2020-04-23 · 21 comments · 6 / 15
Objection to #2020-000215CUA for 4-23-20, 4118 21st StreetThe above referenced project (formerly 2018-002602CUA) is of great concern to its neighbors. We had expected as per Planning Code Section 303 that it would not be scheduled at the Planning Commission again until September. After the new architect sent plans to us in January, we thought that a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled for us to be informed and express our concerns. Instead,the project is on the Planni… The above referenced project (formerly 2018-002602CUA) is of great concern to its neighbors. We had expected as per Planning Code Section 303 that it would not be scheduled at the Planning Commission again until September. After the new architect sent plans to us in January, we thought that a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled for us to be informed and express our concerns. Instead,the project is on the Planning Commission calendar for 4-23-20, and the plans included with the packet for that hearing are substantially different from the ones sent in January. We have the same issues with the illegal demolition of an affordable, 2 unit rental building, force out of an aging tenant (about to achieve the Ellis act protection), out of scale bulk, blocking of light, and invasion of privacy with this project as we h repeatedly expressed about the former project. Especially concerning is the impingement upon the west property line. We respectfully ask the Commission for at least a 30 day continuance and instruction to the project sponsors to meet with the neighbors in order to address our concerns. These are my specific concerns. 1. The plans you gave me when we met on February 2nd show that you intend to expand the western side of your house to extend as a straight line from the front (south) property line to the full length of the western side of your building. At present, the western side of your building is more than one foot from our common property line. 2. I don't want my house to be changed forever by this project. If they do intend to build right up to our common property line, it would mean that the three stories of the new house would completely block all the light going into the windows on two stories of my home. All of my windows on the eastern side of my house, the side that faces your property, would be affected by your plans to build right up to the common property line. If they build right up to our common property line, it will make my home permanently darker, colder and closed in. Even now, I feel the effect of this because of temporary plywood wall currently on our common property line. 3. I would really like to preserve the Eastern light I get when there is space between our buildings that exists now. If they build right up to the property line, they will destroy what light and air I get now. 4. As I did on February 2nd, I ask again that the sponsors complete a survey that clearly marks our common property line is made on this property, not just on paper. I have asked them to complete one that permanently marks the property line and which has a string marking the property line. My reason for asking again for this is explained below. 5. I am still very concerned about the new foundation they had built at the north end of our common property line. I mentioned this when we met on February 2nd. The new foundation built last year has a very odd extension that mounds cement on my side of the property line. I<U+2019>ve already sent you photos of this intrusion. I still think that the cement foundation extends into my property. I would like to know if they plan on removing the new cement work and the intrusion onto my side of the property line. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I hope that the Karamanos family will understand that there are still many concerns for me in my house and others in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Carlos Ibarra 4124 21st Streetshow more Objection to 2020-000215CUA + Continuance Request for Proposed Project at 4118-21st Street Dear Planning Commissioners, As neighbors of 4118 21st Street, we oppose the proposed project 2020-000215CUA, and we respectfully request a minimum 30-day continuance for this case. The owners of 4118 21st St. have shown reckless disregard to the procedures and protocols set in place to protect the interests of neighboring residents. In particular, how this has needlessly inconvenienced and negati… 21st Street Dear Planning Commissioners, As neighbors of 4118 21st Street, we oppose the proposed project 2020-000215CUA, and we respectfully request a minimum 30-day continuance for this case. The owners of 4118 21st St. have shown reckless disregard to the procedures and protocols set in place to protect the interests of neighboring residents. In particular, how this has needlessly inconvenienced