Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice-President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah and Commissioner John McInerney, who arrived late at 6:29 p.m.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

Vanji McGonegal, substitute for Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the meeting.

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT: 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.

SPEAKERS: 1. Mark Grueber, United Taxicab Workers, urged the Board to uphold suspensions and revocations of taxicab medallions by the Taxicab Commission and not to grant continuances of hearing dates to appellants who earn $1800 or more a month from medallions. 2. Jeremy Paul urged the Board to disregard the letter requesting the Board to amend its finding in Appeal No. 00-018 sent by the attorney for the neighbors for the reason that the ulterior motive is to support future litigation. He felt the Board’s decision was a good compromise meant to satisfy both sides and its findings should stay as issued. 3. Dana Kueffner asked about Item 12 which had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD:

ITEM A: 123 Molimo Drive. Letter from Hans Kielkopf, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9826426 issued to David and Constance Baker-Cohn for construction a rear horizontal one-story addition consisting of a roof deck, bedroom, bathroom and study.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction and declare the matter moot because the subject permit had expired.

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on his meeting with the requestor and the permit holder and summarized their positions and the history of the subject permit which appears to have expired. He also described the City’s process in cases of violations of Codes and abatement actions. 2. Hans Kielkopf, jurisdiction requestor, said he would withdraw his request if the permit had expired. 3. David Baker-Cohn, permit holder, said he and his architect were going to file a new application, moving the house four feet away from the common property line, with the intention of reaching an agreement with the requestor and that he had spent thousands on revised plans with that in mind.

ITEM B: 381 Douglass Street. Letter from Brad Anthony DeYoung, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9804634 issued to Tom Simrock to build an additional two stories above an existing basement floor.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Christopher Moscone, attorney for certain neighbors of the subject property, described the rooftop penthouse which his clients find objectionable and which he alleged did not appear on the plans reviewed earlier by the Board. He said 37 people had not received proper Section 311 notice of the revised plans. 2. Tom Simrock, permit holder, reported on the progress of construction, saying that siding is now being installed on the house which is far into the construction process, and that the October revised plans did show the stairwell penthouse now being objected to. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, reported that the Section 311 notice drawings showed the stairwell penthouse, showing the plans to the Board. He said no second 311 notice had been sent out because the revisions weren’t considered significant.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to RESCHEDULE this case to May 17, 2000.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to CONTINUE this case to May 3, 2000.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit for the original 12’ addition, with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, described the discretionary review process in this case and the critical issue of the projection into the rear of twelve feet rejected by the Planning Commission which wanted the addition to match the adjacent property so as to not be an intrusion into the rear open space and out of character. They have approved the requested ground floor addition. 2. James Valenti, agent for appellant, described the heavily forested slope behind the house and the many revisions made to the plans for the proposed expansion to a very small house. Public Comment in Support of the Department: 3. Nameeta Tolia-Henbest of 125 Moffitt explained her objections to the scale of the top part of the proposed addition which she alleged will box in her property. She said the small changes required by the Commission were not important but the upper floor addition was her main concern. 4. Greg Helser said the proposed addition would increase the house by 53%, making it not in keeping with the neighboring small houses. He had added on to his house in 1995 very modestly and thought the permit holder should do the same, so as to maintain the open space and comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. 5. Carrie Helser explained that the property at 121 Moffitt had been extended in 1970 long before the adoption of the Residential Design Guidelines and could not be approved today. She said the neighbors did not have the means to expand their houses as the permit holder proposed to do. Public Comment for the Appellant:

6. Emanuel Meilak asked rhetorically what air are we blocking?

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to REVOKE the permit, with FINDINGS stated on the record.

SPEAKERS: 1. Hal Leininger, appellant, explained his objections to the portion of the remodeling which exceeds the height limit and has been going on since 1984. 2. Thomas Bernard, permit holder, said he grossly misunderstood what he had applied for and that he wanted to abandon this permit and with an architect apply for a new one that would satisfy the City Codes and bring his house into compliance. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, agreed with the permit holder’s position since the current permit does not satisfy the Notice of Violations issued for the project in October 1999. 4. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that the addition appeared to exceed the height limit and he described the gently up-sloping property and the method of height measurement under these circumstances.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Department of Building Inspection and GRANT the permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Linda Lewis, co-appellant, explained her objection to the skylights which cause glare many hours each day for her. She asked how could the skylight permit be approved for installation on a kitchen that was built without a permit. She said the permit holders had fooled the Planning staff and the plans show smaller windows than what has been installed and is different, reversed, placement.

2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained the 3/12 pitch of these particular skylights and that they could not be operable if laid flat. The Building Code does not have stringent regulations for skylights which are considered minor under the Code. 3. Lisa Nicol, wife of the permit holder, explained the project and the efforts made to ameliorate the glare from the skylights, although she thought the objection to the permit had to do with an earlier permit battle over the appellants’ permit for a deck which had been denied by the City. No Public Comment.

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary