Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening, and welcome to the August 12th, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvina will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Commissioner Robin Abad Okubia and Commissioner Lily Wong. Vice President Rebecca Soroyan and Commissioner Jose Lopez are absent tonight. 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 this evening. Up front, we have Corey Teague, the zoning administrator, who is with the planning department, and Carrie McElroy, senior building inspector with the Department of Building Inspection. We also have Javier Rivera. He's the manager for private sector permits at San Francisco Public Works Department. From DPH, we expect Meg Ryan, deputy city attorney representing Department of Public Health. And I don't see any other representatives from DPH at this time. So 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. The rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. For rehearing requests, 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 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 or to grant a rehearing request. If you have questions about requesting a 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. SFGovTV is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. SFGovTV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGovTV 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. If you want to attend via Zoom, go to our website, sfgov.org forward slash BOA, and under the calendar, click on the link next to 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 94710337799. And 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 at sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. Now we will swear and affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. So commissioners, as a preliminary matter, the appellant for item number six, appeal number 26-026 at 1261 to 1263 3rd Avenue would like to make a request for a continuance. She will have three minutes to make this request. And the zoning administrator will have three minutes to respond. DBI can weigh in if they want to. You can either vote on the request or decline to entertain it. And as a preliminary matter, Commissioner Wong has a disclosure.

Mr. Lamar, before we reach the preliminary matter, is this an item that would require public comment?

Yes.

Should we have the initial public comment first or go into that later?

Why don't they make the request and then the public comment? We could have a public comment. Great, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Wong?

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

OK, thank you. So the appellant is joining us via Zoom. Ms. Chen, welcome. You have three minutes to address the board on your request to continue this matter.

Hi. Good evening, President and members of the board. My name is Chris Chen. I'm appearing by audio on behalf of my mother, Ali Chen, the appellant. So before proceeding with the appeal, I would like to respectfully make one more request on her behalf. My mother is not feeling physically well and does not feel physically capable to participate effectively in this meeting. She has been under considerable emotional and physical stress because my grandma is currently in hospice care. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the board would consider continuing this matter to a later hearing date so my mother can have an opportunity to participate and properly present her case. There's also an important issue concerning her original 2016 application under the city's amnesty legalization program that she's been trying to clarify, and some additional time would help her to better understand and prepare for the hearing. So therefore, we respectfully ask the board to grant one additional continuance. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, President Shazvina.

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

Yes. I believe she will be trying her best to resolve those matters and to better understand what she needs to do.

Thank you.

I think we should also clarify, for the record, how long of a continuance are you requesting? We have hearings on August 26, September 2.

I believe September 2 would work.

OK. Thank you. So we will now hear from the planning department.

Good evening, President Trasvinia, Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. As President Trasvinia mentioned, this is a very longstanding enforcement matter. There has been a substantial amount of reasonable leniency and timing provided. This appeal was originally scheduled for June the 10th. It's been rescheduled twice to this date. The appellant had already filed their brief and this request for continuance I believe was made just in the last few days. I would also note that the specific question that was referenced about if there is anything related to that 2016 permit that affects the issues at hand today. The property owner, the appellant, emailed me directly earlier this week with that question. I responded the same day and clarified that essentially, no, there was no grandfathering. There was no legal change to the status or the violation. because of that permit that had been filed at that time. So I believe that issue has been addressed directly to the appellant. So I feel like on all those issues, I don't feel like there's any grounds for a continuance. On the issue of a person's physical well-being and their ability to be an active participant and engage in the hearing, I'll leave that to the board's wisdom to consider. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

The core issue here is that there is an unauthorized dwelling unit that's been identified and acknowledged on the property. So with any unauthorized dwelling unit, the options are to either legalize it or remove it. And this particular case, trying to get too much in the details, but there was a proposal to legalize it. That didn't happen. And now there's a proposal to withdraw it, but that requires a conditional use authorization. And no action is being taken or has been taken for some time now to address the unauthorized dwelling unit. So some action must be taken to address it, either to legalize it or to remove it through the conditional use process.

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

I don't know that we know for sure if the unit is being leased. I think it's been some time since our staff was out there doing a site visit. So I would defer to the representative of the property owner for that information.

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

I'm not aware of any acute public safety concerns. There is also an NOV that's been issued by DBI on the same topic. I don't recall that there were, again, any particularly acute life safety issues other than the fact that someone may be living in a space that's not legalized as a unit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Did DBI want to weigh in on this request? No? OK. So we're going to move on to public comment. Is there any public comment on this? I don't see any public comment. So commissioners, you can decide to either vote or decide not to, in which case we would hear the matter.

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

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

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

Yes, motion to continue.

Okay.

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

OK. And what's the basis for your motion?

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

OK. OK. So on that motion, President Trasvinia?

Aye.

Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

So that motion carries 3 to 0, and this matter will be continued to September 2. Thank you. 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 that is not on tonight's agenda? I don't see anyone. So we're going to move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I believe all of the items that are before us tonight are either re-hearings or the parties have been here before us recently. So I won't repeat what I usually tell people, which is that we come prepared and we want to hear you. We give you this opportunity. to make your case, highlight the points that you've already given us in writing. We have read the brief, so I want to just reiterate to that to the public. And second is I do want to share information that since the last time we were here, Mayor Lurie on my behalf, regarding me and President of the board Mandelman with regard to Commissioner Abad Abad have renominated us for four-year terms and we both have been sworn in for a new four-year terms and to the extent that we Merit this continuation in our public service. I believe at least I can speak for myself that it is greatly due To our work we do together We we've come independently to our decisions. But we are greatly, as a group, we are greatly benefited by our staff, Julia Lamar and Alex Longaway, Jesse Minority, our deputy city attorney. So I just want to let you know that we will continue in this public service for another four years.

Thank you. OK. I don't see any comments. Is there any public comment on this matter? 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 on possible adoption are the minutes of the July 15, 2026 meeting.

I move to adopt the July 15, 2026 minutes.

OK. Is there any public comment on that motion? I don't see any. So on that motion, Commissioner Abbott?

Aye.

Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 3 to 0, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item number 4. This is the hearing request for appeal number 25-059, subject property. At 3446 Balboa Street, Jing Wang and Liang Wang appellants are requesting a rehearing of appeal number 25-059, which was decided on May 20th, 2026. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Lopez, the board voted 3-2, President Trasvinia and Vice President Soroyan dissented to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis that it was properly issued. The determination holders are Jing Wang and Lian Wang. The determination description, revocation of massage establishment health permit, and imposition of $7,500 in 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 ME120465. Note this rehearing request was originally scheduled to be heard on June 30th, and it was rescheduled at the request of the appellants and with the agreement of the department. So we will hear from the requesters first. Welcome, Mr. Horcher.

Before you start my time, Congratulations on getting reappointed in four years.

Thank you. If you could put the microphone up a little bit. Thank you.

I would be remiss if I didn't ask for a continuance also, because my secondary reason is that I'm not 100% myself. The primary reason is these rehearing requests are hard enough. to get four votes, but it's impossible when it's only three people.

So are you asking for a request, a continuance? Yes, please. A short one. This is new. Next week is fine. So I guess we'll have you can, President Chesvena, do you want to give him three minutes to make the request and DPH can respond?

You're entitled to make the request, but if it's on the basis that you just stated, aside from your secondary issue, if we can hear the request, Well, it is true we do not have three board members present. Our practice has been a practice prior to the time I got here, and it's been throughout this time, that if there is a matter that the absence of the other remaining board members would make a potential difference in the vote, then we continue the matter, and we do not decide, but we continue it until they are present. And they are asked at the beginning of the hearing whether they have watched the video and whether they've read the materials, and then we take it up from there. So I just want to inform you that solely because the two commissioners are not here doesn't mean that if their votes mathematically matter, that they will be precluded. They will be included if their vote brings us to an ability to grant the matter. You may proceed on your request, or you may proceed to not make the request and go into your presentation for the hearing.

I think for the record, let's proceed with the request for the continuance, up or down.

I'm sorry, are you making a request for a continuance?

Yes, I am.

Okay, what date are you requesting? And we'll give you three minutes to make your request, so why don't we set the time?

Just the next hearing, as long as you... I should be 100% by the next hearing. When is that, next week?

In two weeks, I believe.

August 26th?

Yeah. 25th?

August 26th.

I could do that.

And if you could speak in the microphone, please.

Okay, you have three minutes to address the board explaining why you want it moved. So go ahead.

26th.

Well, like the previous person who requested a continuance, she wasn't feeling 100%, and neither am I. I've been through 10 weeks of... trying to deal with an infection in my heart. And I think I'm OK now. They took me off antibiotics on Monday, but my body hasn't caught up totally. I'm not 100%. I don't need as long. I think I'm making progress every day. And I've made progress since Monday. But maybe another week would help, if it's not inconvenient to the board. I'd like to give my client the best I can.

OK. Thank you. Are you finished?

Yes.

OK. You can be seated, and we'll hear from DPH responding to your request. Thank you. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Thank you. The department's request would be to proceed tonight. This is the first time we've heard of any request for a continuance. Mr. Horcher has my phone number, could have called, didn't.

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

I was just saying that the department would request that we continue tonight. Mr. Horcher has my phone number. He hasn't called to say he wanted a continuance. This is the very first time that I'm hearing of the continuance as well.