and negatively impacted an elderly neighbor who lives adjacent to the property. We respectfully request that all parties should remain vigilant, as the actions of the new owners are disconcerting, to say the least. It is worrisome that this project has now circled back so quickly for permitting approval. According to Planning Code 303, this item was not to revisit the Planning Commission until September 19, 2020, one year after the hearing where the Planning Commission did not approve of the illegal demolition of 4118 21st St. It is clear that the owners chose to act of their own accord to remove the evidence of the previous building, so that they may further their project to their interpretation of the rules. The owners have not been forthcoming with the final set of plans. In addition, they did not hold a 311/community meeting and therefore allow time for neighbors to express concerns. A minimum 30-day continuance will allow time for the owners of 4118 21st St. to follow protocol and hold the 311 meetings in order to address and allay the concerns of the community. We feel the process thus far has been murky at best and we strongly encourage the owners of 4118 21st St. to move forward in a way that is fair and equitable to all parties. Thank you, Ashley Fong & Kevin Kehoeshow more Objection to #2020-000215CUA for 4-23-20, 4118 21st StreetThe above referenced project (formerly 2018-002602CUA) is of great concern to its neighbors. We had expected as per Planning Code Section 303 that it would not be scheduled at the Planning Commission again until September. After the new architect sent plans to us in January, we thought that a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled for us to be informed and express our concerns. Instead,the project is on the Plan… The above referenced project (formerly 2018-002602CUA) is of great concern to its neighbors. We had expected as per Planning Code Section 303 that it would not be scheduled at the Planning Commission again until September. After the new architect sent plans to us in January, we thought that a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled for us to be informed and express our concerns. Instead,the project is on the Planning Commission calendar for 4-23-20, and the plans included with the packet for that hearing are substantially different from the ones sent in January. We have the same issues with the illegal demolition of an affordable, 2 unit rental building, eviction of an elderly tenant, out of scale bulk, blocking of light,and invasion of privacy with this project as we had repeatedly expressed about the former project. Especially concerning is the impingement upon the west property line. We respectfully ask the Commission for at least a 30 day continuance and instruction to the project sponsors to meet with the neighbors in order to address our concerns. Kay Klumbshow more STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO 4118 21ST STREET: 4/23 AGENDA ITEM 2020-00021CUA
RE: 2020-000215CUA
(Formerly 2018-00602CUAVAR)Dear Planning Commissioners: I am a resident whose property faces the rear of 4118 21st Street and am quite familiar with this project as it was previously presented as 2018-00602CUVAR. The Planning Commission rejected this plan to replace two rental units with two market rate units at the September 19, 2019 meeting. My objections are: 1. Remodeling and illegal demolition should not be used to bypass the planning pro… Dear Planning Commissioners: I am a resident whose property faces the rear of 4118 21st Street and am quite familiar with this project as it was previously presented as 2018-00602CUVAR. The Planning Commission rejected this plan to replace two rental units with two market rate units at the September 19, 2019 meeting. My objections are: 1. Remodeling and illegal demolition should not be used to bypass the planning process. This "remodeling" that lead to the illegal demolition effectively bypassed neighborhood notification and wiped away any evidence that the demolished structure consisted of two rental units (existence of two units validated by US Postal Service's official delivery records) and now proposes a new structure with two market units that is more than double the size of the original, yet provides no additional housing. 2. This proposal appears to encroach on 4124 21st Street's property. The adjacent property at 4124 21st Street is owned by Mr. Carlos Ibarra, a vulnerable neighbor in his late seventies and for whom I am concerned. He has been subject to a variety of issues caused by this project including interior flooding, exposure to an open sewage pipe, and the potential incursion of the proposed structure onto his property. At a minimum, prior to consideration of 2020-000602CUR, the Commission must require that a formal survey be conducted, marked, and paid for by the property owners of 4118 21st Street to determine the true boundary between these two properties and to ensure that Mr. Ibarra's property rights are protected. 