Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 26, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm PDT

6:00 pm
holder. he's been waiting properly and through the correct channels and no matter what, there is someone going to be unhappy no matter what here. we can try to come to some understanding, maybe. >> question is whether both parties aren't happy. >> that makes for a real compromise. >> i agree with commissioner's approach and i mean it's observations, but six months seems like a long time to potentially hold up the permit. if there is going to be discussions, it seems to me they could be had and done. >> i was just reminded by our director and city attorney that this is different than an actual appeal in that the permits are not suspended during the course of this
6:01 pm
discussion. i had forgotten that. i have a question for the permit holder, mr. adil shaikh? >> yes, sir? >> this board has two options, they can take jurisdiction in which case your permit is suspended and it will take you at least three months to get on to the calendar. i'm appealing to you whether there is some timeframe that you can allow the tenant to stay without us having to go through that process? >> well, i am sympathetic to the tenants as well. i think i can be flexible, but i felt that it would be very difficult for me to give them a whole year at this point which is what they originally requested.
6:02 pm
i'm not saying that, hey, in 60 days, again, that's why i retained council. i'm not familiar with this process that you need to get out in 60 days. so, again, i sympathize with my tenants. i have always tried to work with them to the best of my ability. i don't want to seem to them that i mislead them or somehow lied to them. i am open to that idea. that's not a problem. i can go ahead and say that in front of you in whole honesty. to me, if i was misunderstood, at this point to give them a whole year would be difficult for me. but i am open to some flexibility where they don't exactly have to get out in 60 days, sir. >> i'm totally in agreement. i think you have been an outstanding landlord. i think that most people who have
6:03 pm
gotten their permits and had the legal right to proceed would have. is there a number that months or days that you would be willing to commit with and you might want to speak with your council? >> i would say can you pause for about 90 seconds? >> while you all confer. go ahead. i don't have any questions of you. i want to offer my comments. this is a jurisdiction request, the written submissions as well as the testimony today, i found compelling in that the capacity to understand the notice and it's implications and the need to actually file the appeal within the time period, and that's what, they missed it by 20 days and i read in the submissions that part of it was a challenge and actually
6:04 pm
visibleably seeing the sign and the challenge on the part of the speaker tonight was reading it in the manner that it would reflect an actual impact on them such that they would need to take action within that period. so for those reasons, i would actually be amenable to granting the jurisdiction request. as to whether they can sort something out would be great, preferable than to hold up the parties moving forward. but i would like to put that out there for consideration. >> i totally normally would agree with that, but i think in this particular case, they knew that this was coming along and i think there has been communication wean -- between the landlord and tenant the whole time. >> commissioners, i'm sorry, i think the permit holder and council have left the room. >> they knew i was speaking
6:05 pm
and they left on their own accord. they didn't care, obviously what i had to say. >> i don't know if you heard what i said, but i would be inclined to grant the jurisdiction request. i would just repeat that. did you have
6:06 pm
something? >> yeah. with regards to the extension for an allowing the tenants to stay, i would say 90 days. >> in addition to the 60 that's already there or 90 days total? >> sure. in addition to the 60, that's fine. i think that would be a reasonable time. >> you know what, i think given that there is an opportunity to potentially resolve this. i would suggest that the parties take this discussion and put a pause on this and move to the next matter while you have an opportunity to speak to each other. >> sure, no problem. >> this -- thank you for your flexibility. >> okay. we'll hold that off and take the next item. 4 c.