That's not true.

That's not true. Please let her finish. You're interrupting her time. We're pausing the time.

Please stop. Thank you.

I didn't receive a phone call before this hearing. So tonight is the first time that I'm hearing of a request for a continuance. And I see both appellants here. I see the person who represented that he was their power of attorney in relation to the property who's here tonight. and I see their counsel here. So we'd like to bring this matter to a conclusion. I mean, the reality of the continuances is that there was a decision by this board on May 20th, and yet it hasn't taken effect yet. And so this business continues to operate, and we would like to see this matter come to hopefully a close tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any public comment on the request for a continuance? If you can come approach, please, and identify yourself for the record.

Hi there, board. My name's Doug Dietz. I'm a patron of Serenity Spa. I've been going there for about five years. I've had serious issues with my neck and other ailments with my back. As far as for me and my wife as well, we go there as couples sometimes. We have never been approached in any lewd or- Yeah, sir.

Right now, we're just taking public comment on the request for a continuance. Oh, I'm sorry. No problem. If we hear the case, you can come back.

I mean, again, I don't know all the details, so I really can't comment. So-

OK, so if we do hear the case, we'll call you back up.

OK, sorry about that.

No worries. Thank you so much. Any public comment on the request for a continuance? OK, I don't see any. So commissioners, you can choose to entertain a vote or choose not to, in which case we will go ahead and hear the matter.

Thank you. And thank you for the request. I'm always happy to entertain. the request. I'm not happy to, I'm obligated to. I am happy to entertain a motion from my colleagues on these matters, but I will not be the one to make a motion to continue, and here is why. First, under our rules, our rules specifically state that The board generally will not reschedule a matter based solely on the fact that fewer than five members are present at the hearing. So that addresses part of the request that we do have, as I explained earlier, we do have a process to make sure that where the votes mathematically matter, the commissioners who are absent are prepared and have told us on the record that they have watched the proceedings that came before them so that they are ready to act and vote on a matter. We could have the matter tonight. We could hear the matter tonight. If the vote is, and I won't even go into the various configurations of what the vote could be, but if it matters that we have two votes missing, we will continue the matter for a final vote and disposition. As to the other part of the request, while I appreciate Mr. Horcher sharing with us his concerns about his I guess, suitability to give it his 100%. That is, I distinguish that request from, and he seems to be perhaps emboldened or informed by the deliberation we just had. And I will say, in that case, without getting into the details, there was a history of a request related to health in that matter, rather than one that just came up at the last minute. So I'm not inclined to entertain I'M NOT INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES AS TO THEIR VIEWS ON THE MATTER.

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

SAME.

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

SO MR. HORCHER, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

Before my three minutes starts, I did have some handouts for the board.

So President Trasvinia, are you going to accept? What are you proposing to submit to the board?

After the last hearing.

Can you move the microphone up, please? Thank you. OK.

Excuse me. After the last hearing, I had a Public Records Act request which was honored, I was surprised, and it contains emails which show collusion between the city attorney, Special Victims Unit, and Department of Public Health. I think you should see them. They're very helpful here. You see the whole picture.

You can show these as part of your presentation, but... No, they're kind of thick.

I get your point, Julie, and some of the things I will do that way, but... Have you provided these to DPH?

So, President Shasvinia... No problem.

I have extra copies. I have six copies. I have one for DPH and five for each member. And if you had ten minutes to review them, they're eye-openers about how your city functions or dysfunctions.

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

I get that. And you said it correctly. They would aid in my presentation greatly. And my presentation is predicated on these documents and predicated on you reading them. They're eye-openers.

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

Fair enough. Let me have a copy for Meg. I think she's familiar with them. I also have two articles from the San Francisco Standard, also relevant to aid.

You need to show everything on the overhead, OK?

These will be shown. The articles will be shown on the overhead in my presentation. I thought maybe the board would like to have their own copy. That's all. It's a courtesy.

OK, so please go ahead.

Let me have a little drink of water. Thanks. Yes, sir. I'm ready. OK. After nearly losing the March hearing, the city attorney, DPH, and SVU crossed the line in a collusive effort to win at all costs. DPH coordinated hostile public comments from Kelly Abbott and anonymous others to falsely portray the besides use of 3446 Balboa as recent, unpermitted, and associated with criminal and lewd conduct. They also used inflammatory, inadmissible material and unreliable testimony to smear the appellants and deny them due process. To her credit, District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan declined to get involved against the appellants. She was asked not to get involved. Uncontroverted public records conclusively show legal accessory massage use was approved at 3446 in 2012.

Overhead, please.

Overhead, please.

I paused your time.

OK, you stopped my time. Thanks.

You're welcome. There you go. Can you get a better shot of that? Yeah, do you want to?

There's a little. It's in your, these are exhibits in your packet. But I thought the public might want to see them. This was also confirmed by a 2015 zoning referral. And we also got Google images from 2015, 22 and 25 also confirmed the long term massage use at that location. Miss Abbott did not buy her nearby unit until 2022, 10 years after massage was established at 3446 Balboa. The May 20th hearing also exposed serious due process problems. Sergeant Glenn conducted his own report, admitted his actions were code enforcement, not trafficking rescue, attacked me personally, and relied on a worthless, mostly silent recording. The city attorney admitted that the anonymous website posts submitted were based on a legal mistake, and the board was wrongly counseled that it could not consider fair hearing or due process issues. There was a powerful motive issue as well here. You should remember no planning complaints were filed whatsoever when the spa moved across from 3443 to 3446 Balboa. Conflict erupted when Ms. Wong appointed an attorney in fact to question Kelly Abbott's HOA management, thus incurring her unrelenting fury and a vendetta against Ms. Wong. DPH then coordinated with Ms. Abbott to solicit comments that appear calculated to deceive the board by manufacturing a crisis. Meanwhile, there have been no prosecutions and never will be. The statute has run. It's been over a year. The alleged perpetrator was never ID'd, and there's no record of the kind of public safety emergency TPH and SVU claimed. If there had really been a health or safety risk, they would have come back. The fact they haven't never come back speaks louder than their empty accusations. Appellants have presented new evidence that could have changed the outcome and shown manifest injustice. The Board of Appeals should reverse its prior ruling and grant a rehearing on the full record, based on the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Thank you, that's fine.

Thank you. President Trinsicuina has a question for you.

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

Well, as we listed in the brief, we listed like nine facts. His testimony was contradicted when he showed up here. That was Sergeant Glenn. He admitted his testimony was messed up because he admitted he was code enforcement, not trafficking investigation. He was allowed to call me a liar, and he was not admonished. That is prejudicial. That should never have happened. He called me a liar and said I shouldn't be practicing law. Can you imagine that? That enough is grounds for... He also tried, his boss, Inspector Flores, tried to intimidate me for the first hearing. I talked about that. We talked about that recording. That recording finally was presented. There's nothing there. It was like 20, like you said, it was a big disappointment, like 26 minutes of dead air. Also, you can comply that the... that Sergeant Glenn's conduct was an intervening act which would cut off the DPH's theory of vicarious liability. The fact that he was in there and the tape finally proved that, he didn't say a word. He whispered everything so the owners would not know about what he was doing and could not have intervened. Also, when DPH put those anonymous websites in the evidence, that's a fatal error. They should never have been allowed. That public comment was a travesty. You got people to give anonymous opinions who were never sworn in. You don't even know who they are. How can you enforce perjury? We don't know the perjurer's identity.

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

Well, and that point also on manifest justice. In this case, throughout the entire proceedings and the entire hearing last time, DPH had their foot on the scales of justice, and my client did not get a fair hearing. It was frankly outrageous to have to listen to all that. So do I understand you that... And we couldn't prepare for that. How could we prepare for people to come up and say the things they did say? How could we prepare for maybe some bad advice your counsel gave you or didn't give you? How could I prepare about being libeled by an overtime obsessed police officer who resented anyone second-guessing his motives of what he's doing? I didn't see that one coming. How could I prepare for that?

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

I think both. I'm proud of your, as your point's well taken, it's probably stronger on the point of manifest injustice. But there were a lot of surprises at the last hearing that I couldn't, we could not anticipate. And you remember it well, what happened. Yes, we have also pointed out today that DPH colluded, and you'll have it in front of you. This is why I brought it. I didn't know about this until I got this Public Records Act request back, finally. They finally put their cards out, and I got them all face up. And that's in your pile there. I had no idea of the extent of collusion between DPH And these people who hate my client's guts over there, I pointed that out in her declaration, why there's a problem here between her and this woman who just keeps stirring things up, who lives upstairs.

Are you saying that the documents that you received in public records are your evidence of collusion prior to our hearing and had an effect on our hearing?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Well put. Thank you. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you. You can be seated. We will now hear from Department of Public Health.