3. Inappropriate building scale and density precedent. This project, if approved as presented, would be, by far, the largest structure on our block and sets a dangerous precedent for the building of larger and larger structures forever altering the character of our block. Quite simply, the proposed structure is too tall and too dense in proportion to the neighboring homes. Sincerely, Curtis Larsen 385 Eureka Streetshow more Objection to 2020-000215CUA + Continuance Request for Proposed Project at 4118-21st Street Dear President Koppel and Planning Commissioners, As 15-year neighbors of 4118 21st Street, we oppose the proposed project 2020-000215CUA, and we respectfully request a minimum 30-day continuance for this case. On 9/19/2019 the Planning Commission disapproved the illegal demolition for 2018-002602CUAVAR at 4118-21st Street. We understood that per Planning Code Section 303 to mean that 4118 - 21st Str… 21st Street Dear President Koppel and Planning Commissioners, As 15-year neighbors of 4118 21st Street, we oppose the proposed project 2020-000215CUA, and we respectfully request a minimum 30-day continuance for this case. On 9/19/2019 the Planning Commission disapproved the illegal demolition for 2018-002602CUAVAR at 4118-21st Street. We understood that per Planning Code Section 303 to mean that 4118 - 21st Street<U+2019>s previously proposed multi- generational building project would be heard by the Commission on or after 9/19/2020. This timeframe allows time for all parties to properly review, discuss and address the impact of latest proposed project<U+2019>s mass in a timely manner. Instead, what we have today is a one set of design plans which were emailed to surrounding neighbors in late January without a community meeting, and another newly discovered set of plans just found in the 2020-000215CUA Hearing Packet days before 4/23 Commission Hearing. Since the most recent plans were neither emailed nor sent to neighbors prior the 4/16/20 by either the project sponsor, architect or the Planning Department, there is a need for the additional time to review, discuss and address neighbors concerns prior to any authorization hearing. These opportunities would have been afforded if the hearing was held on or after 9/19/2020. As we expressed on 9/19/19, we believe that each property owner has the right to improve and expand their property, but we also believe firmly that these endeavors need to follow the legal and community processes outlined by the City and County of San Francisco. A continuance for 2020-000215CUA provides time for both a proper neighborhood group review and responses to identified concerns by the project sponsors prior an authorization approval hearing. We thank you in advance for your thoughtful and diligent consideration. Sincerely, Cynthia and Marc Schroedershow more Objection and request for continuance <U+2014> 4118 21st St., 2020-000215CUADear Planning Commissioners, We're adjoining neighbors to 4118 21st St. (2020-000215CUA), and would very much appreciate a 30-day continuance in order for the project sponsors to schedule a 311 meeting for all the neighbors. Though we received a first set of plans from the project architect in January, we expected that a 311 meeting would be scheduled and held by the project sponsors before any Commission h… Dear Planning Commissioners, We're adjoining neighbors to 4118 21st St. (2020-000215CUA), and would very much appreciate a 30-day continuance in order for the project sponsors to schedule a 311 meeting for all the neighbors. Though we received a first set of plans from the project architect in January, we expected that a 311 meeting would be scheduled and held by the project sponsors before any Commission hearing, in order to avoid some of the problems encountered during construction in 2018. No 311 meeting was scheduled or held for this project. We also expected that the project would be delayed till 9/20/20 (per Planning Code 303), since it had been disapproved by the Planning Commission on 9/19/19. We have concerns about the project's mass and its window and deck area at back. We and other neighbors would like to be able to ask questions and express concerns about the project, and to learn the architect<U+2019>s and project sponsors<U+2019> response to them, through the process the city has created. We haven't been given the opportunity to do that and the current schedule doesn't allow time for it to take place. A continuance would give the project sponsors time to include neighborhood review in their project. Thank you, Anne & John Guasparishow more Postpone hearing re: 2020-000215CUADear Planning Commission President Joel Koppel and Fellow Commissioners, As a senior tenant living in Noe Valley and member of Noe Neighborhood Council, I urge the Planning Commission to postpone the hearing re: 2020-000215CUA to a later date for two important reasons: 1. The neighbors need more time to negotiate with the owner and project sponsor on this new project. 