is also in question, including a sworn statement that approximately 400 women were customers since January. Numerous community members state otherwise. The community is deeply worried about this unlawful business. Finally, commissioners do not have authority to decrease the remedy of 5-0 permit revocation for lewd conduct because this was set by the Board of Supervisors in a 2018 amendment. It applies even after one incident. It applies when anyone engages in lewd conduct in a massage business, no matter the kind of certification the worker has or doesn't have. DPH has enforced this for years. Businesses shouldn't have a permit for massage when they actually offer sex. Sergeant Glenn is here to answer questions. And we also have Acting Lieutenant Antonio Flores of SFPD's Special Unit here, if you have questions. Special Victims Unit.

OK. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Yes, Vice President Soroyan.

Yes. Good evening. So I wanted to ask you, based on the additional citations that you added to the brief, and if it is your belief that there are some other things going on there, have you referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution as well as referred the matter to, let's say, the code enforcement team that would normally pick something up like this?

I cannot, the city attorney's office obviously is aware of this matter. I can't tell you what the conversations between the city attorney and DPH have been about potential civil enforcement. That's just privileged. And as for the district attorney, I am not sure of the answer to that question, whether that has been referred or not. Though I believe, you know, I don't know. But that's only a good question for the police.

Okay, I mean, I guess the reason I'm asking is because, based on your brief, it really rise to a level that is beyond the scope of DPH's statutory guidance if there are, if it truly is a, let's say, as you purport, you know, a regular place where people are having illicit activities. And there's also a reference in the brief to the San Francisco City Attorney Investigator on 10-27-2025. I believe that that city, number one, it wasn't provided. And number two, that date of the investigator, there are several citations there, is 10-27-2025, which predates the original hearing. So I'm curious as to, number one, where is this report, if you're referring to it in your brief, and number two, why wasn't this provided to us in the original hearing date if that evidence is so conclusive of what's going on here?

I apologize for any confusion. It's not a city attorney investigator report. It's the date the screenshot of the online website reviews was taken.

But it says 10-27-2025, screenshot by San Francisco city attorney investigator.

So those are the screenshots that we have, and I'm giving you where they came from.

I guess I'm not hearing an answer to my question, which is, this predates the original hearing. If this evidence was so conclusive, why wasn't that presented to the board as part of your brief on the first pass, not the second pass?

Oh, you mean when we were here in March? Correct. Sorry, apologies. Got it. To be honest, I would say that was partially my misunderstanding, that I thought we were limited to the evidence that had been discussed below, and that there was a de novo, like one would be in a court of appeal and court review of the evidence, but not that one could essentially bring in new evidence. And now that it's been clear, which that the accusation is that Sergeant Glenn is lying, I wanted to give the, the department wanted to give the board everything we have.

Okay, but it sounds like somebody from the city attorney's office was investigating this particular established as late, or as early as 10-27-2025.

I can't confirm whether we were investigating or not. I can tell you that there was a screenshot taken then. And I'm authenticating where the screenshot came from, because it could be that that screenshot doesn't exist as of today's date. So I'm just trying to give you the date of the screenshot and where it came from.

OK. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. President Truskino?

Thank you for this additional testimony. Just following up on Vice President Soroyan, All the extra internet stuff and the reviews, how long has DPH known about what they say is the conduct of this spa?

There have been concerns about this spa for years.

I'm sorry?

There have been concerns about this spa for years.

Can you be more specific?

They're since 2021, I believe.

And how many times has DPH gone to inspect the place in the same way that they did in, I think, June of last year?

Oh, DPH did not inspect. That was the San Francisco Police Department that did an undercover operation.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about when the SPA was informed about the police undercover operation. Who informed them of that?

They were informed by the Department of Public Health via a notice of violation.

Right. And as I recall from the last hearing, that visit was not inspired by the police undercover operation. It was a regular, it was described as a regular visit and inspection.

No, I mean, I think it was directly in response to the information from the police department about the sexual solicitation and lewd conduct. When they went to the department, they gave, sorry, when they went to the business, they gave them the notice of violation.

Well, that may have been where the SPA was first informed of the police undercover operation. But the testimony from the last hearing was that it just happened to be a month later, that there are regular visits by DPH.

Can I bring up DPH to answer that? I just would rather we hear it directly from the source.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners. Michelle Vega with Department of Public Health. We marked it as a routine based on our inspection report. Although it's noted on our inspection report, this was in reference to SFPD incident report, and we've stated the incident report that we were referencing to on our inspection report that was dated July 15, 16, 2025.

Okay, so I'm glad you're here because I recall it was your, you're the substantive person on this. Was it routine or was it out of the ordinary because of the police undercover operation?

It was marked an error. We should have addressed it as a referral from SFPD. It's unfortunate our investigator at that time marked it as a routine on the inspection report, but our primary role to do this investigation at that time was to issue the incident report, issue the lewd conduct that occurred that SFPD had discovered during their decoy operation.

I'm happy to be corrected. either by my colleagues or by others on your department. But I am pretty clear that when we asked about this, when I asked about this last time, the city said it just came up. It would have come up maybe later so that this was a routinely scheduled visit. My question really is, I wasn't planning to cross-examine you about that issue, but how often are there routine visits?

We have roughly 159 general massage establishments in San Francisco. We do two routine inspections annually. OK. And we also do a complaint-based.

That's my answer. My answer is two a year.

Yes.

Would it be accurate to do the math and say there are probably eight inspections from 2021 to the one where they got the notice of violation?

Yes, roughly. And if we receive a complaint, we do additional inspections as well.

Okay. So at least eight?

At least eight, yes.

And are you – I have another question, but I'll wait for the officer or directed to him. I guess my other question is whether you – examined and determined there was not a problem on all the other incidents that have been described, that have been provided for the record?

Can I answer that? Yes. Are you referring to what other incidents are you referring to?

I'm referring to what you have provided in the supplemental brief, which is years and years of of very vivid descriptions of different massage employees, masseuses. And you're telling me that DPH has been concerned about the operation for years. I'm just wondering whatever happened to all those concerns?

Yeah, and I should clarify that these cases are hard for DPH because in order to really, DPH does not advance and issue a notice of violation simply because of an online review. They need more evidence than that. So they need police cooperation on these cases, and they depend on police to be able to go in and do an undercover operation. And frankly, as I said in the brief, it's been tough recently because we had the pandemic, and then we've had severe police staffing shortages. You can ask police about that. So the city, frankly, just hasn't done as many of these undercover operations since 2020 as they were doing prior to that time. So DPH does not enforce unless it has more evidence and just online reviews. It needs the harder evidence, like the police undercover.

And for Sergeant Glenn, is he here? He's on Zoom. Is he available for a question?

Yes.

Yes, sir. Yes. Sergeant, thank you. I have a question about your testimony at the underlying hearing. And it's on page 223 of the materials that have been provided to us. In your testimony, you referred to I know that Serenity, I will quote SFPD officers who have conducted their own investigations. I quote, I know that Serenity Spa would be an illegal brothel in a location where illegal prostitution occurs. This is based on investigation I personally conducted, conversations with other officers, and a review of incident reports. So my question to you is, What? What? What review? What other incidents have there been?

There was a prior incident. I believe it was in 2023 where an undercover sting occurred as well as looking at those ads that were provided. I believe the city attorney's office provided those two to you as well. And furthermore, taking statements from people in the area and complainants in the area that provided us information.

So so when you say based on investigation I personally conducted, what was that?

I researched the Internet ads. I spoke with people that live in the area that were the complaining parties in regards to that evidence was provided to me by those parties and I researched that evidence. That they provided to me.

And is that part of the record for this hearing?

I have no clue as to what was provided to you.

And I will just say I think there are a fair amount of people here for additional public comment tonight.

OK. And the other question I have for Sergeant Glenn is, what is the purpose or use of the audio tape in your investigation and the underlying proceeding?

What is the purpose of the audio tape?

Right. Yes.

It is a recording that can be used as evidence. I don't really understand the question that you're asking me, to be honest.

Well, I listened to it. I know my colleagues listened to it. It's 26 minutes long, and I'd say for about 23 or 24 minutes, it's dead air. And I'm wondering whether it is in that... Does it serve its purpose, or was there a problem with the... audio tape that kept it from providing more information?

I don't know what more information you could be looking for. In a massage, generally, it's quiet. You're not talking through a massage. The audio recording provides you with the person asking me for confirming the $60. It provides you with the person telling me to get naked. It provides you with when I'm trying to leave, her saying that she will help me quickly. So I think that it did serve its purpose. I think it provided several amounts of evidence.

All right. I was disappointed with the quality of it, but if that's what it's intended to do, then that's what it's intended to do. And I wanted you to clarify what its intention was and what it achieved. So you have been able to do that.

And one other thing, sir, sorry, and the other thing that it provides is officer safety, right? We have a very small team that does these operations, and this allows them to hear inside, and we have safety words that we can use that would indicate that they need to come in and rescue me because I'm in there by myself. I'm unarmed, and yeah.

Well, I agree that's a very important purpose, but it didn't work, right?

What do you mean it didn't work?

well as i as i read your testimony you can one of the issues that the the the company brings up is that you say they're too long in their in their view and the answer you have given or at least the city has given is that your colleagues didn't hear you when you said the important words they didn't hear you 14 seconds sir i said the two prompts within 14 seconds and they responded to those prompts that's pretty fast OK, well, actually, I thought in your testimony, or what was provided, it said that they didn't hear the first one. But I'm just trying to get a sense. That's correct.

That's correct. They did not hear the first one, so it was given again. Within 14 seconds, they called me, and we were able to end the operation.

Right. I'm not questioning your good work. I'm just trying to get a sense as to whether the taping was what was desired and whether it was effective. And you've given me that, and I see my colleague, Vice President Soroyan, and my colleague, Commissioner Abad, have questions as well. Vice President Soroyan.

So there is better technology out there. We just don't have it.

First of all, Sergeant Glenn, thank you for being available today. I had a question. What is the normal protocol? From what I understand, you are the one and only undercover police officer for a massage parlor. So what is your normal protocol with a sting? If you could kind of walk me through how it works, because I'm curious as to what happens at the end for other stings that you're involved with.

It depends on what the target of the operation is. If the target of the operation is to do code enforcement with the Department of Public Health and with the city attorney's office, then it is very similar to what occurred in this, where we go back, we write a report, and we move forward. If the target, if the idea is that we're going to, it's, something more we think that there's human trafficking occurring in the location we have done operations where we send in decoys and we already have a search warrant prepared for the res for the it's usually a residence we have a search warrant prepared for that residence and once the decoys are inside we're able to gain entry without having to force entry and we conduct operations that way

OK. So I'm curious as to why, in this particular situation, no arrests were made if there was active solicitation and something beyond a massage.

So that is a misdemeanor crime. I am by myself in there, and as I testified to, there's additional people in there. It would not be safe for me to try and effect an arrest. Additionally, on this day, the staffing that we had available was myself, Officer Stuckey, Sergeant Lyons, and Inspector Flores. So that the four of us alone would not be enough to conduct an operation like that where we were to arrest people. And furthermore, the goal of this operation was to gather evidence in regards to the violations to conduct more research. And we did conduct more research after that.

OK, because I thought from reading your account and the hearing, it was fairly quiet in the business establishment. Perhaps maybe only two therapists were there. So there was more police officers than massage therapists. So I guess your answer, which is more your target here, was city DPH and city attorney. Would that be fair?

No, I don't agree with that. As I said in my police report, I heard male voices coming from one of the rooms. So if you're saying there's just two massage therapists, so it'd be two massage therapists and at least one other male person. When we conduct operations where we're going to raid, with quotes around the word raid, a location, we want to have a two-to-one ratio, at least. Usually we want to have a three-to-one or four-to-one ratio.

OK. And then just if we can go back to the charges themselves. In your training, when does the act of solicitation occur?

So solicitation is when a sex act is agreed upon and there is an act of furtherance. So you agree to sex or a sexual act, which could be manual stimulation, oral stimulation, vaginal sex or anal sex. And then there's an act of furtherance, which would be a money exchange and or the person showing up to a location to do that act.

OK, so if the act of solicitation occurs, do you usually, I mean, my reading was that the service was performed. I really don't want to go on the record using a lot of different descriptive items. So I'm going to say you made the deal, service was performed. Is that normal to have the hand job done? It wasn't.

It was absolutely not done. So I don't know where you read that. It absolutely was not done. She grabbed my penis. She grabbed my penis, which is a sexual assault because I did not want it. So she was not done. So just because Paul Horcher is saying that that happened, it did not happen.

Okay. Well, I think that's important for us to know.

That did not occur. Paul Horcher is, I don't understand how he still has a legal license. He's a liar.

Okay. Thank you. That answers my question, Mr. Abbott.

