And determination. There is a lot of new information that the commission may not have had, for whatever reason. I have a new project that can go back to the commission, rather than a lastminute change to the scope of the project. With respect to the appellants allegation that the housing accountability act applies, we would disagree with that assertion. Adding twobedrooms does not make you eligible under the housing accountability act has been the citys position. We do not see this as something you would have to approve, or the Planning Commission will have to approve. Even the unit otherwise we would not be here. Being code compliant, they would not need it for that reason. That is not even what is before anyone, because we have a building that is technically before you. The third unit is again just added. That is not what is on appeal. What is on appeal is the two unit building. The concern of the displacement of the tenant, 30 plus years, as i understand it. The commission did not think that this was appropriate project, the end of the day. They denied the application. I am available for questions. You commented on the haa, which im glad you did. What about the argument that there are constraints on the Planning Commissions exercise of authority and the exceptional extraordinary circumstances, in particular that the exercise of authority is limited to design and Authority Code considerations . It is just as broad, and the discretion they can take into consideration, a number of facts as this board, as i said before, its the same authority under section 26 of the business and tax code, is that right . 626. It is pretty broad. Thank you. [inaudible] the action item only refers to this dislodging of the existing tenants on a rent control. Is there a reason that they would not have addressed any design issues . If you think of this as part of a record for an appeal. We are not given much guidance on it. That will be something i will be addressing with staff. Lazarus in a row tonight, by the way. When it is a denial, this board puts this aside and has a whole separate hearing to review and consider findings. Findings are an important part of a project, especially when it could be a denial. I would like us to see, moving forward to have more thorough, complete findings particularly when denying a permit. In this case, and reviewing the testimony for the hearing, it does see that it was primarily the issue of the tenant displacement, but also concerned about the fact that they were increasing density, several of the commissioner said, if you have three units, you know, maybe we can have another discussion about this. They do not have three units, and they didnt get up, at that time, say they want to make three units. I dont know if they had attempted or not. The commission, you know, took action and that was that. Mr. Sanchez, its the same as the last one, if we deny the appeal, we are probably having this conversation again in a year . Yeah, they could reapply. They have already submitted an application, since its hearing. There is a facade permit window, replacement and garage door replacement foundation. These have all been submitted and not issued, and in the a. D. U. Permit they submitted to do a groundfloor a. D. U. Actually another thing in regards to the a. D. U. , this is a class a common historic resource. What they are proposing on their latest version of the a. D. U. , removing the garage. It may be be approvable, but has not received her review, there has been no ceqa authorization. We dont think that the board could actually take action to approve the project on the plans of they are putting forward to you today, because, no ceqa determination has been made on the facade determination. And had to be another, you know, continuance to have that address. Again, that is why i should be on a separate permit. Do it right the next time. So i i i hate to make comparisons to a previous case, i just to be convenient. It happens to be convenient that it was the last case that we heard. As i was clearly a proponent o of nudging you to move forward, and have a reconsideration, because we are talking about a couple of windows on a door. This seems more like we are trying to move a small mountain. I can clearly see your point, on this case, and maybe it is not the same, and maybe we should listen to you about going in the direction is this a little bit more of a mountain than two windows on a door . I think there are additional complications here. Yeah. Not to mention the overriding issues we have discussed. We need to see more on the noise around it. Im not using that word lightly. There is some hair on the dog, as they say. Thank you. We will hear rebuttal. Thank you. We are now on Public Comment. How many people are here for Public Comment . Go ahead, sir. Three. Good evening. Lazarus minutes three minutes . Yeah, that is fine. I know this is a late evening. This deserves the attention you are providing to it. I do want to present you, its in your record, but i want you to have a copy in front of you of the letter to the tenants. Let me just say, that the previous comment, by counsel, was astonishing to me that the process that the previous attorney subjected the tenants to, resulted in a voluntary vacating of the unit. This is, by far, if you look at the letter, not just a threatening letter, for eviction, but using the Development Process on the permitting process to evict and threaten the tenants. The letter, which i provided, should be in front of you indicates first off, let me just say, the tenants came to us Chinatown Development center, i am the director i supervise our housing program. The tenants came to our Office Seeking advice, when they first got the request to negotiate a buyout. I was the only thing that is on Public Record. The tenants came to us, and they said they wanted to stay, and they rejected the offer to negotiate a buyout. It was in response to that, and the letter makes reference to this, it is in response to the tenant saying no, we do not want to move. Then they get a letter from the landlords attorney saying, if you dont move, we are going to ruin your credit and ill go make it more difficult for you retain future rental housing. That is a letter. And then he goes on to say, that they were going to evict the tenants with Capital Improvement eviction nine months or more which they only get three months, unless they going get prior approval from the rent board, they did not get prior approval. They never filed they threaten to give them, they gave a copy of the notice, and then they said, if you dont move, we will give you seven days to come up with the negotiation, and ruin your credit. If that is voluntary, that is, you know, we are in a very sad situation in San Francisco. These tenants, yes they took a buyout under threat. In our conversation, we were told they could not testify, because their settlement was basically lying their silence. If we are going to allow this kind of deal to obscure the reality of what is happening in our neighborhood, we are in very deep trouble. Lets be clear, again, this notice said the reason theyre being evicted is in order to do extensive thank you very much. Your time is up. I do have a question. After you. Buyouts are legal, right . What i would like to understand is, it sounds like the letter, a couple of things you say about the letter, one it is nasty, i agree. Two, it misstates at least one legal aspect which says they could have a temporarily effective for nine months, youre saying i dont know if this is true, its not even really up to us. It could have only been for three months. Is there anything else you can identify that they did that is not legal, in the process of negotiating, and pushing for these tenants to leave . The question isnt whether you can file lawsuits, that is not voluntary. This lets be clear, this is not a voluntary vacate. That is my question. Did you answer his question, sir . Did they do something, i may have other questions, you can talk about what you want to talk about in response to other questions, you did have your time. What i want to know, is there anything specific that the landlord did that you believe is unlawful, under the rent ordinance . They did not disclose that there was a settlement. It is maybe disputable as to, you know, or interpretation as to whether or not they needed to file that. I can tell you the rather specific subject for years in which their tracks on that, if you asked me the question. They obscure the fact that they evicted an 86yearold woman, who has been living in the unit for more than 25 years. They avoided the spirits, if not the actual letter of the law, in disclosing that so that the city can determine whether or not this owner is entitled to a permit to upgrade the unit, and then re rent at a much higher rent. The rent was around 930 per month. You can do the calculation as to how much it is worth to evict these tenants. Whatever settlement they got, how far that is going to last them is that consistent with our city policies . Is not consistent with the law . I say no. But, others may differ. And question, sir. Who was the attorney that handled that . It is on the letterhead. Stephen mcdonald. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If i could have the overhead, please . Just to put this on here. This is a pre declaration, pre negotiation declaration buyout that was indeed filed with the rent lord, by the owner or his attorney. That was back in august. Twentynine days after mr. Kirwans name was on the deed for this building, he then filed this buyout that he was entering into negotiation with the tenants. From day one, this was about getting the tenants out. I have been asked by mr. Wong, when the building went next to him on the market, he said im concerned about this family, they been there for many years, they are chinese, and i am afraid that some speculators going to come in, and try to get them out. I did drop off some tenant resource information at their door, i have been very worried, because there have been already 59 people within four blocks of this building, who simply disappeared. They were all elders, we are losing our ethnic, our Cultural Diversity in north beach. This is very dear to me, and especially these elders who have been able to remain in their home come and go down the hill, whether a real chair wheelchair, or walker, two Washington Square and meet with the cronies in the morning. This is very wrong. The final buyout was not filed, because what happens when a final buyout is actually in existence at the rent board . There are constraints on the building. We are losing affordable housi housing. This is creating luxury housing. These have been modest family homes, twobedrooms, modest incomes for modest homes. We supported the Planning Commissions decision and we ask you also to uphold the decision. Again, the a. D. U. Is something that was suggested by the commissioners that they would look at it if it came back as an a. D. U. It is only today, as far as i know of that an a. D. U. Is actually mentioned as being a plan. Very cautiously, i am here to say, please uphold the Planning Commissioners decision, because i dont know that we can trust really what is going to happen here. Thank you so much. Let me ask you a brief question, i just want to get it clear for the record. What you showed us is the application, or a notice for the potential of a buyout, but then there is a series you are experiencing this, im not, ive never seen a buyout, so im asking you for your knowledge. What you just put on the screen was what a landlord