Legal and im scombjz the boards executive order were joined before i the city departments and skoolgz is at the table the Zoning Administrator and receptionists the Planning Commission well be joined we mr. David department of building inspection and nick is the senior plan checker with the bureau zoning and mapping and expecting to see chris buck with our bureau of urban forest and elita and other colleague representing the Public Health department mr. Pacheco if you go over the boards meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process is board qs requests you turn off all electronic phones the boards rules are as fouls appellant and permit holders and Department Representatives each this is a 7 minutes to present and 3 minutes for ritual people must conclude theyre minutes and those not affiliated with the party have 3 minutes to address the board to assist the board in the precipitations of the minutes members of the public are asked to the required to submit a Business Card when you come up to the podium speaker pens are perfuming podium are or customer he safer form if you have a request for the Board Hearing ever or schedule call the boarding board office it is located others 1650 Mission Street between dubose this meeting is broadcast live app on sfgovtv be cable channel 78 dvds are available for purchase directly in sfgovtv thank you for your attention well conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify at no time Board Hearing please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after sworn in please note that any members of the public may speak without taking the oath thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you okay. Thank you item one on that tonight calendar is general Public Comment are there others who wish to speak within the boards subject matter not on tonights agenda anyone that want to speakful under general Public Comment item 2 is commissioners questions or comments he commissioners. Okay. Seeing none item 3 is the boards consideration and possible adaptation of the december 17, 2014, minutes. Any additions or deletions railroad correction may i have a motion. So moved. Any Public Comment on the minutes seeing none mr. Pacheco can you call the roll please. We have a motion to adapt the december 17th minutes on that 0 motion. Commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you. The vote is 4 to zero those minutes are adapted thank you item 4 a rehearing request the subject property on 17th street we received a previous letter from the appellant which was decided on december 10th at this point the board voted 4 to one on the basis at that conformed to the residential guidelines the permit holder is richmond edmond to constrict a 2 story residential building of ground floor area well hear from the requester. I have to say i can hear that matter without bias. Ms. Murdock 3 minutes. Good evening commissioner president lazarus and members thank you for asking me to come to the tenth pale for 170 based on the justice Property Owner to the answers on record the commissioners have been conversations with murdock now direct conversations the opportunity to be heard she specifically referenced it to commissioner wilson question whether you had direct correspondence with her on december 10th the proponents testified about the outreach i believe the members of this board would have granted me and my members of the board to grant the negotiation for neighborly concession prior to the permits just as our neighbors got the chance to do to correct the records as detailed in the packet i initiated 17 outreach between the receipt of the letter and the mandatory discretionary review address 8 outreach attempts after the dr approval 24 attempts in 5 months and as outlined in my packet no direct came back to me with the designing process the way the architect did for the other neighbors the spirit of the outreach attempt was also made to request neighborly and in person meetings on behalf of the building occupants to address the buildings concerns and part of the process my intent was was never to address those in front of of the Planning Commission or the mandatory discretionary review or in front of the board of appeals, in fact, the only reason ive actually come from the Planning Commission or the board the proponents refused to engage with me and grant us the same outreach theyve provided the other neighborhoods daylight is a critical needs and my building owners fell occupants simply want to sit down with the facilitator and find a solution by the solid height and the open space and daylight again equal outreach in the design process to 0 im encouraged by commissioner wilson and commissioner fong to confirm with the occupant so, please rehear this pail and sure fair and honest process for this project and for San Francisco as a whole thank you. Thank you. We hear from the permit holder mr. Silverman. Good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners David Silverman on behalf of the permit holder there have been no new facts and circumstances presented to the board that couldnt have been present at the prior hearing i understand from ms. Murdocks comments tonight that she wished to emphasize the outreach but in her own comments two commissioners recovered did outreach with my clients though she may dispute her accounts thats not new evidence on a rehash of whats gone over we encourage you to deny her request. I have a question. Yes. What about her attempts to talk directly to the clients or you. That was addressed by my clients at the prior hearing my recollection they met her at a party at a house across the street, i believe there was emails after that and i yeah, you can come