Thank you, Sergeant Glenn, for being with us this evening and able to answer some questions. I am also just trying to better understand protocol. Do I understand correctly that you are part of the Special Victims Unit? Yes. That's right. Okay, so the SVU and... So for good reason, which you mentioned in your brief and some other hearings and other times that you've spoken on the matter, at the time that the incident occurred, you weren't able to provide victim's information to the person in the room with you. You were trying to protect your identity. You don't want to disclose what ultimately your role is there. What kind of follow-up does happen with folks who we might perceive or suspect or worry are victims

So what happened in this case is we went back and I reviewed the prior incident reports where there was photographs attached. I also reviewed the information that was provided to me by the Department of Public Health as to who the licensed masseuses were supposed to be at that location. And I looked up their driver's license photos and other photos to see if I could figure out who the person was. And we were unsuccessful on that.

So in narrating that, there's some kind of attempt to identify the persons positively and then contact them about support or to check to see if they're OK?

So not every massage parlor has victims of human trafficking in it. There are willing participants at some of these massage institutions. So in regards to this case, we believe that the participants were willing and not victims of human trafficking, and we were still conducting our investigation, so we have not reached out to them yet. I hope that answers your question.

Partially, thank you, Sergeant Glenn. So as a matter of course, you do try to both identify the practitioners and try to assess whether or not they may be in some kind of danger or maybe at high risk exposed to harm against their will. That's part of your protocol?

Yes, that is part of our protocol.

And that is, and I would understand if you can't disclose this at this time, but it sounds like that was being undertaken, is underway?

I can't answer that at this time.

OK. Thank you. That answers my question.

Thank you. I don't see any further questions. So you can be seated. And we will now hear from the appellants.

Is it OK for me to mute my microphone now?

You can just mute it. And then if there's further question, you can turn it back on. Thank you. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Good afternoon. I'm Paul Horcher, the man who was just defamed by the officer. I'd like to introduce two of my clients here. Jing Wang. Leon Wang, stand up. Thank you. I had some prepared remarks, but I can't resist commenting on what I just heard. First, he called, who wants to be called a liar? And I never called him a liar. I thought he might be mistaken. And he's not very good. Apparently, he doesn't cross his T's and dot his I's very well. He didn't answer a lot of your questions. There were no arrests. No one was arrested at all. The masseuse was not arrested for prostitution or lewd conduct or anything like that. Nor was she cited by DPH for lewd conduct. Bear that in mind as well. Nor were the owners cited for carrying on a house of prostitution or anything like that. That didn't happen. Now, You've all heard that tape, and I appreciate the president's characterization, a bunch of empty air. You would think, if you're trying to prove a prostitution, that you would add a narrative along with the tape to corroborate what's going on, like describe an act, what she's doing to you, what she just said. None of that. It's a very faint recording. He had the responsibility to come up with a decent recording, and he didn't do it. He talks about the three other officers, Stuckey, Lyons, and Flores. Were any of them produced here as witnesses to confirm what happened, what they heard, what was going on during that audio recording? Not on the misstep forward. Nor can they contain that. He says, oh, we want to worry about officer safety. That's one of the most ludicrous things I've heard. They never worry about them. This is a plum assignment. That's why they always go in at 4 o'clock to get the overtime. It's very, very minimal, if any, danger of ever being hurt. Now, what he could have done, if he answered your question more directly... You can mail those citations in the next day. You don't have to arrest someone in the spot. Like he said, it's a misdemeanor. You can mail it in. Never happened. You have any questions?

If you're done, President Trisvini.

Yes, I was submitting my briefs and take any questions if you have some.

President Trisvini has a question.

You heard the exchange that we had with the city witness just now, correct? Loud and clear. Can you help at least clarify from your client's perspective, the July 2025 visit, was that regularly scheduled or was it out of the ordinary, if you know?

When they brought over the notice of violation,

Yes, yes.

It was one of their twice-a-yearly inspections, I guess. They inspected the whole place. And then they gave them the love letter, that awful NOV. And that's when they first got wind of this.

And there were no communications by DPH or the police department after the police activity and that visit?

They never returned. It never came back. You would think a normal police operation.

You answered my question.

It never came back.

Previously, in the previous years that they say there were concerns, there were concerns, did DPH bring that up to your clients or was it part of an inspection?

No, they never came. I believe there was a 2021 incident. He said 2023, which is, I believe, an error. And the clients, the owners, were exonerated from that. They went into a full-blown hearing with an actual professional hearing officer, and they were exonerated.

Can you help me understand your clients who are here today? Yes, sir. And then there were, according to the record, your clients questioned the masseuses who were working on the day of the incident.

Yes, sir.

So we're talking about four different people, two owners, two workers?

I'm just going by the declaration of one of my clients. And she actually, I believe, was the interrogator. And she questioned both of them sharply. And they denied everything.

I just want to know the number of people. Two owners and two workers who are different from the two owners.

No, it was just these two owners here and those two people I put in the brief. It was CMTC credentials.

Right.

Yes, sir.

Four total. Would there have been a 3rd? Masseuse working or are on the premises that day. No Sir. So so so they've questioned the two and they and you've given the report on that questioning. It's in. It's in our record. Yes Sir. And. Are there? And do they? think that there was a third person, or do they think that the police were referring to one or the other of the workers?

They believe it was one or the other. There were only two masseuses working that day. They were to go backwards. And it was just those two. And they interrogated both of them, unlike the police department. The police department or DPH, neither one ever interrogated either one of these two women, to our knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any questions this time. Thank you. So you can be seated. We're going to move on to public comment. How many people in the room are here for public comment for this item only? Raise your hand. OK. And what about on Zoom? Please raise your hand if you're here to provide public comment. I'm just trying to get, we have three. OK. So we'll start with the individual in the room. Please come up. And when you're done, if you could fill out a speaker card so we have your name, please. Can I ask one quick question?

Yes. I'd like to hold something up, but given this is a minor, I'd love to see if the video could just not project me when I hold it up at this time, if that would be all right.

I don't think we have an editing tool.

Okay. Well, I will quickly pull it up.

I might have a Post-it or something.

I blew it up so that just the Board of Appeals could see. But I'll put it up for one minute, and then I can start. I'm the resident of the Outer Richmond, a wife and a mother. The photo I'm holding is my daughter, Bo. She is 2 and 1 half years old, and she lives in the building where Richmond Serenity Spa currently operates. I should not be here tonight. I should be home putting her to bed. Instead, I am standing here before this board because the commercial unit directly below where my daughter sleeps is operating as a brothel, and I am livid. In February 2022, my wife and I purchased our first home in the outer Richmond. We chose this neighborhood deliberately, a tight-knit, diverse community, Lafayette School 500 feet from our front door. My wife works at a school and cares deeply about education. We wanted to raise our daughter somewhere safe. Starting in 2023 of August, we couldn't help but notice a pattern of men going in and out of the spa, which at that time was across the street. What drew our attention was the behavior, parking down the street, looking around, walking past the entrance multiple times before slipping in. Neighbors shared similar concern and suggested we elevate to Captain Canning. Per his request, we did record street view footage and brought it to him directly. He told us it was clear, reasonable suspicion that illicit activity was taking place given the volume of men going in and out, never women. He put us in touch with SVU later. Then the spa moved into our building. Our attorney confirmed we cannot sell without disclosing what is operating below us. We are trapped, a nightmare for any parent. On multiple occasions, men have approached our front entrance, mistaking it as a spa. One night, my wife took our dog out at approximately 8 p.m. Three intoxicated men got out of a rideshare and noticed the spa was closed and said, and I quote, I guess we need to find someone else to get us off. They followed her down the block. She was terrified. This brothel is attracting dangerous predatory behavior in this neighborhood and directly at our doorstep. It has to stop. We have since had to install a security system and cameras throughout our building. Ms. Huang has claimed 30% of her clientele are women, and I want to be abundantly clear, and I understand I am under oath. I can count on one hand the number of women I have seen in this establishment who are not employees. I live here. Please do the right thing and put the residents' and families' safety first. Thank you. Can you please fill out a speaker card?

Okay. Is there anyone else in the room who wants to provide public comment? I don't see anyone, so we're going to move to Zoom. The first caller, there's no number, but please go ahead. I just allowed you to speak. Unmute yourself. Yes, go ahead.

Hi, thank you. I want to thank the Board of Schools for allowing us the option to call in. I am conditioning as fellow neighbor. community member and the tenant of this building, on top of the going on problems right in our neighborhood. There's a 4-500 feet from us. There's a crosswalk station towards the housing location to ensure children's safety. And high school students and families walk down our block for soothing grace with their hands up to fit. Now, like Paul, I was just saying, on the last field call, when he called out, the ACLA specifically said that we were holding grudge against the boss. Well, here's the truth. We've heard the rumors. We knew about the raid. And we decided, you know, similar support, we can't hold them accountable for that. But from what we've seen, only men flow in and out of there. I feel completely unsafe. They've become very aggressive on numerous occasions. And when I purchased my home with partner savings built over 15 years, I wanted the ability to choose, you know, which neighbor side I felt safest in. i love my neighborhood at the type x community we're all here to support one another and when we have no control over who's moving underneath us we did our own research and we saw the same things that the board has put in front of you where all of these Different people are called out online. They have extremely aggressive emails for us on their website. And I feel shocked in my own home that I was. I don't want to sell. But I want the community and the city to feel protected and to check us in turn. where we can never be safe with this place. It's deeply personal to us given our proximity, but the outcome has real implications for safety and wellbeing of the surrounding community as well. And what our neighborhood is willing to tolerate on a block where we live, gather, and support one another. So I'm hoping that the evidence presented and our shared interest in maintaining a safe, secure neighborhood will persuade you to hold us up for the ruling.

OK, thank you. We will now hear from the caller. Thank you. We'll hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 9951. Please go ahead. You have to unmute yourself. Star six. You have to push star six to unmute yourself. The caller whose phone number ends in 9951. Go ahead. You did it.

Thank you. My name is John Logan. I'm a fifth generation San Franciscan. I love this neighborhood as well. I bought a house out here in 21. I live here with two kids, a six-year-old who's a kindergartner at Lafayette and a third grader who is also a Lafayette. I walk by this property every day and I In the age of Epstein and trafficking and all this other stuff, it's really the last thing I want to think about when I go to some of the visits, some of the coffee shops and so forth with my kids. I don't want to have an incident. And I think all of you have been given fair warning about this establishment. If something does happen, I'm not afraid as a resident to, you know,

get involved myself i think this is unbelievable that it's been going on for such a long time that's it thank you thank you we'll go to the next caller please unmute yourself yes go ahead you can speak now i see that you unmuted yourself okay thank you can you hear me yes

Okay, great.

So I'm a woman who got a massage from Richmond Serenity Spa and it was fine for the cost. My male partner went in and he got a massage not long after I did and he came back and described a very different experience from what I had. So they asked him to pay up front rather than after the massage like they did with me. They asked if he wanted to shower beforehand. They did not ask me if I wanted to shower at all. And when it was time for him to turn onto his back, they removed the towel with no effort to preserve modesty, that is, he was on full display in front of them or would have been had he not kept his underwear on. His session was also interrupted because some guy came in wanting a specific girl who was no longer there, and they finally talked him into waiting because they said something like, they have a good girl for him, quote-unquote. I looked them up afterwards and found reviews of them consistently on erotic massage review websites. These speak for years and describe lewd acts. This is so easy to find, very Googleable. I noticed that most of their customers were men. On my way home, I would see them going in and out, 7, 8 o'clock at night, sometimes later. Their customers have gotten belligerent with me, one of them throwing something at me, which culminated in me calling SFPD, and they had to come out and de-escalate and get that person to leave. So I just want to say, as a woman, a parent, and a long-time resident of this neighborhood, I'm not comfortable having them continue to exist as a massage parlor. I don't feel safe with them in the neighborhood. I do not feel safe around their customers. So I hope that you all do the right thing tonight. Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. We will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 0707. Please go ahead. You need to unmute yourself. Yes, you did it. Go ahead.

Hello, everyone. I am a business owner in the neighborhood and very close proximity to Serenity Spa. And I personally have seen strictly men coming in and out of the business, and specifically late night as well. It started as a joke among staff years ago, and it's definitely become more of a real issue. And we no longer joke about it. We're like, oh, wow, I think this is real. And as someone that employs... a lot of a lot of women in my business i and they they can leave later on the later side as we're a restaurant um you know they don't feel safe coming out at night with those clientele going in and out of that business uh often intoxicated like others have said and um yeah it's just it's just a crazy disturbance to the neighborhood and it's such a nice family spot to have something like this is really really upsetting and we've had to keep mail staff on later um in the night and it's really been a challenge for our business um yeah and i just hope that this finally gets taken care of thank you everyone for your time

OK, thank you. Next caller. There's no number. Can you unmute yourself? Star six is what you need to press. I'm asking you to unmute yourself. Star six. OK, I see someone with their hand raised on the phone. No name. Please press star six. OK, we're going to go to the phone number ending in 3407. Please go ahead. I'm sorry, 0707. Did we just hear from you?

