A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Commission denies Susie Chen's rehearing request on 436 Eureka Street permit appeal

May 11, 2022 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Commission denies Susie Chen's rehearing request on 436 Eureka Street permit appeal
The San Francisco Board of Appeals convened on July 4, 2025, to address a rehearing request concerning appeal number 22Dash013, related to a property at 436 Eureka Street. The appellant, Susie Chen, is seeking a rehearing based on claims of inadequate notification regarding a permit issued to the property owner, Steve Martasauskas, for significant renovations, including a horizontal expansion and the addition of new bedrooms and bathrooms.

During the meeting, Chen's attorney, Ryan Patterson, argued that the Planning Department failed to properly notify neighbors about the project, violating legal requirements. He presented evidence, including statements from neighbors who claimed they did not receive the necessary notifications, asserting that this lack of communication deprived the public of their right to request a discretionary review. Patterson emphasized that the project would severely impact the light available to tenants in the adjacent property, constituting a "manifest injustice."

In response, the permit holder's representative, Alice Buckley, contended that all required notifications were conducted appropriately and that the appellant had ample opportunity to present her case during the original hearing. The Planning Department supported this view, stating that the notification process was extended due to the pandemic and that no declaration of mailing was necessary for this type of project.

Public comments during the meeting echoed Chen's concerns, with several residents expressing support for her request for a rehearing. They highlighted the potential negative impacts of the construction on light access and the importance of ensuring proper notification protocols are followed.

After deliberation, the Board of Appeals ultimately voted 4-0 to deny the rehearing request, concluding that no new evidence had been presented that would warrant a reconsideration of the original decision. The board emphasized the importance of adhering to established procedures and maintaining the integrity of the planning process.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee