Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DBI permits for Broderick Street house; appellant’s valuation and notice concerns flagged
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied Pat Buskovich’s appeal challenging multiple permits for a renovation at 2853–2857 Broderick Street, including claims about an improperly low valuation, owner‑builder permit transferability, and a firewall/stair that could affect a neighbor’s window. DBI and Planning staff said the permits were reviewed appropriately; the board found no error or abuse of discretion.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 20 upheld Department of Building Inspection and planning approvals for a renovation and house‑raising project at 2853–2857 Broderick, rejecting an appeal by neighbor Pat Buskovich that raised multiple procedural and substantive objections.
Buskovich argued the permit application understated construction valuation (he said $5,000 listed for work that DBI records and his own estimates suggested could be hundreds of thousands of dollars), that an owner‑builder permit was improperly treated as transferable, and that a new stair and landing would block or intrude on an existing bay window and privacy. He repeatedly urged a simpler fix—dropping the landing/deck—to avoid privacy impacts.
Architect Steven Anteneras, representing the permit holder, said the permit at issue was a site permit primarily for lifting the house after earlier permits for fire repair and foundation work; he said most of the work was already recorded under prior permits and that the stair was added during plan review to provide required egress for bedrooms below the fourth story. Planning and DBI staff told commissioners they had reviewed the plans, found the windows on the plan set, and that the stair and required firewall complied with code. DBI officials acknowledged the site‑permit valuation appeared low on its face and said the department would pursue any necessary addenda or revised permits and collect outstanding fees as construction progresses and inspections occur.
The board heard detailed testimony, site photographs and historical permit searches. Commissioners noted the seriousness of the valuation discrepancy and concerns about permit documentation but said changing DBI’s finding would require evidence that the department acted in error. On balance, given DBI and Planning staff’s review and the code requirements for egress, the board found no error or abuse of discretion and denied the appeal; the vote was 4–0 to uphold the permit.
What happens next: DBI indicated it will follow its normal process to require revisions, corrected valuations or additional fees during plan check and field inspection as necessary.
Provenance: hearing on appeals and evidence for parcels at 2853–2857 Broderick (SEG 861–SEG 2678).