up. Please. So im the project sponsor of the project to clarify oh, im sorry vivian lee project manager to clarify the communications i can say that ms. Murdock only actively engaged after her and her land given the emotions were running high to keep the conversation professional and civil and to avoid misrepresentation and as ms. Murdock as dietly kept the corresponds we answered every that single on of her nominees to the best of our digital abatement and how we come to the understanding we were able to do what were allowed to do the problem is you know any comment if the departments mr. Sanchez or mr. Duffy any Public Comment . Please step forward inform youre going to speak on this item. So i thank you commissioner president lazarus and the board for letting us speak im elizabeth wu im below the appellant and so although i didnt speak i was present at the last meeting on december 10th in support of ms. Murdock who was really in my opinion speaking on behalf of residents in our building who will be impacted by the proposed structure from lvns to the testimonies i believe some of the statement were misleading this is in reference to the direct kvls conversation i was cop all the emails ms. Murdock reached out to speak directly to bring up our concerns although he relied the relies consisted of the follow sentiments im not available to meet well not agree to the moefktsdz or discuss this matter with i so i believe its unjust the neighborhood across the street or further from the site of the project be heard because right next door were the ones most impacted so because of that i hope youll be able to support the rehearing. I have a question how long have you been a tenant and i moved in february of 2014. And at that time. Almost one year. At that time difficult landowner indicate a building structure proposed to be built next june okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please good evening commissioner president lazarus and Board Members im the daughter and sister of the owners at 4680 street my sister is unable to attend the hearing she was unavailable she wrote the letter id like to point out it was requested to meet with us and discuss our issues instead of many edmond said he was requesting that hyphenated ms. Murdock has been reasonable and in her right to request a r revolution at the meeting we addressed the concerns he and the board of appeals asked florida was a discussion about the issue to try to reach an agreement he was dishonest and he had on discussions shes made every he email and it was go forward on october im sorry in october i had an Emergency Repair due to a termite issue i asked to access the property to make the repairs mr. Edmond requested terms to allow me access when i objected such as a Million Dollars insurance polly requested i called him when the contacted him on october 28th he asked me to provide a letter of approval to submit to the board of appeals at the december 10th hearing i said ill not give him a letter mr. Ed mom and dads said hell not allow me access to the property the emails have been included. Excuse me. Your time up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening commissioner president lazarus and Board Members im katrina tiny live in agreement 4 another 4060, 27th street next door im the apartment above license number nasal and my husband couldnt be here tonight i wanted to show any support for everything that luna has mentioned im just yeah. In support throughout the process to have a concerns listened too weve been refused on those grounds were here tonight we were never given the opportunity to meet or discuss the building plans as our adjacent neighborhood that was noted truthfully declared thats misleading the board to impact their decision it is quiet serious to me edmond hostility and refusal to include us and his dishonest to the board has affected the district inclusive it something the city should protect as a priority so due process it is important thats why were here and a lot is at stating stake the daylight will be impacted and everything agrees on the impact of the sunlight and Good Building design is essential to have the longevity and the effects on peoples lives so, yeah together the outcome we want to acid with an open discussion and hopefully reach an agreement where the situations st. Is greatly complofd with a good neighborly spirit sometimes, sometimes its rough to go the longs miles. Same question how long are you think the property. August we moved in. And same question did our landowner at that time provide you information a longs construction next door. I think that was immediately but i was aware pretty soon after yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please hi commissioner president lazarus and the Board Members my name is caesary lee i live on 27th street across the project site within the one hundred 50 foot radius im here to support a rehearing the appeal luna has not had an opportunity to voice her concerns the sf planning code to respect the existing conditions and have the projects have the at least impact to 9 future and now resident no opportunity should be lost it seems the right thing to do and its also possible by generating a meeting between the neighborhood ate the project sponsors this would reduce the impact of the wall on the Property Line one of the neighborhood wrote is a letter to the Planning Commission on january 6th that emphasize the importance of daylight as a need and even though architecture plans could improve the design say benefit into properties wendy states the architecture listening licenses to protect the safety and health of the public and blocking the sunlight is not good for Peoples Health a design could