6:07 pm
item 4c: adoption of findings: subject property at 2118-2128 fillmore street. discussion and possible adoption of findings for appeal no. 13-030, mio inc. vs. dbi, pda, decided may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 to overturn the permit with adoption of findings at a later time, on the basis that this permit was not validly issued, that the determination of formula retail use should be reconsidered, and that the one-year bar against re-application would not apply. permit holder: monique ramos. project: tenant improvement remodel of existing retail space within existing mixed-use, multitenant building; renovation of ground level storefront façade for new retail establishment; no structural work; bpa no. 2013/03/01/1323.>> okay. we'll hold that off and take the next item. 4 c. item 4c: adoption of findings: subject property at 2118-2128 fillmore street. discussion and possible adoption of findings for appeal no. 13-030, mio inc. vs. dbi, pda, decided may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 to overturn the permit with adoption of findings at a later time, on the basis that this permit was not validly issued, that the determination of formula retail use should be reconsidered, and that the one-year bar against re-application would not apply. permit holder: monique ramos. project: tenant improvement remodel of existing retail
6:08 pm
space within existing mixed-use, multitenant building; renovation of ground level storefront façade for new retail establishment; no structural work; bpa >> okay. we'll hold that off and take the next item. 4 c. item 4c: adoption of findings: subject property at 2118-2128 fillmore street. discussion and possible adoption of findings for appeal no. 13-030, mio inc. vs. dbi, pda, decided may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 to overturn the permit with adoption of findings at a later time, on the basis that this permit was not validly issued, that the determination of formula retail use should be reconsidered, and that the one-year bar against re-application would not apply. permit holder: monique ramos. project: tenant improvement remodel of existing retail space within existing mixed-use, multitenant building; renovation of ground level storefront façade for new retail establishment; no structural work; bpa no. 2013/03/01/1323. 1234 commissioners i have contacted by the attorney for the permit holder who informed he that neither he or his client would be here today. his client is following the direction of the board and decided to no longer pursue and instead is planning to open an independent retail operation at that location. and therefore she is no longer interested in pursuing the permit that is the subject of this appeal. he indicated that his client would not object to the boards moving forward with the disapproval of the permit and the adoption of findings. so i wanted to let you know that was his communication to you. >> i have a question. all the parties were provided with the draft. they were also given an opportunity to comment on the draft? >> were the comments received and incorporated? >> they were received and incorporated and some were not and they were given opportunities to provide comments to you if they cared to go further with their request. >> my packet didn't include any. there were none. >> okay. but i do believe that the appellant is here and would like to speak to the board. >> okay.
6:09 pm
>> i did receive a copy of the letters. to drop the permit, however, instead it's opening they said it's independent boutique. in this letter it indicated that she no longer required a permit because she was not going to do a build out. however, as i passed the building everyday, there is major work being done. the front facade has been removed. apparently they were given a
6:10 pm
glass permit after the appeal was made. the total space was empty and it was totally rebuilt. and because i was a tenant in this building and had to do foundation work i'm familiar with some aspects of what is required for a foundation construction and we certainly did not have to remove the facade of our storefront when i was a tenant at 2116. we also did not have to redo the walls or the electrical work. so i'm perplexed by what's going on in that space. also, the fact that they are calling this an independent boutique. 2130 if if fictitious name. monique
6:11 pm
ramos is a manager partner as it was called. this is just osca in another version. initially bh it was going to be an osca store and they did apply for a building permit, how is it that suddenly they don't need a building permit. it really perplexes me and i'm wondering just how is this ordinance going to protect small businesses if large corporations can just change the name. i mean, we have athletic with gaps and brooks brothers on the street. what recourse does a small business person have. also in the findings, osca, it isn't a
6:12 pm
corporation. it's a corporation where i guess they don't pay any california taxes. so my other questions is, if it is an independent boutique and they do carry osca apparel who is going to monitor that it isn't over 50 percent. just changing the name does not mean that this is osca. i'm quite perplexed by this. >> thank you. we can hear from the departments, mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott san chez planning department. that would be under the purview of the planning department. if we get information that they are operating illegally as an osca as defined in the planning code then we would pursue
