Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Notice Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies jurisdiction request over Vallejo Street roof‑deck permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals declined to take jurisdiction over a dispute about permits for 440–442 Vallejo Street after hearing arguments about notification and permit form fields; commissioners voted unanimously to deny the request.
Get email alerts on the Permit Notice Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 28 denied a petitioner’s request to take jurisdiction over an alteration permit for 440–442 Vallejo Street, finding no procedural basis to reopen the permit review.
The matter came before the board after a purchaser alleged gaps in the building permit’s notification fields and questioned whether a roof‑deck addition had triggered required owner notice. Planning and building staff told the board the permit was reviewed by Planning and the Department of Building Inspection and that, while some application fields were left blank, those omissions did not change the department’s decision to approve the permit. Inspector Joe Duffy and Planning staff described the permit review and the limited circumstances that require neighborhood notification.
The requester, Patrick Buskovich, said the permit’s structural‑notice answers were incomplete and argued his client could have been entitled to notice. Permit holder Veronica Branco said her family had lived in the house since 2013, that planning and DBI had approved the project, and that she had personally discussed the project with neighbors before construction began.
After deliberation the board adopted a motion to deny the jurisdiction request, with President Frank Fung, Commissioner Anne Lazarus, Commissioner Daryl Honda and Commissioner Bobby Wilson voting aye. The board’s order leaves the original permit and DBI/Planning review intact; the appellant may pursue other administrative remedies but the board declined to reopen the permit on jurisdictional grounds.
The board characterized its decision as grounded in the record of DBI and Planning review and the limited scope of the Board of Appeals’ jurisdiction. No follow‑up schedule was announced.
