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 Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-194, decided March 3, 2004.  At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the denial and grant the permit with conditions as presented by the appellant.  Four votes being required to overrule a departmental action, the denial of the subject permit was upheld.  Project: on two-unit building, horizontal and vertical addition, 335sf on ground floor, 368sf on 2^nd floor, and 1038sf on 3^rd floor; electrical, plumbing, and mechanical under separate permit.  DR Requestor(s): Jose Morales. 

Letter from Nina Guralnik, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over a request by the Acting Zoning Administrator to suspend Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/08/05/1215.  Reason(s) for requesting suspension: subject permit was approved erroneously over-the-counter by the Planning Department, and a subsequent review of the architectural plans revealed that this permit was taken out to construct an illegal guesthouse in the existing garage space, rather than to repair fire damage as stated on the permit application. 

ALL-CITY CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,

                                               Respondent

641 – 27^th Avenue.

Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Dec. 3, 2003, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that BPA No. 2002/09/09/5995 is hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 2/4/04.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

HOWARD & SUSIE WOO, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,

                                                Respondent

641 – 27^th Avenue.

Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Dec. 3, 2003, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that BPA No. 2002/09/09/5995 is hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 2/4/04.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

LETICIA

& LEOPOLDO REDONDO, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

710 Edinburgh Street.

Protesting the issuance on November 4, 2003, to Javier Giron, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construct one floor above existing garage as computer room/home office).

APPLICATION NO. 2002/08/28/5143S.

Note: On Feb. 18, 2004, the Board voted to uphold the subject permit with conditions.  On March 24, 2004, the Board voted to grant the rehearing request by the Acting Zoning Administrator.

FOR REHEARING TODAY.

TOM KATZ,     Apellant(s)

                          vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,

Respondent

616 Shrader Street.

Appealing the suspension on Aug. 6, 2003, of BPA Nos. 2003/08/06/1364 & 2003/07/23/0191.  Reason(s) for suspension: the 1^st permit was approved erroneously, and the 2^nd 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.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON FEB. 11, 2004.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 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.

DAVID CANNON, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

2 Ord Court.

Protesting the granting on Dec. 18, 2003, to Charlie Barnett (Subject Property Owner Fredric Silverman), Rear Yard Variance (construction of a new 2^nd-story, vertical addition for the existing single-family house).

VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0828V.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

LONNA WAIS, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

2533 Baker Street.

Protesting the issuance on December 24, 2003, to Tamar Fruchtman, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family house: complete interior and exterior remodel of existing residence combined with 4,877sf of new construction (including basement, attic, garage and habitable space) to create a new single family residence with tandem off-street parking in garage; combine two units into one).

APPLICATION NO. 2000/01/28/559.

JURISDICTION GRANTED JAN. 28, 2004.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

DANG LUONG, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

327 Wheeler Ave.

Protesting the issuance on Feb. 10, 2004, to Robert Eberle, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: stair hall addition and remodel garage to include a master bedroom suite and mudroom).

APPLICATION NO. 2003/06/04/6299.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

BERE DEVELOPMENT LLC., Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

136 Parker Street.

Appealing a Notice of Violation dated February 23, 2004, addressed to Bere Development LLC, that the non-conforming front façade of the subject building was rebuilt after being voluntarily removed, in violation of Planning Code § 188(b); that the front setback of the project is less than the average of the front setbacks of the two adjacent properties, in violation of Planning Code § 132(a); and that a parking space that met Code requirements has been removed, in violation of Planning Code § 150(d). 

FOR HEARING TODAY.

BERE DEVELOPMENT LLC., Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

136 Parker Street.

Appealing a Request for Suspension, addressed to Dept. of Building Inspection director Frank Chiu, asking that Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/02/08/8800S be suspended for the following reason(s): the project sponsor will need to file for and justify a variance under Planning Code § 132(a) for a non-complying front setback, and §150(d) for removal of required parking; and because the information shown on the plans for this permit about existing parking is not consistent with prior building permits.   

FOR HEARING TODAY.