6:13 pm
enforcement action on that i do note that there are several different proposals now to devise controls. our department is working on trying to come up with a broader approach because a lot of these changes have been district by district. in the hayes valley maybe different than another district and it should apply citywide and most of the city's zoning districts. not all of them are subject to formal retail control but it's much easier for us to implement one form of standards for each of the districts with a different definition. that would ultimately result in legislation that would not be enforceable. some of the ideas that have been floating around are including international stores which are not currently done and also looking more into the corporate structures of the
6:14 pm
businesses. these are things we discussed and is practically and difficult to do and looking at the research. we have to apply to every permit basically that comes across our counter for any kind of work and any kind of new commercial use. we want to ensure the permit process for the small businesses is not undully burden some and we have to provide. there is a balance here and we caution that we have go n down a bad path in the past when we have a notice and at first it applied to all changes of use and we find that the only uses that could wait for 30 days was the larger stores for waiting for the process to conclude. that is provided and the section notices were withdrawn and the former use controls were applied. we are looking to have
6:15 pm
a happy balance here that would still allow small businesses to thrive and to have appropriate review. and regards to the findings, while i disagree with the boards decisions, i find it crafting by the boards to enforce this change and interpretation which would include leases and we would suggest the board adopt these findings and we would take this into account and bring this up and any retail former use changes to specifically change to not include that. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez? what happens wha when a former retail like gap opens something that is g bop and find out it belongs to gap. is it formally a retail because
6:16 pm
it belonged to the larger? >> no. simply being owned by a larger corporation would not trigger the the formula retail control. that is one thing being considered by the board of supervisors is that the parent company itself is a former retail use, then any spin off would be considered formal retail use. if you are owned by gap, then that would be considered formula retail use. we would have to rely upon affidavits for this. these are permits processed over the counter. >> i imagine you wouldn't find out until after they are already installed and up and running. >> that's why the affidavit getting synagogue testify -- someone to testimony whether or not is to testify afterwards. >> mr. duffy?
6:17 pm
>> commissioners, i just wanted to the work currently taking place at the property is under the rendition replacement. that permit which was suspended and then reinstated by the board inspections how to take clear from the building inspector. i went to the site to check that they had not started work. they suspended the permit. i was not able to get to see the plans but our inspections services will check that all the work is they are doing it under. they got it on the 12th of june for covering up some walls. >> so you are monitoring it is what you are saying? >> i spoke to the owner of the property today and he said they
6:18 pm
are only doing work on the permits that were issued. i will check to make sure that is the case. i wasn't able to see the plans today on short notice but yes, we are monitoring it. >> i would imagine no matter what former retail or tenant, they are going to apply for various small permits, right? >> right, we would consider it retail and it's an existing retail store. we leave all the other planning zoning the formula retail playing. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> madam president, i'm thomas reynolds. we met before on this
6:19 pm
issue. i would infer on you to adopt the findings which i think is important and in recognition of the reality of what's going on with these kind of stores opening in finding as you did last time that the lease should be considered as well. that seems to be a very important step and now with others, with short circuited the process that should be on the record and should be there to guide the planning department and the others. i think you made a very wise decision and is helpful. i do think we'll see legislation coming from the board of supervisors that will include international stores, we know that osca has another 50 stores internationally. we had this before on fillmore street where the gap opened an athletic brand and it was a part of the whole gap process. same with starbucks that opened a new natural food store and so,
6:20 pm
these are clearly ways around the city's i think very wise attempt to limit the affect of chain stores in small districts such as ours and your finding is a very important part of that. i would encourage you to adopt those findings. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> you were credited madam director on working on this draft and i want to ensure that our city attorney has given his stamp of approval? >> he participated in the draft >> okay. i did review it analyzed i -- and i would be comfortable to adopting the findings. >> move to adopt. >> you forgot to thank robert. >> mr. pacheco?
6:21 pm
>> that was from the president? commissioner fung. okay on that motion from commissioner fung to adopt the findings, no new changes. president hwang? aye, lazarus? no. commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 3-1. thank you. >> call item no. 5 item 5: appeal no. 13-056 walter haas, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1 spruce street. protesting the issuance on april 25, 2013, to john maniscalco & mary tesluk, permit to alter a building interior remodel and horizontal addition at rear on 1st and 2nd storiess. application no. 2012/02/23/4708s. for hearing today.>> call item no. 5 sf 51234 this matter is on for hearing tonight. i
6:22 pm
understand the parties have an agreement. i have the appellant here to speak to the board. >> is there anyone here representing? >> maybe he can come up at the same time. that would be great. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm scott on behalf of walter haas. there has been some amended plans that mr. maniscalco is a permit holder. it allows everybody to move forward and be neighbors again. we would like to have the permit approved with the amended plans and we can be on our way. >> okay. thank you mr. maniscalco. >> on the project sponsor. i agree, we have come to an agreement that is tenable for
6:23 pm
both parties. it's to the benefit of both of us. we are happy with the proceedings and would like to approve the plans and move forward. >> thank you. any comment? any public comment. >> commissioners, it's yours. >> is that the plan that were submitted with the brief? >> yes. the revisions. >> okay. any comments? i'm going to move to grant the appeal and approve on the condition that the attached, the plans attached to the submissions by mr. -- and the changes on the condition that those are also adopted. >> is that on the basis of the parties agreement?
6:24 pm
>> correct. >> okay. >> thank you for that. >> we have a motion from the president to grant this appeal, uphold the permit with adoption of revised plans. the plans are dated june 13, on the basis of the parties fremont. on that motion to uphold the revised plans, commissioner fung, lazarus, honda? ayes. thank you, the is upheld with the adoption of revised plans. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that was the
6:25 pm
last item that involved the planning department of building inspection other than the one that was held off with jurisdiction request. i don't know if you have any concerns about the staff staying for that item as it comes back to us or? >> we can find out how much longer they need. if it's going to be a long time. >> they may not need to be here for that item anyway unless you think there is a planning or issue? can we call the next item? >> let's see if he comes back quickly just to give us a status. >> just to remind the public that item no. 6 has been withdrawn. this is the appeal at 744 carolina street.
6:26 pm
>> are you prepared to resolve the matter? >> the requestor is not in. >> let's wait in the the requestor is here. so we are returning to item 4 b. >> we did meet in the hallway for a while. >> tenants want a year and we offered six months until the end of the christmas break because he's a teacher which would be early january. we don't have an agreement on that yet. we were hoping for a compromise along those lines.
6:27 pm
that's where it is right now. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> yes, again, i'm fine with them leaving sometime after the christmas break to accommodate mr. church who is a schoolteacher. he mentioned that and again i realize that they said that three months would buy be a little bit too short a time and i think that is a fair mutual compromise and i thank you and leave that at your discretion. thank you very much. >> thank you. let's return to -- are you giving them more time to continue their discussions or do you want to proceed to a vote? >> proceed to a vote. i don't think there is any reason to do that. >> no. we are in deliberation. i have already stated my view of where i would like to go.
6:28 pm
>> the question is how to implement this without a granting jurisdiction. i'm not sure there is a way. well, if the permit holder is willing to continue negotiating, the amount of time, approximated 3 months if we granted jurisdiction into having the matter heard. it would be the same amount of time depending on the outcome or the permit could be revoked altogether. so there is risk. i don't think we can make the parties compromise on the spot here tonight. i feel based on my earlier comments, that jurisdiction is warranted here. i would move to grant. >> okay. just a quick comment
6:29 pm
for both parties. i'm not prepared to revoke the permit. but i am prepared to support the jurisdiction and that i believe that will take us out to that timeframe anyway. >> okay. >> commissioners, another option is to delay your decision until our next meeting if you can reach more time. >> i don't want to delay. >> i don't think we should bring them back in a week. >> we are currently scheduling new appeals for august 14th. you can also order us to schedule it as a later time if you want or anytime >> let's go with our normal course and let our parties have an opportunity to resolve. >> yeah. i believe we have a motion from the president to grant both jurisdiction request
6:30 pm
on demo and site. on that motion to grant both jurisdiction request which would include a five-day appeal period. commissioner fung, aye, hurtado is absent. lazarus? aye. commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 4-0. mr. church has a 5 day period to appeal. >> i just want to make sure that the appellants understand the time period under which need to submit appeals. okay? i see nodding. okay. >> okay. thank you. so then we'll call the next item which the item no. 7. 92 item 7: appeal no. 13-033 paula datesh, appellanttss vs. arts commission, respondent appealing the denial / non-renewal on