Must retain the existing first floor residential unit instead of converting into a parking space so that way would be adding an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed four as far an a. D. U. , it cannot exceed the existing height of the building. The height restriction is intended to prevent projects like this one. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. I am a 41yearold tenant, and all of these years they have been an asset to the neighborhood. The building has been vacant, pretty much vacant, and the paint has been peeling for the last four years. It is time to get going on this renovation. I think from my standpoint, i dont have all of the facts and figures. I think theyre going to do a good job, as they have done in the neighborhood. As i said, i have been there 41 years, i know the buildings that they own, and manage, and they are all beautifully kept. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Good evening. And 33 years old, born and raised in the bay area. For the past ten years i have lived at 2908 octavia street. This is the residence that is directly next door to i fully support this project. It is something that needs to be done as soon as possible. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, needs to be done quickly, in a timely manner. I have known this family for quite a while now, ive seen it projects they have been a part of and they have done. All of them have been topnotch, environmentally safe. They have done them the right way. They are not mass contractors by any means. They just want to make the neighborhood a better looking place. I agree this project will do that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am with the San Francisco action coalition. We have reviewed the project and encourage that you reverse the denial. We particularly appreciated that the project is proposing an accessory dwelling unit. Representing growth and much needed Housing Stock, particularly the amount that provides the least impact from local residents trying to keep the communitys needs in mind. Theyve gone above and beyond for the project are trying to make sure they work with the neighborhood. Its clearly much needed thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is mike, my sister and i own properties directly across from where the oltrantis want to do their work at, and kitty corner. Both corners. She couldnt be here, because shes out of town. We are both in favor of it. They came up, told me what was going on. They never try they have been there, their whole life, as i have. They are good people. They are just trying to get something done. You know, there are so many dirtbags that are in the city that are landlords, that when you get a good one, its kind of nice, it would be nice to take care of people like that. Its kind of like you cant see the trees to the forest. Anyway, i totally support this project. If any building was impacted by this, it is my building, thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. I lived on filbert street 415 years, i just want to say if few things. The project architect has done some outstanding work in the past. He has 30 years of Design Excellence in San Francisco. I hope you keep that in mind. The oltrantis have been subjected to a process of an unfair moving target in terms of the projects size, the elevator, concerns for the existing tenant. 1755 filbert, the 28 unit headquarters, in the opposition has approximately twice the number of units allow in the rhi k3 zone, even with a i did make this undesirable is a place to purchase the home. The elephant in the room here is a blockage of use. That is what this is about. I dont believe they are protected under the planning code. Thank you. Next speaker, please. You look like the Virgin Airlines guy. [laughter] welcome. Good evening, commissioners. I have one minute, so ill be really quick. President. To come i want to urge you to allow the planning to permit to go through these these are new plans, and if anything, we would like to follow the procedure for any new plans that arrive. There is an affordable units, the bottom unit that is going to be demolished. Affordability is an actual crisis. I think we really need to give that a second look. We dont want to demolish affordable units in exchange for building luxury units. Youre depriving the public from the neighborhood notification. I believe the public has a right to look at these new plans and weigh in on them. Its going to be 30 days, that this project has taken over two years, for whatever reason. Thirty days, or two months here in three months there is not going to make any difference. Thank you very much. Maam, may i ask you a couple of questions . Are you here representing your organization . Yes, San Francisco lannys coalition, a coalition of various coalitions are or activists from different parts of the city. Members from district three, five, district eight, and district one. Great, i appreciate you being here. The revised plans call for an a. D. U. On the ground floor replacing the unit that i believe there a. D. U. Will be smaller i mean, larger than the unit that was there before, around the same size. Can you explain what the objection is to the revised plans that would provide if planning signs off and everything works out . Sure. The objection is this. Existing homes on existing units are always going to be cheaper the new units. If we maintain the existing unit that is on the ground floor, i am sure it will be definitely more affordable than building an a. D. U. That is bigger, and that is the objection that i have. Even according to the realtors association, existing homes are 30 , cheaper than new homes. So okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Good evening. Anastasia, San Francisco tenant union member. The project at 1794 filbert proposed a round for residential unit that ozzie was reversing to, and replacing it with a one car parking garage, and constructing a thirdfloor luxury penthouse. The tenant on the second floor unit would be dislocated for an undetermined length of time. Plus, the project sponsor is constructing a residential unit in the commercial space on the ground floor. The tenant unit confers with the Planning Commissions denial of the site permit, because the proposed project would not contribute to the retention of existing Housing Stock, the unit would be out of scale, and would not be considered affordable. Please deny this appeal and allow the public to weigh in at the Planning Commission hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello commissioners, i was born and raised in San Francisco. Im a separate cisco landlord with a rent. It is hard for me to understand why the planning that renovates a 110yearold Apartment Building when we are having housing crisis. Its even harder why the San FranciscoTenants Union would align itself with the condominium building, against a rent controlled Apartment Building. The new construction will improve the Living Conditions for the renters, and seismically strengthen the structure. These are basic objectives. I think we all want in San Francisco. I have a lot more to say, but my time is up. The owners are trying to do everything right, instead of receiving support they are being targeted by building across the street, afraid of losing its views of the golden gate bridge. There are many letters of support from the neighborhood. The Planning Department supported this project. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . We will move on to rebuttal. Just a few things great i think you know this, i do want to confirm, this is a denoble, you have the power to review the project before you and send it back to the Planning Department to do the tweaks they talked about, we agree without approach. The problem reapplying is that you can see there are still some opposition here, we will end up back here anyway, even if the Planning Commission ends up agreeing with us, and and approving it. The public will get another d. R. , and then another appeal of to hear. I think you should take your chance now to approve the project, if you like it, with the conditions that may be necessary to provide further planning refinements. The a. D. U. , in terms of the procedures here was originally suggested at the Planning Commission hearing, by the commissioners, that was one of the things of the project sponsor then went back to try to revive before the second Planning Commission hearing. It was provided, but the actual site permit was not revised, so it was not before them at the time which is why the technical project before you is the original one, just three units. I also wanted to confirm that yes, the groundfloor unit is really being relocated to the front. That unit that is there now, needs to be upgraded anyway. We provided a letter in our exhibit showing the foundation needs to be upgraded. That we need to be fixed up anyway, and even it would still be modernized in some capacity. The new adu is slightly bigger, but roughly the same size. I think that is about it. We hope you support the project as proposed and approve it. Whatever minor conditions are appropriate to make it even better. A couple of questions. First of all, we are used to people coming in, on appeal, and trying to stick vigorously to their original plan, i really appreciate your ears, and your willingness to it may come back to haunt you, but your productivity with two hearing the public, hearing the Planning Commission, making the changes proactively, is refreshing. Let me ask you this. You heard from planning, and you say well, we need the windows fixed, and we also need the entrance to the adu fixed. Would you be amenable, if we continue this, i cant say that we are, continue this, and instructed you and planning to sit down together, put the finishing touches on what seems to be about 80 there, and get planning comfortable, and then with a new set of plans come back, present those new set of plans, which just about everything fixed so you can move on . How much flexibility do you have left . Whether it is done that way, or some other way, a condition that we work with planning, maybe we come back to the boar board sorry to interrupt you, with my president , that it is cleaner and the members of the public that came here, get that pound of flesh, to be honest. That way, it is before this body, rather than releasing it over to planning. How long would that take you. Not that we are there yet how long would that be . That might be more of a question for planning. Maybe the architects can come up and talk to you that. The primary question is one, excuse me, are you more flexib flexible . And are the windows important to you, and is the current door treatment important to you . Im sorry, did we get ahead of ourselves . I can come back and talk. Is more appropriate to hear the appellants, and then we can talk about this wrap up and make our decision. Thank you. He is the appellant. At this point were going to hear from the Planning Department. Welcome back. Scott sanchez Planning Department. We respectfully request you uphold the planning apartments decision to the application and allow them to go back to the appropriate process. The board will decide what to do, and i hear some of the discussion as being, approving the revised project. The department will be more than happy to work with the project sponsor to convey those design comments. They were the direct entrance from the street to the adu which should not be an issue because theres an existing entrance there for the commercial space. The window proportions and detailing are not compatible with the core dating buildings. Also picking up on the comments from the public about section 317. We do not have a section 317 calculations due to the part of the plans before you. We did separately get them from the project sponsor, and you know, any project needs to comply with 317. If you are