tv [untitled] March 23, 2011 6:30pm-7:00pm PDT
>> what about the -- permit? >> i am uncertain about where the property line was represented. if the property line is represented, we're not sure where the retaining wall would be. the trees would be behind the property line and would not fall under the purview of the department. i cannot speak to that in this case. >> i thought there was a certain distance away from the sidewalk even if it is on someone's property at which time a tree becomes a public street. >> in 2004. >> that would be the deciding issue, what codes apply in 2004. >> there are enough questions that may be a continuance makes sense because you are saying that there should have been a
permanent and -- would have been the ones to issue it. we don't have it in front of us. this magnitude of the project would happen in the public right away without a permit that we can look at. >> the this is the lot but there are multiple addresses related to this. from a surge, it would be difficult to find this in the database. we don't have an exact address. >> well, it might be worthwhile. >> the permit holder obtain a permit and they would have a copy presumably.
>> the grounds keeper stated he arrived in 2006 and the permit was acquired before 2006. i don't know the record. my motion would be to ask the permit holder to look through their records. we would like to move the hearing until such time that would for that opportunity. >> what i feel is before us is this specific permit. it is not my intent to get involved in the negotiation that
has been going on for a long time. >> to you have a date for your continuance? >> april 6th. >> we don't have a full board then. >> april 20th? >> it is a full calendar that night. >> is there any harm in pushing this out to may 11th? >> we are scheduling as of today for may 25th. >> there is no objection. >> the motion is to continue this matter until may 25th to
allow the permit-holders time to locate any permits for the wall that was constructed in 2004 and for the trees that were removed. >> perfect. >> one week before the hearing. this would be the thursday prior to the hearing. >> if there is the permit, it would be useful to have a dialogue about what process has been gone through.
>> two pages of brief regarding -- >> in the event that there is no permit found. is there any need for a briefing by any other party? >> know. -- no. there is no requirement. >> they would have to build that into the timing of it. >> correct. >> we could say that the permit holder has a few pages and the permits themselves and the appellant can respond orally at the hearing. >> yes. >> that motion would be to allow the permit holder the
administrator. this is at 282 sanchez street appealing a notice of violation and penalty dated july 13th, 2010, regarding an allegation of illegal commercial activities at the subject property. we will start with the appellant and his attorney. you will have seven minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. i just received during the recess for response, i have not had an opportunity to look at. based on that, i would be seeking a continuance of this hearing to permit myself to respond to this.
>> are you talking about the response dated march 17th? >> correct. >> i have not seen it until a few minutes ago. >> there was another attorney. >> he is a general manager. "did she receive it? >> i am not aware of it. >> we understand that you just served the party. >> i just realized there was no proof of service attached. i was looking at my files. i thought that there was surface
to counsel but apparently it did not go out. >> it was not served. >> you are not party to this? >> no, i represent a property owner. >> commissioners, what is your pleasure. >> i move to continue. >> that would be my ordinary feeling but i don't know the relevance of the document that the appellant did not receive and how it really bears and with this board of capable of doing which is of holding or reducing. i don't know what else is before us. i am not sure how what has been submitted plays into that. >> well, while we have no
objection to the application to reduce the fees, it seems that -- is characterizing his request based on some impropriety on the part of the owner and we wanted to go on record and say that was not the case. >> if we don't continue, i would want to start a brief at a minimum. >> may be the executive director can give clarification. this is from a member of the public. >> my understanding is that the penalty would fall on them as well. >> i don't know it will change how wide you the case but i
think there is a process of consideration that the appellate has touched the appellant has not received the brief. i have some concerns about that. -- there is a process of consideration that the appellant has not received the brief. >> we have always been cautious so i would support the continuance. quest can remove this april 6th? >> can we do that even though we don't have eyes president garcia? >> we don't have a full board. >> if his vote will affect the proceedings, we will continue at that point and time. >> there is a motion to move
this to the sixth of april to allow the appellant time to review the subject property owners brief. no additional briefing allowed. is any public comment on this motion? seeing none, i will call the roll. >> was very motion? >> i so move. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes.
>> ladies and gentlemen of the board, jason bley, the appellant. i was not presented with or made aware of the response from the other parties. i hope that you will forgive me. the comments are not exactly reorganized. as you will have seen from my brief, there remains substantial issues related to this property in terms of how we will not arrive at the present -- preservation of the property. what is special about this
property is that this is the last property in san francisco's chinatown to have an extensive and impressive ground floor and integrity. san francisco's chinatown is a world-class heritage area and the heart and core of our city. commercial street is the original commercial strip of the gold rush. this is where a good number of san francisco as pioneers would have disembarked upon arrival here at the time of the gold rush. this property has an appearance which existed before pre chinatown -- that existed before chinatown. there is the problem of serial permitting. there is absolutely no objection on my