be made to benefit all please rehear this and insure good faith communication and we demonstrate the needs of the resident are just as important as a new home being designed thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening commissioner president lazarus and Board Members im georgia i live on duncan street a 3 had had foot radius from the project i support this request for rehearing because ms. Murdock didnt have the same opportunity as the other neighbors for input and receive information on this project in the same timeframe as another neighborhood i certainly could have had this is not fair since she and other neighbors moved in avenue after the preapplication meeting she couldnt have attended this meeting with the project sponsor that hes required to hold she didnt have a meeting prior to the 368 notice nor did 53 she have a meeting with the project sponsor during the most along project because of the demolition she take advantage to try to get her concerns heard i think its unfortunate she was not afforded the same opportunity that the Property Owners an 27th street particularly immediate the adjacent owners who must be invited to the preapplication meeting even though they moved in after the preapplication meeting its reasonable she should have sought on meeting as an immediate and would have been afforded one misrepresent in the process prior to the mandatory discretionary review in order to her to make her concerns known and have received some mitigates as other immediate neighbors have received please grant her request for a rehearing so i can deal with her concerns she was not afforded a meeting. Any other Public Comment on this item seeing none commissioners the matter is summited. Commissioners the testimony tonight in my opinion does in the rides to the level of maneuvered just and not new information im not prepared to support this. What does it mean manifested justice. Rules dont provide a men and women but genericly theres a case you think theres some extreme wrongs failing of a hearing some sort. And youre not per swayed that the folks that moved in after should have been given the same opportunity as the other neighbors no i fully supported their ability to are heard they were heard what we wanted was direct negotiations with the project sponsor to be able to effect the potential changes to the project thats not necessarily guaranteed by any code here there are urban willingness to north meet is unfortunate but i dont consider that part of the manifest justice and theres criteria for the rehearing. Correct. And i for one would concur with any fell commissioners. How about you sir. I dont think it meets i think it w theyre bringing up at this meeting was dealt with at the prior hearing and if theres no new information that would have changed my vote how i voted at the last hearing and even if the permit holders had not been forthright and that bothers me a little bit but the briefs he somewhat pursue engineered himself theyre not bringing on new information that there was definite conversation as commissioner singh said the conversation we cant control that. But sorry. No, no. But we commissioner fung are you saying that direct conversation is outside of our direct jurisdiction we sometimes courage the parties to settle. No, im going saying that im saying in a rehearing request the threshold is quite high and, yes. And did they have their day in court . Yes, they did thank you. No further comments ill move to deny the jurisdiction request on the base no new information has been present. Thank you ready for the roll to be called okay mr. Pacheco. We have a motion from commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request. On that motion to deny commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. Commissioner wilson. Nay. Thank you vote is 3 to one this repasserby hearing request is denied and an order shall be released. Moving on to 0 item 5 the subject property on stan i dont think the board received a letter attorney for the appellants requesting a rehearing decided on defenseless 17 at that time the board voted 4 to one for an improvement permit the permit holders is km, llc and the project is to construct a new 15 foot wide concrete sidewalks and curve cut to provide a walking path to access the subject property well hear from mr. Williams first 3 minutes. Good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board im on behalf of the appellants who have lived next to the subject site about 40 years and were here to request a new rehearing would be principle this board has consisting upheld i believe has preside itself ones is fairness making sure the parties that appear before the board r treated fairly the parties feel theyve gotten a fair shake when they came down to city hall in support of fairness the board has xhvsht held the position to t will employ the rules they miss all follow the same rules its unwavering position to enforce the rules and apply them equally and fairly this equal application of the rules is doubly important when the party in question is the city agency were requesting a rehearing dpw and follow the rules and by not following the rules theyve prejudiced the appellant on december 17th dpw didnt serve the briefs it submitted on me or the appellants at any time we only learned after the hearing the brief was filed and for the first time after the hearing we got to know dpw legal argument this of the manifestly unfair and it is the only way to serve the brief and i will note the board ultimately september dpws legal argument in preference to the legal argument about the interpretation of public works code we were placed at
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.