Yes.

OK, let's put his hand down. OK, so we have one caller. Please unmute yourself. Star six. We have two callers.

There you go, finally.

OK, please go ahead.

I'm a resident. I've been in this neighborhood over 30 years. It's well known to most of us that a business that has no one ever sitting inside, the door is always locked, that there's something fishy going on. I've always known it to be a massage parlor. I don't know anybody in our neighborhood, and I've lived here a long time. I know a lot of people. Who's ever gone in there? I'm shocked. that it's still there. Another thing, not just an elementary school around the block, four blocks away there's another K-8 school, and a few blocks away there is a high school, George Washington High School. We have students and families and siblings walking to and fro all these schools all times of day. I'm shocked to hear that a police officer, that the attorney for the business says at four o'clock, This happened. When a police officer says that someone grabbed his penis, it's shocking. It's shocking. It's at 4 o'clock. We've got students from George Washington High School flowing past there at noon for lunchtime, flowing past there at 4 o'clock, 3 o'clock after school, flowing past there at 6, 7 o'clock after extracurricular activities. So we have a lot of kids. It's a family neighborhood, and this business doesn't belong there. And they've gotten away with it so far. It's time to go, and we're tired of it. I sit at the coffee house two doors down, and I see the kids going by. That's what I see. So it shocks me that this is allowed to stay open. with so much if it looks like a massage parlor it acts like a massage parlor it's a massage parlor and it needs to go away okay thank you i don't see any further public comments so commissioners this matter submitted

Thank you all. Thank you all for your presentations. And particularly, I thank the public for their testimony regarding this important matter. I do have a clarifying question for the Department of Public Health, though. And it has to do with what is the actual charge before us? Because as I am listening to the people speaking, I also took a look at the July 21 notice of determination. And as I read the notice of determination, it's page 428 of 501. It describes a violation of section 2917B and 29.31F. One is lewd conduct and prostitution prohibited. The other is practitioner conduct. But as I read, based on the findings, the director hereby orders that you discontinue engage, that you and your practitioners shall immediately discontinue engaging in lewd conduct at the establishment. And two, that you shall pay the administrative penalties. I don't see anything else that is there. And I'm wondering whether we are arguing over that determination or a different one.

So I think it was amended a few times. And so the actual final one is dated October 14, 2025. And I'm apologizing because I didn't actually print it out for myself the way that you have it numbered. But it is Exhibit N. It's exhibit one to the city's brief and exhibit N within that. And so that notice of determination is the final one, dated October 14. And it's for lewd conduct, practitioner conduct, and then it's for a solicitation of lewd conduct or prostitution, and anyone engaged in lewd conduct or performing sex acts at the massage business.

I may have missed my opportunity to ask questions, but with the indulgence of my colleagues, can you tell me what occurred between the first and the last notice of determination?

Yeah, between the first and the last determination, it was an administrative error. So when we're putting together the notice of violations and determinations, we look at each violation. And the administrative penalty per violation for the lewd conduct was missed and so we had to go back. I had signed those and then when reviewing afterwards I noticed it so I personally requested the staff to add it in as it was missed. When a lewd conduct occurs for a notice of violation, it is a mandatory revocation. So we are required to put it in. So that's what happened between the first and this final one. It was an administrative error.

But your colleague said there were multiple changes.

I'm not sure if there was multiple changes, but.

I thought you said there were like three or four different notices that went out.

One moment. They're all in the record. We included everything in there, but the final.

I realize they're all in the record, but I think there's more than one.

The final one is the October 14th one. And it's explained in the brief. I just don't have.

Right. I see Exhibit N. It's page 467. That helps me. That helps me.

It's N, not M. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. So, Colleen, I want to make sure that all my colleagues have an opportunity to speak. And this is troubling. The underlying allegations are troubling, but also so is the process by which we have gotten here tonight troubling. I am concerned that Testimony that I heard at the first hearing has been contradicted by the city in a pretty significant way in terms of why the establishment was not, well, what's consistent is there was no follow-up by the police department. on the day of the incident or any time thereafter in terms of the police and the establishment. Went over to public health, and public health told us more than once this was a routine inspection a month later. And it just happened that it was a month later. Now they say, well, it was instigated or inspired by the police report. We've heard from the public, and we've seen the vivid materials that have been provided in the supplemental brief of very clear statements about things that have occurred there. What I'm troubled by is very little follow-up by public health or by the police over a long period of time that it's on the record. People say they had incidents in front or across the street. And if it is as significant as described, then I'm concerned that the city did not do a good enough job in documenting it, following up, and making clear to the establishment what went on and when. To hear a month later about an incident makes it extraordinarily difficult to defend. And that is of genuine concern to me. And second now is just in the last follow-up about, well, the first letter of determination had fines. And the explanation is, oh, it was an administrative error. But I think there were more than one effort to correct it until we got to the October 14th letter, which is Exhibit N, where there is the fuller penalties being sought. So I'm concerned that if this is, and it appears to be, the only permit revocation of all the 159 or 169 massage parlors in San Francisco this year. We asked about that last time. And the department corrected the record and said, oh, well, there's this other one, I think Ricky Lee or Green, some other establishment. Mr. Horcher says that wasn't a revocation of a permit. They didn't have a permit. It seems to me either this is a very bad establishment breaking the law, in which case the the preparation and the conduct and the underlying hearing, and even this one, fail to deal with the due process issues and notice issues. Or there's a series of statements that, without characterizing their accuracy, each one of them, I don't – I have difficulty after listening to the tape, after reading the incident report, hearing about previous incident reports. I asked Sergeant Glenn about previous incident reports that he decided. We don't see previous incident reports. We see this one. So it's a – It's an uncertain foundation upon which to base the penalties that are being asked by the department against this establishment. So I hope my colleagues will help persuade me one way or the other that my concerns are either not well placed or they are well placed, because right now I have a great deal of uncertainty. Colleagues, anyone want to discuss this, give your own thoughts, help guide us? Vice President Saroyan.

I share the duplicity here. It seems that we had a fair amount of significant public comment that there is something going on with this establishment, but I am finding myself uncertain in the city's building the record of due process to impose these penalties. So I myself am conflicted because I understand the egregiousness of the allegations and that there's something very serious going on and I want to support the city but I'm troubled by the trail of evidence.

Commissioner Lopez.

Yeah, just a point of information. If I could direct a question to Mr. Minardi. Can you remind us what the standard of review is and what level of evidence is required to decide this matter either way?

Thank you, Commissioner. So the board is conducting a de novo review, which means that the board is sort of assessing all of the underlying evidence, both in the original proceeding as well as everything that has been provided as well. And the department would have the burden of proving that there was a violation. And so you are looking, again, at sort of the underlying facts to see if there was an established violation and whether the proposed or the order and its remedies were appropriate. And you can, as I said, take into account all of the evidence in doing so.

Thank you. I guess with that kind of clarified for everyone in the room and online, I guess I would turn to my fellow commissioners to the extent that we have doubts about I think I'm interested in discussing due process weaknesses or violations, because I think that would be, from my perspective, an area where That's not something that we can remedy from here, right? I think that would be something that would require kind of a fresh review and approach on the part of the city. But I guess I'm curious about what specifically with respect to due process may be found lacking or in doubt.

Well, if I could respond, Commissioner, I would say one issue is the lack of notice to the establishment that, at least from what we've heard, almost completely deprived it of the opportunity to challenge the allegations. Yes, they got notice a month later. They were able to talk to the people who were employed at the time. And they put up some kind of defense. The other issue is the escalating nature of the charges. We have unfortunately seen this with other departments where the initial charges are brought, something occurs, and then more charges are brought. And here we have heard that it was out of administrative error that the first charge was inadequate. These are obviously serious matters. I'm certain that every city employee takes their job extraordinarily seriously, but I am concerned when charges get added. And here we're talking about either a five-year revocation or not. If it was a smaller penalty, then I'd say, well, then the process that is due may be less. But here we're talking about five years of taking away a permit, not because of the – but because of the pretty much strict liability. If something occurs on your property in this nature, it's your fault. Because they haven't established that it was an employee of the establishment. There are other parts of the code that says you as the owner are responsible for your agents, your employees, or your independent contractors. They never found out who it was. They can't establish that. They can just establish that it occurred here. Therefore, you're responsible. And given what we've heard are so many instances, public reports and others, I would think that the department would provide us more evidence than they have. It seems to me more evidence is available. Sergeant Glenn talked about previous incident reports. I haven't seen them. They haven't raised their profile. What we have is the internet reviews. That certainly got people's attention. But that wasn't even part of the earlier record. And it doesn't seem to have prompted Police, DA, city attorney action. So that's where I get confused. What do we actually have here? And if it's the department's responsibility to demonstrate the violation and also hold a hearing that gives the permit holder, the license holder, the opportunity to defend themselves, I'm troubled that we don't have that.

I'll jump in again. One thing that I would like to bracket because it's not, I don't think it's clear from the record or from the sergeant's testimony this evening. My takeaway from that testimony this evening was that there's the potential for an ongoing investigation and operation. And so I wouldn't want to take, the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence here. That just because something hasn't been filed or charged to date, that that means that there's nothing worthy or giving rise to that charge someday. Maybe that was just my interpretation, but that's how I read the statement on the part of the sergeant. That's just something I'd like to bracket because I just don't think it's definitive either way. And I hear those... those concerns, I guess, sorry, Mr. Minardi, I feel like I may be going to you a lot on this one, but just to situate ourselves, we are focused on, are we focused on the department's actions as of the first NOD or the final NOD that the department just directed us towards from October 2025? Because then I think the sequencing of presentation of evidence, of the conduct of the hearing, I think, weighs into that a little bit. Which one are we... deciding on? And then secondarily, can you or Julie, can you give us any input on what flexibility, if any, do we have to modify the determination of the five-year revocation period?

So it's the director's order, and the board's review is triggered by an order that contains a revocation of the permit, which I believe is the last. I may be getting the facts wrong here, but I believe that's the last of the orders, correct? I think. I have to verify that. I think that's right, too. But yeah. So yeah, pursuant to 29.43, it's the suspension and revocation of the permit that triggers review by the board.

And then could either of you share, is there an ability for us to provide a different remedy? Or is it just an up or down vote on the final order?

I think what we discussed was that there isn't latitude to lessen the five years. One option would be for you, there are administrative fines that are part of this order, and that's not really under your jurisdiction. This is being appealed, and your decision affects the permit. So what you could do is grant the appeal issue the order on the condition it be revised to overturn the revocation portion, but still uphold the administrative fines. So that would leave the fines intact, I guess $7,500. So it's something.

And just for further clarification, is that due to the remedies that the department had before it when it was first reviewing these issues? Or is that due to the nature of what's in the final determination?

I'm just looking at the director's hearing order that was issued and that was appealed.

But do we know now whether, for example, the hearing officer could have levied a different administrative remedy other than revocation?

I think the code for at least the lewd conduct doesn't allow for a lesser penalty or less time.

Thank you. I'll yield to my fellow commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner Lopez, and I do want to make sure that my other colleagues are engaged here. I do want to follow up on one of your comments, and that is about, in my sense, what happens next. If there are options that we have of various penalties, That would be, I think we should explore that. But these obviously are serious charges. These obviously are people who call in or are in pain about something going on here. But whether the And I think I I just see an absence of rural enforcement over a period of time I do think that the city could bring in the future if a if there's so much going on and From what I understand the the the the inspections have got pretty good good marks if there's so much going on I would predict that the city would be back in in front of a hearing officer with the goods with a much better case and one which might also have a greater regard for As we heard originally, the reason why they didn't pursue anything with the employee is because of a concern over trafficking. That was in the record. That was what the city's position was. And yet they did nothing to follow up about that very extraordinarily valid and meaningful concern. So I don't think, however we decide this tonight, if we decide it and the operation, there's no revocation, I do think either they're going to clean up their act or the city will be back to present the kind of case that might have been presented earlier without the errors that we have heard. Vice President Soroyan.

First of all, Commissioner Lopez, I want to thank you for asking the question to the executive director. As I said, I'm conflicted here, but I do feel that some penalty could continue as part of this. So I'd be interested in possibly exploring that further. I don't mean to put my other commissioners on the spot, but usually we have to work together. So I am curious if you're comfortable expressing an opinion or concern. I would love to hear it. I think we all might.

