Board of Appeals denies rehearing request for 408–412 Portland Ave variance, 4–0

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 1 denied a rehearing request for appeal no. 21‑050 (408–412 Portland Avenue), voting 4–0 that the rehearing standard was not met and that no manifest injustice or previously unavailable material justified reopening the October hearing.

Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the rehearing request on the grounds that neither new information nor manifest injustice had been demonstrated. The motion carried 4–0.

Background: The challenged decision, issued on Oct. 27, denied a rear-yard variance under the Planning Code after finding the proposal did not satisfy the five findings required under Planning Code Section 305C. The project proposed a one‑story vertical addition to the rear building, including a roof deck and an increase in height above the basement story from 16 feet 2 inches to over 32 feet; the planning staff pointed out that Planning Code Section 134 requires a rear yard equal to 25% of the lot depth at the second story and above, and the existing rear building currently occupies the required rear yard.

Appellant presentation: Counsel for the requester, Mr. Havel, played technical evidence and argued that removal of foundation elements and demolition at the base of the steep hillside could make slope failure more likely in the event of an earthquake. He cited structural-engineering testimony and a topographical survey indicating a 32% slope relevant to the 2018 Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act and requested a rehearing so the board could consider that evidence.

Planning department response: Corey Teague, zoning administrator, asked the board to deny the rehearing, saying the additional technical reports had been available in the months between the May 27 appeal filing and the Oct. 27 hearing and that the variance denial was primarily based on the addition exacerbating an existing nonconforming development, harming surrounding properties and failing the required findings.

Public comment: Sue Hester called in in support of the zoning administrator, noting that planning staff had not received a building‑permit application and arguing it was inappropriate to reopen the matter when a full permit application had not been filed.

Outcome and next steps: The board found the rehearing standard unmet and denied the request by a 4–0 vote. No further action on this rehearing request occurred at the meeting; any future procedural or substantive filings would appear on a future agenda.