>> this will be dragged to a director's meeting. >> the permit holder could actually withdraw this. it sounds to meet that the permit holder doesn't even like the permit. >> we can understand the scope of this permit. >> the permit holder could withdraw the permit and pull a different one.

>> this has to do with the framing over the property? >> i think that this has to do with the fact that to the window is there. this is the only window that is different from anything else we can see in the pictures. the trim looks like it is rotten. this extends over the property line.

>> any kind of fixed window that could not be opened and we have the encroachment on the property line, would that be satisfactory? >> yes. this says to legalize the windows.

>> any content that you plan on it -- tint that you put on it is

to prevent people from looking in. >> this has to be fixed. this is too complicated to make it comparable. i will make a motion and to a certain degree i would rely upon what was stated by the council. i move that the appeal be denied.

i have to except the appeal and modified on the condition that the permit is modified and a one hour fix window assembly was opaque and this was the class that would be installed. >> the assembly was translucent. >> or opaque glass. >> i think if we add some language to comply with this,

that what kind of wrapped everything up. >> this would have to be to protect their future rights. you can add the language for it to be opaque or gas. >> are you ready to call the role? >> to restate the motion to grant the appeal but the permit is upheld, the scope is modified to include a one hour not operable with the with translucent or opaque glass.

>> we are setting their appeal that the permit be revised and that the new assembling conforms to the administrative bulletin with a translucent or opaque fire-rated class.

>> isn't this transparent? >> with glass that you cannot see through. >> that is pretty scientific. >> do you want to respond to my motion? >> i'm wondering why a -- is consulted on the motion when he is representing. >> they are existing translucent and based on his knees for his client. >> as many people have

indicated, we are not perfect. >> need your mind. i find this somewhat inappropriate. >> we're back to the old. >> we're back to class you cannot see through. >> the motion, before it gets voted on, we have to hear from -- >> i am being in tune to. >> we are only expecting

comments on the motion, nothing having to do with the merits of this case any longer. thank you. >> the motion is for granting the appeal and the permit is being upheld with a new when dell assembly and with fire- rated class the cannot see through. on the motion -- the >> to clarify, granting the of feel modifying and this requires four votes. >> correct. >> on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye.

>> no. sfgov.org aye. >> aye. >> i am unhappy with the issue. given that things have to be worked with, this is something that i would support but nonetheless, i think that the complaint and the source of liro -- why we are talking about this, this is what it appears to

be. that is san francisco. >> if we did not have to do something about the window, i would agree with this. >> aye. >> the permit is upheld with the modified scope. >> shall we take a short break?

>> we will take our last item, item number 11. >> calling on a love and -- calling item number 11, jasonb ley verses the zoning and administrator. this is processing a request of release of suspension addressed to the department of building inspection director which requests that suspension be released because of the property is now compliance and analysis special restrictions.

>> i have a suspicion that we might end up hearing a lot of issues and they want to stay focused on the fact that the question is whether or not this is a good project. whether this is a good or bad project, it can be determined if and when the developer or property owner decides to apply for a new conditional use program.

>> i agree with the appellant, this is about the merits -- not about the merits. the appellant has talking -- is talking about a conditional use. this is the release of a suspension request. the original letter was issued in december of 2009. we have worked with the sponsor to address all of the issues.

they have demonstrated that they have deep preservation. they have that architect from board. they have dealt with these issues that they have identified. we need to talk at the project history and we will develop on this further and provide more details.

the letter was not issued until february 12th of 2007. the planning department of prove to the building permit application and the building permits issued to the project engine. throughout this process, there were never any appeals filed by this project. this is not really about the merits of but project.

we have three years to to contain the use, this is the sony in the traders to apply reasonable standards. the conditions of approval or three years. there were several delays and they were reasonable. the various decision letters have a three-year window. the ballot was on the letter. this was recorded in a reasonable fashion.

the other issues that delayed the project only delay it for the benefit of the project. there will be building code changes that went into effect. there are questions about how they can preserve the brick and work those issues out. also the wood floors and keeping those. the project was delayed, this was for the good of the project. it is reasonable to say that this is valid. this was never revoked. the zoning has not changed. this project can still be approved. if a conditional use forward to have expired, they would have to simply go by to the planning

commission and have another hearing and to modify the previous condition of approval. there is an expensive process. that would take some time. there is a reasonable argument that a still timely. the suspension request was issued and they addressed the concerns. we have seen the suspension, that is what this is about. the concerns that were raised have been addressed. i am available for any questions. >> under normal circumstances, would there be some formal extension to of course if ãsome project sponsors will request a letter of

determination which would be the formal extension. not all may request that. while we were reviewing this, in 2008, when we had approved this and when we issue to the suspension request, we felt that this had complied with the conditions of approval in terms of the expiration. >> the thing that confused me the most had to do with the fact that the motion, it seems strange that it would have been issued beyond the date that it would have expired. >> there was not an issue in

some until 2007. there was a reasonable argument about the various decisions letter. this is clearly within the three years. in general, the only with this can be extended is through a formal request to the zoning administrator. the staff and the summit is administrator never viewed the applications. in this case, this took place in the form of an internal review.

>> often people will request a letter to certify that they have the ability to extend it and there's the ability to refresh the cu. >> what about the suspension? >> this was in december 31st, 2009. during that time, they testified to the committee to liaison which worked with the department on other issues and even revised plans engine. >> is this safe to say giving your position today that had a request been expressly requested, and you would as the

zoning administrator would of had the discretion to determine whether or not such a discretion would be considered reasonable. that would of been your determination. implicitly to your positions today, that is what you would have done? >> that would have been supportable considering that the issue was not until early 2007. >> the project is not fully entitled until all of the relevant parts have been obtained. the in garments the review is

granted in 2004. the shadows study is required for buildings over 40 feet in height. >> what year was that? >> this was earlier on when the application came in. if we find there is no impact, it does not really progressed beyond that stage. then the conditional use was approved in 2005. >> why doesn't the o'clock start as of the approval? >> we are making a reasonable interpretation that this is still valid because the letter was issued to about two years after the original

authorization. there is discretion in interpreting conditions of approval. based on the history of the project, based on the delays that have occurred through a change in the building code, working with the design on the department. this resulted in delays. the various was not issued until 2007. they could not have gotten it issued in 2006. the decision letter was not issued. the earliest that it could have conceivably, in their building permit approve would have been early 2007. >> do they have the building permit approved now? >> yes. >> this was issued more than a

year ago. had it been appealed, it would not have been able to come to the sport because of the underlying conditional use. >> where is it written that this sounded minister can extend the time? >> this is in the journal of duties and responsibilities that allows is on him a traitor to interpret the planning. then the conditions of approval dollars damage. this would also have the three- year exploration but also a second paragraph after it that would explicitly give approval.

there is an argument whether this is valid when this is not been revoked. this is not been taken away from the private sponsor, this is a factor the condition of approval. we have generally been instructed that this would need to go through a planning commission hearing. >> why would you need to revoke this is it as a clear expiration date? >> this has been the advice from our city attorney's office that that language is there and we can try our best to reinforce that but there is a reasonable argument that you have to go back to the planning commission. this is based on past his vice

that we have from the city attorney's office. we would not say that this is completely expired and we need to start from all over but we would probably say that you need to go back and amend that one condition. >> why wouldn't you require that? >> because we believe that this means the intent of the condition of approval and this is within a timely fashion. >> it was the planning commission and the notice of the special restriction and the paragraph that says that this expires in three years. the planning commission usually includes another paragraph that gives you expression to extend it to