I've been processing. So I've been trying to process both the incident itself as well as just the process side. Right. I think given all the evidence that they've put in this time which is my first time hearing this. I heard the I watched the last meeting process that. Something fishy seems going on. Don't know what it is. I think we've heard a lot from public comment about concerns. So that to me makes sense that DPH with a different department SFPD does an action. My assumption is that when you have two bureaucracies, it does take a little bit of time. So that also kind of makes sense to me. What didn't make sense was the change, even if it was an administrative error, knowing bureaucracies, it should have been caught earlier. And it shouldn't have been a surprise, basically. That change should have been pretty obvious. So I think that that's where, as I'm listening to y'all talk and kind of thinking through this, that's kind of where I'm stuck right now because there is something happening there like that's that in my heart of hearts there's something happening there this process I'm not really sure about and then I'm also trying to figure out like Commissioner Lopez has talked about what we do today I want to make sure that it doesn't affect future actions on this space. And I think that that's where I'm not sure. Like if we went with what Director Lamar had said about Sorry. I have an issue with not speaking too closely to the mic. So if we went, yeah, I'm just trying to figure out like what is our, what can we do? That makes sense because we've definitely heard from the community members that there's something happening here. They're concerned. This is their neighborhood. They live in there. But I also want to respect due process and make sure that as a city, as departments, that we do things correctly. Like the paperwork is not fun, but the paperwork needs to happen in a certain way to track all of this.

Commissioner Abad.

I think Commissioner Lopez has your hand up currently. Did you want to interject before I? We left our last hearing on this matter with quite a bit of ambiguity and I think some critical information which we asked for and has since been mostly furnished. There's less ambiguity now than the last time we heard this, but I think there are still some big questions. So I appreciate Commissioner Lopez's question, and I echo Vice President Soroyan's, I think, perhaps inclination that some kind of penalty, is it a revocation? I'm not sure. I am moved, though it's public comment. It's not proof, per se. I am very moved by what people who live and work in the neighborhood, in some cases have been for a very long time, sharing their observations of what they are seeing on the street and what they presume to be transpiring inside. I also, President Transvenia, agree with you that, depending on how we shape our recommendation, say in the scenario where a license isn't revoked, there maybe is a penalty, that either behavior or the profile of activities will change and shift away from what perhaps might be illegal. And to Commissioner Lopez's point, It seems that PD is maybe pursuing, monitoring, there might be outcomes of that, of something that sort of procedure that's ongoing. So I'm not, I don't have any strong conclusions, but it does seem like the full force of the hearing, the DPH hearing order penalties are something that I'm hearing we're not entirely sure we want to adopt in their entire

Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you. I really agree with something that Commissioner Abad just shared, which is, and I wasn't here at the first hearing to experience those doubts in real time. And so maybe this is a product of me essentially reviewing everything at once. But I will say, just in terms of just a sidebar, I feel like in my five or so years on this body, I feel like I can usually start to count votes either way. And this is probably one of the times when it's very difficult to do that. But just to put my kind of inclination out there, Based on, like I said, what I want to echo from Commissioner Abad, I feel like fewer doubts are left at this point from my mind. And I didn't, you know, maybe that's a product of the time allotted for the arguments today. But I certainly understand the due process concerns. And I'm not going to say that the process here was bulletproof. But I didn't hear or see evidence that would rebut what was furnished in the intervening period since the last hearing. I didn't hear anything to rebut. really anything that was shared of the kind of public comment that we heard in either hearing and what was presented from the online evidence or online materials, which I mean, are we supposed to believe that that's all a fabrication, that these are bots from different sites just targeting this business owner? I tend to be really sympathetic as someone whose parents own a small business and was raised in the front of a Mexican food restaurant as a kid. I'm very sympathetic, too. to the challenge of running a small business in the city and California generally. But I think to echo what Commissioner Wong said, it seems fishy. And it seems like there's something going on here. If we're talking about a jump ball, given the nature of the evidence that's been presented, in my mind, without a plausible explanation to rebut or dismiss that collection of evidence, collection of materials, I'd be more inclined to deny the appeal on that basis. Just for the purpose of sharing up here. Before I yield, I just want to take this opportunity to say to the department, thank you for the work you're doing. I think because of the nature of these discussions, we don't get the easy slam dunk cases, right? And so I think we're often in the position of pointing out the faults in process or work by the city, and that's not always undeserved. But I also think that there has been some good work done here. I do think in the future, though, we need to build on that cross-agency, cross-departmental collection and presentation of evidence. Certainly I hope one of the takeaways from these two hearings is the conduct of hearings and being exhaustive with the evidence that's that's presented in advance of those hearings, the intelligibility of that evidence, and hopefully that will help us avoid these issues. I think I walk away, I mean, I was surprised to hear the number of massage parlors or massage establishments, whatever you want to call them, in the city, that seems like a lot. And it seems like a big job to visit all of these establishments on a regular basis. I would imagine that something like undercover stings outside of the scope of expertise of DPH folks. Maybe that needs to be fixed. Maybe it means that you need to work a little bit more closely with the police department. But I just hope that you are in the process of listening to the challenges that my colleagues and I are expressing that then that can serve as a punch list for things to identify to improve with future operations and future regulation of these types of establishments that might lend themselves to this type of abuse.

I think now that we are approaching 7 o'clock, we've got another matter. I think each one of us has expressed their views. In my view, this is extraordinarily important. And from the standpoint of the community, the kids at Lafayette, the kids at Washington High, The workers who in this industry are trafficked, trafficked from other countries, are limited English proficient oftentimes. This is an extraordinarily important subject. And I have to say, what doesn't measure up is what has been brought to us. So I do think there is enough for a fine. I do believe that I think we can affect future activity, future conduct. So I don't think there's enough here for a five-year revocation. I do think there is enough for a fine. And I believe also I am hopeful that Cases can be better investigated and presented, due process for a respondent, so that it's very, very clear what has gone on, what is wrong, and action taken. And on the one hand, we have five years of salacious comments and statements and reviews and people being concerned, that all we have is this one case right now. And we also have, apparently, we have a number of positive inspections by DPH for this establishment. The two don't add up. I do want to propose and move to grant the appeal as to the revocation and uphold the remainder of the penalty.

And what would be the basis for your motion?

The basis of my motion is insufficient, well, lack of due process.

Okay. So...

Point of information or request to President Trezegna, would you be OK? I suspect that the motion that I want to make is probably going to have a harder time passing. And if it doesn't, I'd be inclined to support your motion. Would you mind if I made the motion to deny the appeal first to see where we're at on that?

I will. withdraw my motion, and you can make your motion.

I'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the department's determination was properly issued.

Do we have any discussion?

Commissioner Abad. This might be for DCA minority. Can we... adjust the revocation period from five? Thank you. And by five I mean fewer than five years in terms of a permit ban. So I think it's just a revocation.

It's a revocation, and then they can't get another permit for five years.

For five years. And is the latter something that we have any ability to detail? That would be no.

Sorry, another point of clarification. That five years is specifically for lewd conduct, correct? Five years is for what?

The lewd conduct part? No, the five years would be, yes, the lewd conduct. Can't get a permit because there was lewd conduct for five years. So which motion would you like?

Commissioner Lopez's motion is on the table.

OK. So we have a motion from Commissioner Lopez to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis that it was properly issued by the department. On that motion, President Chesvena?

No.

Vice President Soroyan?

No.

Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

Commissioner Wong? Aye. OK. So that motion carries 3 to 0, and the appeal is denied. So that concludes this matter. Thank you. Are we taking a break?

Yes. We'll recess for 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Hello. The meeting will start. Please be seated. Thank you.

Welcome back to the Board of Appeals meeting for May 20th, 2026. We are now.

Can you be.

Everyone, please sit down. Hello. We're in the meeting. Thank you.

We need to get moving.

Welcome back to the Board of Appeals hearing for May 20th, 2026. We are now on item number five, appeal number 26-019, North Beach Tenants Committee versus Department of Building Inspection with Planning Department approval. Subject property, 659 Union Street. Appealing the issuance on March 27th, 2026 to Powell Partners LLC of a demolition permit. Demolish three stories, type five mixed use building. This is permit number 2026-0327-8418. On April 22, 2026, upon motion by Vice President Soroyan, the board voted 4-0-1, Commissioner Wong absent, to continue this matter to May 20. The board requested that the deputy city attorney and the parties provide a legal analysis on the right of return for the tenants displaced by the fires. DPW provide more information about the scope, nature, and timing of the sewer and street paving project and what the department would do if the walls of the subject property were not demolished. And three, the board wanted the property owner to provide more information about the plans for the future building project, taking into consideration the displaced tenants and the historic nature of the location. The matter was also continued so that the appellant could have the opportunity to hire an expert to evaluate the condition of the building. The board further requested that DBI direct the property owner to take appropriate measures to secure the building. And as a preliminary matter, Commissioner Wong, did you read the materials and watch the video for the hearing that took place on April 22nd?

yes okay thank you and i believe you we also have a disclosure from commissioner uh i'm disclosing for the record that i have begun service on the planning department's community equity advisory council which advises the department staff on strategies to engage diverse communities this work has not involved the appellant or the permit holder in this matter i do not believe that sitting on the council will impact my ability to be fair and impartial in this matter

Okay, thank you. So we will hear from the appellant first. Ms. Flandrich, you have three minutes to address the board.

And before you speak, Vice President Soroyan wants to be recognized for a question.

Thank you, President Trasvinia. I'd like to begin with a clarification question for our study attorney. Mr. Minardi, can you please remind us what the standard of review is for this evening, for this matter?

Yes, Vice President. As with the last matter, this is a de novo hearing, which you are reviewing it de novo. You are essentially deciding the merits of the matter based on the record, which includes everything that was considered by DBI as well as everything that's been presented to you. And this matter, it has to do with a demolition permit issued pursuant to an emergency order. So the analysis primarily about the, whether the permit was justified by the emergency order.

Okay. Thank you. Please proceed. You can proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I represent the Appellate North Beach Tenants Committee. My name is Mary Catherine Widerhold. For more than 20 years, our law offices have represented San Francisco residential tenants involved in fires in their buildings. Firstly, With regard to this appeal, the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board's rules and regulations, section 1219, control a tenant's right to return to their homes after repairs are completed due to a fire. State laws and statutes simply do not apply to this situation. As my colleague Steve Collier stated in his May 12th, 2026 letter, if the housing units at the structure had been destroyed in 2013, then there would have been no need for the developer to seek a demolition permit. Furthermore, there would have been no need for the developer to buy out tenancies, no need for the developer to pay the rent board fees. These last two actions were done by the developer because they believed, before they switched tactics, that the tenants would be able to move back into the building after construction on the building was completed. And finally, if the board denies the appeal, globally, just the big picture, What is to prevent other landlords from neglecting their buildings, waiting for the inevitable fire, then seeking a demolition permit. Before you think, this will never happen. We live in a perfect world. None of our clients' residential tenants have ever been accused of starting fires in their buildings. The blame for fires involving our residential tenant clients have consistently, consistently been the landlord's negligence. Please let the tenants move back into the building, the Powell Street building, when it is completed. Do you have any questions?

Yes, we have one from President Trasvina.

Thank you. Actually, I may have more than one. But I'll start with the first. And that is, you have described your, it's a pretty serious allegation about the landlord negligence. So I want to give you an opportunity to add some meat to the bones. What is it that you're speaking of? And what should we be considering on that issue?

I am speaking of my experience representing residential tenants for more than 20 years in this city. That is what I'm speaking of. I'm not making any defamatory statements regarding the developer. I'm speaking of my experience representing residential tenants who have been involved in fires and then litigating those issues in San Francisco Superior Court.

So you're saying, generically, if there's a fire, in year one, and then another fire in year five, and then you get to year 13, and something hasn't been reconstructed, you're setting your sights on the landlord, rather than any specifics about the cause of the 2018 fire is A, B, or C.

Correct. I am saying specifically, if I could follow up, I was going to call you Dean, not Dean. Pardon me. President, they've had an opportunity to repair 13 years. They have not taken up that opportunity. Instead, they... are now declining to address the tenants being allowed back into the building.

And have you had the direct or indirect contact with the owner regarding the buyouts and efforts to document the tenants?

I do not know this developer. If he came up and asked me for five bucks for a cup of coffee, I don't know who he is. I have never had, to my knowledge, our office has never sued this developer or any related entities or any entities related to this developer. I believe our office, although I'd have to check my notes, have had client intakes regarding the tenants that live in that building, but I am not aware of which one, when, How long the possible intake interview was, I don't have that information.

So just one final question. And maybe you can help me, maybe you can't. Claire Feeney wrote to, I believe, a tenant, Jessica Hurwitz, about... Ms. Hurwitz made sent an email about her intent to return and Miss Feeney said that she's a she and she has been the project applicant had been instructed by planning to engage with former tenants Are you aware of any? City adoption of the notion that there was a right to return in 2023 Specifically with regard to this case.

I

Well, yes. Yeah, this case.

I am not aware of any city. I would say no. Okay, that's fine. I would say no.

That's fine. Final question. I really mean it this time. Can you give us a little bit more to... Your argument that this is controlled by the rent board rules and regulations and not by state law. Can you explain the legal? Reasoning behind that conclusion.