2. The Planning Department needs enough tim… Dear Planning Commission President Joel Koppel and Fellow Commissioners, As a senior tenant living in Noe Valley and member of Noe Neighborhood Council, I urge the Planning Commission to postpone the hearing re: 2020-000215CUA to a later date for two important reasons: 1. The neighbors need more time to negotiate with the owner and project sponsor on this new project. 2. The Planning Department needs enough time correct the record on misrepresentations. Re misrepresentations: a). The Conditional Use Authorization as proposed on this project claims that 4118 is a "single family home" is false. The subject property is not a "single family home The subject property is not a "two-story over basement single family home" The (HRE) Historic Resource Evaluation states: " 4118 21st Street is a one story over basement rectangular plan two unit building clad in stucco and capped with a flat roof etc......" built in1908. b) The "existing square footage" for 4118 21st Street re: 2020-000215CUA is incorrectly stated. The existing square footage is not 3,025 square feet. Although this is a new project, this is the same property. The project sponsors' former architect went on the record with 2500 square feet: When the Commission asked the architect at the initial hearing re: subject property at 4118 21st Street how big the pre-demolition house was, he answered 2500 square feet. The project sponsors' own 11-2017 appraisal says 2841 total square feet, 3 bedrooms, two bath. In addition, as a senior tenant I am particularly concerned that an elderly tenant was evicted in the process to make room for this project. Neighbors gave public testimony and have provided several documents to the file to support the fact that a tenant occupied a rental unit at the property for 20+ years. Evidence of eviction history-Buyout documents filed at SF Rent Board Exhibits E http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2018- 002602CUAVARc2.pdf Terms and Conditions in "Settlement and Release Agreement" document, signed by tenant on 9/29/17, from the SF Rent Board provides a description of the tenants rental unit: "premises" at the Property. I agree with Noe Neighborhood Council that: to approve this project without even a pause to allow neighbors to digest and negotiate sends the wrong message to developers that they can indeed evict tenants with impunity. Commissioners, I ask you to postpone this hearing so that there enough is time for the Department to address misrepresentations, for the neighbors to have. the opportunity to reach a satisfactory compromise with the project sponsors and their architect. Sincerely, Anastasia Yovanopoulos District # 8 tenant I agree with Noe Neighborhood Council that: To approve this project without even a pause to allow neighbors to digest and negotiate sends the wrong message to developers that they can indeed evict tenants with impunity. Re: 2020-000215CUA 4118 21 STREET. Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 to legalize the demolition of an existing 3,025 square foot, two-story over basement, single family home and to authorize the construction of a 4,481 square foot, three-story over basement, two family home in a RH-2 (Residential-House, Two Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h). C). Re tenant history at 4118 21st Street: STshow more Objection to #2020-000215CUA for 4-23-20, 4118 21st StreetRE: 2020-000215CUA (Formerly 2018-00602CUAVAR) Planning Commissioners: I live at 4101 21st Street. My property is across the street from 4118 21st Street and am quite familiar with this project as it was previously presented as 2018-00602CUVAR. The Planning Commission rejected the 2018 plan to replace two rental units with two market rate units at their September 19, 2019 meeting. 2018-00602CUVAR was voided b… RE: 2020-000215CUA (Formerly 2018-00602CUAVAR) Planning Commissioners: I live at 4101 21st Street. My property is across the street from 4118 21st Street and am quite familiar with this project as it was previously presented as 2018-00602CUVAR. The Planning Commission rejected the 2018 plan to replace two rental units with two market rate units at their September 19, 2019 meeting. 2018-00602CUVAR was voided because the owners illegally demolished the existing residence. The owners are now legally prevented from pursuing another permit for 12 months. The item before you violates Planning Code 303 by calendaring a hearing on 4/23/2020, before the required one year timeframe has lapsed. This matter cannot legally be heard by this Commission until September 19, 2020. It appears that the Commission is not complying with Planning Code 303. Proceeding with another hearing on the same but slightly modified project presented by the same owners applies the law differently to different people. The owners of 2118 are the same, and the project is substantially the same. The difference between the two projects is based on the fact that the owners illegally demolished the original structure so a complete demolition is part of the second permit. Beyond my objection to the illegality of accelerating the hearing dates for 4118, I have other serious concerns. 1. Approving this illegal demolition rewards bad behavior. The illegal demolition effectively wiped away physical evidence that the existing structure was for decades two rental units and now the new owners propose a new structure with two market rate units that is more than double the size of the original. The proposed project does not create additional units. Two families lived in 2 separate units in 2118 for decades. In January, 2020, the owner gave me and two other neighbors a copy of their plans. I repeated an earlier request for a neighborhood meeting, and again, the owner said no. I raised concerns that the 4118 construction intrudes into the property of its neighbor to the west. I asked the owner for a string to string, physical survey to settle the issue of the property line. At that time, the owner said they would not do anything that cost them any more money. At that meeting, the owner gave me and two others a physical copy of their plans. I have asked the owners repeatedly if the plans that were submitted to the Commission were the same as the plans the owner gave us in January. The owners have not answered this query. In fact, the plans the owners submitted to the Commission are different than the ones the owner gave me in January. 2. This proposal appears to encroach on 4124 21st Street's property. The adjacent property at 4124 21st Street is owned by Mr. Carlos Ibarra, a vulnerable neighbor in his late seventies and for whom I am concerned. He has been subject to a variety of traumatic events caused by this project including interior flooding, exposure to an open sewage pipe, live electric wires from 4118 which flapped on Mr. Ibarra<U+2019>s home and the potential incursion of the proposed structure onto his property. At a minimum, prior to consideration of 2020-000602CUR, the Commission must require that a formal survey be conducted string to string, marked, and paid for by the property owners of 4118 21st Street to determine the true boundary between these two properties and to ensure that Mr. Ibarra's property rights are protected. 3. Negative Precedent Set: Scale and density of the proposed structure is woefully out of scale. This project, if approved as presented, would be, by far, the largest structure on the block and will set a dangerous precedent for the wholesale building of larger and larger structures forever altering the character of our block. Quite simply, the proposed structure is too tall and too dense in proportion to its neighboring homes. I respectfully ask the Commission to: 1. Remove this matter from the calendar and deny the owners<U+2019> request for a building permit. Or, in the alternative, 2. Re-calendar this matter to after September 19, 2020 provided that the owners: A. By June 30, 2020, complete a line to line survey of the western side of their property which adjoins the property of Mr. Carlos Ibarra and share that survey with the neighbors, B. By July 15, 2020, present physical copies of the plans they filed with the Commission to the community, in a meeting open to all the neighbors; and, C. Any other terms the Commission seems reasonable. Sincerely, Joan Ramo 4101 21st Street Richard Santucci, and Christine Santucci 404 Diamond Streetshow more Jonathan Pearlman · spoken · 2020-04-23 · support
Project presentation
David Gaff · spoken · 2020-04-23 · support
Support
Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
Draft motion, 317
Anastasia Yovanapolous · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
Continuance
Alan Wilson · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
Continuance
Dorothy Kelly · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
30-day continuance
Richard Tarlov · spoken · 2020-04-23 · support
Support
Andrew Kallman · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
30-day continuance
Theodore Randolph · spoken · 2020-04-23 · support
Approve today
Todd Mavis · spoken · 2020-04-23 · support
Support, code and zoning compliant
Jeff Baker · spoken · 2020-04-23 · support
Support
Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
Continuance
Kay Klum · spoken · 2020-04-23 · oppose
Continuance
2020-05-21 · 14 comments · 4 / 10
