Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John McInerney.

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

Vangie M. Gonegal, substituting for 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.

SPEAKER: Lawrence Alioto, attorney for appellant Lucinda Hampton in Appeal No. 99-035 apologized for not appearing at the hearing January 20, 2000 for lack of notice, and reported that he was defending an unlawful detainer action against his client.

SPEAKER: President Chin welcomed the audience to the meeting and explained how the Board tries to be fair in its decisions.

ITEM A: Letter from John O’Rourke requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over determination by the Zoning Administrator dated December 1, 1999, which stated that a variance application must be granted for lack of street frontage before Building Permit Applications 9912703 and 9912704 can be given final approval or disapproval.

Determination issued December 1, 1999

Last day to appeal December 16, 1999

Request for jurisdiction January 12, 2000

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to GRANT jurisdiction. Mr. O’Rourke has 15 days to file an appeal.

SPEAKERS: 1. John O’Rourke explained that he had not received the department’s letter to appeal the determination and asked for permission to file a late appeal. 2. Larry Badiner, representing the Planning Department did not object.

ITEM B: Letter from Susan Lum requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 010300043 issued to Stan Kwong to repair dry rot damage to existing roof deck at 2238 Jones Street.

Permit issued January 3, 2000

Last day to appeal January 18, 2000

Request for jurisdiction January 25, 2000

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Commissioner McInerney absent) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners El Qadah and McInerney dissented) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request is DENIED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Susan Lum said she had not been given correct information about filing an appeal from the building inspector. 2. Ted Bayer, attorney for permit holder Stan Kwong, explained the history of the renovation and of the roof deck permit, saying the project is now complete and all signed off except for the deck.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING:

ITEM C: Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-167 and 99-168, 2300 Harrison Street. Hearing January 12, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permits with FINDINGS as stated into the record by Commissioner Cullum and Vice President Chin.

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

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, challenged the findings adopted by the Board, some she said were silly and not supported by the record. 2. Paul Albritton, attorney for permit holder Sapient, defended the findings and asked that no rehearing be granted since no new evidence was offered. 3. Robert Herr, attorney for the building owner SKS Harrison, also requested that the request for rehearing be denied for lack of new evidence being offered by the appellant, and that he felt the Board’s decision was within its power to interpret the Planning Code.

(4) CONSENT ITEMS: With the consent of the Department 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 individually. The Department did not consent for the following two appeals.

(4A) APPEAL NO. 99-201

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to UPHOLD the department and SUSTAIN the penalty.

SPEAKERS: 1. Stefano Giustino, appellant, said that he had converted plugs from 220 volts to 110 volts in the laundry room without permit, a very minor infraction and that he had finally hired a licensed contractor. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, described the hazards created by the electrical work performed without permit, the enforcement action of the department, and the lack of response of the appellant.

(4B) APPEAL NO. 99-202

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to OVERRULE the department with the CONDITION that the penalty be reduced to two times the regular fee of $744.58 for a total of $1,489.16.

SPEAKERS: 1. Peter Rack, appellant, said that the inspector did not understand the work being done. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector explained the complication of the permit process in this matter.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to CONTINUE the matter to February 16, 2000 for complete drawings.

SPEAKERS: Frank Bergamaschi, architect for the appellants, reported that his clients’ variance hearing has been scheduled for February 8, 2000 and asked that their appeal be rescheduled to February 16 to allow for the variance decision to issue, possibly making this appeal moot.