is required to do, in anticipation of doing a buyout . Yes, before even going into a discussion about a buyout, negotiation, they have to first file this with the rent board. Many people will sign this, it depends on how it was presented. We would like to talk to you about some possibilities. We dont know, right . There is a final buyout that is required so that the board of supervisors can get that annual report, as to how many files have occurred, how much much Affordable Housing we are losi losing, et cetera. I need an education. Can we have the overhead, please . So, there is a big box that is circled. When this is submitted, is this typical of what you see when a buyout is filed, or is it more extensive . Is there a signature with the intended tenant who is being bought out, this looks a little like its missing a few things, ive never seen it before. So i dont know. This is the pre declaration. The final buyout, this is filed with the rent board and is on a public database. The final buyout the date of the final buyout agreement has to be there. Also, there is a total amount has to be there. And, this information as to if they were protected class tenants, if they were seniors, or people with disabilities, and the total number of tenants. I did not ask for private, but, the final buyout would be filed on and available at the public database at the rent board. Thank you. I need to turn to the City Attorney for a moment. Thank you very much. So, when there is litigation, weve seen an intent to buy out, then was a litigation, where the landowner sued the tenant, and there was a settlement agreeme agreement, which is, for me, is semantics, because it is a buyout. Actually, when you call it a buyout, you are not allowed to talk to the tenant in any way unless you go to the rent board prior. Thank you. Let me have the City Attorney give us a legal opinion of process related to the buyout . I dont know if i can give a legal opinion, this is not my area. The tenant, from what was represented from the project sponsor here, is that the tenants rejected the buyout proposal and said we are going to sue. The buyout process did not go any further, they did not participate in it. According to the project sponsor. I would presume, when that process is not completed, there is not also that requirement to file the buyout remit. They settle lawsuit that was filed against them. In of the words of yogi bear, when you come to a fork in the road, take it. Instead of taking the far, they went towards the buyout it seems like the other fork was taken which is an action that forced a lawsuit, then the result was the other fork in the road which ends up in a settlement, to me, which is semantics. That is what it sounds like. I just wanted to get your view, may commission hondo, with his experience. We have another person for Public Comment. I am stan hayes, the president of the Telegraph Hill dollars. The developer has told you that the commission has overstepped its authority, in this matter. We agreed with the Zoning Administrator that the commission has broad discretionary powers over all Building Permit applications that they made certain minimum code requirements. If there action code is necessary to ensure that the interest of the city, and his neighborhoods are protected. And they do. Certainly that is the case here. There are significant general plan consistency issues for three of the eight priority policies, particularly that deal with the preservation and enhancement of Affordable Housing. The project does not comply with city policy. The developer tells you that the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that brought about the commission do not exist. In denied this project, the commission specifically found that those circumstances do exist and unanimously agreed 6 60. Rarely occurring on this planet commission. It is a rare moment of unanimity. I hope you have a chance to read the transcripts of the hearings, if youre interested in knowing why they reached the opinion that they do. There was some irregularities that are unique to this project, fortunately for all of us that matter, and matter to the Planning Commission longterm tenants for 31 years displaced, to seniors, members of a protected class, multigenerational family thrown out, encouraged to leave. No required buyout. No required record of a buyout of the rent board. Certain semantic quality of the discussion tonight. Are we talking settlements, or are we talking buyout . To me it is half dozen one or another. Was it intended, or did have the effect of circumventing buyout laws to avoid restrictions on condo converting . All of this, in the midst of threats by the developers attorney, coercing those tenants to leave voluntarily. I think there was a letter that was shown, if you look at the letter that i submitted, to help was in your packet and that you had a chance to look at. If you read nothing else, in this entire proceeding, the letter from the applicant, and the permit holders attorney, if you read nothing else but this, please look at this letter. It tells you, i think the Planning Commission saw the coercion that was exerted on these particular people. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Any other Public Comment . I am the Program Director of the Tenants Association of San Francisco. I think it is very important to realize this is a matter of principle here. A continuance needs to happen, on the one basic issue, because an a. D. U. Was not properly noticed on this agenda. You are now discussing an a. D. U. , released it was brought up in the plans were distributed during the meeting, that was not noticed that an a. D. U. Would be added to this project. Just on that, alone, if that is going to be considered today that it needs to be continued. Second, hearing some of the misinformation, or not correct information about attorneys coming up here and saying, i dont know, i was in a part of this and i dont know this information. And then the City Attorney, also saying, i dont know anything about tenant law. Again, not having enough information to make informed decisions. A lot of information not being collected to make an adequate decision. You guys are decisionmakers, and i hear that you have a lot of information that is not being heard. Plus the fact hearing that a set of residents have been basically silenced, because of an agreement that they sign, because of i know how those happen, because that is what attorneys do, they try to silence the client, or the people they are dealing with. I am glad to see the advocates here, on their behalf, this comes another decision be made about policies, and how tenant rights are not being upheld very well. We are losing our resident base to condo owners, and other such people that can afford to live here. Whereas the ones that used to live here are being asked to leave. That is not right either. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . We will move on to rebuttal. Mr. Patterson . Thank you, commissioners. Two preliminary things i want to say. The first, of course, we have to object to the filing and violation of the board. Second, the applicant did not tell the tenants, the former tenants not to testify. I believe that to be false information. The first. I want to make is under the housing accountability act, just to be very clear about this, that law does apply and it does require approval of the project that is applied for. Section i, the housing account ability act, for purposes of this section, lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to housing. Pending legislation, sb592 which clarifies existing laws, that line in particular includes a reduction of bedrooms. That is not passed and signed yet. Within a week or so, it will probably be passed by the legislature. The law does apply. If we have to continue dealing with this issue down the road, it will be even clearer that it applies. The a. D. U. That has been suggested here, as a compromise, i understand from the architect does meet open space requirement, is code compliant, the architect can certainly speak to that. The second issue is about the tenants. These tenants, certainly not something that i would want to see, in a case coming into it. Nobody likes that sort of thing. The fact is, they excepted an extraordinary amount of money in settlement to vacate these premises. 150,000. This is a lot of money. The project sponsor is not happy about the way this all happened. I think he feels very sorry about it and wants to make amends. Despite his real resistance to giving a parking, and losing a lot of value in the property, losing his ability to have his truck there that he needs for work. He is willing to convert that space to an a. D. U. In order to give Something Back to create more housing for the city, add an additional unit here. That is what the Planning Commission said they wanted, that is what the neighbor said they wanted. We worked with planning for a number of months on this issue. The tenants are no longer there. I dont think they are on their way back, regardless of what happens. We can do something good, it does hurt the applicant, we can add what we need to and try to make amends here. You very much. Have a question. Ive been in the real estate business 21 years, i see buyouts and stuff all i get it. Its a fact of life. To be honest, i have never seen a letter like that, personally. Second of all, you know, 150 is not near the highest number i have seen of a buyout, its not even close, to be honest. When someone is paying 980 in rent, they are forced to move to a 3,000, at minimum, apartment, they basically gave up 30 years of living for five years of rent here in San Francisco. Second of all, going over the brief, i noted that the primary work initially was estimated at a cost of 80,000. You have a revised cost, which i think is ridiculous to add a story on for 80,000. I think theres a certain amount of disingenuous here. What is the revised cost for the plans that you have now . I would note that the costs stated on the permit applications are based on the dbi formula and is not based on actual cost. Is also based on what you put down, too. Literally. Depending on where that goes from there, then it can be adjusted. Its initially what you put down, as the project sponsor to do that. I dont know offhand. I would say several hundred thousand dollars. Were you the architect from the very beginning . I was not. There was a series of permits that were submitted early on with a different architect. There were some issues with those drawings in terms of what theyre representing and how the process is being done. We came in when those were identified, we were asked to correct the situation and help out. Which we have seen you do here at the board of appeals many times actually. There are still several permits that are out there. One is which is the a. D. U. Application which we submitted. The intent was to see if we can get preservation to review the impact of the facade of the building, prior to this hearing. That is why that was broken out into a permit that is in the key right now. We felt was a pretty good chance that that would be a like that. That may be where that 80,000dollar numbers coming from. The project, with the fourth floor addition on the full interior remodel is going to be 700,000 project and i would be surprised if that is accurately represented on the project application. Public comment has indicated that there is serial permitting, and other things that unfortunately represented from the Building Department has left, they brought on a new law dog. There were submissions with the light wells not being properly represented. We went out there and did our own field verification. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Wong. You have three minutes, sir. The transcripts of Planning Commission hearing on march 7, 2019, i think, the range of subjects that were discussed. There were many, many issues, also represented in the documents that i submitted in the package, which were submitted to the Planning Commissioners. Some of the comments, i think of the commissioners are pretty indicative of that very thorough, and it in depth discussion. Page 20, line 18, commissioner moore, this is not just like one neighbor who has a grudge, but we are basically being called to stand up to policy, and finally phase a project by which all of the things we are come every week, moan and groan because something is wrong here is finally being brought to us with more clarity, with more spotlight shone on to what is wrong. Page 23, line 4, commissioner johnson, and in all of the listings, even before we get thankfully the letter today, he said that there were protected residents in the property. I feel as emotional as my fellow commissioner moore, and i do not take, given the powerful testimony, all of the folks that came to speak about how emblematic that is, and also the community it is in. I do not feel comfortable rewarding what happened here with the of this project. I cannot approve this project. Page 25, line 19, commissione commissioner your actions had a profound impact on at least one family that was there for 31 years, for which we have legislation that specifically targeted to protect them. There was, because of the way that our rules are written, there was a way around it. Which is, you know, what happened here. Also, i do not think i am going to reward that. 30 seconds. Commissioner moore, everything our commissioners said, except on extra ordinary is what has been read into the Public Record by the publics testimony, we can restate that. It is very clear. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you. In regards to the issues that have been raised here. The Construction Cost on this permit does list 80,000 for the vertical edition. There are, as mentioned, many other permits for the property, seismic interior renovations, the a. D. U. Lists 175,000 as Construction Costs, the Foundation Want 50,000, interior renovation permit for 55,000. Construction cost estimated in there, i dont know why it doesnt seem quite right for this permit. I think overall didnt realize they had nine permits. There were payments before, the department did approve an issue in error, we suspended it and then they went to that permit and they came through with this larger project. In regards to the housing account ability act. I would take a little bit of an issue with the appellants discussion as the amendment being a clarification. We see it as being an expansion of the housing account ability act to cover a broader range of projects, such as adding units. I have heard from staff. Ellipsis amendment has been dropped. I dont know if you have the latest information. Our staff indicated that the proposal expansion of the accountability act is no longer moving forward. It could have implications applying to alterations, not just additions of units. Again, we take issue with that public accountability act. The case law cited by the appellant, i believe, affirms the accountability act by similar projects. Based on the position it would not apply here, you are not obligated to approve it, at the hearing. Again, respectfully request that the board uphold the Planning Commissions decision. We believe they made the appropriate decision here taking into account the issues and impacts on the tenants of the property, and further i think we can make some distinctions between this and although this is its own case and stands on its own. In previous cases there are concerns that have been raised by the commission by the size of the vertical edition, in the previous hearing is had concerns about the impacts of the tenan tenants. They did come back, they were able to provide a litigation agreement with the tenants. Those concerns were addressed with the commission. It was brief to the commission come at the time. I didnt have Information Available at the time. Not much has changed and we request you uphold the denial. If they want to go forward with a new project, they can reapply. [inaudible] the issue of the tenant situation is important and critical for a variety of reasons whether emotionally, or illegal. I want to put that aside for a moment, and go back to the issuance of the permit based on if this did not have the time issue, as part of it. What are the biggest issues in the issuance of this permit beyond that of the ten issue . Im going to have him join my club, youre my resident rabbi on these issues, and quite often you come up with an opinion as to the conditions for a denial, one way or the other. The tenant issue aside, which is incredibly, and clearly was. [inaudible] what other building related issues here should we be considering which would be a condition for denial of this permit . The other main issue that the commission has was the density. Three units would be allowed here, they could even be Additional Units beyond the density with a. D. U. The project that was heard by the commission i did not, and the project that they are asking you to grant the appeal and give them a brandnew project. That is not the project that they propose to the commission. That is on the project if we were to deny the appeal. Im asking you to help me here, because youre always very helpful. If we were to deny the appeal, tenant issues aside, give me some words please . They could reapply. I know they can reapply. If we are going to deny