Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Building Permit Protest topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues protest appeal over alleged misrepresented units at 3520 First Street

San Francisco Board of Appeals · October 4, 2006
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board continued the protest appeal by Patrick Buskovich and tenant Lisa Amick challenging a permit to alter a building at 3520 First Street, citing DBI’s finding of possible plan misrepresentation and multiple occupancy levels; the case was continued to November 8 for further DBI inspection and filings.

The Board of Appeals continued a protest appeal concerning a permit to alter the property at 3520 First Street after the Department of Building Inspection reported possible misrepresentations in the permit application and evidence of multiple occupancy levels.

Tenant Lisa Amick and community representative Patrick Buskovich said the drawings understate the presence of a kitchen and independent unit and that removing a rear deck would eliminate one of the unit’s only exits. Buskovich said the building includes what appears to be a maids’ unit and multiple legal and illegal units and that the permit as drawn could lead to eviction or loss of an egress.

Permit-holder representative Reed Yellum said the permits were filed to correct violations the department flagged and that the deck was a relatively minor part of the corrective work. Chief Building Inspector Ron Tom reported a site visit and told the board that approved plans may have been issued in error because of misrepresentation; he noted up to five levels of occupancy and recommended further DBI inspection and revised notices of violation if warranted.

Given the unresolved factual issues, the board moved to continue the matter to November 8 to allow DBI’s complaint inspector to investigate and for parties to submit revised plans and materials. The motion to continue was adopted 5–0.