. >> good evening welcome to the january 14, 2015 meeting of

sfvlz the proceeding off the it our commissioner president lazarus joined by commissioner fung and commissioner honda and commissioner wilson there's a vacancy on the board and pursuant to the charter section when there's a vacate the board may offer ridicule the building inspection commission by the vote which 3 members 4 votes are in light required the city director will provide the legal and i'm scombjz the boards executive order we're joined before i the city departments and skoolgz is at the table the zoning administrator and receptionists the planning commission we'll 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 q's 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 they're 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 on the left-hand side the 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 we'll 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 you're 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 tonight's 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 we'll 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 i've actually come from the planning commission or the board the proponents refused to engage with me and grant us the same outreach they've 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 - i'm 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 couldn't have been present at the prior hearing i understand from ms. murdock's 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 that's not new evidence on a rehash of what's 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 e-mails after that and i - yeah, you can come up. >> please. >> so i'm the project sponsor

of the project to clarify oh, i'm 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 we're 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 you're going to speak on this item. >> so i thank you commissioner president lazarus and the board for letting us speak i'm elizabeth wu i'm below the appellant and so although i didn't 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 e-mails ms. murdock reached out to speak directly to bring up our concerns although he relied the relies consisted of the follow sentiments i'm not available to meet we'll not agree to the moefktsdz or discuss this matter with i so i believe it's unjust the neighborhood across the street or further from the site of the project be heard because right next door we're the ones most impacted so because of that i

hope you'll 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 i'm 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 i'd 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 she's made every he e-mail and it was go forward on october i'm 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 i'll not give him a letter mr. ed mom and dads said he'll not allow me access to the property the e-mails have been included. >> excuse me. your time up. >> thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and board members i'm katrina tiny live in agreement 4 another 4060, 27th street next door i'm the apartment above license number nasal and my husband couldn't be here tonight i wanted to show any support for everything that luna has mentioned i'm just yeah. in support throughout the process to have a concerns listened too we've been refused on those grounds we're here tonight we were never given the opportunity to meet or discuss the building plans as our adjacent neighborhood that

was noted truthfully declared that's 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 that's why we're 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 people's 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 it's 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 i'm 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 it's 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 people's 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 i'm georgia i live on duncan street a 3 had had foot

radius from the project i support this request for rehearing because ms. murdock didn't 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 couldn't have attended this meeting with the project sponsor that he's required to hold she didn't 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 it's 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 it's 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 i'm not prepared to support this. >> what does it mean manifested justice. >> rules don't provide a men and women but genericly there's a case you think there's some extreme wrongs failing of a hearing some sort.

>> and you're 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 that's not necessarily guaranteed by any code here there are urban willingness to north meet is unfortunate but i don't consider that part of the manifest justice and there's criteria for the rehearing. >> correct. >> and i for one would concur

with any fell commissioners. >> how about you sir. >> i don't think it meets i think it - what they're bringing up at this meeting was dealt with at the prior hearing and if there's 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 they're not bringing on new information that there was definite conversation as

commissioner singh said the conversation we can't 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, i'm going saying that i'm 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 i'll 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 don't 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 we'll hear from mr. williams first 3 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board i'm on behalf of the appellants who have lived next to the subject site about 40 years and we're 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 they've 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 it's 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 we're requesting a rehearing dpw and follow the rules and by not following the rules they've prejudiced the appellant on december 17th dpw didn't serve the briefs it submitted on me or the appellants at any time we only learned after the