to either continue it, we would work with them to get those demolition calculations, or you could condition it that they simply comply with section 317. Lastly, the building is not a historic resource. I was found not to be a historic resource. We would update any ceqa determinations with any provisions they proposed we can also, you know i guess if there was some clear indication from the board that this path would be acceptable, we could even try to go down that a. D. U. Path now. Get those appropriate waivers and the contract with, i dont have the timing of that exactly, the citys Attorneys Office that may need to come after the board take action and we can finalize those documents. We are happy to work with the board, if that is the direction from the board. Our preference would be for, you know, the Planning Commission to have their say in this, to review the revised project and make a decision. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. I will start off. As a longterm resident of San Francisco, as a realtor for a very long time, i am constantly seeing landlords from the city that are not walking away, they are running away, you know . They are trying to get out especially with a retrofit. Weve seen quite a few sales in our city. Its actually refreshing to see that you have a landlord that doesnt have a path, or history, that is trying to stay in the city, and to do the things. The fact that they are adding another a. D. U. , to the stock. As we heard from the department, they have the ability to add a legal unit. Which would not be subject to a lot of the restrictions that the a. D. U. Has. So, as you alluded to earlier, i am very supportive of the project sponsor. Also, as my president said, it would be nice for them to have a revised project so that we are looking, and we are voting on the plans that are before us so that we dont have left hand, right hand. It would be nice, i would support it to be continued for the project sponsor to work with the department, fulfilling the wish list that they said earlier today. Anybody else have any comments . Im just curious, for any of you who have been on this board longer than i have that is everybody here, by the way. All of you. Im curious about the difference in your mind between continuing and conditioning. I think mr. Sanchez said something about conditioning . I will answer that. It would segue nicely into my comments, so thank you very mu much. If we continue this, we have the opportunity and instructing project sponsor to work with planning, to get where he wants, where planning wants the proje project. If we start conditioning, that dialogue, has yet to be fully flushed out. We may be leaving something out. There may be something we cant see, because we dont have the ultimate settle plans in front of us, what we can do by continuing, as i can turn to the project sponsor and say, okay, what we would like you to do is sit down with planning, we would like you to revise your plans according to what you have hea heard, during testimony tonight, and continue to be flexible in the way you have, and get planning comfortable so they flip in short, we still have control of the case. And then they can come back with a revised set of plans, we are still in denoble, planning can say this is a project that we, and we can move forward instead of making this project be continued by having to go back to planning for another 69 months, maybe a year. And then we hear it again, over a year ago, because it might get bumped again by planning. Or, and might get approved by planning and still somebody might appeal it. A year from now, the same thing, really going to request a continuance, the period of a month, plans can be revised, planning can get their arms around it, they can flip, and that we have a new Housing Stock in San Francisco which is really good thing. We will see this again anyway because they will have the option to appeal the plans. Have to say, look at this permit, i think in two weeks, they will have its three year anniversary. Its crazy. Lets get her done. That would be my motion, to continue this project so that the department can work with the project sponsor, specifically on the list that was provided to us in our brief, as well as what was orally given regarding the a. D. U. , and removing of the commercial space as well as to memorialize the agreement that was met with the tenant, that they are supplying housing. Pretty much, there is a list on our briefs. Of course, the tweaks that the Department Requires regarding the bay window and then potentially the egress from the a. D. U. Okay should have told me that in the beginning. Attorney theres a a. D. U. On the ground floor. I think they know. Would not be acceptable . That works for me. Okay. Lets talk about a date to continue it to. Can you come to the podium. How long do you think you will need . Scott is really fast, he could do this like yesterday. [laughter] we were going to say two weeks. The department is telling us they need longer. I dont know if that includes the a. D. U. Part of it. Then you have to make some calculations. We could tried to do it, in two weeks. I think it will be tight because we need to have plans to use by next week on the design side. But then how far do we go with the a. D. U. . That process does take some ti time. I think, we would like to do this as part of the permit, as i understand. I think a little bit more time. Is impossible, because i heard you say, i would love to see an a. D. U. A. D. U. There, i would love to see another housing on San Francisco stree streets. As a possible that you may advise the project sponsor that an a. D. U. Is not desirable by planning . I mean, you know, given the concerns that have been raise raised i would like to see a a. D. U. , to make that perfectly clear. I think that makes a better package in the end. October 23 would be a good date. I would like to discuss with the Zoning Administrators back in town next week, the