Last item on May 21st Agenda: 4118 21st Street CUA Dear Commissioners, Good morning to you all and hope you are well. I know you have a heavy day with the HUB and how important it Is, as well as your joint meeting with Rec and Park. But if you can, please take a few minutes to look at the Approval Motions attached below for other Demolitions. Please note the Findings regarding Relative Affordability in these past Motions and compare them with the Section 317 Criter… Dear Commissioners, Good morning to you all and hope you are well. I know you have a heavy day with the HUB and how important it Is, as well as your joint meeting with Rec and Park. But if you can, please take a few minutes to look at the Approval Motions attached below for other Demolitions. Please note the Findings regarding Relative Affordability in these past Motions and compare them with the Section 317 Criterion <U+201C>I<U+201D> in the Draft Motion in your packet for this CUA at 4118 21st Street. In each of these earlier Approval Motions attached below, the Finding for Relative Affordability is listed as Criterion <U+201C>ix<U+201D> but it is the same Criterion as what is labeled Criterion <U+201C>I<U+201D> for this CUA to legalize the Demolition at 4118 21st Street. It is puzzling and confusing that the Relative Affordability cannot be quantified in Criterion <U+201C>I<U+201D> for the 4118 21st Street CUA. It is also puzzling and confusing that because the demolished building was purchased for $2.2 million in January of 2018 <U+201C>affordability<U+201D> is conflated with <U+201C>Relative Affordability<U+201D> in the last paragraph of the Staff Memo. They are not the same thing. The Commission should note the following: Four months earlier in September 2017 the same property was purchased for $1.55 million by Mr. Epstein. That is a $650K speculative increase in a very short time between the sale by Mr. Epstein (who is the former owner as noted by the materials in the packet) to the current owners. There is a loss of Relative Affordability right there in that four month span, without any work and prior to the Permit Applications being filed by the current owners. When an existing structure is demolished, legally or illegally, there is a loss of Relative Affordability. And when a structure has an extreme Alteration....as this project at 4118 would likely have been but for the Enforcement....there is still loss of Relative Affordability. When rampant speculation goes on there is a loss of Relative Affordability. This is true for all the extreme <U+201C>Alterations<U+201D> that have been flipped in Noe Valley in the past six years plus, at an average increase of over $3.5 million, and that should have been reviewed as Demolitions. Also, on a different but also important matter, please see the last photo below from the 4118 21st Street packet of the Rear Yard Mid Block Open Space. (This yard is listed as 795 sq.ft. on the plans). A Condition of Approval should be added to create a yard that can capture carbon as the adjacent yards in the photo do....with much natural greenery as these adjacent yards have....not a cemented over, outdoor bunker, fake turf type yard as usually happens in these full lot excavations. Also due to the unfortunate history of this project, the Commission should add a Condition of Approval to require a report back to the Department within 6 months of the CFC on the Occupancy and Tenure of the new units at 4118 21st Street. I understand the desire of the Commission to be uniform and holistic in Conditions of Approval, but since this is the legalization of an illegal Demo, it seems a reasonable Condition to impose. Take good care and be well. Thank you. Georgia Schuttish <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014> 49 HOPKINS AVENUE <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014> 2890 FRANKLIN STREET <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014> 2815 POLK STREET <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014> 2135-2137 GREENWICH STREET(136-138 PIXLEY) Sent from my iPadshow more Curtis Larson · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Require a boundary survey
Jonathan Pearlman · spoken · 2020-05-21 · support
Project presentation
Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Oppose, line to line property survey
Richard Craddock · spoken · 2020-05-21 · support
Support
Todd Mavis · spoken · 2020-05-21 · support
Support
Carlos Ibarra · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Request complete survey
Joan Ramo · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Physical boundary survey
Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Relative affordability
David Roth · spoken · 2020-05-21 · support
Support
Andrew Kollman · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Negative impacts to a neighbor
Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Stipulate conditions
Kay Klum · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Boundary survey
Anne Guaspari · spoken · 2020-05-21 · oppose
Require a boundary survey before approval