Board denies rehearing for 436 Eureka appeal after notice and shadow‑study dispute

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 11 denied a rehearing request from appellant Susie Chen concerning permit 201810092526 for 436 Eureka Street, concluding that the Planning Department’s notice process and the record did not establish the manifest injustice or new evidence necessary for a rehearing.

Ryan Patterson, counsel for the appellant, told the board that the Planning Department had not produced a declaration of mailing required under the cited section and that multiple neighbors submitted signed statements saying they did not receive the 3/11 notice. Patterson said independent engineering and a shadow‑study review show the proposed project would severely shade tenants’ light wells and that “the public was deprived of its right to request discretionary review.”

The permit holder’s representative, Alice Buckley, and city departments disputed those claims. Buckley said the sponsor’s documentation and the panelist shadow study were available and that some of appellant’s technical claims were infeasible. Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told the board that a declaration of mailing is used only for projects requiring a public hearing and that notice in this case was sent via the department’s contractor (ReproMail) and supplemented by posting; Planning recommended denying the rehearing. DBI Senior Building Inspector Matthew Green reviewed historic permits and said the department had closed a follow‑up complaint after record research.

Neighbors and tenants who testified voiced concerns about loss of sunlight and urged a rehearing. After deliberation, commissioners concluded evidence presented at this hearing did not meet the board’s criteria for rehearing (new evidence or manifest injustice), and Commissioner Lopez moved to deny the request. Vice President Anne Lazarus, Commissioner Tina Chang and President Rick Swig voted Aye; the motion carried 4–0 and the rehearing request was denied.

What this means: The underlying permit stands as issued; the board did not order a new hearing. The decision rests on the board’s interpretation of notice practices (posting and contractor mailings) and the timeliness and novelty of technical evidence.

Provenance: Topic discussed from SEG 315 through SEG 809.