The rent rules and regs. For this situation. control the tenancies and not or Let me back up I have not seen in other fire cases that we've been involved in that the developer has said It's state law. It's it there are other statutes that control we have not seen that and we like I said litigate extensive we extensively litigate fire cases we have Three cases right now. They will be filed in San Francisco Superior Court We have not seen that intersection of state law in superseding Section 1219 nor have we seen that from defense counsel invoking other state invoking State laws and statutes Thank You Commissioner Wong

Yeah, quick question. From the last hearing, I think I saw that there was a request that the developers speak, or that you and the developer have conversations. Did any of that happen since the last meeting?

Let me defer to my colleague, Teresa. No, there was no engagement.

Into the microphone.

I have this issue too. Teresa Flandrick. No, there has been no contact, no outreach at all from the project sponsor to me as the appellant for North Beach Tenants Committee, nor to anyone in the community, nor to any of the tenants with whom I've spoken over the last two weeks. There's been no contact whatsoever, so nothing since the previous hearing.

And is there anything, like, legally that prevents them from doing it? Like, is there active litigation or something that? No.

No. Again, the onus is on, my understanding was, the onus was on the developer to actually reach out as he was going to be presenting more about his plan going forward. That was the request from this body. And again, you know, a consideration of the displaced tenants. So, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND FILLING OUT A SPEAKER CARD SO I GET YOUR NAME CORRECT FOR THE MINUTES. CORRECT. WE DO HAVE A QUESTION FROM VICE PRESIDENT SHOROYAN BEFORE YOU DO THAT. THANKS.

GOOD EVENING. I'M SO SORRY. IT'S MARY CATHERINE. I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR LAST NAME. Can you elaborate just slightly? I understand that your position is that the San Francisco rent or ordinance and regulation controls here and you referenced section 12 point 19. Yes, can you Speak specifically about what section 1219 says or provides and applies here

if you go to specifically Steve Collier's May 12 2026 letter he the third paragraph and I can I'm summarizing, states in relevant part that if a tenant was forced to vacate his or her unit due to fire or other disaster, the landlord shall, within 30 days of completion of repairs to the unit, offer that same unit back, or pardon me, I'm inserting the word back, offer the same unit to that tenant under the same conditions and same terms and conditions as existed prior to his or her displacement. And I'm quoting from Steve Collier's letter.

Okay.

Which I believe is the text of 1219. Yes.

Okay. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

We do have a question from Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks for your testimony, especially with respect to the right of return. So if I understand your position also as conveyed in Exhibit E with Mr. Collier's letter, in a sense, we're saying that The demolition essentially has no bearing on the right of return, because if I understand the position correctly, it's the right runs with the tenancy relationship and not with the status of the building, whether it's standing or not. Is that essentially correct?

That's correct.

Yeah. And if I'm understanding what you're asking for from us, you're asking for the condition explicitly that the permit not be allowed to move forward without the right of return as a requirement. Is that correct?

Correct.

Yes. I guess my question is, Why is that the ask if we're taking the position that the right of return is not impacted by the demolition of the building?

Let me defer to my colleague, Theresa.

Again, as I had stated in the previous hearing, the question about the foundation, what amount is left, and if there is any foundation left in terms of it remaining a rent-controlled building. Does that answer your question?

Sorry. Not completely, at least not to my satisfaction. I feel like on the one hand, you're telling us What the permit holder is saying about the right of return is not correct. You're saying they think it goes away with this complete demolition. And you're presenting to us evidence from an expert that says, hey, this attaches regardless of what happens with the building. And yet, on the other hand, you're asking us to condition the permit on the right of return. And so I guess I'm asking, why do you request that as a condition if you don't need it?

So for the legal reasoning on this, I'm going to turn it back to you. Yeah?

Yes. It's actually, since the right of return is attached to the building, we're asking And once the building is completed, the tenants will be allowed to move back in. We're asking the board, and Teresa will correct me if I'm wrong, to approve the appeal so that will force the developer to come up with a plan to allow the tenants to move back in and not say, building destroyed, your tenancies are gone.

OK. OK. I think I got my answer. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. You can be seated. Thank you. And again, if you could fill out the speaker card. Thank you.

OK. We will now hear.

Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. One more follow-up question?

Yes. Ms. Widerhold. As a follow-up to your statement about why you're asking the board to do that, however, wouldn't it be within the legal rights of the tenant committee to actually sue the developer or negotiate outside of this appeal? I mean, I think that those options are, well, you tell me.

They definitely could allege delayed discovery, file a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court tomorrow. Well, not tomorrow, but probably Monday after preparing the appeal. These tenants want to move back in. They're not interested in suing. Because once you sue, you say, there's a wrongful eviction. I'm not moving back in. The landlord has legally prevented me from moving back in. It's over. My tenancy is over. These tenants are not interested in that. They're interested in actually moving back in.

No further questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

OK, we will now hear from the permit holders.

Good evening, commissioners. Jeff Giroux. I moved to San Francisco after graduating college about 25 years ago. My three children were born at CPMC, the old CPMC, and I have lost count of how many nights I have spent bar hopping in North Beach. My partners, many of them in the room here today, are direct descendants of the original builders over 100 years ago. This is very personal to us. And as they say, this is a family affair. We did not want this. We are not developers. These fires have caused tremendous emotional pain and financial pain to us. But that is eclipsed by the pain that we recognize that the tenants have gone through. The seminal issue here tonight. is that this building presents an imminent danger to the neighborhood. It's not just us saying it. It is the most senior staff at DBI saying it. I am not an engineer. I can't really speak to the specifics of that. You heard a lot about that in the last hearing. But that is what is keeping me up at night. The elephant in the room is, of course, this issue of right of return. I have gone on record since the first days following the 2018 fire expressing our commitment to return these tenants to the building. I will say it again tonight. We are committed to finding a path to return these tenants to the building. We need to get in a room with some problem solvers within the city that can help us make that a feasible path and an economic reality, because it is not today. We are being asked to submit a new application and be held to all of the current code requirements and current laws around inclusionary housing. But we are also being asked, based on this moral obligation, which we are not running from, to bring back up to a dozen or more tenants at some form of affordable rent. Again, we are happy to find a path to do that. I have spoken with Supervisor Souder. I have spoken with the mayor's office. There hasn't been a single conversation that I've had with Supervisor Souder where he has not brought up this issue. Not a single one. Not a single one where we haven't discussed some ideas for figuring that out. So regardless of whether or not there's a legal right to return, we want to find a path. And as long as we can, again, sit in a room with some problem solvers within the city to figure that out, I think it's a reality that can be achieved. The third issue that was brought up last time was the historical issue. We are more than happy to consider building within the new building some historical features, reusing the old brick, incorporating some of the things that I think we can all agree are appealing about the building. We have not run from that. Happy to have that discussion. But we need to find a realistic path to build this building. And if you grant this appeal, you will put us in no man's land. in no man's land. There is no legal path. And we can get into that in the Q&A. There is no legal path to build this problem.

Thank you. We have time.

OK, thank you. President Cisvino?

Well, I thank you for your testimony. I also thank you for coming here. I understand you've changed representatives. I had some questions for the representative, but better to have you here. I'd say you're pretty candid about your intentions on the right to return. Is this something new that you're saying now? Or do you think that the tenants already know this?

I can't speak to what the tenants know or don't know. But it's my opinion, based on consultation with no less than half a dozen competent attorneys, that the right of return is already gone. It's gone under the rent ordinance. What the appellant failed to mention is that the rental ordinance section they cited speaks to substantial rehabilitation. And if this building doesn't fall into that category, then I don't know what does. So it no longer exists under the right to ordinance. It no longer exists under state law. And we are not trying to pull these walls down because we're trying to get around returning these tenants to the building through some legal right. There are other mechanisms to do that, even if those first few things I mentioned don't apply.

OK. So you gave me a lot. But my question was, is your statement about right of return or your intention to honor our right to return. Is that new tonight, or have you informed the tenants and the tenants' group of that?

So I have never used the word right to return, so I want to make sure I characterize my statement very clearly. We're committed to working with the city to find a path for them to return. We do not acknowledge a legal right to return.

And has it been your Actions, like when Claire Feeney wrote in April 17th of 2023, I forwarded the message about your intent to return to the project applicant. Was that you, the project applicant in 2023?

I don't recall that email, what, three, four years ago? I just don't remember if it was specifically me.

I don't expect you to know every part of this record.

It could have gone to counsel. It might have ended up with me.

I don't specifically remember that email. No, but when we hear about and in the record that the owner was engaging with tenants about the right to return, That was you, right?

Yeah. So let me be clear about that, because there's been some allegations made about why would we engage in buyout conversations with tenants. It is not because we had to or believed we had to. It's because we wanted to. Then Supervisor Peskin encouraged those conversations, and Supervisor Satter has also encouraged them to try to do the right thing by tenants that were willing to engage in reasonable negotiations regarding monetary payment, essentially mutual agreement. to surrender tenancy, even though we still maintain that there is no legal right to return. And it, again, does not change our desire, my partner's and my desire, to work with the tenants and work with the city and work with the powers that be that can actually help us pull this project to have them return.

And can you rebut the suggestion that the lack of tending to the building either caused the 2018 fire or has brought it to its state today?

Sure. So I wasn't involved in the building back in 2013. I have heard two versions of what happened. One was that a tenant fell asleep with a cigarette in his hand and lit the couch he was on and started the fire. The other was it may have occurred based on a refrigerator electrical issue. There's never been neglect of the building. And this allegation that we have somehow intentionally delayed doing anything with the building is just false. We engaged in years of litigation with our insurance company following the 2018 fire. We've been dealing with a very complex environmental issue underneath the building that the San Francisco Department of Public Health had to Essentially turf off to the State Water Resources Board because of a conflict of interest that the city has in that matter we have been dealing with Trying to find a pathway to submit a come you know an SDB compliant project or even a local Yeah, you know zoning compliant project, and there is none There is none and I can get into that more if you'd like But there is no path to rebuild this building currently with those walls intact

One last question before I yield to Commissioner Lopez, and that is on the issue of, and again, I appreciate you're not a structural engineer, so if the answer is I don't know, that's a perfectly acceptable answer. Do you have an estimate of when the imminence of the danger triggered? How long has it been in... Have we been in imminent danger?

Here's what I will tell you. As the layperson, you know, co-owner of the building, I have been worried about it for years. I've been worried about it for years. And I was... I was slightly terrified of the condition within the last six months as the experts took a closer look at this. But I will tell you, today, after having started partial demolition, we were in a far worse position. This building is far more dangerous to the public than it was a couple of weeks ago.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks for your testimony, for your comments, especially. I've been pretty focused on the tenancy issues. So thank you for clarifying your views and for your comments on how you view that commitment going forward. You also shared what I take to be an expression of the Well, I guess maybe let me clarify that. You mentioned talking to folks presumably within the city, maybe folks who are former tenants about finding a solution, would that include former tenants directly? And if so, how should former tenants engage with you on that?

So the answer is yes, of course. And we're not hard to find. And we have engaged with most of the tenants that we have contact information from. Some of those conversations have resulted in buyouts, and some have resulted in stalled negotiations. And some have resulted in tenants expressing their desire to return and not take any compensation. And that's fine as well. One of the things that I will admit to you frustrated me about the last hearing is this assertion that we haven't engaged with the community. I've kind of lost track of how many evenings I missed family dinner appearing at community events, whether that was to meet with community boards or the members at large or individuals one on one. As you all probably know, we're at the intersection of like five different neighborhood groups. And I don't think there's one that I haven't willingly engaged with. And I'm pretty accessible. When the local media calls, I don't reply with no comment, and we provide comment. I have restrained from venting my frustration at the process, but I've always provided comment.

And I guess a separate bucket with respect to the design issues that you mentioned. How would you propose to engage going forward? I understand you may have already engaged with or probably did on those issues previously, but going forward, how would folks in the room or online be able to

engage with you on those issues. There has been a tremendous amount of engagement regarding the design of this building. You were presented, I think, two designs at the last hearing, but there's been a dozen. There is no way we're going to make everyone happy. Everyone has an opinion they're entitled to and I respect it. A lot of what exists in the most recent design came from community feedback. Is that discussion over? Not even close. I will admit to you today that I don't love the most recent design. I think it needs some additional work, and we're very open to engaging on that. And how would folks go about doing that? So the community groups actually have been great. through North Beach Neighbors, through Club Fugazi, through the Italian Athletic Club. They can reach out to those folks, and we can meet in a more formal populated setting. But I'm also happy to engage one-on-one. I had a wonderful conversation a couple weeks ago with a gentleman who actually offered to contribute $10,000 towards the rebuilding effort. But he had an opinion regarding the cladding for the building. I respected that. I respected that. Thank you.

OK. We have a question from Commissioner Abbott.

Mr. Giroux, thank you for being here in person. When the fires happened, how many residents ended up having to move out off of the premises?