city Attorneys Office and our adu staff about how much we should do right now. Do we do the hawkins agreement, get everything reported, theres a lot of paperwork to get some of adu. That is the direction of the board. Im hearing there probably for boats votes tonight, we could be comfortable moving forward that the board we can move forward with that. It does require the Zoning Administrator to grant the waivers, that have not yet been granted. My intent would be your contentment with finding the right project, so you can stand up there and say, this project has been morphed into something that we can wrap our arms around. I always have to support the Planning Commission. The Planning Department staff did support the project as it was previously proposed. We did have a Planning Commission in our audience. No disrespect to the Planning Commission. We see a project i think if we set october 23, we can either meet that date, or if we for processing the a. D. U. That is my motion. Does the 23rd work for you . Yes. My one question, would we need to submit the revised are going to work with the department and okay, we have a motion from commissioner how to continue this matter until october 23, so that the Planning Department come work with the project sponsor on plans that are code compliant, and that includes an a. D. U. On the ground floor. On that motion,. [role call] that motion carries. We will see you on the 23rd. We will put you at the beginning of the calendar. We need another ten minute break, please. Welcome back to the septembea excuse me, we are starting. We are on item number nine, appeal no. 19052. We have a section 14 party, mr mr. Mr. Wong. The subject of is 120124 varennes street, peeling the denial on april 26, 2019 to michael kirwan, and alteration permit. Existing three story, unit building, the permit was disapproved by the Planning Commission upon a determination that exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances escapes with exceptions exception to the project sponsor, as a means of dislodging existing tenants on a rent control. 0644. This is permit no. 2018 01 30 9824. We will hear first from the appellant. Welcome. Thank you very much. Always nice to be here. Good evening. Ryan patterson on behalf of the appellant, michael kirwan. We are here disapproval of apartment. With the best of intentions, the Planning Commission sometimes steps outside of its legal boundaries, outside of its mandate. The applicant is a longtime San Francisco renter, local business owner. After years of renting he was finally able to purchase his first home here. He bought a modest two unit building, with the intention to fix it up, correct deferred maintenance, bring it up to code, and move into one of the units. Specifically he applied for a permit to add a betterment about him to each unit prayed he proposed to do this by excavating the basement to make use of the non habitable space in the back of the garage, by adding a room on the roof. A couple of neighbors took issue with the project. One next door, one across the street. They filed for discretionary review. At the d. R. Hearing, these neighbors opportunistically made this about they try to vilify this applicant. When the applicant purchase the property, there were tenants on the second unit. The former attorney negotiated with them to voluntarily vacate the unit as part of a settlement. If i could have the overhead please . The tenants received 150,000 to vacate, in the settlement. These former tenants chose to leave. All the same, the d. R. Requesters, not former tenants themselves argued that the tenants had been forced out, therefore the commission should take discretionary review, and punish the applicant for an unlawful tenant landlord matter. This is a strange case. The commission did not even consider the project. The d. R. Requesters did not acknowledge the modifications made to the project in response to their concerns. The commissioners made no comments about the project itself. Except to say they would not consider it without an a. D. U. As a result of the perceived tenant issue. The commissions writ decision to make the d. R. Was clearly punitive. In fact, the commissions decision explicitly states, on the overhead here, the Commission Found exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances with respect to the project sponsor, and the project use as means of dislodging existing tenants on a road control and hereby takes to be clear, there is no landlord tenant issue here. The applicant acted lawfully, under the rent ordinance, as was acknowledged by the commissioners. The former tenants received well over six figures, as far as a settlement, Settlement Agreements are not required to be reported or filed. Even if there had been a landlord tenant issue. The rental lord is the appropriate form to hear that issue, and to enforce the rent ordinance. Planning commission is not to hand out punishments for. Particularly where the conduct is most lawful and unrelated to the design of the project. Moreover, state law requires that the project be approved. Housing accountability act, 655. 895 limits the citys discretion to deny permits for code compliant projects to provide housing, such as this project which adds two bedrooms. The city does not have discretion to deny the site project. As proposed, this code compliant project without twobedrooms to the property making two units more suitable for families, increasing the housing supply, and a subjecting the project to the housing accountability act. The city is required to approve this project. The Planning Commission failed to do so, the discord can rectified the air and approve the project now by granting the appeal. With that said, the applicant heard the Planning Commissions and the publics call for an a. D. U. To be added. He is willing to compromise and do this. His architect has formulated a plan to add an a. D. U. By illuminating parking, even though the applicant requires parking for his livelihood. On the overhead, please. I will add that this is code compliant. This is the commissions direction that they want to sea two a. D. U. It was not easy. It took a lot of compromise by the applicants. The project architect is here and available to answer any questions you might have on the project. Ill ask them to give a brief overview of the a. D. U. Thank you. Good evening. We worked with scott sanchez, planning, to come to a design that would work for the ground floor. We propose to remove the garage entirely, so we can get an a. D. U. That would not require waivers. Getting access from the streets and open space in the back, and is a contributor to the Housing Stock in San Francisco. I will be available for any further questions if you have them. Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions. Should this thing go back to the Planning Commission, the answer is the project that is before you under appeal, the applicant has a right to approval by the board of appeals. We do review this denoble, and has a right to make certain changes to projects. The bait very major compromises to add the a. D. U. Going back there an entire new round of Planning Commission hearings, the d. R. , an extraordinary amount of expense of these projects, is why you dont see people trying to add more units like this. Im happy to answer any questions you might have. I want to make sure im clear. The plans we received in the brief, and the plans you just gave us, the differences no more garage. Correct, the garage is being converted to an a. D. U. Worked with planning . That is right. I will let mr. Sanchez speak to that. We had this plan for about a month, should you require more time to review this, we are happy to agree to a short continuance so the department can work out any remaining issues and make sure we resolve these issues. Mr. Patterson, i know this is out of jurisdiction, but for the record, was an agreement filed within a 14 day period, was there an official city record . No, i dont believe so. Nor is one required for a Settlement Agreement. The settlement is litigation. It is a buyout agreement. Now youre forcing me to go to the City Attorney and say, mr. City attorney, can you give us a an education on the difference between a Settlement Agreement and a buyout agreeme agreement . I was not aware of the distinction he is raising. I understand him to be saying that it wasnt actually a buyout, it was a settlement. Which, to me, is semantics. Not something that we are involved with. We came in much later than that. I cant speak to specifics. It was litigation, very different from a buyout. There are rules that require pre buyout disclosures, before negotiations, and i believe that was done so that there could be discussion. Was there a buyout agreement made with the tenant that was relocated or dislocated . It was not a buyout agreement, it was a Settlement Agreement. No buyout agreement that was filed with the rent board . I assume your talking about the rentcontrolled rules . This is a different type of agreement. Not have to go to the City Attorney and say, if it is a semantic issue, there should have been a buyout agreement filed with the rent board, with the lack of a buyout agreement being filed with the rent board have any impact on the issue permit, in this case . Or, is it a rent board issue and not a planning and permitting issue . Right. There is nothing in the code, that would [inaudible] the failure of that should not be an issue in the determination whether the permit was issued, correct . That is correct. The board does have Broad Discretionary Authority under section 26 to consider a broad range of issues, the project on the neighborhood and the variety of things. There is no code requirement that the Building Department of the city consider the failure to file the buyout agreement and approving the permit. Thank you very much. The rent ordinance does contain remedies for the Property Owner who violates those requirements. The rent board of horses that rent ordinance. Thank you, mr. Patterson. Do you have the Settlement Agreement . I do not have a copy of it. You are representing, on behalf of your client, that the check she showed us were in exchange for, at least in part, the tenant moving out . That was an important part of the Settlement Agreement, as i understand it. Is not some unrelated litigation . Right. That is my understanding. Since you brought up the litigation, we might as well talk about it. Who sued who . Was that the tenant suing the landlord, or the landlord suing the tenant . Can you give us some detail on that . This is pertinent to the broad hours and discretion that we might have in making a decision on this case. I will have my colleague speak to that. Again, our firm is not involved in that. I understand. But, it is a cornerstone issue clearly it was a cornerstone issue in what drove the Planning Commission to make the decision that it did. If we do not have a broad explanation of that litigation, who did what to whom, and what was ultimately there was a settlement, and why did it occur . We cant have an understanding of what led them to their decision. I believe we have members of the public that are probably going to speak on that, after. We might want to address this in rebuttal. I see some people shaking their head. I see members of the audience that are probably going to speak specifically. We can do it again. We need to hear the answer, and then we can do it again. So, as mr. Patterson explained, we were not part of that lawsuit. I cant say i have seen the entirety of the documents that went on there. What i have seen is the Settlement Agreement, which was not produced at the hearing. The Planning Commission did not consider the Settlement Agreement. I think, in part, for respect of these tenets on their privacy there is no confidentiality clause in the agreement, they did not appear there. The only testimony that was given, the only