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 bein