So in the 2018 fire, there were no residents there. There hasn't been a resident living at that building since approximately 2013.

And so that was also consequent of a fire in the building, some kind of... Yes.

Again, I don't know, and some of the reports I've seen are inconclusive. It was either a tenant fell asleep with a cigarette or perhaps an issue with the refrigerator. And I don't know the exact number of tenants that resided in the building back in 2013, but it was approximately... There were approximately 26 occupied rooms. And I don't know how many tenants that would translate into.

OK. That was going to be my next question, were how many units, in essence, were uninhabitable as a consequence of that?

All of them were uninhabitable as a consequence of the 2013 fire.

You've mentioned that you've since engaged with tenants who were formerly resident on the premises, and some of them had opted for a buyout. Some of them have remained open or wanting to move back onto the site. How does that break down in terms of numbers? How many folks did you and your partners buy out versus others who are still sort of waiting for a resolution.

As I understand it, there's approximately a dozen tenants that have either expressed a desire to take a buyout or to return to the building.

I think some things that were a little unclear to us due to the record not being entirely complete the last time we looked at it, it was what engagement exactly you have, you and your partners have, you know, how you've engaged with tenants, have there been meetings, has there been correspondence, you know, you're saying tonight here and letting us know that in other meetings that you've had with elected officials and in community meetings that you've committed to helping these people come back. But in the appellant's brief, there are at least six individuals, seven that they've named by name as individuals who've wanted to come back to the building. Have you or your partner spoken to these people? What has that engagement actually been like? It's just a generic idea right now, but can you help us understand what efforts your group has made to... Sure.

Telephone conversations, some written communications via email. Both.

And in those communications, you have redoubled. You're saying you've expressed you and your partner's desire to bring those folks back if that is what they desire.

Yes. And to be clear, I'm not saying that we've had conversations with everybody. Even the records for us were somewhat incomplete. In the 2013 fire, my partners were not the direct landlord for the tenants. There was a master tenant in place. And so we had very little have, very little in the way of any kind of written records or tenant records. Some of those have come out in subsequent litigation with... the insurance company, and then, of course, as a part of this hearing. But I believe that we've attempted to reach out to just about everybody we had contact information for. And we'll continue to do so. Again, we're not hard to find.

Right. In order to engage, you have to identify those folks. And there's been somewhat of an effort to identify everyone. Or what activities have you and your group undertaken to try and positively identify those who have been impacted?

I think we have identified all of those tenants, and some of that came through the appellant's submission as well.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done.

I have a few more, but I can pause if you want to. So the location of your building is a pretty iconic location in the neighborhood and a pretty iconic neighborhood in a pretty iconic city. And you mentioned that you are at the intersection of five neighborhood groups, and you've been engaging with folks. The Board of Appeals has really only heard from one, and that's the Neighborhoods Tenants Union. So can you talk about that? what your engagements have been like with other neighborhood groups. What precisely do you mean by you've engaged with them over the years?

So just to politely correct you, the record shows that we've engaged with Telegraph Hill Dwellers, North Beach Business Association, North Beach Neighbors, I'm probably forgetting a couple here. The record shows that, right? It was submitted by the appellant. And they submitted even some video evidence of me speaking to the telegraph hill dwellers. So we've engaged. And we're not halting that engagement. There hasn't been much. I acknowledge there hasn't been much in the last couple of years, because we've been scrambling to address this environmental issue. And we've been scrambling to kind of find a path to reactivate the corner and bring housing back to this iconic corner of North Beach. We're approaching 10 years here. It's been a ride.

Just one more question before I hand it over to my colleague, Commissioner Wong. So pulling back, we all want housing in San Francisco, in this neighborhood and elsewhere. And it's a big responsibility to care for an iconic legacy site like this with a lot of development potential. You mentioned earlier wanting to access state housing. density bonus provisions to really ensure that we can get as much as we possibly can out of this site. But you've also mentioned that there's some impediment. There's not a feasible path that somehow the city needs to solve the problem of you guys getting to a building program, a pro forma unit load that is somehow going to satisfy, in what ways the city, can you help me understand that? What do you mean by the city needs to solve those problems for you guys?

I appreciate the question. It's an important one. You all saw a version of a proposal from 2023. That proposal could only accommodate 22 units. There were originally 28. It is against local ordinance to remove rental units from the market. So that project, unfortunately, was dead on arrival without special legislation. That was the dead end we hit with that one. It's still the dead end we hit today. The state density bonus law is not available to us at this time because of the open environmental issue. We're on the Cortesi list. Even if the city wanted to review our application, they're prohibited in doing so by state law. So we have the SDB path or the local path. Neither one of us, neither one of those affords us a path to reactivating this corner. If the walls come down, which should come down based on the imminent hazard to the public, but set that aside for a minute. If the walls come down, it allows us to get at the environmental cleanup issue. Right now, nobody's going on site. Nobody, not even the senior engineers at DBI will go on site. And that includes, of course, our environmental consultants. They will go nowhere near that site. I will go nowhere near that site. So until those walls come down and they come down safely, we cannot get at the environmental issue. If we cannot get at the environmental issue, we cannot find a path to the state density bonus plan, which will bring us much needed housing in a neighborhood that, as you said, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, is a once in a generation opportunity to bring much needed housing to that iconic corner of North Beach.

That's all I have for now. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong? So I'm going to ask you the same question that I asked the other folks. Since the last meeting, have you had any conversations with the appellant or any of the tenants?

We did not. I have been focused on preparing for today, and I didn't want our conversations to be taken out of context or misconstrued between then and now. But you have my commitment that we will engage with anyone that's willing to reasonably engage in conversation.

And then I heard you say that you're not acknowledging a legal right of return, but you are committed to bringing back the tenants in some way. What I'm wondering is, even if you don't believe that there's a legal pathway, would you do some other mechanism to convince the tenants that you are committed to this, that even if you don't think that there's a legal right of return, that you would have something else that's, for lack of a better word, binding?

So if tenants are interested in engaging in buyout discussions, we'll have those discussions. If they are determined to return to the building, which we're very open to, then that gets into the process with the supervisor's office and the Board of Supervisors and the mayor. I'm not sure that Supervisor Sauter and I agree on everything or even necessarily agree on that path just yet. But I have confidence that he is willing to engage collaboratively to problem-solve that issue. And I will do so. I will do my part. My partners will do their part.

OK. And then the units, to my understanding, is rent controlled. And I think I saw in there it was around $1,200-ish, more or less. For you, if one of the tenants were to move back, what is that feasible thing?

Yeah, so I don't want to mislead anyone. It's not feasible to bring them back at $800 rents, $900 rents, $1,000 rents. But it is feasible to get to some type of formula so that it's affordable. One of the things I will share with you that I discussed with certain folks is that perhaps we use the BMR standard, the AMI standard, these published affordable rates as some kind of benchmark for returning those tenants. I haven't solved for that. And we're not going to do it here tonight. But I'm happy to get creative. But there's an economic reality, right? We can all want these things. We want to rebuild. But we can't spend more money rebuilding a building than it's worth when it's done. There isn't a lender in this country that will loan us that money. And we don't have access to taxpayer dollars.

Last one, not necessarily a question, but more of a comment. I did hear you earlier say that you can't make everybody happy. Welcome to San Francisco. Yes. Correct. I grew up here. I know this. What I would ask is, as this goes on, and I'm sure that it's not just going to end here, is that folks actually have those conversations of what it looks like and getting down to the core issue. Somebody else's core issue and concern may not be important to you, but it's important to them. And when you're trying to find an applicable solution, Yes, nobody's going to be happy, but so long as everybody understands where the other party is coming from and respects that and understands that human need, that's actually more important. So it's not about the happiness. It's about coming to a solution and respecting all the parties involved.

I have never dismissed or disrespected anyone's idea, and I don't intend to. Not saying you did. Happy to collaborate.

Thank you.

OK. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, commissioners. You can be seated. We will now hear from the planning department.

Good evening, President Trasfunio, Commissioners, Cory Teague, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. Happy to be back again tonight. I did provide an updated brief, although the information provided in that brief was a slightly more detailed version of the information that I provided at the original hearing. Of the different requests for information you made at the continuance, the one that was most relevant to the Planning Department was request for more information or analysis on the issue of right of return. At the original hearing, I did mention that there's essentially some state laws and local planning code provisions that under certain circumstances would apply to a project relative to right return but that those did not apply to this project and that at the local level the only kind of right of return provisions that the planning department was aware of that otherwise could potentially apply would be under the rent ordinance and again that was the purview of the rent board and there's not something that's interpreted or implemented by the planning department my brief kind of fleshed that out a little bit further but it's the same same information essentially and then there was at the last hearing also a conversation about an email from either the city attorney or planning department staff to the project sponsor regarding this issue specifically That email was included in the permit holders brief. I believe it was Exhibit C referenced it in my brief. I was going to include it in my brief until they included it, and I didn't want to double it up. And where basically the city's position on the interpretation of state law relative to this issue was explained last year to the project sponsor. And as was mentioned there, that was PURSUANT CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THAT IS INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW THAT HAS BEEN USED ON OTHER PROJECTS IN THE CITY IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PAST. BUT ALL THAT TO SAY FOR THE FOLLOW-UP FROM LAST HEARING, NO REAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND THAT THERE'S NOTHING UNDER STATE LAW OR LOCAL PLANNING CODE Currently, that would apply any right of return to the project and anything under the purview of the rent board. That's not something the planning department would speak to definitively. But I'm available for any questions you may have.

President Trasvino?

Thank you, Mr. Teague, for summarizing the brief and also adding the second brief from the material that was first shared with us. I was struck by the, as I referenced earlier, Claire Feeney, her email from April of 23, where she says, I have forwarded the message about your intent to return to the project applicant And he has been instructed by planning to engage with former tenants. Can you add any context to that?

Sure. Obviously, Claire isn't here this evening. I can't speak directly to that. But my understanding is that clearly the issue of the tenants in this situation has been an issue from the beginning. There was concern about previous tenants their potential ability to return if they requested to return. And the situation was somewhat complicated over time. I think in that email, if you read, there's basically two sentences. The first one, or maybe three, I think the first sentence is acknowledging that's a hard situation to go through. The second sentence is basically saying that the planning department has instructed the project sponsor to engage with the previous tenants. So that was the key thing is like, you all need to be talking about this issue. And then the third sentence is paraphrasing that planning department's working with our housing team, city attorney, and rent board on the issue of right to return. So it wasn't necessarily the planning department saying, the project sponsor must work with you to figure out that you're guaranteed a right of return. It was basically just saying, which happens a lot for planning department projects, is when there are complicated tenant issues, we want there to be conversation between the property owners, the project sponsors, and those tenants so that those issues are either resolved or as resolved as they can be before a project gets in front of, say, the planning commission requesting an approval of a development.

So your view of the planning department's position back in 23 was everyone ought to communicate, they ought to work it out, but it doesn't go so far as to say, and we think that while we are instructing you to work it out, the it, you may have, we're not saying you have a legal obligation to do anything, just work it out.

Correct. Because we didn't have the purview of the authority to determine if there was a right of return or what those details may be. But again, we wanted to make sure that all the stakeholders involved were working together on those issues.

And then as you quoted the ending sentences, I'm working with the city attorney, rent board, and planning department's housing policy team about tenants returning. That would be something that we should ask the city attorney. What came out of that as to the city's view of what the right to return is?

Sure.

You've more than once said maybe there's something at the rent board, but you're not going to hear about it from planning because it's not our regulation. Right.

Correct, yeah. Anything regarding the interpretation or implementation of the rent ordinance would be rent board.

And everything about imminent danger is DBI. The planning is just deferred.

Yeah, on those two issues, those are other agencies that take the lead on those issues.

Great, great. And I'll yield to Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening, Mr. Teague. Actually, that was a point of clarification I had. In DBI's brief, it says, emergency orders are issued to mitigate an imminent safety hazard and are processed on an expedited timeline so the safety intervention is not delayed. Side note, we do have an appeal here. But remind me, so the planning department's position on imminent safety hazard is exactly what?

Well, the planning department doesn't really take a position on that because the planning code for the most part, doesn't really address life safety issues. Because that's what the building code, the fire code, and the housing code, that's what those are there for. We don't have structural engineers and those types of expertise within the planning department to make those types of determinations. So the planning code does have specific provisions, like the ones we referenced in the original brief, for what happens to certain planning code requirements whenever there has been an emergency demolition order issued. basically allows certain requirements under the planning code to be exempted, basically because of the life safety issue. But the planning department itself doesn't make any determinations regarding an imminent health risk.

And one more question. How often do you see these kind of emergency demo permits?

I mean, it varies over time. I mean, it's typically due to fires. And obviously, it depends on the severity of the fire. Some fires don't require the structure to be torn down. Most of the time, they can just be repaired. But I mean, if I had to guess, which would be purely a guess, I mean, for these types, I would say maybe once a year.

