vice president garcia: wait a minute. the person who has the burden of submitting the papers is -- ok, why would you need extra time? >> he's one of the parties. vice president garcia: no, why would you need extra time to have papers submitted here that are going to be submitted simultaneously and you wouldn't see anyway? >> i assume if we come babington 23rd we need to have documents to you ahead of that time, which probably means next week and that will be difficult to arrange. to get documentation into you in a couple of weeks, that will work, but -- vice president garcia: i guess i'm confused as to what documentation you'd need to submit. >> we don't know what they're going to submit. vice president garcia: and you never will, until you get here.

>> we feel we have a responsibility to respond to the board as well. at least i feel that responsibility after hearing what's needed and we don't know what will be submitted by mr. junius, so -- we're not trying to delay. we're not asking for a lot of time. i just think a little bit more than that would be appreciated. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner garcia. what you're going to get from us is a detailed set of drawings from the planning commission approval that you can go down tomorrow to get from the planning commission and then you'll get reduced sized sets of the varies permits that advance the -- various permits that advance the design. that's it. the geotechnical reports are available. this is stuff we can get you tomorrow. vice president vice president are you prejudiced if it would

go further out than the 23rd? >> we'd certainly like to get it done. what would be the date after the 23rd? >> i suggested the 13th. that would be the only item on that calendar so far. >> would we be the first? >> i understand what you're saying. if we go to april 6, commissioner garcia will not be here. >> we certainly want a full board and i'm sure the requester does as well. president goh: let's leave that question for mrs. brandt holley. could we squeeze you and put it on the march 23 calendar? the april 13th calendar may go away. is that the snugs we have zero cases on calendar. >> i personally am planning to be away. president goh: april 13? >> no, the week to have 21st.

president goh: april 26th is problematic be board. >> another option would be to hear it next week. president goh: and then we would be here until 2:00 a.m. next week as opposed to midnight of today is. that doable? >> to be here next week at 2:00 in the morning? president goh: to be here on march 13th, you'd be at the top of the calendar. >> if we could perhaps cooperate and share information it would probably be easier than both of us trying to submit things. if structural review is still occurring it seems that a little delay won't really delay the project. we're, of course, hoping there will be the review of this board as well.

that's what i would suggest. i would hope we could cooperate on that if we have a little bit of time. commissioner fung: the question that has been raised is really dependent upon a determination by this board whether there are elements of the permit that we think fall out of the conditional use. i don't think we need -- if you're going to limit briefing to three pages, there's no argument other than the general one that either one can make can with respect to whether we are legally in compliance or not. president maufas: we could have no briefing and just is submittal of the plans. -- president goh:, we could have no briefing and just the submittal of the plans. would that be acceptal?

>> i would take that friendly amendment. >> so to have the hearing on the 16th of march with no briefing filed but unlimited number of pages of exhibits. ok. normally the materials for next week's meeting would be due tomorrow. but i can, with the board's consent, we can extend that. certainly anything you can submit by tomorrow or early friday morning would be helpful. if the board is willing we could extend the final deadline to sometime early monday or late tuesday. >> i'd say tuesday. >> tuesday? tuesday at noon? we can scan an email that documents -- of the documents out. >> ok. >> so we have a motion. if you would call the role, please.

-- call the roll, please. >> on that motion from commissioner hwang to control this -- continue this matter to march 16, the hearing is closed to allow the parties to present additional information pursuant to the board's comments and this is due next tuesday by noon. on that motion, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. >> president goh? president goh: i'm interested to hear why commissioner fung hesitatesed. do you want to just make a motion to grant jurisdiction? commissioner fung: i thought about that but i would prefer to get the documents. i have a difficult schedule this week. at the latest monday, please. president goh: can you do monday? so that's an amendment then to the motion for monday &. >> yes, all due monday at noon,

march 14. president goh: i give it my vote? iowa. >> thank you. vice president garcia? vice president garcia: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the matter is continued to next week's calendar. >> i would ask the parties in addition to submitting the normal hard paper copies, if you have these items available electronically and could send them to me that way in addition, that would be helpful. thank you. move on to the next item? when you're ready we would love it if you could call item 4 c. >> calling item 4 c. another jurisdiction request. subject property at 15156 to 1567 eighth street, also known at 1556101508 eighth street.