this appeal tonight give me grounds . The permit that was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission only had two units. Now, at the last minute didnt discuss that with me when they filed their appeal and we have been reviewing plans along those lines. After the commissions action, they took their appeal, then they realize that, you know, they probably need to make changes to the project. Still, that is not the project i was denied. It doesnt have three units. Its only two units. They can reapply for a project with three units. They can go through that proce process, they can go back to the Planning Commission. They can get a full and fair hearing at the Planning Commission with the revised project and get a decision there. I see a big difference. When we started hearing i was in the lets continue vote. I kind of slipped to the other side. There is too much hair on the dog, the ten issue, of course. The densification issue is also a big issue. This is not the project, at all that was presented additionally. Thank you very much. If we uphold the denial, will they be subject to the same review with the other ten issue . They can maybe better explain the situation. My review of the hearing, the hearing tonight its involving an exclamation. Maybe they can add a final expo nation, and present those issues to the commission satisfaction. These will resurface . I would think so, yes, until they address it. Can you help me understand the densification issue . What grounds are there for denial other than the tenant issue . The project that was before the commission was code compliant . Correct. The commission would prefer to see more density because the zoning allows for more density . Correct. It was code compliant. The maximum density that could be approved, through the a. D. U. Program. Now they are here, and it is that project, except they have added an a. D. U. By subtracting the garage . Right. The only concern that you identified with the Planning Commissioners having was a density concern, other than the tenant concern . Those were the two that i understood. I did not hear significant concerns related to the design, and the vertical condition itself. Rather to the density, if theres a third unit they could review that again, and then the tenant issue. Last question, if we went on the continuance route, im concerned about the preservation commission. How would that get worked out . So, that wouldnt trigger a review by the Historic Preservation commission. They would review it. It is something our staff is adept at. We have been doing this a lot with a. D. U. s, especially going into the garage is. Im sure there could be some alternative worked out. As of now, it has been reviewed, we dont have a ceqa determination saying this is not a significant change to the historic resource. Last question, scott, do you want to stay with us for the last case . No thank you. [laughter] commissioners this matter is submitted. Its been a little bit of a roller coaster for me, this one, look, i think ultimately we need to make this decision, in my view, this body should not take the tenant related activity into account in deciding whether the permit was properly issued. I think there are proper avenues for that. Most particularly the rent boa board. We have all said that we are not experts on the rent board. In my view it would be an odd thing for us to make a decision based on that. My vote was at that site completely. As troubled as i am. Then its just a question of whether the permit should be issued. We have 70 hear the, the project sponsor is saying its a code compliant project, the commission discovered one problem, they wanted a an an a. D. U. If we deny the appeal, the Planning Commissioners, their mind is not going to change. You heard a quote from the transcript about the ten issue. We would just be here all over again making the same exact decision on the merit. Unless my fellow commissioners think the tenant issue is a legal ground to deny the permit. Sorry, that was long, but it was very eloquently said. Tonight we had two very similar cases, in many respects. I did feel very compelled in the prior case to want to work with them, and i also believe as in the el camino case that this body should not get involved, and make decisions other than what we should. At the same time, im not trying to demonize the permit holder, i dont know him, i read the bri brief, he is a native san franciscan, a Small Business person, i get it. To do business in San Francisco, whether you are buying, selling or renovating, it quite difficult. There is a lot of landmines here. You know, who knows how we got mcdonald as his attorney, who knows how he got his original architect . I dont know that. I see has a different set of architect on a different attorney in front of us, and he isnt. The thing is, as my stepfather always says, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is usually a doctor. Although i dont think we should vote according to the protected tenant, or what was done. At the same time, i am not going to reward somebody, if it comes down to either or, i personally dont feel that i would grant this permit. I see an ugly project. A project that is not only potentially ugly for the social reasons of the treatment of a tenant, and those aspects, which i felt which clearly the Planning Commission felt very strongly about, i would support their feelings on that. Also, this project is buttoned up tight. Theres too many loose ends. You know, again, i hesitate to make comparisons, but in the last case it was down to a window and a door, and it was easy. This one, there is multiple permits, it is all over the place, it is dysfunctional. It is pretty hairy, and pretty dirty. Also, if i were to have asked the acting Zoning Administrator, give me some