du get in touch with the requestors? they stated tins the tree had been remove exclude noted that the board told them a jurisdiction request does in the suspend the action that he thought this was moot and not attends based on those facts. >> okay. president swig do you want to hear from the determination hold and public works to close it out. we should take a vote. >> go through the >> since the requestor is not present we will hear from mr. gerhardt. welcome, you have 3 minutes. did you want to address the board? mr. gerhardt? i see hoe is present but we can't hear or see you. may be he stepped away. >> yes, we hear you. >> i'm sorry i lost the >> no problem. requestor is not appearing you can address the board for 3 minutes >> i'm bill gerhardt the owner of the building submitted the request to remove 2 trees one was granted and the replace am. i think the issue is whether the tenants were notified properly the hearing was not posted on the tree that it was damaged. i talked with the city at san francisco public works

neighbor or dr requestor and appellate paled the variance on january 27 the board of appeals voted denightl andup hold the issuance of the variance. since then, unpermitted work taken place on the property. joint inspections revealed the rear extension illegally removed and rebuilt. dbi issued a stop work order and voted 4 to zer tow to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis the permit was improperly issued they contained inaccurate information and evidence of demolition confirmed by the inspections the project am require a new certificate of appropriateness and new roar yard variance and new permit to capture all work on the property. commissioners, the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday but we did instead have a hearing on the 22 ndz and did mote on september 21st i will give you that briefing now. they adopted a resolution supporting the board of supervisor's resolution urging it is rk and park develop signage regarding the dark history at sharp park. and doomentd recommendations for approval for a number of legacy business applications blazing saddles

private meeting directly with the -- apparently the meetings requested more information from the dr requestor. we were not pritow and not privy to. feed on the communication with supervisor [inaudible] personnel or [inaudible]. more questions about the nature of the meeting it is alarming the private conversation were not disclosed at our before the hearing and not afforded the same opportunity. this raises ethical concern and believe we are never afforded due process on this matter. the city attorney's good guidance is clear about the ethics in the commission. i when act nothing a quasi judicial capacity members of the commission [inaudible] must take care to ensurety parties [inaudible] due process. due process requires fair [inaudible] free of bias. numbers of commissions must have listen to the evidence before making decisions and base the decisions on the [inaudible] before them. [difficult to understand speaker, echo]. one interested party when the other party or parties are not present. it continues if the commission not adopted a rule with ex parte communication. member when is elect