we have a questioner asking that the over the notice of penalty issued by the zoning administrator on august 24, 2009. the appeal period ended on september 8, 2010 and the jurisdiction question was filed at the board office on february 16, 2011. the notice of violation is concerning an illegal restriction of bar space without the required authorization and without the conditions of that c.u. >> commissioners, much first of all the item concerns only 15156. >> identify yourself.

>> sorry, my name is brian maloney and my wife and i are providers of the bar and restaurant. >> it concerns whatever we have. >> two separate vendings nfments september of 2008, we had a fairly expensive fire and we went back to the building that -- to get permits to do the work after the fire. we originally got a demo permit, which we got that work and then we got a permit to do the rest of the work, which we fast tracked through the city. it went to the planning department. at the end of it we did the work. it took five and a half months. about a year later somebody complained and said we had taken a little store out which we turned into a fire exit. it had been a problem for

years. we had a fairly extensive sprinkler system in there. this went on with the department. we kind of dropped the ball on our side. we admit that. we had a lot of stuff going on. the ball got kind of dropped twine the -- between the guy we hired and i, basically. so we went back to the planning department before christmas and i talked to scott sanchez, actually, on the phone and we've now sat down with the planning department and what we want to do and what the planning department i think agree with is we should go back and get a conditional use and get some other stuff brought up to date, if possible. so that's basically what we want to do. we admit we obviously were in the wrong -- we didn't think we were in the wrong at any staining -- stage but now with the planning department we

realize they have -- we have to make things right. i always thought that fire and life safety issues had the prime importance in any project ever. we accept that's what we have to do now and we're quite willing to do it. thank you. vice president garcia: what is it you're hoping to get from this board? >> we kind of missed the deadline with the foundation -- foundational use. we hired somebody and there are measurements from -- in wrong places, basically. vice president garcia: if we grant you jurisdiction, how does that help that process? >> i'm not totally -- i was told -- the planning department told us to file for an appeal to have a new conditional use hearing, which we totally agree with. we now know this is what the

rules are and we want to abide by the rules. commissioner fung: if we grant if we grant jurisdiction to stay the penalty -- but the zoning administration could do that also. >> thank you, mr. molony. president goh: mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. what we're here for is to see if the board would grant jurisdiction and use the board's ability to reduce the amount of penalties. we assess penalties at up to $250 a day. that can be reduced to no less than $100 a day by this board on appeal. the first enforcement notice was sent on june 15, 2009. the notice of penalty was sent on august 24, 2009.

in november 2009 we performed a site visit to remind the property ener about the penalty and they agreed that would file a conditional use authorization. there was a conditional use authorization sup -- submittal scheduled for 2010, but they did not show at the appointment. we later reminded them that penalties were continuing to acue. -- accrue. they scheduled another submittal appointment for january 26. they arrived but didn't bring the conditional use application. we called them in february and reminded them again oar the requirements and the accruing penalties. we did another notice enforcement action in march of 2010 as a reminder. we called them again in may also reminding them. they had issued a c.u. application for april 13.

they still didn't show at that appointment. but that's where we stopped the clock. it was 250 days of penalties at $250 a day and the board could reduce that amount to -- 20, 5000. they finally sub -- $250,500. i'm available for any questions. vice president garcia: granted jurisdiction once it was before us. we can't just do that now? >> yes, unfortunately we do have to go through that process. that's the current planning code requirement. this has come up a few times already to this board. vice president vice president i'm familiar -- i'm just -- vice president vice president i'm familiar -- i'm just curious on why we grant a jurisdiction. >> so that he can appeal and reduce the amount.