OK. For the board to grant a hearing request, Serenity Spa must identify new facts that would have changed the outcome of the May 20 permit revocation hearing. It has not done so. The purported new facts in appellant's brief are neither new nor material, and several are inaccurate. And the points were already addressed in the city's brief. And I'm happy to answer any questions that are here today. If appellants' main argument is that they think the Board of Appeals got it wrong, their remedy is to then file a writ in the San Francisco Superior Court and pursue a remedy that way. Appellants' counsel now, I'm just seeing this tonight, are pointing to communications between city employees and two neighbors who provided public comment at earlier hearings and alleging like improper influence or improper communication. That's incorrect. The city always independently verifies public complaints before acting. That was the whole point of the police undercover operation here. And neighbors routinely contact the city regarding enforcement matters and appeals. The city does not disclose information that's not publicly available. We answer questions about the process, how to provide comment cards, etc. Robust public participation is a hallmark of San Francisco. And when members of the public frequently express their views, the city pursues enforcement based solely on the evidence at hand. So that's looking through this. That's what I see here. I see some active members of the public who have opinions about what is happening. I can't speak for DPH, but I can tell you that my inbox and voicemail is full of similar kinds of things. We speak to members of the public frequently. and answer questions as we can about cases. And in this case, there are some very interested members of the public, as we heard in public comment at the last hearing. So Serenity Spa has been permitted to continue operating since the May 20th hearing, despite the board's decision. It's time to finally revoke its massage permit. And to the extent that appellants continue to disagree with that decision, their next remedy is to go to court about it. Thank you. And I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you. We have a question from President Trasvinia. Please.

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

Oh, yeah. So some of these documents I'm certainly familiar with. I mean, I just haven't seen them. I don't know. So the answer I should answer quickly, yes, we will often review documents in a public records act request if it's to the city attorney's office. I don't know that we always do that in relation to departments. I think not, but I don't know the answer to that question.

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

Oh, I actually want to correct it. I am aware. Looking through this, I am aware of these documents. So please do go ahead and ask me about these documents. I just didn't know which documents appellants would choose as ones they thought were something of value to show the board until tonight.

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

That is my understanding, yes.

So this is DPH?

If DPH wants to correct me, they can. This is a DPH email where we have the code enforcement investigator saying, I've attached a copy of our public comment card. And this is in September 24th. But I believe this is in connection, as we then see, for public comment related to the directors' hearing. That was the first step of this process.

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

I'm sorry, which page are we on?

It's the second page of the packet.

Can you give me a date of the email, maybe?

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

Uh-huh.

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

And you're looking at the February 21 email from Ivy Phan?

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

Oh, I'm not sure I'm looking at the same. Are you on page two of this packet that we were just given? Yes. What I'm reading here is Ms. Abbott. And by the way, I think we can use the names here because Ms. Abbott gave public comment and gave her name, so I don't think there's anything confidential there. This looks to be, to me, from... Ms. Abbott to DPH saying that she heard about that the hearing is happening and people want to know how they can participate and that they are planning to submit cards and statements. That's what I read and to me that would be the point of public participation.

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

No further questions. You can be seated sir, and we are now moving on to public comments, sir You had some public comment Do you have a speaker card for him speaker card for him I And after you're done speaking, sir, if you could fill out your name so we can get it accurate for the minutes. You can speak first. After. Yeah, please go ahead. Thank you.

Yes, my name is Doug Dietz. I've been a patron of Serenity Spa for about the last five years. I've had serious back issues, back surgery, neck issues, and so forth in my experience there. I've never been approached for any type of illegal prostitution or any lewd type of acts. It's been a huge help for me and some other people I know that do utilize the facility. I think it would be a huge disservice to the neighborhood to revoke the permit and close them down. Again, there's... In my experience, it's been nothing but professional, clean. I see a lot of couples going in there, not a lot of people I don't know how to describe it, just randos who look shady. But for me, in my personal experience, I think it would be a complete disservice to me and to the neighborhood for the people that do utilize the spa. I think it's very clean. Again, in my five years of going there, I've never been approached with anything out of line. And that's my opinion. I would really, really be bummed out if the permit was to be closed and taken away. Again, for my own health ailments, it's been a huge service in helping me with.

Thank you. You can be seated. Is there any other public comment?

Thank you. I'm sorry.

Are you affiliated with Mr. Horcher?

I'm making public comment as a resident of District 3 and as well as a former administrative law judge for the city.

Are you employed by Mr. Horcher? No.

I'm helping him out. You're volunteering to help him?

Jesse, I don't... So... Yeah, I think there's an issue here. What's your relationship with Mr. Horcher?

I'm assisting him on this case. You're what? I'm assisting him on this case. Are you being paid? No. He's a personal friend.

So he's a friend of yours?

I have the right to. If you're not going to let me make public comment, but I just want to tell you.

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

Can I make an offer of proof of what I was going to testify to?

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

Yeah, I'm not... I think we should read the rule out loud. She was assisting him and whispering in his ear what he should say.

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

I'm going to submit my comment in writing, and you can strike it or not, okay?

No, we're not taking your comment yet. I'm going to read the rule, and then President Trusvenio will decide whether you're going to speak.

I'm withdrawing my request, and I'm going to submit an email. You can read it or not. Thank you.

Thank you. OK, is there any other public comment in the room? OK.

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

Absolutely. Let me pull it up. One moment, please. I'm going to read the rule. And this would be Article 3, Section 6, Subsection D, Two, representatives of a party shall address the board during that party's allotted time and may not also speak during public comment. Representatives are persons with a financial or other close connection to a party, such as family that resides in the same household or household members, architects, attorneys, engineers, or similar paid advisors or agents. and in appeals where an association or organization is a party, officers, or board members of the governing board of the association or organization. Thank you.

OK, ma'am? Hi. Yeah, so actually now I have been going to Serenity for a majority time as couple massage with my husband to them since 2060.

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

SPEAKER 2, Can you hear? I thought it's already amplifying. So yeah, I know Serenity since 2016. that we actually had a condo around, like, 33rd Avenue and Geary. So it's very convenient to go to the place for... I often have issues, so I actually go into massage therapy regularly. And Jane and... Some serenity is the one I go to. And I often have my husband that goes with me for couple massage there. So we never experienced anything. So that's when they are actually in the first place they establish their business. And then I think I don't recall exactly when they moved across. the old places and I guess the current one. So we still kind of regularly go there and never observed anything. Like the previous gentleman mentioned that their place are very clean and very comfortable to go for a massage session. And both me and my husband, we are very busy with our works and all that. So going there for massage really helped us to relieve some of the stresses. So that's why we are constantly going there. If we had observed any... issue as mentioned in whatever the proposition, we would have not gone to there at all. So as I see it, though, I did just commenting on that. When we actually go into the older places, I do observe across, it's also a massage place, as well as maybe there's also that place that had both massage and maybe hair salon. together. And then for a period of time, that unit was empty and then had a pretty good price, probably. That's why during Serenity, they purchased that. So I'm not sure if there's a confusion about prior tenants in this place that they had issues. Now that issue propagated into the current ones. So that's my thought. But in terms of the business, in my opinion, it's very reputable. And I would just think it's a loss if we restrict. Thank you.

Your time is up. If you could please put your name on the speaker. I have already done. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Is there any other public comment in the room? Sir?

Hello. My name is Adolfo Castillo. I have to have this because I had a medical procedure yesterday. Even though it was quite uncomfortable to come today, I felt the responsibility. I have been a San Francisco resident for 30 years. From the inner sunset, I've seen the blight of the business areas after the pandemic and things closing down. But I have always gone, in the last five years, Serenity Spa. And the reason I went there was I suffered from chronic pain since 2004. I had two frozen shoulders during the five-year period and they helped me with my recovery. Massage, a good massage, a skilled technician is essential for my health. And that's why I've gone there. During that period, I have found the staff there to be new immigrants, many of them with English, not very clear on their English, a lot of them from China. But I found them all to be wonderful and respectful people. I have never seen anything that would discourage me from going there. The premise is beautiful. If you visit other parlors, you would agree with me. It's well-designed. It's kept clean. There's no loitering. Appointments are on schedule and end on schedule. The last thing I would like to say is whenever I went to that area from the Inner Sunset to Richmond, I frequently spent money in the businesses that are nearby, the bakeries, the convenience stores, the markets, the hairdressers. They were, in a sense, part of that anchor. And the things you guys are talking about, I almost feel that it's un-American. I would be very uncomfortable to be punished knowing that my accuser, no one was charged, no one is, where's the proof? It just seems so un-American. In addition, the last thing I'd like to say, there's a rippling effect here. You're going to have blight in that neighborhood. The future employment and the current employment, their lives will be turned upside down. You have the owners. who, as far as I know, have never encouraged anything that would be unacceptable before your eyes. And now they may be punished too. The landlord, whoever is leasing the space. The last thing I'd like to say is I think they deserve a break for one anonymous employee. And as far as the motives of the officer, officers are human. They make mistakes. They try to get away with things too. Maybe that's the situation here. I don't know. But it seems out of character. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment in the room? OK. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Hi. My name is Dixon Chu. I've been going to Serenity with my wife for the past couple of years. And the massage and everything that's good, it's clean. you know, really kind of nice place going in, looking at it and all that. And they... I never notice anything unusual or anything like anything that could be illegal or anything, any proposition or anything on that. It just seems like a regular massage place and hope it stays open. It's in a good area, so I like going there, convenient. And I guess that's pretty much it.

OK, thank you. If you could fill out a speaker card. Is there any other public comment in the room? I see we have a few people on Zoom. Well, the first person, there is no name. Yes. Yes. Hello, can you hear me? Yes.

