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.

Appeal No(s). 03-194, Tehlirian vs. DBI, PCD.  Subject property at 572 San Jose Avenue.  Letter Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-194, decided March 3, 2004.  At that time, upon motion by President Harrington, 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.  Note:  The public hearing on this rehearing request was held and closed on March 31, 2004.

Subject property at 15 Balceta Avenue.  Electrical permit issued on March 19, 2004.  Last day to appeal was April 5, 2004.  Jurisdiction request received on June 16, 2004.  Letter from Dominique Fracchia, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Electrical Permit No(s). E20040319608 for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal.

Appeal No(s). 04-030, Lau vs. DBI, PDD.  Subject property at 714 – 22^nd Street.  Letter from Elena Koustas, agent for appellant Marvin Lau, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 04-030, decided June 9, 2004.  At that time, upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the denial by the Planning Department and to grant the subject permit.  Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action under the City Charter § 4.106(d), the denial of the subject permit was upheld. 

Appeal No(s). 03-197, All City Construction Co. vs. DBI.  Subject property at 641 – 27^th Avenue.  Letter from Joel Yodowitz, attorney for All City Construction Co., appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-197, decided May 12, 2004.  At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 2-3 to overrule DBI’s notice of decision with a finding that a demolition took place which exceeded the scope of the permit, but which did not constitute an unlawful demolition, with additional findings as stated into the record by Commissioner Chin.  Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the decision by DBI was upheld.        Departmental Action:  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.

143-145 Pfeiffer Street.  Permit issued on March 18, 2004.  Last day to appeal was April 2, 2004.  Jurisdiction request received May 5, 2004.  Letter from Felix & Carol Arts, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2004/03/18/9082.  Project: on 2-unit building, interior tenant improvements to include remodel of kitchen/bath; electrical/plumbing under separate permit.   Permit Holder(s): Shaun Weston.

With the consent of the Dept. of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided for in the Building Code.  Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.

LYDIA YAFFE, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

337 Parnassus Avenue.

Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May 28, 2004, for work done without a permit (on single family house:  dormer windows per plan; comply with NOV dated March 30, 2004).

APPLICATION NO. 2004/05/13/3749.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

CATHERINE FERREIRA

& ANN FERREIRA, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

1120-1122 Vallejo Street.

Protesting the granting on Dec. 23, 2003, to Susan Lee, Jennifer Cherk & Jay Capela, Rear Yard Variance (on 2-family building: construction of an enclosed pavilion on the roof of the existing 3-story building and the enclosure of two areas at the rear of the building that are currently unenclosed).

VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0476DV.

Note: On March 24, 2004, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the variance with the following condition(s): a) that the north portion of the roof be sloped to allow for more sunlight into the adjacent backyard; and b) that the front (south) elevation be redesigned to reflect the solid to void ratio of buildings of a similar nature.  On May 12, 2004, the Board voted 4-1 to grant the rehearing request by the appellants and to set the rehearing for June 30, 2004.

FOR REHEARING TODAY.

LYNNE WINSLOW, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

746 Hayes Street.

Appealing a determination dated April 16, 2004, addressed to Brett Gladstone, that the charitable fundraising business at the subject property is prohibited under Planning Code § 204.1 (a) through (h) for the following reason(s): charitable fundraising is not an occupation that has been traditionally practiced out of one’s residence; the current business occupies more than ¼ of the total floor area of the dwelling unit; and because the current business employs persons not living in the unit. 

FOR HEARING TODAY.

THOMAS WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

2749 Pierce Street.

Protesting the issuance on May 5, 2004, to Wendell Laidley, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construction of a new roof deck with exterior spiral stair). 

APPLICATION NO. 2004/02/13/6344.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

SFLW PARTNERSHIP, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

205 – 13^th Street / 1717 Mission Street.

Appealing a determination dated May 5, 2004, addressed to Patrice Fambrini at Jaidin Consulting, that the general advertising sign at the SE corner of the subject property is a legal non-conforming use, that the request to move the sign to another location on the subject property in response to the freeway replacement project does not constitute relocation of the sign “to another site” under Planning Code § 611 and thus does not require Conditional Use (CU) approval, and finally, that the relocation of the sign must comply with Planning Code § 604, and as such, it cannot result in a decrease in compliance with any provision of the Planning Code, including the provision prohibiting visibility by travelers on a freeway.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

JUAN YANES

dba “CHARLES TOWING & MECHANICS”, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

1251 Thomas Avenue.

Appealing a Police Permit Zoning Referral (P51 Tow Car Firm) dated May 13, 2004, addressed to Juan Yanes, that the proposed use, tow car operator, requires Conditional Use Authorization (CU) in the Restricted Light Industrial (RLI) zoning district per Planning Code § 249.15(b)(2), and that such a use must be conducted within an area completely enclosed by a wall or concealing fence not less than 6 feet high.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

MARK MIRAVALLE, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL

1021 Francisco Street.

Appealing the denial on May 28, 2004, of a Permit to Alter a Building (convert 2 residential units to single family unit; dwelling merger).

APPLICATION NO. 2003/05/30/5840.

FOR HEARING TODAY.