Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA, OCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

SPEAKERS: None

SPEAKERS: Commissioner McInerney said he expected the Board to vote on specific Rules amendments separately. President Chin asked the deputy city attorney to advise the Board on whether the Rules can be amended to delete the court reporter requirement.

ITEM A: Letter from Allan Lerch, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 01-143, Lerch & Lipman vs. DBI, PDA, heard November 7, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit. Permit Holder(s): Carol Smith & Jack Russo.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to deny the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Alan Lerch, co-appellant, requested the Board to grant a rehearing for the reason there are no amended plans for the project. Scott Emblige, attorney for the permit holder, said that he felt there was no new evidence being offered and so no new hearing is justified. Judith Boyajian responded to a Board question by saying that the Board doesn’t enforce private agreements.

ITEM B: Letter from Carl Maletic, architect for appellant Mario Benassini, requesting rehearing of Appeal 01-145, Benassini vs. DBI, PDA, heard November 7, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit. Permit Holder(s): Joyce Book.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to deny the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Carl Maletic, consultant to the appellant, said that there was evidence not considered at the hearing and that there hadn’t been proper notice to owners within 300 feet of the subject property, all of which justifies a rehearing. He also discussed a 1983 ordinance decided by the former Zoning Administrator. Lawrence Sussman, attorney for the permit holder, responded that all issues raised by Mr. Maletic were discussed at the original hearing by the Board, and with no new evidence to be presented he asked that a rehearing not be granted. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI said that he had reviewed the plans at the original hearing and found no fire safety problems. Larry Badiner, ZA, said he had reviewed the plans and that no new notice was required since the height of the façade went from 38.5 feet down to 32 feet. He said all issues had been before the Board at the original hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reduce the subject penalty to $204.

SPEAKERS: Scott Bassin, appellant, said the roofer hadn’t filled out the permit application properly. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the permit is to legalize the skylight and deck and any knowledgeable professional would know that you can’t do that with a roofing permit. The only issue is the fee based on the Swift Guide. He thought the penalty should be $204.00.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to uphold the subject penalty.

SPEAKERS: No appearances.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reduce the subject penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Thomas Bussard, contractor for the appellant, said that it is not customary in the appellant’s culture to give wrong information and she is unemployed and just trying to remodel her kitchen. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that this case is in the lower range and he would check the matter and reduce the penalty accordingly.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reduce the subject penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Appellant was present but did not speak.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reduce the subject penalty to three (3) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: John O’Malley, appellant, said he did the work himself. The tenant has moved out and the unit is now empty. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the amount shown included the fees for other permits, plumbing and electrical. He thought the penalty should be upheld because the owner had charged rent.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reduce the subject penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Jackie Tom, appellant, said the deck had dry rot and was originally to be repaired. She had been told conflicting things when she called the City. While she does own other property, this was the first time she did work that needed a permit. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that a permit was never issued for this work.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to overrule the subject denial by the Planning Commission, and grant the permit on condition that the subject doors be removed and replaced with windows, and with a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) to be recorded on the property prohibiting the use of the two roofs as decks, with said NSR to be adopted on Dec. 12, 2001.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI,DBI, reported on the site visit he and others made to check the age of the parapet on the rear decks. He thought the decks had been created by lowering the roof. The so-called parapets are in fact not parapets and are not fire rated. And there are other issues. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the surface of the so-called decks is a material meant for walking upon, indicating an intention to use these two roofs as decks in violation of the Commissioners’ decision. The doors opening onto the roofs also indicate an intention to use them as decks. The doors should be windows. The surfaces are not standard roofing material. He urged the Board to uphold the Commission’s denial of the permit. He thought an NSR not enough to prevent use as decks.

Rene Peinado, appellant, said the doors had been shown on the approved plans which had been thoroughly scrutinized by the Planning staff. He said he wants to retain what exists and record a NSR to govern the use of the space.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reschedule the matter to January 16, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reschedule the matter to December 12, 2001, and for the Dept. of Building Inspection to investigate any life/safety issues at the subject property, and for the case to be item 4a on the Dec. 12^th agenda.

SPEAKERS: Phillip O’Brien, attorney for the appellant asked that the appeal be rescheduled to a meeting when all five Commissioners are present. Daniel Bornstein, attorney for permit holder, objected to a continuance since the project has already been delayed for some time. He said the building is in a dangerous condition.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reschedule the matter to January 16, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Demas Yan, appellant asked the Board to go forward with his two appeals since he intended to speak for himself. After a brief discussion with the Board concerning the risks involved in these two appeals he agreed to a rescheduling of his appeals to January 16, 2002.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reschedule the matter to January 16, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to reschedule the matter to February 20, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: These appeals were withdrawn by the appellant prior to hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to overrule the Planning Commission and grant the subject permit with adoption of findings as prepared by the appellant’s attorney, and with negative declaration findings incorporated by reference.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the new policies of the Commission regarding replacement of PDR uses. (Production-Distribution-Repair) and he said that the new Mission Interim Controls don’t apply in this case. He said the proposed restaurant is in violation with the proposed controls. He said the plans before the Board have been modified since the Commission denied the application because the restaurant is deemed an inappropriate use at this site. And he wasn’t convinced the wine distribution business will really be on the third floor. Michael Burke, attorney for the appellant, introduced the project manager and the architect to answer any technical questions and he described the outreach they have made and the support they have from organizations in the Mission. He noted that the project does conform to the present controls and that the Commission had erroneously applied controls to the project and he described the economic benefits the project would bring to the Mission.

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR COMMISSION: Ada Chan of the Anti-Displacement Coalition described the loss of PDR uses and jobs. She said the catering and wine distribution parts of the project are welcome but the destination restaurant use is not. Eric Quesada of the Mission Displacement Coalition asked the Board to support the Commission because he and they are working on a neighborhood plan that will encourage the retaining of PDR industrial uses and jobs which pay more than restaurant jobs. Chris Selig said that Mr. Burke had done real outreach to the neighborhood. He said the restaurant will increase land value but won’t benefit the community. Robin Gettleson of the Rainbow Grocery across the street from the site said the project won’t help the neighborhood but will cause parking congestion to the store’s detriment.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Rosario Anaya of the Mission Language School said the project would benefit the Mission and the school. Edgar Pacheco said he started at the bottom of the restaurant business and has worked his way up to sous chef in a fine restaurant. He thinks the restaurant will provide opportunities to others. Norman Scheel, said he has a factory in the Mission and he can’t see how anyone would oppose investment in the Mission during this time of economic downturn. He said the appellant’ s track record is good and maybe the restaurant will be affordable to people in the Mission. Brent Pollock said he will be the chef in the new restaurant and he explained how much restaurant employees earn in response to Board questions.