Yes, my name is Chris Moak, and I am a resident of San Francisco, and I have my own handyman business. And I have been probably going to the spa for about eight years. And from my experiences, they've been great. It's been nothing but a professional place to go and experience. to get some therapy for for my you know when my job is quite demanding so it does help to get massages every you know couple of weeks or so and it's been nothing but they're very professional it's a very nice place and i know they were during covid they were closed for for a period but when they reopened uh they were very uh very good at uh making sure that you know they were complying to all the requirements as far as taking uh the taking your temperature before you when you entered and make sure you you know you had a mask and all that stuff so um but i i You know, would hate to see them go out of business because they're everyone seemed to be very nice there. And like I said, very professional and clean establishment.

Okay, thank you. Next caller, please. Go ahead and unmute yourself. Star six. Yes, go ahead. We can't hear you, but I see you unmuted yourself. The phone number ending in 0916. You need to unmute yourself, OK? You did it. Now go ahead and speak. Alex, I mean, maybe we can try and call this person. We have a phone number.

Hello?

Oh, yes. Okay, go ahead. Yes, please go ahead. Oh, thank you.

I'm sorry about that. Thank you, members of the board. I want to address Mr. Horcher's comments on the last hearing's testimony. To dismiss the prior community testimony as fake or manipulated is not only disrespectful, it's an attempt to silence the lived experiences of this community. The process followed was the process outlined in this board's rules. We are informed residents who came forward because these issues affect our families. Attacking our credibility does not erase the truth we've shared. And while we respected some individuals may have had positive experience, several pleasant experiences does not erase or invalidate the other experiences and testimonies we heard earlier. There's been a lot of misdirection and finger pointing, but beneath all the noise and distraction, the facts remain unchanged. That lewd conduct was being conducted, was caught, and my hope is today we can close on this matter. Thank you for hearing me.

Okay, thank you. The next caller whose phone number ends in 9910, please go ahead. You need to unmute yourself. Star 6. I see one hand raised. You need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Hello, I'm available to say something.

Yes, please go ahead.

OK, so I'm a nearby business owner and I've been going here for over 12 years. I've recommended to my friends who've been injured playing pickleball. I've had friends and their wives go, I've gone, and I've never had any kind of solicitation for anything central or lewd or anything like that. They've been in business for longer than I even know, maybe 20 years, and they've never had a violation like this before. So I just think that should be considered And I have pain in my knees. I have shoulder pain, back pain. And I've been going there for, like I said, over 12 years getting treated. And they've been a legitimate place. And I'm most happy to find them nearby. And I just feel like it's... Something that needs to be considered how long they've been in business and never had any kind of accusation like this before.

OK, thank you. The caller whose phone number ends in 2905. Please go ahead. You need to unmute yourself. Yes, we hear you.

Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, good. Yeah, my name is Paul and my wife's name is Jan. I'm here with her and just wish to make a statement for the SPA. So my wife and I, we're regular customers over the past 10 years or so and saw the article in Mission News and, you know, we think that, you know, pouncing the article doesn't reflect our experiences. But just kind of in summary, like we find the SPA to be very professional and And, you know, they take great pride in providing knowledge for relaxing therapy for sports as well. So we're residents along the Giri and believe that the spa is a key part of the commercial and community service along that section of Balboa Street and help shape the community has been benefited by the area. The spot can be seen as favorable with the realization that its absence will be lost for the community. And just want to thank you for your time and consideration.

Okay, thank you. The caller whose phone number ends in 5060. You need to unmute yourself. Star six.

Hello, thank you board. I wanted to make sure that you heard from all individuals because it seems like there's a lot of distraction going on. I want to remind everyone, consider what was actually brought before the board. Sworn SVU officer testified under oath in precise detail about solicitation and sexual assault on the premise. There was audio corroboration. Neighbors, business owners, parents of children at Lafayette all described the same pattern over years. Five years of online reviews across dozens of usernames describing paid sexual services in explicit detail. We also have children and families that live in the building above them. It has created a major security issue for the families, and nobody should have to live above what has been going on at this building, and it's time to put this to an end. Thank you.

OK, thank you. Is there any further public comment? I don't see any. So commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you all. And do we have another speaker?

I see one more hand just went up.

Is that OK? Let's get that person in.

OK, so the caller whose phone number ends in 4992, please go ahead. You need to press star 6 to unmute yourself.

okay go ahead yes this is yes hi thank you board um this is paul and i've been a customer of serenity spa for many years and i'd just like to say it is a clean uh and very safe neighborhood spa that's half the price of union street spas that i have also gone to um and uh and i'd like to add something else i uh i walked past spas in a downtown area that i would not feel safe going into and i'm completely baffled by dph wants to close this off and and not the ones that are obvious flights uh to the community thank you okay thank you any further public comment okay i don't see any commissioners this matter submitted

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

Yeah. We granted the rehearing request to hear this once more. I don't see anything, even in the fresh material that was submitted this evening, which I'm not sure how precisely we treat that if it wasn't part of the packet, but in any case, that supports the idea that there was any collusion or misconduct it's quite it's quite common for the public to reach out to department staff when there's a hearing coming up to understand what procedure is going to look like how they could conduct themselves that's all that I see here is that the department was acting responsibly to help members of the public engage effectively in the hearing that we had where this matter was decided, and we heard from the police department and so forth. So I consider our decision, the one that we made at the first hearing, to be the one that stands and the one that the city should enforce. Commissioner Wong?

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

Or I don't see any new facts basically Thank you Thank You Commissioner Wong and Commissioner Abad I Come at it from a slightly different perspective And in part as you recall from the underlying hearing though, it was three to two Vice President Soroyan and I were in the two. I Felt that there were a lot of injustices and not in our proceeding, but in the overall matter. We had a police officer. We had a police operation with no apparent regard for, they said it was a trafficking operation. No follow up with a potential victim who was working at the facility. no real follow-up with the establishment until weeks later. And then, according to the testimony of the city, it was at the routine time when they were coming back to the establishment. There were numerous concerns that Commissioner Sorrento and I had, which is why we voted the way we voted. The proceeding tonight is not a rebuttal of what occurred, but a hearing request. There's a difference here. So I value and welcome the testimony of the people who feel that the establishment is a bona fide establishment, and as well as appreciate the reiteration of the testimony and the public statements of people who are very concerned, living near it, living above it, and the feelings they have about what they believe occurs in the establishment. We're really not here to have a rebuttal and further evidence. We're here to decide whether there is grounds for rehearing. And in Mr. Horcher's brief, he talks about nine sets of new facts. And the city says these are not new facts. I tend to agree with the city. These are not new facts. But that's not the entirety of our hearing rule. While it focuses on new facts that, had they been known at the time of the hearing, might have changed the views of the commissioners, might have changed the outcome. And then there's an issue of, well, why were they not known then? Was it the dereliction of duty of the person now requesting the rehearing? And they should have brought them all along. Now they're just saying, oh, here they are. They're late. If that's the case, then the new facts are not given that same weight. But the other part of our hearing request is about manifest injustice. And there, in part because I had concerns about the underlying operation, and as one of the speakers just noted, all over town, This is the establishment that the department decides to close down? And we asked at the earlier proceeding, you've got establishments all over. Which ones have lost their license? It's this one. So there were concerns about... the testimony and the police operation, the lack of the tape, of the underlying proceeding. Then we got the underlying tape, and it's almost entirely silent. So there were concerns. Now, is there anything really new here that came up tonight? Well, I think a lot came up tonight that is new, and that's the value of having the oral presentations and not just submitting more paper. We ask people to come back so we can ask questions and we can hear them directly. The issue of this packet of emails, I tend to agree with Commissioner Abbott as to what they show. I haven't read them all. But if there was a smoking gun, I'm sure that the attorney for the appellants would have brought out that smoking gun and said, here it is. Here is the collusion between the city and the neighbor, or the inappropriate collusion. Now, earlier we had this dispute about whether an individual could speak as a part of public comment, because we have a system here. The appellants have their presentation, the city has its presentation, and then the public gets to speak. I think the only issue that the appellant could have is that the members of the public who came before us as members of the public in public comment were somehow agents of the city in the same way we were inquiring about the individual who wanted to speak was an agent or a representative of the party. But people who come in public comment, they have their positions. If the establishment wanted to have their customers come and speak and say their history, their positive history, they're entitled to do that. In the same way, if the city, the Department of Public Health, the police department, who are entrusted under law to protect the public health, protect the public safety, are responsive to people and say, here's how you can... make your public comment, or here's the next proceeding, I don't consider that overstepping. I consider that being responsive to members of the public, which is what we want. So given what we have here tonight, while I still have the concerns that I did have about the underlying operation I still have those. But I cannot say that anything that we have read in the petition for rehearing or that we have heard either in public comment or from the representatives of the parties would enable us to be the basis for a rehearing, to grant a rehearing request. I am mindful of the fact that my other two colleagues are not here. They are not able to participate in this debate because they are not here. Oftentimes, we among the five of us are persuaded by each other after we start at one point and then work our way to another point. But given that on both sides of the original vote, we do not have an expression of an interest in or a belief that the re-hearing requirements have been met, I would join my colleagues if one makes a motion to deny the re-hearing request. Commissioner Abad.

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

You are. Go ahead.

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

So no manifest injustice? Okay, thank you. On that motion, President Chesvena? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 3-0 and the hearing request is denied. Thank you. We are now moving on to item number 5. You can contact me tomorrow morning if you have a question about the process.

Okay.