OK, thank you.

Sure.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We will now hear from DBI.

Good evening, President Transvigna, members of the board. Kerry McElroy, senior building inspector at the Department of Building Inspection. The case before the board this evening is the appeal of the demolition permit 202603278418. On March 24, 2026, DBI issued an emergency order for the demolition of the structure located at 659 Union Street. The emergency order required the building owner to file for a demolition permit and demolish a building within 72 hours. This determination was made by the department's director, a seasoned structural engineer and expert in seismic design, who also serves as the building official. The director made this determination in consultation with DBI's interim deputy director for permit services, who's a longtime DBI engineer and DBI's deputy director of inspection services. after a site visit and after reviewing multiple engineering reports evaluating the structural safety of the building. In the last hearing, there were some questions regarding about the process for determining that a building poses an imminent hazard requiring demolition. The most relevant safety regulations that were considered as part of this emergency order are as follows. San Francisco Building Code Section 102A defines buildings that are structurally unsafe or that can constitute a fire hazard or are otherwise dangerous to human life, safety, or health of the occupants or the occupants of the adjacent properties or to the public by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment are unsafe. Section 102A.16 details the building official's authority to issue emergency orders stating, Whenever, in the judgment of the building official, it appears from an inspection or notice of violation that there exists in, on, or near any building or structure, property, or portion thereof any condition constituting an imminent or substantial hazard to the life, health, or safety of the occupants or other persons or to such building, structure, or property requiring prompt action, to correct the said condition, the building official shall have the power to issue an order in writing detailing the serious and imminent hazard conditions and requiring that the building structure or property be demolished or that serious and imminent hazard conditions be repaired, altered, corrected, or eliminated. This section also explains the limits of the building official's authority, specifically stating that in order to repair or alter an unsafe building, to bring it up to code cannot exceed 50% of the value of the property AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ASSESSOR. WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

Good evening. Ray Louie, section manager with San Francisco Public Works and his principal engineer. Last time, the commission asked me to come back and discuss our public works project that's running along Union Street. And so what we have is about

Mr. Louie, you were asking, Commissioner Cerrone was going to ask you a question.

Oh, okay, sure. Absolutely. Sorry about that.

It's all right. I appreciate your being here. You're going in the direction that I was looking for, but just to remind you, At the last meeting, we provided guidance to say DPW provide more information about the scope, nature, and timing of the sewer and street paving project and what the department would do if the walls at the subject property were not demolished. And specifically, how does DPW's work impact the determination that there is an imminent danger to crumbling of the building?

Right, yeah. So thank you for reiterating that. So our original project ran along Union Street from Lyon all the way down to Columbus. And it included repaving of the entire street, select curb ramp repairs or rebuilds, because some of them are not in compliance with accessible regulations, and then also spot repairs as well as some segments of sewer replacement. So it's not a complete sewer replacement down the entire street. So select locations of running around eight or 10 blocks would have the sewer repair. But the paving would be the entire street. Because of the building that's in question today, that one block at the very end between Powell and Columbus was removed from our scope of work. The project at this point is at a near 100% design. We are planning to issue for advertisement at the end of June and with construction slated for early 2027. The project is intended to last about two years. The scope of work that is being eliminated on that one block includes six curb ramps, as well as the repaving of that street, as well as a new bus pad. The reason for eliminating that work is because of the potential collapse of the structure. But there's also sub-sidewalk basements in that building. So if you imagine, throughout San Francisco, especially down in North Beach and Chinatown, there are a lot of buildings with basements that exceed, that push out under the sidewalk and sometimes even into the street. So about six or nine months ago, the project manager came to me to ask about investigating those sub-sidewalk basements in order to be part of the project. And at that time, he said, oh, by the way, there's this building that's kind of like Not quite 100% there. And I said, what are you talking about? And so that's the first time I was actually, not the first time I'm aware of this building, but the first time looking at this building now from a technical eyes, technical lens. And so I immediately said, you know what? I don't feel comfortable having my engineers going into those basements to investigate the nature, the construction of that. And so therefore, we're not going to do that work. All right. And so that immediately turned the project manager around and said, we're going to eliminate that block. And that's where we are with the project that we have today.

OK. So what is it? In addition to accessing the building, which is unsafe from what you're saying, is there anything about the nature of the work that makes the building more susceptible to crumbling? I mean, I've read that if there was any kind of minor earthquake in North Beach, the building would most likely come down. Are you doing... dredging, vibrating, things like that. What kind of work are you doing with that impact?

That's a great question. So normally when we do paving work, in this case for Union, I think we are just grinding the surface to asphalt and then putting down new asphalt. We are doing some minor repairs to the road base. In San Francisco, our streets are typically about two inches of asphalt, depending where you are. About two inches of asphalt over eight inches or 10 inches of concrete road base. So sometimes that concrete road base gets deteriorated, so we have to replace that. So that requires jackhammering. In this case, we don't know actually what is in that segment because we didn't investigate that segment. With regards to the sub-sidewall basement, what happens is that because of our paving projects, we need to upgrade those corner curb ramps for accessible access. And so what that involves oftentimes is regrading, potentially, of that. sidewalk. And that requires demolition of that corner. And if we're demolishing a piece of the building, right, because that corner is the subsoil basement and that roof is connected, or the sidewalk is actually connected to the building, if we're demolishing that building with jackhammers and whatever else, we are running the risk of significant vibrations, right? And so with these significant vibrations, with a brick building, we could potentially knock pieces of it down. And I did not want to have that risk.

Thank you for the clarity there. Appreciate it. President Truskina?

I'm a little surprised by, I appreciate the candor of your answer, but it's, at least from DPW's perspective, the building gets in the way of doing important work. And DPW is not saying it's in imminent danger of collapsing. Is that right?

It is in danger of a partial collapse if we do work there. If you do the work. If we cause vibrations, yeah.

Right. OK. So then it's not imminent. It's a problem. It's a barrier to do the important work. But if we're looking for someone to say it's imminent, we'd have to find somebody else.

OK, so I think we need to separate a couple of things here. In terms of the work that we are doing as Public Works, it is a danger. But in terms of from a structural engineering perspective, it is a, I'll use the word imminent, it is an imminent collapse hazard because of potential earthquakes. It is a building that is very unsafe. Like I said before, if I'm doing search and rescue operations in there, and I'm trying to recover a live person, we will figure out a way to protect our rescuers to go do that. But that's a very unique kind of a thing. This building has been standing like this for quite some time, and we're running the risk. So it's all about risk. The imminent thing could happen right now, or it could happen The earthquake could happen right now or could happen a month from now or two years from now, whatever it is. But the risk is there. And it's real. To say that there is no risk or that it's not imminent or whatever is, I think, a misuse of the word imminent, if you will.

Thank you. I have some questions for DBI. You can go. I want to be brief on this. In terms of, again, I think this case comes a lot down to imminent and what imminent means. So what I'm trying to get a sense from you is, how long has DBI known of this imminent danger?

I will defer to David Cain, board director.

DAVID CAIN, Good evening, President Trasvigna and other members of the Board of Appeals. I'm David Cain. I'm the interim director of DBI. I serve as the building official. I recently started there in the last year. Prior to joining DBI, I worked for nearly 30 years in the structural engineering field. I've been designated as a model law structural engineer by the National Council of Examiners. I've served as a subject matter expert for the State of California Board of Engineers and helped develop their seismic principles exam. I've served as structural engineer of record for hundreds of projects in San Francisco, including many retrofit projects, and served as chair of the Professional Practice Committee for the Structural Engineers Association. Lastly, prior to joining DBI, I also served as a seismic expert for the San Francisco Board of Examiners. With that, to answer your question about imminent, having recently come in contact with this project, making a site visit with Mr. Ray Louie and our staff, what struck me as an expert in seismic and structural engineering is that it's a URM, unreinforced masonry structure, These are a known hazard, known to the state of California to be a hazard. I would estimate that from the point that the second fire in large part destroyed the previous retrofit work that had been done, at that point the building became an imminent hazard. Again, from a gravity load perspective, it's stable day to day. Vibrations caused by excavation work, by the paving project, By large earthquakes, by seismic events, that's a different story. And the seismic events, they're unpredictable. They can happen at any time. That's what keeps me up. That's what worries me about the property, about the project. At any time, an earthquake could strike, and either a partial or full collapse of the masonry could occur, endangering any pedestrians, any persons nearby that would be struck by the falling bricks.

So you've given me a long and helpful answer, and you've established your bona fides as an expert. So then you would not disagree with the permit holder's brief who says, this hazard has existed unpermitted with the full knowledge of the city for seven years.

I would disagree slightly with the full knowledge of the city. I think that fresh eyes, I think a different level of expertise. I think the people that reviewed the building and the project before, they were acting in good faith to the best of their ability and the best of their knowledge. And I think Mr. Louie and myself taking a second look at it with additional expertise in both seismic engineering and Mr. Louie in particular, with his extensive experience in rescue operations from having worked in natural disasters, that we took a different perspective, had a different point of view.

And in 2025, ShoreCal Engineering wrote to DBI and said the building is at risk of collapse, serious structural hazard. DBI didn't do anything about that?

I'm not privy to what precisely happened at that time. I am familiar with the report, and we concurred with the report.

OK. The other question I have before I yield to Commissioner Abbott is, so the URM buildings, it seems like you're classifying all of them as imminent danger. So I'm wondering, could the city, say, well, how many buildings could this ability to have an emergency demolition permit, how often would the city be able to do that?

To answer your question, I believe that was precisely the rationale for implementing a mandatory retrofit program. So there were requirements to brace parapets. There were requirements to brace unreinforced masonry buildings. Again, since the fire occurred, that parapet bracing was destroyed. The full seismic retrofit that had been performed was also destroyed. Other buildings would have been retrofitted, and this building was retrofitted prior to the fire.

So what escapes me is what's the justification for an emergency demolition permit if there are other ways to deal with URM buildings and DBI has known about it for at least a year, maybe longer?

Sure. So to answer your question there, There may be ways that one could go about designing a new retrofit. As was described by Inspector McElroy earlier, there's limitations to the powers and authorities that we, as DBI, have as acting as the building official. And those are up to 50% of the property value. We also have the issue of time. This building has been standing like this nearly 10 years going on 13 years back to the initial fire, and how long those will take to implement. There may be other methods that we could explore. Mr. Louie could speak to protecting the right-of-way to the public in the interim period. But at this point, considering safety as paramount, There's other issues that this board may consider, the right of return, the historic nature of the building, and the architectural significance. Those, unfortunately, are not powers that I have as the building official to condition the permit. I can issue a demolition order. That's what we can do. With that, our department would take no exception to the board considering that, but that's not a power that we have.

Thank you. Commissioner Abad.

Thank you, Interim Director Kane. I didn't have any questions for you. I actually just had a question for Mr. Louie from DPW. Thanks for being here. And thank you, President Transvino, for those questions. I think they echo some that came up in our last hearing about just a lack of any intervention since the fires. You know, further stabilization, you know, not a full retrofit, but it seems that after the last most significant fire, there was some shoring and nothing else, no other attention had been paid to the asset since then. I may be misunderstanding, but that seems to be what The facts of the matter are. So, Mr. Louie, you mentioned that there is an infrastructure project. Did I hear you correctly that the segment that adjoins this property has just been removed from the scope of work? That's correct. Okay. So for the moment, the fate of this building does not impact the public, what is it, eight blocks running up

It does not impact. So the project's moving forward, right? So we're moving forward with the bulk of Union Street. We will not be doing repaving along that one. That one segment. One segment between Powell and Columbus.

And you guys are at 100%? We're near 100. And you're advertising for a contractor. Okay. So I just wanted to clarify that the public works infrastructure project is not being impacted by the current deliberations about this property. Thanks.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez, who do you have a question for?

Mine's for DBI. OK. Thank you, Interim Director Kane. I guess it's actually inquiring more broadly, not necessarily to the particulars of this matter. Is there a process by which DBI would locate other instances of URMs or other kind of imminent dangers within the city landscape, whether it's we've had several references, taking a step back, we've had several references in the previous hearing and again tonight to fresh eyes and maybe just taking a closer look at or with a different lens applied to the potential imminence of danger. How does DBI kind of think about that generally? Like, are there other buildings that potentially could fall into this category that we and the public don't know about today? How do we figure that out?

TODD BANDUCCI- To my knowledge, the answer is no. If we were to become aware, then we would certainly issue a notice of violation and investigate it. I think the key issue here is that intact existing URM buildings that have floors, that have roofs, those were ordered to be retrofitted. decades ago. That work has been done. There had been an inventory taken. At this point, we no longer have a building. We have a shell. We have masonry walls, unreinforced masonry, with some minimal temporary bracing. It was designed to be temporary. It was not designed to be a permanent retrofit solution. I think that's the big difference is that these are intact buildings that have been retrofitted, and this is a building that was retrofitted but no longer exists as a building. It's a structure of unreinforced masonry.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong?