evidence introduced about this came from outside sources who may or may not have been aware of the ultimate Settlement Agreement. I do know, on the basis of the Settlement Agreement that i have seen that the tenants, where the defendants, and our client was the plaintiff in that litigati litigation. What the underlying complaint look like, i cannot tell you. Do you know who sued who . Yes, the tenants where the defendants in that lawsuit. [inaudible] i know we are jumping ahead, but i have to, we are hot, tired and all that. Mr. Pattison suggests he might want to continuance, if we agree to that, you might want to come prepared as part of the continuance of this case to be a little bit more knowledgeable and present us with the facts in that case. Part of the issue there, as i said, for privacy, which indicated in the Settlement Agreement for privacy and credit agreements, they were looking to protect their credit and not have an unlawful detainer there. This was a mask litigation. This is not something you can just pull up. It is a violation. Hold on a second. [laughter] the last five minutes have raised a thousand new questions. I was with you, and now im not sure i understand what is going on here. Something irregular is going on. First of all, you wrote a brief that talks about how your client did everything right, bought out these tenets, is not doing anything wrong, and now we are learning that your client filed an unlawful detainer against that tenant, before, then settling that litigation. That is a major concern we are going to need to understand. A new attorney on our board. [laughter] so, admittedly, the landlord tenant laws on my practice. However, it is pretty well known there are various ways of settling disputes. One of those ways is to file a lawsuit, they often call it a dell complaint, because they dont use peoples names and for purposes of protecting their credit, et cetera. Sometimes its by agreement. They will agree to have a lawsuit filed against them, and then use that lawsuit as a settlement so they can have the court to enforce Settlement Agreement. That is an accepted practice both for the benefit of the landlords and tenants in resolving landlord tenant matters. This was discussed in the brief, this was a Settlement Agreement. I dont think theres been any hiding of what has happened there. That is a helpful explanation. I am aware of that practice. I think were going to need a little more meat on those bones, if you do end up coming back. Lets hear the rest of the case. Thank you mr. Patterson, we can grow you more after rebuttal. Will now hear from mr. Wong, the section 14 party. Howard wong. Prior to my presentation i would ask respectfully, president swig that you would accept the hardcopies of our response, which consist primarily of the materials reviewed by the Planning Commission at the discretionary review hearing on march 7. We had submitted the material to the board on september 5, but the material was rejected on september 6, because the opening letter had parts which were not doublespaced. The material also includes a transcript of the hearing on march 7. I hope that you will accept that. We will accept it as you handed to the clerk. As you know, we have no time to review this, at this hearing. You can give as much as you wish and your allotted time, and if this continues for some reason, we can chat about including it in a followup packet. Great. My name is howard wong, and i live next door at 126128, since 1952. I am very familiar with the owners, past and present tenan tenants, and uses of the adjacent building at 120124 varennes street, an rh3 zone building. We asked the board of appeals to uphold the unanimous decision of the Planning Commissioners the denial for Building Permit because the project encapsulates a wide range of planning, zoning, permitting and process irregularities that have led to San Franciscos loss of rentcontrolled units, affordable multi generational housing, Historic Resources and neighborhood diversity. At the march 7 hearing, neighborhood and tenant organizations placed documents into the Public Record that showed a range of exceptional and extraordinary irregularities, including serial permits, illegal and suspended permit, avoidance of traveler. Coercing eviction of a protected class of tenets. Threats to a historic resource. Loss of Affordable Housing. Loss of existing rentcontrolled units. Reduction of housing units. As per transcripts, of the hearing, which i have just given you, the Planning Commissioners further reinforced public testimony, and documents that demonstrated a range of irregularities. The Planning Commission has broad discretionary powers over all Building Permit applications as summarized in the Planning Departments discretionary review information packet. Ill go the Planning Commission may use its discretionary powers to review any Building Permit application that needs meets the minimum requirements and standards of the planning code and adopted design guidelines. If the Commission Judges action on the application is necessary to ensure that the interest of the city and its neighborhoods are protected. Of the eight priority policies of the general plan and planning code section 101. 