Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rehearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing request alleging forged pre‑application notices at 2027 Twentieth Ave
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from adjacent neighbors who alleged the project sponsor falsified pre‑application meeting records for a 3‑story addition at 2027 Twentieth Avenue, concluding the information presented would not have altered the prior de novo appeal outcome.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on the evening of the meeting denied a rehearing petition from Alan and Wendy Leong concerning a permit for a three‑story addition at 2027 Twentieth Avenue.
The Leongs told the board that they and other nearby residents never received required neighborhood notification for a pre‑application meeting and identified inconsistencies in the developer’s sign‑in sheets and meeting summaries, including conflicting dates and different meeting locations. Wendy Leong said her notarized employer affidavit and identification signatures do not match the signatures on the sign‑in sheets and said she filed a police report alleging forgery. “We never received the notification of neighborhood notification about the pre‑app meeting,” the Leongs stated during their presentation.
Project representative Steve Williams told the board the pre‑application meeting was held in early 2007 and said an architect working on the project signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury confirming the meeting occurred. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department said the Leongs are on the City’s current mailing list used for Section 3.11 notifications; he said he could not explain why the family claims they did not receive the mailed notices and reminded the board that formal pre‑application requirements were refined after 2007.
Board members said the standard for rehearing is the presentation of new information or demonstration of manifest injustice. Although several commissioners described the alleged inconsistencies and possible forgeries as “disturbing,” they concluded the materials offered did not present new, dispositive information that would have changed the subject matter addressed at the prior hearing. Commissioner Fung moved to deny the rehearing request; the motion carried on a recorded vote (motion carries as stated by the clerk).
The permit at issue had been issued previously and upheld by a prior board decision; the rehearing denial leaves that decision intact. The board did not direct staff to reopen the original permit proceeding or to revoke the permit — the appellants were told the appropriate remedies for alleged forgery would be separate from the board’s rehearing standard.
The board moved on to subsequent agenda items following the ruling.