Thank you. So I have a question kind of with this imminent thing that we're trying to figure out. Since 2013, there have been multiple minor earthquakes in the Bay Area. Do you know if anybody's actually reviewed or checked out the building afterwards? Like what were the impacts of those earthquakes? I think there was one within the last two years for sure.

I don't know the exact history and timeline prior to me beginning at DBI in the past year. In 2013, my understanding is that the retrofit work was still largely intact. And it wasn't until 2018 with the more significant fire that that work was then destroyed. And yes, there have been minor, smaller earthquakes, not necessarily centered near the property. To give you a point of reference, the Hayward Fault ruptures approximately every 150 years. The USGS has been able to do trenching work to go in and estimate and see through the rock and dirt layers of when these earth movements happened. And we're now at approximately 158 years from the last major earthquake.

Another question. I keep hearing about fresh eyes, but I also like to, I respect experience of the older eyes as well. Has there been any conversation between the fresh eyes and the old eyes about the change in designation?

Yes, we discussed it thoroughly as a department and also in consultation with the expertise at Public Works.

Got it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We're going to move on to public comment. I see there are quite a few people in the room here for public comment, correct? If you could start lining up against the wall. We'll have one minute. Okay, one minute.

I put a pad here so people can sign.

Yeah, there's a pad there, so when you come up or after you speak, please write your name down, number it. Okay. And write your name, please. So if you want to provide public comment, please line up against the wall. And then, Mr. Bruno, you can come forward. You're first. And then we will get to the public comment on Zoom. So please go ahead. You have one minute.

659 Union was left empty after the fire in December 2013. It was emptied by the landlord, as testified on April 22nd, right here in this room, not because of the fire. Only a few of the building units were smoke damaged. There was no shoring required after 2013, but only after 2018. What's significant about that is that that should have never happened. Under our own building code, it was a fire hazard because the landlord removed all the tenants from the building. And our code says that a hazard is any condition, arrangement, or act which may cause an increase in the possibility or menace of fire. And that's what this landlord did by removing all the landlords from his own building from 2013 to 2018 when it was finally destroyed by fire. Not surprisingly, because he was negligent. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. And if, so the woman in the, if you, thank you.

Yeah, you can just fill out the pad here. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Oh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Catherine Petran. I'm a District 3 business owner, architectural historian, who has surveyed and documented the buildings of North Beach. I respectfully ask this board to revoke the demolition permit and uphold the appeal, return the project to the planning department to assist the owner, as he asks, in rehabilitating and realizing the 2023 scheme which would preserve the historic building facade. The Verdi building, inspired by the classical architecture of Italy, epitomizes historic North Beach. The neighborhood's reconstruction between 1906 and 1915 was an epic triumph that's still legible in the buildings that comprise the neighborhood today. The Verity Building, a contributor to the North Beach National Register Historic District, has a critically important relationship to Washington Square. in the way that a bulky, bland, 10-story structure never will. Please consider that in your decision.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. The woman with the black poncho, if you can come forward and write your name on the. Thank you.

Hi, good evening. I support this appeal to revoke the emergency demolition permit. I'm a former president of the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, appointed by Mayor Newsom. My name is Bridget Mailey. I have 33 years of professional experience in historic preservation in California. There have been many successful masonry facade preservation and integration projects in San Francisco, including the Conservatory of Music, the Emporium, and the Contemporary Jewish Museum, among others. Why did this developer engage an architect to design a project that incorporates the remaining masonry walls if it was not feasible, or there was some imminent threat to the remaining features? The question of eminent has not been answered adequately by the project sponsor. If the walls and the foundation are removed, the tenants' rights to return will be lost. This would be a terrible precedent. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. And the next woman. Yeah, thanks.

Board, approve the appeal, adopt the 2023 plan, defend fire displaced tenant right to return, reject height increase from a three-story to a 10-story luxury housing behemoth, comprehend dramatic alteration to cultural and architectural identity of the historic neighborhood, understand formidable shadow cast over iconic Washington Square, ensure planning decisions are transparent and not designed to enrich dishonest politically connected individuals partnering with greedy developers. Hold owners responsible for equally unscrupulous calculated behavior preventing displaced tenants from ever returning with a decade of delays, broken tenant promises, and ignoring negotiations with neighborhood groups and planning department. And don't sell our communities to developers seeking to expose housing guidelines while failing to build truly affordable housing. Please approve this appeal and do not allow multiple dangerous precedents to be established today. And Evic Sautter. Thank you. Next speaker.

Thank you. Next. Thank you.

Hi. Please approve this appeal. My name is Dr. Sarah Luger. I am a resident landlord and longtime North Beach supporter, even when I didn't live in the neighborhood itself. So I am very appreciative of the candor by one of the representatives earlier. I thought that was really great. But unless it's in writing, I'm very concerned about the 13 years of historical dereliction, lack of support for this building. Please, please don't tear it down.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Science.

Hi, my name's Bill McLeod. I'm a native San Franciscan. I love North Beach. I've spent many, many years there. And if we took City Lights, which is another iconic corner, and knocked it down and put up an ugly tower, Well, that's kind of what we're doing here. It's another iconic corner, as the owner said. And he's been worried for years. Since 2018, it's been seen as an imminent hazard. I don't understand the sense of landlord responsibility. This should have been taken care of. This building should have sensors on it if we're concerned about it. We should know that stuff. This should be appealed, and what should be built there is the earlier version, which maintains the beautiful facade with the building next door going a little above it, not an ugly monster. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Kathleen Courtney, chair of the Russian Hill Community Association. First of all, the Solomon-esque quality of your questions and your discussions is something I haven't seen in my 50 years of attending commission hearings. You are to be complimented. Given that, the Russian Hill Community Association joins with our fellow Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association in urging you to support the appeal of the demolition of the Verde apartment building and exercise your de novo power and require the developer to adhere to the 2023 agreement with the community. Thank you very much for your service. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Overhead? Yeah, it's right there. You can move it around, too.

Well, it looks even better up there.

OK. If you wanted to make it so you could see the whole thing, there's a little pinwheel on top.

One minute?

Yes, please go ahead.

Oh, wow. I've got to speak fast. So the rebuilding of this property is immediately adjacent to Washington Square Park, which you can see in this picture here. It's a beautiful park used by tourists, by the locals, by everybody. Here is 1,000 Green Street, which used to cast a shadow on the park.

If you could, Mr. Carnes, if you could speak into the microphone, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

So here is 659 Union Street. And if you raise this up to 100 feet, as Mr. Giro wants to do, it's going to cast a shadow into the park as well. Here's another drawing that shows the shadow. tracing. This is the subject building, 659. And this is Washington Square Park. And this red line shows the shadow it will cast over the park. And that's not allowed under ordinance Prop K, which was passed in 1984. Here's a drawing that was suggested and posted on the Telegraph Hill.

Thank you, Mr. Carnes. Next speaker, please.

At this hearing, I've heard a lot of wonderful intentions. And I've also heard a lot of passing the buck. SF Planning can't comment on right to return. DBI can't comment on what's imminent. DPW appears to not understand the definition of imminence. Mr. Giroux here wants to discuss pathways, but not a right to return. Missed a lot of family dinners along with the neighborhood groups that developed a plan in 2023, which you've seen, which you just described as DOA. There's many reasons I'm here, but I really want to focus on two, two finite resources that will be lost if you do not uphold this appeal. Rent-controlled housing stock in a city suffering from an affordable housing crisis and a historic artifice in a city that's losing them by the day. I must urge you to move away from good intentions and to good interventions. Please uphold this appeal and direct DBI and SF Planning to condition any developments to honor displaced tenants' right to return. Thanks so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening. Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and myself as a North Beach resident just two blocks away. The danger goes beyond pedestrians here. I think it's really important that we also acknowledge that there are a lot of projects outside of just this site that need to be attended to concerning the bus stop and public utilities. It's not just delaying possible housing and return to housing. It's delaying infrastructure improvements that are already planned and funded for this neighborhood. I really think North Beach deserves better, deserves to be a neighborhood that's growing, vibrant, moving towards the future, not one where a crumbling, ruined blocks progress on housing and basic city services alike. So we urge you to please deny the appeal and let North Beach finally move on. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Peter Kwan. I'm a North Beach resident. I've lived in North Beach, very close to the building in question, for over 20 years. I think it's axiomatic that the first duty of any public servant is to preserve the safety of the citizens. I have a lot of sympathy for the interests of the former tenants, for those who want to preserve the historic beauty and values of this building. But first of all, we must make sure that the people are safe. We've heard experts saying that this building is, to put it in plain language, terrifyingly dangerous. We've heard no rebuttal from any experts from the other side. Please reject this appeal.

Hi, I'm Ava Rae McLeod. I'm from San Francisco. And for the past year, I've had the pleasure of living in North Beach, right around the corner from the Verdi building. I go to Washington Square Park, which faces the corner in question, every single day with my dog. I love the park. Everyone loves this park. If you cared about the community, you wouldn't build a 10-story monstrous building in front of it. Please support the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Thanks for your time on this again. Danny Sautter, District 3 supervisor. And as supervisor, public safety is something I think a lot about. And that is why I'm asking you to reject this appeal. I appreciate the broad conversation we've had tonight. But I want to return to the fact of the matter that this appeal is about a clerical error. And at our last meeting, that clerical error was explained clearly. We're talking about a scope of a permit demolition with a clerical error. The conversations about this building, as you've heard, have been going on a long, long time. And I've been involved in many of those conversations in my past life as a community organizer with a neighborhood association. And there are many conversations that need to continue to happen. There is no project at the moment that has my support on this site going forward. But that is a conversation that needs to be had, needs to be had with community. But for the moment, we're talking about imminent hazard. We're talking about public safety. We have city departments and structural engineers who say this is an imminent hazard. Please reject the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

I'm Rudy Waltz, and this is Overhead, please.

You can speak into the microphone, too, please.

Yeah, look at that. That's a really nice-looking building there. I just wanted to use my minute there to look at that. I think it's a fine-looking building. I think you'd be very proud of that. Everybody would be very happy. We'd all be happy. There's not much time left in this world. It's not going to matter if you make $10 million more. Make this building.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hi, my name is Mary McGuire, and I've lived in District 3 45 years. So I'm here with my neighbors to ask that you revoke the demolition permit and restore the residents' right to return. And I also wanted to say I really respect the thought and the work that you guys have done. I've seen you in other hearings, and you really give it your all. And I respect that, and I commend you for that, too. Also, that was scary, that picture. When you look at that building, there won't be any sun left in Washington Square Park. So I just hope that you... deny this permit. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

What she said, thank you so much, commissioners. I'm a 20-year resident. I live a block from the Verity Building. And the defendant's testimony contradicts its April 22 testimony regarding the right of return. So that's a little confusing. But at that meeting, Commissioner Lopez warned, I do think that someone could sit on their hands, this is a quote, and say, let's wait out the right to return shot clock. we face the imminent danger of a moral hazard. And today, I feel like that moral hazard is the inflection point, at the inflection point. And the precedent setter is here. So not supporting this appeal validates the rigging of that shot clock. Please require them to get a demo permit, to go back and get a demo permit with the amendments that restore historic elements, make the displaced tenants whole, and adopt the 2023 design on file with planning. Thank you for not rewarding bad actors who play time games with people's lives and our neighborhoods. This has been really scary, and that's the thing I'm most scared of. And I live a block away. I'm more scared of this precedent. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, President Trasvinia and members of the board. My name is Jordi Barrientos, and I'm here on behalf of Senator Scott Weiner, who has been closely following this appeal. The senator feels strongly that as a matter of public safety, the board needs to act decisively to deny this appeal. The senator asks that you focus on the issue at hand. Does this building present an imminent risk to the surrounding community? San Francisco Department of Building Inspection has determined that it does. SFDPW has determined that such a risk exists and has not resumed work on the adjacent project. I understand that the board had many questions about the tenant's right to return, which it sounds like the owner wants to comply with. and about the future development of the site, but this decision should focus solely on the imminent risk to public safety, and any further delays needlessly exacerbate that risk. The Senator also wishes to express that this appeal, combined with the Board's delay in the face of a specific risk to public safety, gives credence to the perception of many members of the public that San Francisco City government is often focused more on endless process than results. Senator urges the board to not play into that perception and to quickly thank you. I also have a letter for the clerk.

Okay. Thank you Okay, we're gonna move to public comment online guest number seven. Please go ahead Guest seven you have to you need to unmute yourself Okay, go ahead do you have one minute Please speak. OK, we're going to move to Sam Woodworth. Please go ahead. Sam Woodworth? I see that you unmuted yourself. Maybe we need to go back to it. Let's try somebody else. Jessica Hurwitz, please go ahead. Okay, Sam Woodworth is raising his hand. I don't know, maybe we're having technical difficulties.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you.