11. The application raises significant general plan consistency issues with the following. The existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and Economic Diversity of our neighborhoods. That the city supply of Affordable Housing be preserved and enhanced, and seven, landmarks and Historic Buildings be preserved. No supporting evidence of payments to the long term 31 year rentcontrolled protected tenants was presented to the Planning Commission or to this aboard. No record of a buyout was filed with the rent board. Even if the tenants had been paid, this still does not mask the fact that they were coercively forced to leave, as evidenced by the attorney letter, to the tenants dated october 27, 2017 which had that had been exhibited by several parties today. Project used as a means of dislodging existing protected tenants on the right control. They voted unanimously, 60, to take it discretionary review and deny the proposed Building Permit application. It is not an owners right to threaten longterm tenants to coerce them to leave, such practice, even if carried out by large numbers of developers, do not excuse such behavior under due process protection. Loss of a housing unit is avoidable, if the ground for is adequate for an expanded master bedroom and garage, as originally produced proposed, it should also be adequate for an a. D. U. By limiting their garage of necessary which seems to have been done, or proposed. The project encapsulates the planning and zoning design, and construction area irregularities that led to San Franciscos loss of rentcontrolled units, affordable multi generational family housing, Historic Resources and neighborhood diversity, as prescribed in the San Francisco general plan. As evidence in the documentation, and testimony presented on march 7, 2019. Comments by Planning Commissioners, the dr applicant. You are the immediate nextdoor neighbor . And to the north come up, of the 120 120124 varennes street. I grew up with the family that owned the building, they lived upstairs. Did you know them . I knew them, not intimately, but i saw them many times. My question is, purely because you use the word threatened and coerced, are you aware of any such actions . Yes, i base that on a letter from the attorney. Im speaking directly from the tenants, are you aware of something specifically from the tenant. Did they write you a letter, or tell you that there were threatened or coerced . No. The information youre getting is thirdparty . I would say somewhat that my mother has related to me, that they were happy, she lives also in the same building as i do. Its not totally hearsay. The two sources are the letter. I would say the hard evidence is the attorneys letter are they still living in the city, are you aware . I believe they are still living in the city. Is there a reason why they are not here this hearing . I did not asked them to be here. Do you have contact with th them . I did make a phone call, several months ago to the younger, asking her if they had, you know, bought a house or something . They said said no, we are still renting. I did not ask about the circumstances of payment or anything like that. Thank you. Thank you. I also have a lot of other materials. I have copies of transcripts. If you would like to have that . Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. After the Planning Department we will have Public Comment, sir. Do you think they might have signed a nondisclosure . Scott sanchez, Planning Department. The project that is before you, what they are seeking approval of is not what was actually reviewed, considered. Why does that sound so familiar . Probably have them consolidated, at least. The permit that is before you, the subject property of 120124 varennes street, located in an rh3 zoning district. The Building Application was omitted in january, 2018 under 311 notification between october and november of 2018, during that time one discretionary review was found, that had jointly filed a dr request, and was heard by the Planning Commission on march 7, of this year. Through the course of the process, the Planning Department found the project to be code compliant, and recommended approval of the project, at the Planning Commission hearing. Considering the information that was presented, chose to deny the project, very much concerned by the issues that have been raised at the hearing about the tenants history, in the building. The Commission Found extraordinary circumstances in respect to the project sponsor of the used as a means of dislodging protected tenants, i direct and hereby takes d. R. To deny the permit application. In reviewing the hearing, it is my recollection that at the hearing, the permit holder stated that he informed, if i get this correct, he informed the tenants of what he was proposing to do, and they left. It was then throughout the course of the hearing that more information came out, and it i is it isnt quite exactly the same as i heard today. At least that there was some agreement now, to understand that there was an agreement now that they left, i guess voluntarily, that. Those are some of the concerns that the commission had. The increase in size of the building to all units. A third dwelling unit is allowed under the density providing other code requirements are met. The project that is before you, you know, appear to require purchasing an a. D. U. , because it is not completely code compliant for the third unit. It was a process working with them, and the initial project that they proposed wouldnt have even been approvable as an a. D. U. They made substantial changes to the project including producing the existing encroachment, at the rear, and required rear yard to give more space so they could meet the minimum exposure requirements to have a unit talked at the back. Even with that, they have an odd configuration to access that new a. D. U. Walking up a set of stairs and down a set of stairs. Where they remove the garage and have a full groundfloor unit, that exposure. Meet code requirements for exposure. It seems that they would still require either a variance for the open space, or to get a waiver for open space as part of the a. D. U. Program. If you had three units, maybe they would look a little bit differently upon it. There was no three unit building at that time. Only after we said we went support the various iterations of the a. D. U. s that they had. We got something that was actually a better groundfloor design a. D. U. As in the previous case, we request that the board we deny the application. They have a revised project now that the Planning Commission can reset it. They can bring all this information back to the Planning Commission further