Yeah, you can call me tomorrow if you have questions. We're now moving on to item number five. The board is done with this matter. Thank you. Item number five is a rehearing request for appeal number 26-029, subject property at 2722. to 2724 Folsom Street. Michael Turon, the appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appeal number 26-029, which was decided July 15, 2026. At that time, upon a motion by Commissioner Abbott, the board voted 4-0-1, Vice President Soroyan absent, to deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion. THE DETERMINATION DESCRIPTION IS AS FOLLOWS, THE ZONE ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINED THAT ONE, THE CITY MAY LAWFULLY INCLUDE A STATE LAW ADU TO BE INSIDE A DISCRETIONARY CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION AND TWO, THE CITY MAY CONDITION ISSUANCE OF ANY ADU PERMIT ON THE RECORDING OF A NOTICE OF SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS THAT THE ADU IS SUBJECT TO RENT INCREASED CAPS IN RENT ORDINANCE SECTION 37.3. REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S QUESTION REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER CANCELED BUILDING ABOUT WHETHER CANCELED BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 20-25-0106-7778 PERMIT NUMBER 20-25-0106-7778 MUST BE REINSTATED TO DOCUMENT THE MUST BE REINSTATED TO DOCUMENT THE APPROVED REMOVAL BY MERGER. APPROVED REMOVAL BY MERGER. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE QUESTION WAS BETTER THAT THE QUESTION WAS BETTER DIRECTED TO DBI. DIRECTED TO DBI. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOTED THAT SECTION 4.4 OF THE SETTLEMENT THE PLANNING CODE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO AUTHORIZE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO AUTHORIZE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO ALTER THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONDITIONS ALTER THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONDITIONS ALTER THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONDITIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NSR TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NSR TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NSR REQUIRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION NUMBER 21747. MOTION NUMBER 21747. MOTION NUMBER 21747. THIS IS RECORD NUMBER 2025-006337 THIS IS RECORD NUMBER 2025-006337

Commissioner Wong seeks recognition.

We have a disclosure from Commissioner Wong first as a preliminary matter.

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

OK, thank you. We will hear from the requesters first. And I see his attorneys here. Mr. Ray, welcome. You have three minutes to address the board.

Thank you. Good evening, President and members of the Board. Samuel Ray for Michael Turan. As the Board knows, the standard here is whether the circumstances, if known at the time, could affect the outcome or in extraordinary cases to prevent manifest injustice. Here, the basis for this Board's July 15th decision included a proposition that Mr. Turan could have appealed the Planning Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors. That proposition was not included in the LOD. It first appeared in the department's brief two days before the hearing, and it was not presented during the department's testimony. It only again resurfaced during deliberations after testimony had closed. The board declined our two-page reply to address the issue, which was provided on July 14. As pointed out in that brief, it was an erroneous determination. Mr. Turin could not subscribe to his own appeal, nor would he need to. Planning code 308.1B requires that an appeal be subscribed to by the owners or tenants of at least 20% of the properties affected, and that exempts the property for which an approval has been given, which in this case would be Mr. Turin's property. And note that property owners do not normally appeal their own CUAs that have been approved, nor do they need to as there are pathways in the planning code for the property owner to modify a CU that they obtained from their own property, well, without an appeal. Thus, in the underlying proceeding, the only issue should have been the propriety of the reasoning in the letter of determination, not the CUA, nor whether the CUA was appealed. The CUA itself has limited reach, whereas the LOD acts as precedent for future CUA applications, including Mr. Turan's as well as those similarly situated. Thus, if Mr. Turan attempts to obtain a modification or a new CUA, the letter of determination would remain as binding precedent. of the planning code and would affect any property owner who would apply for a state authorized ADU in the city. And so what the appellant asked for here is explicitly not that the board disturbed the CUA, which was where we were hung up at the last hearing, I believe that everyone here agrees that CUAs must go before the Board of Supervisors. Instead, it specifically asks this Board to conduct a rehearing to examine the legal analysis of the letter of determination and the code interpretations therein with the understanding that it constitutes precedent and get beyond the erroneous notion that Mr. Turin was required to appeal his cua in order to appeal his letter of determination and based on that we would respectfully ask the court to grant and consider mr charne's reply okay thank you i do not see any questions so we'll hear from the zoning administrator

All right, good evening again, President Chasvignon, Commissioners Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator with the Planning Department. I don't typically just read my brief, but I think for tonight's purposes, that's what I'm going to do. So the Board of Appeals rules state that except in extraordinary cases, and to prevent manifest injustice, the Board may grant a rehearing request only upon a showing that new or different material facts or circumstances have arisen, where such facts or circumstances, if known at the time, could have affected the outcome of the original hearing. The appellant's submittal does not meet the standard in this case. The arguments raised do not constitute new material facts unknown at the time of the original hearing that could have impacted the outcome of the hearing, nor do they establish any manifest injustice. The appellant raises concerns that they were not allowed to file a second brief after the planning department filed their brief. However, that issue was addressed directly by the president of the board prior to the hearing. As appellant's rehearing request acknowledged, The appellant was invited to share the information in his second brief at the hearing, and the appellant indicated they would do so. Thus, the appellant had the ability to respond to the planning department's brief during the testimony at the original hearing. This is standard practice for any appeal. Additionally, the appellant raises a concern that the Planning Department's brief included new arguments and that the brief was only filed two days prior to the hearing. However, the Planning Department's brief addressed the propriety of the appeal, as it should, and the briefing schedule was agreed upon by all parties. The date of the Planning Department's filing was due directly to the appellant's request to file their brief late, to which the Planning Department agreed. The appellant argues that the appellant is not empowered to appeal his own Planning Commission determination. This is, of course, not true. The Conditional Use Authorization specifically advises that any aggrieved person may appeal this Conditional Use Authorization to the Board of Supervisors. To the extent the appellant was not successful in meeting the minimum signature threshold, that is not new information that would support rehearing as it was discussed during the original hearing. nor does their inability to meet the CU appeal threshold change the fact that the CUA appeal path through the Board of Supervisors is the only avenue to administratively challenge the Conditional Use Authorization decision, including its conditions of approval. A letter of determination from the zoning administrator cannot amend, revise, or otherwise change the decision or conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission. To conclude, the appellant's rehearing request does not meet the bar for granting such a request. There are no new facts or circumstances to consider. There is no manifest injustice, and the case was thoroughly considered and decided by the board at the original hearing. I did not hear any new information tonight that was not discussed during the hearing, and therefore I respectfully request that the board deny this rehearing request. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. I do not see any questions. So we will now move. Does DBI want to weigh in? No? OK. We'll now move to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to provide public comment? OK. I don't see any. So commissioners, this matter is submitted.

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

Same.

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

Okay. So there's neither new evidence nor manifest injustice.

Correct.

Okay. On that motion, Commissioner Abad? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Okay. So that motion carries 3-0 and the request is denied. Thank you. We are now moving on to item number seven. You need a break?

We could recess for 10 minutes.

OK. Thank you for your patience. We're taking a 10-minute break.

Well, you want to skip to Residence 6?

Bye.

okay welcome back to the august 12th 2026 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we are now on item number seven this is appeal number 26-020 ernie beffel versus san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping subject property is 25th street from douglas street to homestead street and homestead street between 24th and 25th street Appealing the issuance on March 20th, 2026 to PG&E of an excavation permit, excavation on the sidewalk curb to replace utility poles. This is permit number 26, EXC 00282. Note on May 20th, 2026, upon a motion by President Trezvinia, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to August 12th. so that the parties can submit briefs and the board can see if there is action taken by the Board of Supervisors with respect to the undergrounding of lines at this location. As a preliminary matter, we have a disclosure from Commissioner Wong.

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

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. BEFFLE, WELCOME. YOU HAVE SEVEN MINUTES.

