Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rehearing 45620 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies rehearing request from tenant at 45620 Seventh Street
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a request for rehearing from tenant Lorna Murdoch, who said she and building occupants were denied outreach; the board found the testimony did not meet the high standard for rehearing and voted 3–1 to deny.
Lorna Murdoch asked the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 14 to rehear its Dec. 10, 2014 decision upholding a permit for a three‑story, two‑unit building at 45620 Seventh Street, saying she and other occupants were denied outreach afforded neighboring property owners. At the hearing Murdoch said she had “initiated 17 outreach attempts between receipt of the 3/11 notice and the mandatory [Planning] hearing, and an additional 8 outreach attempts after Planning approval,” and asked the board to reset the appeal so tenants could negotiate design modifications.
The permit holder’s counsel, David Silverman, told the board no new facts had been presented that could not have been introduced at the prior hearing. Several nearby tenants and relatives testified they had been ignored by the project sponsor and supported Murdoch’s request for another hearing.
Commissioners debated the legal threshold for granting a rehearing. Several members said they supported the neighbors’ ability to be heard but emphasized that rehearing requires evidence of “manifest injustice” or new material information that would have changed the outcome at the prior hearing. In the end the motion to deny the rehearing carried 3–1, with one commissioner dissenting. The board’s decision means the prior ruling upholding the permit stands and a notice of decision and order will be released.
The board’s action was procedural: it denied a rehearing request rather than revisiting the permit merits. The parties may pursue other administrative steps available under local law, but the Board of Appeals did not remand or alter the underlying permit at this meeting.
