and be able to make the judgment about whether or not it is or was part of the c.u. you know, maybe not, so -- >> i just would echo the comments of president goh and i said it earlier. i feel like there's some information that's missing here to understand the arguments that are being made on both sides. was it a part of the project, sit within the scope? and that it is critical to the question of whether or not these permits were issued pursuant to the conditional use authorization and that's what we need to determine here. so those facts go into our legal question. so for that reason, i would move to continue in order to -- vice president garcia: if you don't mind, i have a comment. >> i'm sorry. i'm finished. vice president garcia: it's an

unfortunate situation that there could be elements of a permit but regardless of whether it comes under the c.u. or not that don't have the normal levels of review. i feel rather strongly that is what is consistent with the charter. that it's been identified before this body, issues like that. i would think mr. junius would be concerned with that because we works both sides of the beat. he's been here representing an lantz and he's here representing permit holders. i think what attorney for requester is saying is not that this doesn't come under the permit for the c.u. but that it's not totally related to what the c.u. was required. what was required in order to get a c. u.? a c.u. was needed because a dwelling unit merger was taking place that needs a c.u.

but my interpretation of the charter, which is -- i feel very uncomfortable even saying that, much less interpreting the charter. is that anything that springs from that comes under c.u. and what is unreasonable about that -- and i totally agree it's unreasonable -- is the fact that after the period has expired in which someone could appeal the c.u. to the board of supervisors, an issue can be raised having to do with the project that is no longer reviewable. except by the planning department itself, who has discretion as to whether or not to bring it before their commission. i think that the reason this board exists is to limit discretion of other departments. and i think it's reasonable. i am surprised, too, to hear that it can still at this time

be appealed to d.b.i. i did not know that. i hope that's true. i'm getting a nod from mr. -- a shake. a negative nod from mr. duffy that it probably can't be. it disturbs me that there is no other review to be had of this. all we can do, at least all i feel that we could do is ask that d.b.i. give this extremely close scrutiny and make sure that all things are as they should be and that no damage is done to requester's property. but given some of the things that happened here earlier, i don't know that i want to start friday willing our rules. at any rate, that's how i feel. president floor? president goh: i can move to continue this in order for the parties to provide additional information regarding the scope

of the project. we have a -- >> i just want to say that -- the building inspection commission. they'll probably hear and it they could ask the d.b.i. to investigate that the permit was appropriately approved and reviewed for the structure of that and the retaining wall. it seems to be a geotechnical and structural matters that are being brought up by this lady, the appellant. so is that what ump asking me? commissioner garcia? commissioner fung: i believe -- not quite, yes. there are components of a permit that are appealable, i believe, to the building inspection commission. >> i've just never seen the

commission revoke a permit or something like that so maybe the city attorney could share that up. >> i don't have the provision in front of me but i believe it's chapter 77 of the cold. and generally it says that permits that are not appealable to the board of appeals may be heard by the building inspection commission -- building permits. of course, there are very few permits that are not appealable to the board of appeals and there is a 15-day appeal period. they also have a late jurisdiction for the request process at the building planning commission. >> i think it's rare but it's probably allowed. the only other thing i would say on this as well is just looking at the review of the permits, i'm not so sure it got a full structural review from d.b.i. for the retaining wall. i don't see that permit signed

off by an engineer at d.b.i. so i'm not sure if there's [unintelligible] maybe mr. junius can comment on that. without seeing the drawings, i can't comment on that. >> thank you. president goh: mr. junius has his hand raised and i think he would like to respond to what mr. duffy just said. >> thank you so much, president goh. to be very clear, the structural addenda that mr. duffy referred to is actually in check right now. the permits before you are depfeiferments. very different things. the technical major structural documents are still being reviewed. they're complicated technical documents that are in the middle of the process, thank

you. president goh: ms. holley, would you like to respond? >> not on that point particularly but if i can if -- have my few seconds to say that the key here i think remains that the -- as vice president garcia was saying, the fact that there may not be a place to come. in my mind that means the charter needs to be interpreted in a way that allows appropriate oversight and the reasonable way to interpret the charter on this point is that permits granted pursuant to the conditional use issues, which here are the merging and parking spaces and have nothing to do with the issues we want to bring before this board. let us come before you and explore the problems. thank you. president goh: that was not in regard to the comments of mr. duffy, but it was 30 seconds so

-- commissioner? >> there's a motion on the floor to continue. i think the you could -- if you could be as specific as possible as to what additional information you'd like brought. >> i'm looking for -- i'd like to see information that would help us better understand whether or not the permits that are being -- permits at issue >> in fact, pursuant to the conditional use authorization. so whatever the parties believe will support either position, that's what i'd like to see. including sight plans. whatever plans. graphics would be useful. do you want to set a page accomplishment? president goh: commissioner fung, do you have comment?

commissioner fung: do you want to see the geotechnical report? >> yes. >> three pages of briefing with unlimited exhibits and do you want them to be filed at the same time or do you want the permit holder to have an opportunity -- president goh: simultaneous filings of three pages and are we looking at march 23 again? >> i don't know if that's sufficient time. president goh: commissioner wong? >> i defer to our director on scheduling. >> i don't know if that's sufficient time for both parties. president goh: well, then we could go to the next april 13. 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 entitlem