conditions for why we should not why we should deny the appeal . He gave me one very clearly, and i agreed with that condition. I would like to see the project go away, and let the project sponsor clean up their act, and refile the project in a clear, concise fashion. They want to put in an a. D. U. , that is up to them. There is a lot of dysfunction, a lot of stuff. I would deny the appeal, uphold the findings of the Planning Commission based on their terms, and additionally on the condition of the density issue. Which, mr. Sanchez, can offer the proper words so they are solid and appropriate. We need 4 to overturn. No matter how we vote, the appeal is not going to go through. Unless there is three, that it requires the fifth commissioner to be here. So, if i were to make a motion, it would be to deny uphold the Planning Commissions finding based on the terms of their findings, but in addition, the density issue which mr. Sanchez, if you can give me some words, i would appreciate it. Okay . Are you making the motion for the president . A term i have heard commissioner moore say is proper densification. The commission had expressed the concerns about there being two units at the previous hearing, and they are not maximizing appropriate density. I guess youre going to find out the rules if you make a motion. That would be my motion. Okay. We have a motion from president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the planning departments disapproval of the permit on the basis, for the reasons stated by the Planning Commission regarding the tenant issues, and also because a project does not maximize the density. Is that right . Okay. At this hour, that is correct. s look at mr. Sanchez and see if those words work . Okay, on that motion. [role call] that motion carries 30 and the appeal is denied. I am sorry 31. Thank you. We are now moving onto item ten a and 10b. These are appeal no. 19038, Telegraph Hill dwellers versus San Francisco public works rate subject property is 600 columbus avenue appealing the issuance on april 5, 2019 there San Francisco public works, of a public works order. Approval request to remove adjacent to the subject property on the condition that the trees are replaced within 24inch size box trees within three months from the date that they are removed. This is permit no. No. 200973. On june 19, 2019 the board voted for0 to reschedule this appeal at the request of the parties. Okay, we will hear from the appellants, first. Am really surprised, given the late hour of the evening, the turnout for this, i thought was going to be much larger. Is ms. Irving here. If you could please approached, we have seven minutes present your case. We apologize for the delay. Thank you for being patient with us this evening. Thank you. My name is judy irving and i am past president of the Telegraph Hill dwellers. I am also a bird entry lever. I made a film you may have seen called wild parrots of Telegraph Hill. They love tall trees and fake canopies, and thats what were going to be talking it is past my bedtime, but im going to try to stay awake. And tell you why we are appealing this order to remove seven trees along the columbus block. First of all, the appeal, we are appealing the decision because the order fails to consider the extensive loss of canopy in the Washington Square park block. Can i have the overhead . Thank you. This was our little urban fore forest, at the northwest corner of Washington Square park. Until the playground renovation destroyed those trees. Im going to show you a before and after, because this was taken, these two pictures were taken exactly from the same position, before and after the nine mature Canary Island pines were removed, because of contractor negligence, and really tragic lack of oversight by dpw, rebuilding the playground in the corner. Then we lost, the welcoming tree to Washington Square, this Beautiful Tree right here, it is gone now, because of a previous arborist report. Basically, it is tree armageddon at Washington Square. Let me show you the ficus. This is already gone, and if these seven ficus are removed as well, we are going to have a shade lists Washington Square park on the west side. It is going to be really terrible. It is kind of like colony collapse with bs. It is canopy collapse in this case. The order to remove these ficus sales to address any of those context issues. The beat goes on. Tomorrow, the tallest tree, the oldest tree in Washington Square park, it is over 100 years, is going to be removed. I took a picture of it today, its last day on earth, it is older than the earthquake. It is supposedly a hazard, and it might drop a limb on a car, or something. So, finally, Telegraph Hill dwellers donated a Canary Island pine to the park, and this is what is happening to it. It is dying, because it has been destroyed by the playground renovation mishaps, as well. So, that is the context in which these seven tran tens will be taken out. Because this small Geographic Area has endured so many losses, not a additional tree should come down, until the city has done everything i can to eggs preserve existing trees and plant new ones. We asked for alternatives, such as printing. Pruning. Immediate planting of every empty tree basin, near the park, with large stature trees. On this map here, can we have that again . Hello. Overhead. Overhead. Dont make our overhead person mad. Is probably asleep. There are 43 empty tree basins within a three block radius of Washington Square park. There are 19 basins that have sums on them. There is a lot of opportunity to plant new trees. Our appeal asks for this. Finally, we ask for districtwide massive treeplanting in this climate emergency. Here is district three. All of the green dots show the empty tree basins, the orange dots show the tree stumps