The answer to the question in the agenda is yes, the Board of Supervisors acted decisively and very swiftly only six days after DPW took the step that entitled the Board of Supervisors to take its action and adopt a resolution on July 28th. This appeal is part of a multifaceted effort to form an assessment district and finance underground utilities on Homestead Street. Underground in San Francisco stalled 10 years ago when the Rule 20A funds ran out. Unlike other cities, like Newport Beach, San Francisco has never had an assessment district formed for undergrounding of utilities. The Board of Supervisors is enthusiastic about this means for restarting undergrounding of utilities, but PG&E isn't. At stake in this hearing is whether PG&E can install new overhead utilities immediately and thereby increase the cost of undergrounding. We wish that PG&E would volunteer to give the undergrounding process time and devote the money that it proposes to spend for new overhead utilities to reduce the cost of undergrounding. For this briefing, PG&E tacitly conceded the updated grounds of appeal that we briefed by not responding to our arguments. Here is a list of the tacitly conceded grounds. First, PG&E failed to comply with Article 16, Section 808c3 regarding tree protection, which is mandatory prerequisite to an excavation permit. The overhead photos submitted by PG&E with its permit application showed multiple poles within the drip lines of street trees, which triggered Section 808. This ground is dispositive of the appeal. A new permit application needs to be filed. This is not an item that can be corrected under the ordinance after the permit is issued. Second, PG&E's permit application was deceitful. It did not describe the project being undertaken. George Mason, who signed the application, did not exercise any diligence, much less reasonable diligence. He did nothing to ensure that the application was accurate or complete. This legally is deceit, regardless of what Mr. Mason's intent is. I don't mean to impugn him personally, but the legal definition of deceit is failing to take reasonable steps of inquiry. Third, PG&E's application misrepresented the nature of the project as poll replacement. The application failed to give sufficient notice for impacted neighbors to decide whether to appeal. This appeal resulted from talking to an arborist on the street, not from anything that we could read from the application. Even a ministerial application must provide enough information for the affected neighbors to decide whether or not to appeal. Four, 100 amps of increased power can be provided to 46 homestead without primary voltage by stringing a thicker wire on the pole at 25 homestead, stretching on to 55 homestead. In multiple exchanges of correspondence, PG&E never disputed the viability of this alternative or gave any technical justification for rejecting it. Five, also tacitly conceded, PG&E proposes to install a new overhead utility, contrary to the Board of Supervisors' resolution enacted July 28th. The resolution calls for PG&E to install new utilities underground instead of overhead. This Board of Appeals postponed deciding the appeal to give the Board of Supervisors time to act. The Board of Supervisors held a Land Use Committee meeting and adopted its undergrounding resolution the next day on July 28, only six days after the DPW belatedly held a 20-minute public hearing. The Board of Supervisors acted in six days after waiting 75 days for respondent DPW to do its part in the process. Following the Board of Supervisors resolution, DPW did not file any brief opposing our updated appeal. PG&E's brief ignored the updated grounds as briefed, as in the five points already noted. A decision granting this appeal would survive a written court because PG&E's brief waived its chance to oppose our grounds. Waiver follows from PG&E choosing not to respond to the content of our brief. Instead of responding to our grounds of appeal, PG&E's break makes a conclusory argument regarding needing new overhead wiring to deliver 100 additional amps to 46 homestead. We briefed this issue on page 6 of our prior brief and page 10 of our current brief. PG&E ignored our briefing. Appellant offered PG&E, two weeks before the first hearing, a technical alternative that would not require new primary voltage. Our email illustrated it with photographs. To facilitate meaningful technical discussion, appellants signed an NDA form provided by PG&E. Instead of providing technical details that would support or undermine its conclusory statements, PG&E asserted national security and refused to provide any documentation, any technical details. The support of fields cannot accept PG&E's conclusory statements without technical support after PG&E asserted national security and refused to provide the requested technical details for expert analysis. PG&E's conclusory argument regarding need for primary voltage is facially unpersuasive regardless of the details. It would be simple for PG&E to run primary power underground from 24th Street approximately 250 feet to 46 Homestead in compliance with the Board of Supervisors resolution. At much less expense, PG&E could use a heavier gauge wire between the pole at 25 and 55 Homestead Street and not have to install any primary voltage at all. You can see how heavy the line is coming from 24th to 25 Homestead and how light the line is going from 25 Homestead Pole to 55 Homestead Pole. Finally, PG&E's opposition misrepresents the current power delivery on Homestead Street when it says there is no change to the mainline primary voltage 12kVA. This is misleading at best because there is no primary power lines and no transformers on the four poles on Homestead Street. The 10 pages of photos submitted with our previous brief, including this photo, confirmed that primary voltage would be a new overhead utility.

OK, thank you. I don't see any questions at this time. So you can be seated. We will now hear from PG&E. And I believe Mr. Oldham is on Zoom. Welcome.

Yeah, thank you, President Trevina and members of the board for listening to our request for denial of the appeal of the approval of excavation permit 26EXC-00282. In my letter I submitted that the project request denial is based on, first, the franchise agreement, that this is a ministerial permit, and that the future project of a Rule 20b is outside the scope of this current project. And even though that there is a resolution, that there is no current project in scope for this location. This work was generated by a customer request, and we have a duty to serve. The capacity and reliability for the neighborhood was calculated, and those calculations initiated the addition of two transformer upgrades. This is not new equipment. This is upgrading of equipment and changing out service wire. There are three poles that are impacted. Two are replacement poles in the work zone, and one is a brand new pole to handle the new equipment. There was a question around tree protection. We followed the DPW process for submitting the application. And if there is additional information that DPW will need, we will be happy to have that added to our application. And we ask that the board deny the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any questions at this time, so we will hear from the department. Welcome. You have seven minutes.

Good evening. I'm Javier Rivera from Public Works. I must admit that up until yesterday afternoon, I believed that I was going to come here and tell you that everything had been processed correctly and it should be allowed to move forward. Yesterday afternoon, we did find an error and I'll share that at the end of the presentation of what may have gone wrong. So briefly, this application was submitted on 3-19. On 3-20, it was approved. And that's typical for these type of applications. They're small excavation type applications. And we're under pressure to get them moving as quickly as possible. Service could be provided. And this is true for excavations of this type. So maybe power, telecom, whatever it may be. The permit in this case relates to utility poles and improvements in the public right-of-way, and the primary role for Public Works is right-of-way management, safety, and code enforcement. It's not a review of the broader utility engineering infrastructure strategy or customer demand on PG&E. It's not in our purview. Public Works Code Article 2, Section 2.4 governs the excavation permits primarily. And in general, it gives us the authority to review for public safety during and after construction, traffic and pedestrian controls, street restoration, street and sidewalk restoration, and municipal coordination with other city agencies such as MTA if needed for traffic control. PG&E has franchise obligations to provide service to customers, and Public Works cannot dictate how that service is delivered to the customers. So we do not review items such as voltage configuration, pole height engineering, transformer designs, utility architecture, and even overhead versus underground system design. This would all be provided to us by the power company. And mandating these items, mandating undergrounding as part of the excavation would be out of our basically authority. Rule 20, we are supportive of undergrounding, and we're willing to work with undergrounding. We don't object to it. It's just that we believe that it has to be treated as two separate items, two separate matters. Undergrounding does require distinct planning, design work, and funding. and prioritizing for PG&E or any other company to underground. Future undergrounding goals do not create automatic grounds to deny the current permit and as mentioned earlier in about 2003 San Francisco did use all the credits for undergrounding which puts the burden of the costs on the fronting property owners now and they have to work out which is part of why they're trying to reach out with the Board of Supervisors to help the fronting owners in this case. Now where the problem did rise. Public Works Code Section 808 requires a tree protection plan to be submitted to Public Works if work is going to take place within the drip line of a tree. During the initial review, it was determined that the poles were outside of the drip line. However, an error did occur with at least one site that I'm sure of now that this happened. What we're asking now, basically, is if the board grants the appeal, that it be based on noncompliance of Public Works Section 808 and not be tied to the undergrounding, because we feel it should be a separate matter and separate design issue under a different permit. And this would help us maintain jurisdictional boundary between right-of-way permitting and utility regulation. If you like, I can share some of the items. So this is an image of one of the first. This is at the intersection of Homestead and 25th Street. As you can see, it's clear of the drip line of the trees. A little further down on Homestead, the pole is also clear of the trees. And 32 Homestead, I'm sorry. Also clear. The issue is the missed pole that was closer to the intersection of 25th Street. You'll see two trees that you clearly see branches and what appears to us like appeared to be another trunk of a tree. That turns out that's a pole that actually goes into the tree stand. Public Works should have requested a tree protection plan, which we did not at that point. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them here.

Thank you. We have a question from President Trasvinia, then Commissioner Abad.

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

They would if an appeal is granted on those. And they would have to submit the missing document, right? And at that point, we would be able to issue an excavation permit to them to install these poles and put the overhead lines. I understand it's not an ideal situation of what the neighborhood may want, right? They ideally would like PG&E to talk with them and try and set up undergrounding now. I don't know if that's possible and sort of out of our realm.

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

So essentially, it just requires any time there's an excavation occurring within the drip line, whoever's excavating, to show how the tree is going to be protected long-term during the project. It's really what it is. It doesn't give them rights to, for example, cut down the tree, or it also doesn't prohibit them from trimming branches as needed or something of that nature. And the key here also to understand is that from our point of view, it's the excavation that's being done reviewed, right? It's not the poles or the wires coming out from the poles. That would be completely separate. And if needs be, a urban forestry type permit for tree trimming or something of that nature.

Thank you for the clarifications.

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

In this case, we wouldn't coordinate. So again, that's why we are saying that they're separate issues. We wouldn't coordinate for an excavation permit. Typically, we would not bring in the Board of Supervisors. What we have been assisting with is to move to assist the fronting property owners to get some sort of support for undergrounding through the Board of Supervisors. So again, from Public Works' point of view, it's two separate items.

Getting there right with the excavation permit is was just viewed for is precisely that it's just for the polls and nothing else Well, maybe maybe this is figuratively above your pay grade But I'm at a loss as to How the department doesn't file so we held our hearing and And we said, we want to hold off because we want to give the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to act. They acted. We now have this proceeding. No response from the department. No brief. OK. But let me just continue. But substantively, the department's position is that's separate. It doesn't matter. And what I'm hoping to get is a rationale for how the department can say the neighbors are filing their appeal based upon an issue. The board, this board, said the Board of Supervisors may have something to say on it. The Board of Supervisors did say something on it. They said something on it unanimously. And the department, who gets its money from that same board, is saying, and I'm not trying to throw you under the bus or anything, but the department is saying that's a separate issue. How do we and and I believe you are requesting that if we grant the appeal that we granted on narrow grounds That seemingly would not give the neighbors the opportunity to make or the Board of Supervisors views part of the discussion So my question is Why shouldn't now the expressed view of the legislative branch of the city on this very block have some relation to what's going to go on in the future of this permit?

They do. And respectfully, I don't believe they address the excavation permit at all. It was strictly undergrounding. So they didn't address the fact that this permit being on hold, we recommended for it not to be on hold because we thought we could proceed with the undergrounding as a completely separate matter. move forward with that. It opens up the road for that. It doesn't mean by preventing and again, I don't want to We don't want to prevent power being supplied to PG&E customers by preventing them from putting lines up when the undergrounding process could take two years. I don't know how quickly they need to provide this power, but they're going to have to design just by the board supporting this. Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but engineers are going to have to come in. PG&E is going to have to be happy with it, designs. The city will have to come in and support this. It's a long-term process. And I don't think that the board addressed the excavation permit, but rather supported the undergrounding, which we do as well.

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

That's possible. Again, that's something that Public Works does not investigate. We don't check on how much power they're providing or how much they're short or anything of that nature. I'd have to defer to PG&E to confirm whether that's true or not.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong.

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

JOHN MCWHORTER- Complicated? To be honest with you, one, it hasn't been done in a very long time. So part of the reason we took so long to get to the public works hearing was because we were with city attorneys making sure we were following the correct procedures and how to get it right. The other part is it's actual engineering design and cost analysis. Where is it going to go? Where are they going to underline the line? Are there other utilities already in the area? Where are you going to install those? Then you literally have to design for each building along the property. So can it go faster? Sure. But would I expect it to? I don't think so. I think it would be a longer process. And it's mostly, I'd say, engineering work and coming up with funds, which are the biggest delays at that point.

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

Yeah, I mean, my understanding is that they're supportive, and they would like to move with undergrounding in this neighborhood, in this street. I don't know, even at this point, if they can, I'll use the word force, but force PG&E to underground at this point. It'd be more of a community led. thing where they're coming together. They get an engineer. The engineer works with the city, with PG&E. And they come up with a design and install it at that point. And that's where we would be able to say, OK, well, here's the community. This is the plan. They have it. We can move forward with the physical undergrounding.

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

If we had delayed, I'm sorry.

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

Again, I leave it to PG&E to say specifically which units or whatever would be impacted. I don't know. But potentially, it's service to customers is potentially what it could be. Customer. Customer. Because only one person passed. Or customer.

OK. OK. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. I don't see any further questions. You can be seated. We are now moving on to public comment. We have public comment. Welcome.

Good evening, President Tresevinia, members of the board. My name is Runil Bajoi. I am a legislative aide for President of the Board of Supervisors Raphael Mandelman, the supervisor in whose district Homestead is located, and also the author of the aforementioned resolution pertaining to undergrounding on Homestead. I'm speaking today in support of this appeal. I won't reiterate the points about the tree protection plan. I believe that's already been covered very sufficiently. What I do want to weigh in on is the questions around undergrounding, the process, as well as what our resolution actually entailed. So as was mentioned by Mr. Beffle or alluded to earlier, Undergrounding in San Francisco historically has occurred under Rule 20A, which was funded from a pool of money. Those funds have since been expended. This is an entirely different sort of process, which has not yet been seen in San Francisco, but has been seen in other cities across California. Rule 20B, which is... formed through an assessment on the property owners of the area that would be undergrounded. So because this has not been done before, it's taken a lot of coordination with the city attorneys. And what they determined is that much of our public works code, as it pertains to undergrounding and sort of the stipulations around it, was written for Rule 20A. And we have not yet really accounted for Rule 20B in our public works code. Despite that, we have worked with the city attorneys to produce this resolution initiating an undergrounding process, undergrounding action on Homestead. And this is... With being the first time this has occurred in San Francisco, it's a novel sort of law, which I understand why it's confusing. But I want to clarify that this is not a resolution in terms of you might see from the Board of Supervisors resolutions urging a certain action, resolutions of support for a certain state law. This is a resolution initiating an undergrounding action. And our understanding from both talking to the city attorneys as well as our own reading of the Public Works Code is that This goes towards creating what's called an undergrounding district. And undergrounding districts are defined in the Public Works Code as areas in which no new overhead lines may go up. Furthermore, I would ask the board to consider that this permit would authorize new poles and new overhead lines on the exact block that the city has gone on the record to underground and initiate an undergrounding process for. We are working with the city attorneys to see exactly how long that process would take, but our hope is that by the time we term out of office in this coming January, we will have a vote on the assessment district to place the assessment on the property owners at this block. IF THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED AND NEW OVERHEAD LINES ARE PUT UP AND UNDERGROUNDING PROCEEDS AS IT SEEMS VERY LIKELY GIVEN THAT MUCH OF THIS COMMUNITY IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROCESS, THE INVESTMENT WILL GET TURNED OUT IMMEDIATELY AND THE RATEPAYERS WILL PAY FOR IT TWICE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ZOOM? I DON'T SEE ANY SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO REBUTTAL. MR. BUFFAL, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

Overhead, please. Thank you.

This is what you can do.

This is what the ordinance says about an undergrounding district. It says, new utility facilities, when installed, should be complete installation beneath the surface of the street once an underground district has been declared. There is a problem with the DPW process. They ignore this part of San Francisco's Article 18. When we look back at Ringgold Alley, the last place where a 20B undergrounding district was declared, we see that there are photographs of new utility lines having been permitted by DPW above ground after this ordinance was adopted. There are two problems that have... been spotted with the DPW processing, or maybe three. One, they don't track where there are underground districts that they have to enforce. Two, they don't pay attention to tree lines. Here's what the photograph showed that was submitted with the permit.

There's the picture

of where the pole's going to go, and it's very hard for me to see that that's not considered within the drip line of a tree. This is the actual photograph that PG&E presented with its permit. The third problem is that they don't look at whether the permit applications give sufficient notice to the public to determine whether they should appeal. what's really going on. And that's because they just considered an ministerial process. We agree completely with the president that there needs to be a little bit more coordination of DPW with the ordinance and what the Board of Supervisors intent is.

Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from PG&E.

Yes, members of the board, just a couple of points that I wanted to reiterate here. This is for capacity and reliability of not just a single customer, but for the neighborhood. And the upgrades of these transformers are were initiated by the customer job that is happening, but it is not the sole reason for upgrading the transformer. It's a total load that is on 25th and on Holcim. The other thing is that Rule 20B is also customer paid for or the assessment district, as you were talking about, and this can be a long process. And in the interim, the upgrade is being put on hold for the customer that made the application. So that duty to serve is that we have an obligation to make sure that we provide the load that is requested by the customer. So this is an impact overall to not just the single customer, but the neighborhood as a whole. We would ask that you deny the appeal, not based on the tree drip line, but traditionally these are handled by comments from DPW asking for additional information or the application from our internal arborist to how we would address the protection of the tree. The current poll is there and the poll we will be replacing it with is going to go in the same location. So we call it the same whole set. And overall, this is not new utility lines or new poles. It's an upgrade of the current service and the current infrastructure. So with those items in place, I would still ask that you deny the appeal and approve the excavation permit. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Abad, then President Chesvino.

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

I can on a high level for you. Sure. So what we call the customer job or the addition of service or the upgrade of service is paid for by the customer who made the application. So they paid for these additional services that we are going in and providing. Now, the upgrading of the capacity of that is a PG&E cost that we have to absorb as part of continuous service. And that is captured in ratepayer, as part of ratepayer, in the capital investment of the new transformer and the new poles. So there is a cost that is being capitalized over a long term for that work. That project though has been capitalized already for the current infrastructure that is there. And so now we would be adding the new poles and the new transformers. And so that's the cost. The Rule 20B would be, I don't know all the details because I'm not an expert on Rule 20B, but it would be predominantly paid for by the customers that are in the utility district. And so that would be a customer-driven activity. And so it wouldn't be the rate payer paying for it, but it would be the customers who are initiating the project.

Thank you for clarifying that the current project associated with the current excavation permit This upgrade, I guess, in capacity, this increase is paid for by that project applicant and not borne by those generally in the vicinity of what would be a future assessment district for undergrounding. That's good to know when we say that someone's paying twice who precisely that would be. In this case, it's the applicant for the current Upgrade. Can you talk to us a little bit about what the life cycle is for your putting in new transformers? They have higher capacity. Is this infrastructure that has a 20, 40-year lifespan? How frequently do these things need to be upgraded or switched out?

Yeah, I mean, so environmental conditions have a big impact on the infrastructure that is out there. But we expect most of these poles and transformers have a lifecycle of about 20 years. and that they will last that length of period. But we do have poles and transformers that last a lot longer than that. Particularly, some of the poles that are on this street are older than 20 years old. That is the baseline for the capitalization of the project, but overall, the project lifespan of it is much longer. And just, you know, the undergrounding project will be a huge infrastructure project where we'll have to dig up the whole street. It will take years to do this project, from the design all the way to final construction and the installation of new underground. And every customer would have to upgrade their panel to an undergrounding panel as well.

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

So it's really to increase the capacity of the overall neighborhood. So what we're doing is splitting what is being served by one transformer now into two transformers with increased capacity. So we took a look at what that transformer that was serving the new customer, what that capacity was at, and we made a calculation that said, hey, this is beyond our threshold. We need to now add, increase, and we also want to increase the reliability for the overall neighborhood. So we're adding a secondary transformer. So this is all about not just the capacity, but for the reliability and operation of the entire neighborhood.