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-195

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department with the CONDITION that stipulations 12, 13, and 14 are deleted relating to hours of operation and in- and out- privileges.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sergeant William Coggan of the SFPD Legal Office explained the stipulations on the club’s permit and the four being appealed. 2. Officer Edward Anzore, the noise abatement officer explained the use of a limiter in a nightclub. 3. Officer Rose Meyer described closing times at other clubs. 4. Jamie Zawinski, appellant, described the outreach he and his partner have made to reach neighbors and asked the Board to preserve the artistic culture of the City by granting their appeal. 5. Barry Synoground, co-appellant, said that private security could patrol and keep noise down around the club. IN SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENT: 6. Laslo Puskas, described the dangers at night in the area and said he wants a decent respectable neighborhood. 7. Jim Meko said the Bay Guardian had filled the room with supporters of the DNA Lounge but had failed to write about the new owner’s lack of experience operating a club. He thought a trial period should be required for all night operation two days a week as offered by the Police. 8. Belinda Head said she supports the appellant’s purchase of the club but not the 24-7 schedule because she needs to sleep at night. 9. Pearl Ong described the old frame building she lives in and how it is different from new soundproofed lofts, as well as her problems with the Holy Cow. 8. Ron Viner said he lives 25 feet from the Holy Cow and there have been many complaints about the Holy Cow over the years. He hears the screaming and cheering late at night, and he said the limiter worked there for a while but then the bass bothered him again. 10. George Miller said he has lived in the City 40 years and has spent more time in bars than anyone else. The problem is noise and he listed the arrests, citations, convictions, and judgments regarding clubs. 11. Peter Glikshtern said the most important thing was that businesses build relationships with area residents. FOR THE APPELLANT: 12. Bill Herrmann, owner of the Holy Cow, supported the appellant and opposed restrictive conditions that tend to sterilize the City. He thought the DNA open all night will improve the social life of the City. 13. Eric Duecy of the Late Night Coalition feels the club open at night is an asset not a liability in the neighborhood, which increases safety in this industrial area. 14. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association compared the City to Ireland where clubs are open until 4:00 a.m. and asked the Board to give the appellant a chance. 15. Kenneth Kelly lives on 11^th Street and said it was a vibrant friendly area. He said the parties at DNA were very cool and did not disturb him. "Let the DNA be the DNA." 16. Carol Keiter said she lives within two blocks of the club and that a 2:00 a.m. curfew was not needed. 17. Tarin Towers said the DNA was one of the few remaining venues for live music and DJ’s, which also presents poetry and has a bar. 18. Rob Schneider, seller of the club to the appellant, asked the Board to grant the appeal so that the City does not become a second-class city. John Schneider, partner of Rob, said this was a unique opportunity for the Board in fairness to allow the club to be operated as it has been and he said he thought appellant can make it work as Mr. Zawinski has been incredibly successful in the internet business. 19. Starchild said he was a member of the Late Night Coalition and that the Board should support youth culture. Most Police complaints were not generated by the clubs or under their control. 20. Lesley Ayres said she is 46 years old and likes to dance late at night and that she is on the steering committee of the coalition. She thought that businesses can coexist with the area if they cooperate. 21. Michael Singsen has lived next door to the DNA five years and that the Board’s duty was to override the Police. He said there was no evidence, just speculation, that appellant would cause problems. 22. Mr. Synoground asked for a show of hands of those in support of the appeal and approximately 90 hands went up.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to March 15, 2000 for complete drawings.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner for Planning Commission explained why the Commission had denied the application as inappropriate. 2. Carlos Alvarez, attorney for appellant explained that his client would make revisions to the plans to make them acceptable, including changing the recessed door. IN SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENT: 3. Ian Berke for the Pacific Heights Residents Association described the serial permit strategy used by the appellant to circumvent the Code. 4. Alexander Seidel asked the Board to hold to the standards other meet in this case and described the detriment to the neighborhood and serious deficiencies of the proposal. 5. Joe O’Donoghue agreed with Mr. Seidel and asked the Board to hold to its standards and uphold the denial. 6. Laurence Kornfield described the garage ceiling height standards.

(8A) APPEAL NO. 98-055

(8B) APPEAL NO. 98-056

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to CONTINUE the matter to December 6, 2000.

SPEAKERS: George Hoffberg, permit holder requested the two appeals be rescheduled to December 6, 2000 because of on-going litigation between the parties.

(9) APPEAL NO. 99-160

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with findings by the Planning Department.

SPEAKERS: 1. Serge Holtzman, attorney for appellant, described the many letters from neighbors supporting the appeal and opposing the project, which he said was not in character with the area. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for permit holder, described her analysis of the project in light of the Residential Design Guidelines which she felt was met here, in this diverse neighborhood. FOR THE APPELLANT: 3. Sheila Cummings said it was important to view the site from Poppy Lane, where the project will appear large. 4. Peter Kessler showed photos and described the proposed house as way out of character and scale with the area. 5. Garry Nicol, coordinator of the block watch, said the Planning Department has been unreasonable in approving the design. He suggested the house be set into an excavation to reduce its height and mass. FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER: 6. Joe O’Donoghue said the family building the house had a long history of service to the City and was building because of their family needs.

(10) APPEAL NO. 99-192

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to March 15, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. Seth Charney, appellant, described the affect of the proposal on the light to his tenants’ rear yard and compared project to New York tenements banned there in the 1880’s. 2. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, described how the plans were in violation of mezzanine standards and complained that she had not been served with copies of the permit holder’s response and plans. 3. Yury Trubnikov described the project and revisions made to accommodate neighbors at direction of Planning. 4. Edward Navarro spoke in support of the project and said the present vacant lot attracted dogs and drug dealers. 5. Michael Ravkin said there were no grounds for the appeal and that the project meets all Code requirements. 6. Laurence Kornfield discussed the mezzanine issue and the fire escapes required by Plan Check after the Planning Commission approval. 7. Larry Badiner, Planning Department described the side setbacks required by the Planning Commission.

(11) APPEAL NO. 99-193

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney, who then left the room before any testimony was taken. Then after discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with findings.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, opposed the project because the area near the Hall of Justice was sensitive and the parking lot to be lost was a sore blow for those on jury duty at the Hall. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said that the neighbors supported the project and that the Commission approved this project since it was in the pipeline when the interim controls on live/work units were enacted. FOR THE PROJECT: Joe O’Donoghue said the loss of parking lot argument was a new one and that there was no real support for it. 6. Larry Badiner for the Planning Commission said that parking is a serious problem but that it was for the City to solve, not private property owners.

(12) APPEAL NO. 99-190

ACTION: After discussion, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to CONTINUE the matter to March 8, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. Walter Wong for the subject restaurant requested to reschedule to March 29. 2. Aaron Peskin, appellant, said March 29 was no good and accepted March 8, 2000.

(13) APPEAL NO. 99-191

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator with findings and allow a two-family house to be built on the subject lot as requested by the appellant.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner explained the Zoning Administrator’s position limiting development of the lot split and said Mr. Passmore had always accepted that lot would be for a two-family house. FOR THE APPELLANT: 2. Alice Barkley cautioned the Board not to interfere with a proper variance granted with no condition regarding time limits for implementation. 3. Bernard Katzman supported the appeal and said the shortage of housing in the City was a strong argument to allow two units on this lot.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman

Executive Secretary