Board of Appeals denies rehearing request for 68 Richardson after late DBI letter

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted to deny a rehearing request in appeal 16‑138 concerning 68 Richardson Avenue, concluding that newly presented material from the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) arrived too late and did not justify reopening the case.

Appellant counsel Bridal Patterson told the board the DBI material demonstrated a "manifest injustice" and argued the proposed alteration would render an existing bedroom non‑habitable because the room would lose an operable window required for natural light, ventilation and emergency egress. Pat Pazovich read portions of a DBI pre‑application letter and said, "if we lose the window, we lose the bedroom," a change she said would materially injure neighboring properties.

DBI inspector Joe Duffy, who arrived after the document appeared shortly before the hearing, told the board he was "not impressed" by the timing of the submission and that staff had not been given reasonable notice to review it. Duffy said the city's practice often permits existing property‑line windows to remain and noted that 3 feet 3 inches from a property line commonly allows operable openings; he added determinations are typically made case by case.

Scott Sanchez, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, said DBI had not received full information earlier and that more timely coordination could have produced a definitive departmental view before the prior hearing.

Multiple neighbors spoke during public comment, describing loss of light and privacy and asking the board to consider impacts on tenants and children. Elaine Yee, who identified herself as the owner of the neighboring buildings, told the board she would "lose my only window on the south side" and asked the board to "strongly consider" neighbors' rights to light and peaceful enjoyment.

Commissioners debated whether the letter constituted "new material facts or circumstances" under the board's rehearing rules and whether the appellant had exercised due diligence to produce the evidence at the original hearing. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the rehearing on the basis that the standard for a rehearing was not met. The board denied the request by voice vote, recorded as 4–0 in favor of denial (one commissioner absent).

The board did not issue a new decision on the underlying variance in this session; the rehearing request itself was denied, leaving the prior board action intact pending any future, properly filed requests or appeals.