Thank you. Thank you. President Chesvena?

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

It's a duty to serve based on the application of the customer. So they have asked for an increased load in their panel, and we are obligated to meet that increased load.

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

It can. I don't want to say it will always happen, but it can increase. And we see this in older neighborhoods. where we had smaller transformers and fewer loads. And in the increase of loading through changes in home lifestyle and increased panel sizes, we've had to increase not just the wire size, but the transformers that serve that and separate load out more often.

What it all takes is one person to do that? It's not your planning?

It is not.

No. OK. So that educates me as to the point that you raised with Commissioner Abad. And then to the next step of if, in fact, The individual's request triggers an increase in service, and it requires transformers. It benefits other people. the cost is shared with those other customers, correct?

It's shared overall in the system. So there's a portion that the customer pays for, and then the increase in the capacity and reliability part of that is borne by the rate payers overall.

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

It can. But they do pay for their portion of the project.

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

I would say yes. If you're talking about in the overall scope of an upgrading of capacity and putting a new transformer that's capitalized over a life cycle, yes.

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

No, in fact, if if the Board of Supervisors and an underground district is put in and an application is put into our our new business team and the rule 20 team, we will work on that application and move it forward.

Thank you, Commissioner Wong.

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

We could have the overloading of a transformer, a transformer outage, could knock out a neighborhood. And then we would have to go in and do it under an emergency, and we would then end up replacing the pole and the transformer under an emergency.

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

So there is a transformer on Homestead, and we're replacing and upgrading that transformer. And then we're adding the secondary transformer on 25th, I believe.

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

Let me, I'm looking it up, if you give me one second.

Thank you. No, no, no.

No, the secondary transformer is on 25th.

OK, thank you.

Yeah.

OK, thank you. We will now hear from Public Works. You have three minutes.

I'd just like to mention undergrounding is true. We're not supposed to allow any more wires in that district, but that's once the district's in place. In this case, the excavation permit came before there was any, and there's still not an undergrounding. They're moving towards an undergrounding district, but they're not there yet. And as far as keeping records of underground districts, they're in binders. We do have some, but yes, it is difficult to keep track, and we haven't modernized that part of it as of yet. Other than that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you. I don't see any questions at this time. So, Commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you to the parties and the city for, and also those Board of Supervisors. We did ask for the Board to, we gave the Board of Supervisors time, or we didn't give them time, we delayed so that they could act. It appears to me the Board of Supervisors did act. They could not be more clear. They passed this ordinance. I think it's a resolution or ordinance, but they started the process unanimously, quickly, precisely to the street. So to the extent that we delayed to give them time to do something, they came back and they've delivered. They've made it clear what the legislative branch's desire is. Second is that we have the department saying acknowledging an error regarding the tree issue I think the most appropriate thing to do would be to grant the appeal and then the issues about whether DPW listens to the either the board action on its own or the city attorney's interpretation of what that means. The representative of the Board of Supervisors said, this is not just a resolution. This is not we're asking somebody to do something. We're not going on record for something. We are taking an action. We are starting this district. I would leave it at that point to the department to say, well, we're going to hurry up and do this in order to avoid the Board of Supervisors' action. So I think all of the issues can be addressed once this application permit process starts over. So that would be while I will move or I am prepared to move, grant the appeal based upon the tree issue I don't want anyone to mistake that that that just fixing that would address the concerns of the Board of Appeals we have other concerns but those can be addressed substantively before the department with with the publican and and PG&E involved Commissioner Abad

Thank you, President Transmigna. Yes, starting broadly and then getting to the narrow parameters of what we're here to contemplate, yes to undergrounding. And the elected official for this district and his colleagues on the board have, as you mentioned, acknowledged that and are looking beyond Homestead and really at 20B, which has implications for the entire city, So formulating a framework for other neighborhoods beginning to. So I guess we can thank Homestead for helping the whole city get started. But it's evident that that is a really complex technical project. It requires financing. And so it requires all of this engineering and design. And so I am sensitive as a PG&E rate payer myself whose power does go out. Sometimes it seems like every quarter that capacity in our neighborhoods and safety are important. And so we do want to see, I think, net upgrades that are going to benefit reliability. That can't come soon enough, I think. But to the point of the... The permit itself, the excavation permit, was issued. There was an error in procedure. The 808 wasn't attended to sufficiently. We didn't have the sufficient analysis or information regarding trees and consideration for that. So on that very narrow basis. and echoing what President Transvenia said, not to mistake my inclination as somehow disagreeing with undergrounding. I'd be prepared to support a motion to grant the appeal so that the enterprise agency could come back deal with the trees properly, get this phase of utility upgrade underway, and then look to longer-term prospects, the policy work, the engineering, forming an assessment district to pursue undergrounding. Thank you.

So we do need four commissioners to vote for that. So we would have to continue this item to August 26, when we will have four commissioners.

Well, I think I'd like to hear from Commissioner Wong, and then we can decide whether Commissioner Abad's motion or my motion passes with insufficient votes. And then we can continue it for when there will be, if we need the additional votes. But I want to observe though that At least my individual expectation is that the department will listen to the action of the Board of Supervisors. We have many matters that come before us where we have compelling stories of merchants who sell tobacco. And we tell these people. The Board of Supervisors made very clear they don't like tobacco sales. On other industries, people make compelling cases about entertainment. The city made very clear they want entertainment establishments to be open. So I anticipate that if one of our motions is approved and ultimately approved by the entire board, that when this matter goes back to the department, it will be under the law as that date, which now includes the district and the Mandelman legislation. Commissioner Wong.

Yeah, I think I'm aligned with both of you on granting an appeal. I think what I'm also stuck on is the Board of Supervisors made the decision. We did give time for it. They made a decision. They made it very quickly. I get where you're coming from that this originally was a ministerial process and that you went through that simple process and that there was the tree issue that is coming up now. I'm also just stuck on one person can make this request and then that impacting the entire neighborhood. It seems like there should be more involved before something so major happens. I also really do think that as we're talking about Homestead being kind of the second pilot of undergrounding for the city, it's... The timing is a little awkward. I understand that. But I also do wonder if there's a delay, if there's perhaps some conversation with the parties that some mutual understand something can happen, basically. because it just makes sense to me that if in the long term the goal is to underground, that we're actually thoughtful about resources, like all of the things involved. But I know that we can't rule on that, right? Like it's just part of hopefully you guys all having conversations and definitely having conversations with the ratepayers more than the person that initiated the request, but their neighbors as well.

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

have a vote and then continue until okay since we know it sounds like you're all three aligned on granting the appeal and we don't have enough votes you could alternatively just continue it so the vote of the missing members could participate and you could say with the intent to to continue it with the intent of granting the appeal on the basis that the permit, DPW didn't comply with Public Works Code 808 because it didn't request a tree protection plan. I'm just saying in some ways there's not a point in voting right now because we know, are you trying to get on the record the reason for it?

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

That's up to you. I think we can pick it up. We will probably have to open it up to public comment. We've done it in the past. So we'll have public comment. The absent commissioners will acknowledge that they've reviewed the video and the materials, public comment, and then a new vote. Someone would make a motion, and then we would vote. We don't have to have presentations unless you want more.

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

Since you're taking action, we would have to call public comment. Right. So public comment and then a vote.

Yes.

Yes.

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

With. So if absent commissioners can participate in the vote with the intention of making a motion to grant the appeal? Yes. Do you want me to? Because DPW.

On the grounds that it was improperly issued.

Okay. So on that motion.

I see Commissioner Abad wants to be recognized.

Oh, I was just going to.

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

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

So you want to take a motion? You want to make a motion to grant the appeal? I mean, that will fail because you don't have enough votes.

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

Affirm.

OK. May I ask with deliberation as well for that motion? Meaning it's not going to be here's the motion, vote. And so what I would just point out that the rule basically says that the board When the board hears a matter with less than five members present and the vote of the missing members could alter the board's decision, the board generally will move to continue its deliberation.

Yes.

So that the missing members may participate in the final vote. So there's the vote and the deliberation. I assume it would be both, right? Yeah.

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

OK. And so the next hearing where we have four, we will have four commissioners. Unfortunately, Commissioner Bodd won't be there, but it's August 26. So we have a motion.

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

Yeah.

Believe that is September 16.

Yes, but we have three cases all involving Chinese Chinese interpreters We're gonna have two interpreters and those are gonna be very take a very long time. So Since we're we have we're going to have to pay two interpreters that night so I'm not

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

Okay, as long as you feel that we can get through the night then. I don't know how much time will be spent on this. It shouldn't take too long.

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

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

OK, so we have a motion from President Tresvena to continue this matter to September 16 so that the absent commissioners can participate in the vote with the intention of making a motion to grant the appeal overturn the revoke the permit on the basis that it was improperly issued because it did not comply with Public Works Code 808 which requires the submission of a tree protection plan on that missile are just in the abundance of caution and To make sure that our deputy city attorney's advice has been heard.

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

I will add that. Okay, so thank you for that. On that motion, Commissioner Abbott? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 3-0, and this matter is continued to September 16th, and it will be the first item on the agenda. Thank you.

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