Meeting Information

At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar.   Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes.   If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

Letter from Margaret Kostouros, asking that the Board take jurisdiction take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/08/20/4473.  Project:: 3-story rear addition.  Permit Holder(s): Jeremy Yu.

Proposed findings submitted by Joel Yodowitz, attorney for appellant Coleman Burke.  On Jan. 28, 2004, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to overrule the denial by the Planning Commission, and grant the subject permit with adoption of findings at a later date.  Project: change two-family dwelling to single-family dwelling.

Letter from Sue Hestor, attorney for Friends of Golden Gateway, appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-186, decided Jan. 14, 2004.  At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overturn the subject determination.  Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject determination was upheld.  Determination: although the Planning Department reviews projects within expired Redevelopment project areas as Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s), the department does not and has never treated entire project areas as a single PUD, and thus a development application for improvements to the subject property (Block 0201) may be filed and reviewed independently as a stand-alone project, which does not require conditional use (CU) authorization for modification of the Golden Gateway Center PUD.  Subject Property Owner(s): Golden Gateway Center et al.

ISHTIAQ BOKHARI, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent

Appealing the revocation on August 18, 2003, of a Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle for Hire Permit.

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-65.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

JOE LEUNG, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent

Appealing the revocation on December 16, 2003, of a Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle for Hire Permit.

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-87.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

TOM KATZ, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,

                                             Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL

1349 Clayton Street.

Appealing the denial on August 30, 2002, of a Permit to Alter a Building (on 13-unit apartment building: replace existing steel with vinyl retrofit – same shape and size; total 20 windows). 

APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/25/2280.

NOTE: The Board held a hearing on March 19, 2003, and voted to uphold the denial of the subject permit.  On April 23, 2003, the Board voted 4-1 to grant a rehearing.  At the rehearing of May 21, 2003, the appellant was not present, and the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the denial of the subject permit.  At the jurisdiction request of June 25, 2003, the Board voted 4-1 to rescind the motion of May 21, 2003 upholding the denial of the subject permit, and to reschedule the rehearing for July 9, 2003 with letter notices to be sent out.

FURTHER NOTE: On July 9, 2003, the Board voted 4-1 to reschedule the matter to the Call of the Chair so that the appellant and the Planning Dept. can have some time to work out a solution.  The appellant and the Planning Dept. have now requested that the matter be brought back to the Board. 

FOR REHEARING TODAY.

TOM KATZ, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

616 Shrader Street.

Appealing the suspension on August 6, 2003, of Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/08/06/1364 & 2003/07/23/0191.  Reason(s) for suspension: the first permit was approved erroneously, and the second permit requires further review by the Planning Dept. since both permits did not receive residential guideline review by Planning Dept. preservation technical specialists, which is required for the replacement of windows on architecturally significant buildings like the subject property.

JURISDICTION GRANTED NOV. 12, 2003.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

LEUNG TO CHOW, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL

111 Lobos Street.

Appealing the denial on September 26, 2003, of Permit to Demolish a Building (two-story single family house with 1,316sf of ground floor area).

APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/15/1446.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

LEUNG TO CHOW, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL

111 Lobos Street (Building B).

Appealing the denial on September 26, 2003, of Site Permit to Erect a Building (three-story single family house with 1,602sf of ground floor area).

APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/15/1437S.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

LEUNG TO CHOW, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL

111 Lobos Street (Building A).

Appealing the denial on September 26, 2003, of Site Permit to Erect a Building (three-story single family house with 1,602sf of ground floor area).

APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/15/1442S.

FOR HEARING TODAY.