this is something we should look at this the planning code change to somehow simplify the process. vice president garcia: because the appeal is to demonstrate that no such violation exists and how do we grant jurisdiction for something other than what jurisdiction has been granted 34rer for? >> i think you would be limiting your appeal to the language in the letter which deals with the fine and you would, i imagine, grant the appeal and reduce the penalty amount $200 per day and that happened reduce the penalty here. vice president garcia: in the meantime we're staying the accumulation of further -- >> we've already stayed that based upon one of the other proposed c.u. application dates. commissioner fung: fung, actually, we could find that there is no violation, in which case there is no penalty. >> the board could also, i

believe, continue the item to the call of the chair. >> you mean continue the appeal once it's filed? >> right. thank you. president goh: any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner, the matter is yours. >> i would grant to grant the jurisdiction request for the notice violation on penalty. >> any other comment? if you could call the roll please. >> on that motion from the president to grant jurisdiction, commissioner fung? commissioner fung: aye. >> vice president garcia? vice president garcia: aye aye. >> commissioner peterson is absent. commissioner hwang? commissioner hwang: aye. >> thank you. jurisdiction is granted and a new five-day appeal period is now created which ends monday. next monday.

thank you. >> moving on then to item 4 e. if you could call that item please. >> 43, a jurisdiction request. subject property at 2601 van ness avenue. we have a letter from terry tong, agent for l.f. george scrux corp, questionor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over the denial of b.p.a. number 9816040. the notice of disapproval from the d.b.i. was dated february 3, 2007 and the appeal period lapsed on february 18, 2011. and the jurisdiction request was received at the board office on february 25, 2011. project, to erect a six-story 27 unit residential building with commercial space. >> i think we'll start with the

zoning director. president goh: and that was with the consent of the an late. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department this. is a complicated case given the history so i wanted to try to frame it as best we could. this involves several entitlements over the years. the building permit before you is from 199 and at that time there was an environmental review and a conditional use authorization submitted for this project. this project cannot be valid without authorization. anything over 40 feet requires a conditional use authorization. i think there was little progress after it was initially submitted. they had gone through some environmental review. in 2003 they resubmitted the conditional use authorization, paid additional fees to cover the cost of work done on the

project -- actually, 2002 was when that was resubmitted. 2003 was when the planning commission heard the item and granted the conditional use authorization. they subsequently requested an extension of the entitlement and the zoning director granted a six-month extension to summit -- submit their site plan. there was a 1998 application which was before you that was not linked to this project at that time. the extension was granted for six months. submit the application, pursue it diligently. the 1998 application was subsequently canceled by the department last august, august 19, 2010, we sent if forer -- this for cancellation but -- because we determined there was abandonment from the project.

we found that the underlying conditional use authorization is sense invalid. the environmental entitlements are also stale and invalid so. any application for the department to approve. we would have to take this back to the planning commission for their review. that is where we are currently with this application. it does pose, again, similar to the filbert street case, some interesting questions there board may have regarding building permits for the c.u. the permit holder would like to argue that they are, in fact, actively working on the project and would like the permit to be essentially reinstated but we found that we're not getting the work that we need out of the application. so i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you.

ms. tong. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is terry tong with l.f. property. actually, i already -- we already filed -- renewed the conditional use on the 2003 and also they sent us a letter saying it expired and we already extended what the -- for the conditional use. so -- and they sent me the -- i'm showing something right here. they sent us the email and then approved it sixth months for us to submit a site permit and we did, ok? i have one of the files -- because the original is not clear. i talked to the building department.

they're saying that they don't have the building permit but that's not true. because i have the building permit with me. so because they didn't issue us a new permit number while we redo the conditional use. that's why the permit is turned 1998. president goh: can you turn that -- we can't -- 180 degrees. thank you. >> so, and also i talked to the planning because we submitted right on the time what they give us at that time. so when i talk to the planning, they're saying that we didn't submit the right plan because every plan is the same but that's not true. because i have three submittals. because planning told me they only received one submittal but that's not right. i have one by myself because

it's not clear but i already showed the original to mr. sanchez. it's showing it very clear, we do the site permit submitted on the 2006 and because they have three planner changes. the first one, we view it as jesse nelson and then they changed it to somebody else and then later on they sent to it somebody else. i have a meeting particularly with the grand planning department last year because i wanted to find out the status. what's happened? why did it take so long? they told me they didn't have a plan. i said no, i have a record. this is on their city commuter. they received our plan but they lost it. they didn't even ask us to redo the conditional use. but that's not fair because we do all the processes -- processing. if they have no comment they

should submit it to the building department. why are they holding it so long and then finally they sent us a letter -- commissioner fung: ms. tong, you need to answer the following question. why did you wait four to five years? >> actually, because we have a lot of projects that are ongoing. that's while when we file, they already take so long to do the commission and then we changed our -- a few times already. the first architectural project for us was out of town so that's why the project was delayed and delayed. on the conditional use, we already followed all the procedures once they give us the approval and we did. they're saying that if everything is on progress they

will continue to give us the extension. and i have a document showing that severing on progress so you guys can tell -- from 2006 we submitted seven, nine, and also 2010, we still have an email with the planning department because i keep checking why the status take so long. and then they're saying that we didn't submit anything but that's not true. i have a plan that's already submitted. i have three plans with me. the official is saying that the plan is not accurate. but not right. everything is in there. so if they have any comment they should let us know. it's not just -- you know, passing over for -- and then let us know it's got this approval. commissioner fung: i hear what you're saying on that but you didn't provide any of these documents to us. >> you know what -- commissioner fung: can i finish the comment, please? >> sure. commissioner fung: how are we supposed to track whether this really occurred or not?

>> first of all, i didn't plan to do the hearing for tonight because i only do the jurisdiction. because when i filed the hearing -- the first time when i go to the hearing office i got rejected because the clerk told me that i came too early and she asked me to come back again and i did. they accepted my appeal. but later on i went back to my office, anthony called me back saying they filed by error and requested me to do the jurisdiction. that's what i did. but after we have a discussion with the administrator, he's saying that we can do the hearing for tonight. that's why i didn't prepare any documents for you guys. but if you want all the documents i can make all the copies and then do the hearing next time. because i didn't prepare for the hearing for tonight. commissioner fung: a

jurisdiction request is a hearing but -- you know. >> but as the info, would i get it from victor is not -- because he's saying that only come here, see whether they allow you to do the appeal or not. and i ask him do i need to provide all those info? he's saying no. once they agree for you guys to do the appeal, then you provide those documents. >> to clarify, commissioner fung, the issue of the c.u. -- these underlying c.u.'s came up after the issue with our clerks. so the jurisdiction request was filed only and solely on the issue of her interaction with our clerks. all the c.u. stuff came up afterwards. so that's why you may feel you need more documents.

>> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted -- president goh: i have a question for mr. sanchez. so she's mentioning that she has submitted plans. she has the plans in her hand. could i -- you speak to that? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. immediately before the hearing i did review some of the documents that she had. this was the first time i'd seen these materials and if in my first review of seeing them i thought perhaps we should continue the item to allow us for some additional information to be gathered. i informed the executive director. then i saw some additional materials, including an email

from our staff saying that we have received these revisions. found an email from our staff saying yes, we've received your reviolations but they're all identical. commissioner fung: they're all what? >> identical. for -- there are minor changes in the windows but they did not address the questions. we felt there need to be additional work on the design and we did not get the response we needed from the project sponsor. president goh: what was the time frame for that email after having reviewed the plans? >> i think the jurisdiction requestor maybe put it on the overhead but i believe it may have correlated with the meeting she had with staff last year and it was a summation of where we were at this point.