window, but you say there's four in the back rear area? >> well, the photos correctly show i think what is there now. but on the plans the appellant had submitted in 2017, they did not show a property window, and they had actually shown two windows. >> commissioner honda: just for curiosity, would that suffice for light and air, do you think. >> that would be up to building inspection. this would meet the building code requirements. >> commissioner honda: thank

you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy, we'll now hear from d.b.i. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit under appeal was reviewed by building d.b.i. and d.p.w. and planning, as you heard, so i don't see any issues with that property. the property line window, every week, we talk about it, mr. is n n n not -- mr. sanchez just said. that window wouldn't have any standing because of the work that's getting done, like, next door. i've said that here before. i don't think the construction is going anywhere near. window. it's quite a way away.

we got a complaint at the end of last year for this window. it might be since they started construction, it might have been put in, but i don't think it was put in recently. but i -- you know, it's probably better just to leave it alone, and they keep their window, but it shouldn't hold up the project for these people. i'm available for my questions. >> commissioner honda: same questions, inspector duffy. does it affect the light and air and liveability of that room? skbl i don't think so. someone said there's two windows in that room. >> commissioner honda: and last question, if it's that close to the property line, does it need to be fire rated. >> if it was put in today, yes. but a lot of them, it could be put in at the start of it years ago.

if it was put in recently, yes, it should be fire rated, but the age of construction, we determined whether -- >> commissioner honda: so it doesn't have to be upgraded at that point? >> it's a case-by-case basis, commissioner honda. if you change the size of the window. ab 009 would kick in possibly. >> commissioner honda: okay. cl >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. duffy. is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal, so miss to has six months to provide a rebuttal to the board.

>> i'm not really sure what the idea is. >>. [through the interpreter] and my issue is, if you allow the permit, what am i going to do with a hole in the wall? now i'm going to spend money to patch the window, i need to spend money to explain to the tenant. what am i going to do with all the expenses? i'm not sure what to do. i'm a veteran, i don't have a

lot of money. what if my tenant gets upset? i have to consider all of that. he can't say i'm a liar because i didn't standup and raise my hand. i was focused on my documents. i have a picture. there's a pipe.

so rk woulder told me the pi - the pipe originally wasn't there, and it wasn't there originally, but now, it's there. the pipe was stuck, it was attached to the wall, my wall. well, he didn't ask me about it. he didn't ask for permission for doing this. now, the pipeline on this is stuck because appeal now, the pipe is unstuck.

but he -- when it was on my wall, he didn't ask me. what do you want me to say? am i responsible for all of this? when i bought it, it was a window. now, it's a hole. what am i going to do with it? now i need to patch up the hole. it's my responsibility, it's a lot of money. i'm not a liar. there's no need for me to lie.

my girlfriend was trying to deliver -- >> interpreter needs to clarify. >>. [through the interpreter] my girlfriend tried to deliver papers on december 17. it was really rainy, really windy, really cold. it was the worst weather in san francisco in 11 years, and she went to the door, he wouldn't answer the door. he was walking around inside.

i told my girlfriend to just call him because i told her that you're a woman, so he might thought that you were a man and there was danger to him, and since you're a woman, you can just call him, and he was just walking around the house. and fortunately, my girlfriend was able to squeeze the letter in under the door to the house. and now he's asking me to go to mike and ask him what the plan is. and today, i called mike, and mike was telling me that you only want money.

mike said you better not appear in front of the board. >> clerk: okay. thank you. you can be seated. thank you. okay. we will now hear from mr. raveschneider. >> okay. thank you. i'll be very brief. i haven't seen that picture before about the pipe. i have no idea what that is. it's certainly not part of the appeal. with respect to the tenants, i saw one of the tenants on my way here. she's a very nice person, she didn't say anything to me about the appeal or the window or anything. there's been no documentation or testimony from any of the tenants about that window. in fact, that little window in the back, mr. honda, you said something about four windows. i was talking about a totally different hearing that i -- i just watched on-line where there were four windows. >> commissioner honda: no, i know which hearing you're

speaking -- or references. >> okay. so i don't know that the tenants care. when i look out at that window, it's always closed, always. the only exception is this evening, it was open when i looked out. oh, miss to said she's going to lose the window. i don't think anybody said anything about her losing the window. i think the building department said it was okay, and the planning department said it was okay. so i don't know where she gets that. the business about my door, the agreement was she was supposed to have papers delivered to my office at union square, and instead of doing that, she had somebody go to my house, and of course i'm not going to answer the door at 7:30 at night. so if there's any questions, i'll be happy to try and answer them. no? thank you so much. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm sorry. there's no further comment. mr. sanchez?

okay. >> commissioner honda: are you relinquishing your time? >> like to speak for planning -- no, i don't. >> commissioner honda: no, i don't. >> just if i could have the overhead. so this was in the brief, and i think this clarifies everything, and what the gentleman just said here, there's no one here telling the appellant they're going to lose the window. that's the window there, and there's no new construction going against it. even if there was, like, that's worse, so best case scenario, that window stays. the permit holder said he doesn't care about it, so i'm not sure what this is all about. she's -- the lady explained about a hole in the wall.

i don't get that part. i'm not sure. there's photos in the brief of a window -- is it a legal window? probably not, but as i said earlier, if it was existing at the time of construction, you just -- it's -- it's there, and it's not impacting this construction, and the people that are going to do the construction are okay with it, so that's it. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president fung: commissioners? >> commissioner lazarus: barring any discussion, i would move to deny the appel and uphold the permit -- appeal and uphold the permit on the issue it was properly appealed. >> president fung: actually, i'm not sure what the issue was. when i looked at it, the window stays. so there's no more comment, ma'am. would you make a motion?

>> commissioner honda: yep, that was the motion, i think. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner left side arecess on the basis the -- lazarus on the motion the permit was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. the motion passed. on that pel, t-- appeal, the appeal is denied and the permit is issued. okay. next item is -- [agenda item read]. >> clerk: and we'll hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> okay.

my name is kathleen tracey. i've lived at 2445 turrey street for 16 years. this approved permit was submitted by appellee, my neighbors at 2345 turrey street. they were asked to legalize, modify or remove unpermitted windows. when i saw that their permit to correct the notice of violation was approved, i went to record management to view the submitted plan and permit. i became concerned they were circumventing the system again and legalizing windows. the architectural drawings were showing that they were lying about the lot line windows. i ask that the suspended permit

be modified, that it include all lot line windows adjoining my property, not just the above referenced two. there are a total of six windows. all of these windows need to go through the process of legalization, modify or removal. currently none of these comply with fire safety and most importantly pose a fire hazard to my property and my family. the fact is all six lot line windows should have gone through the permitting process back in march, when my neighbor received their first notice of violation for unpermitted windows. this was a notice of violation that they received. i'm just, like, surmising it -- and this was march 16. windows replaced at rear facade and north elevation are to exceed the scope of permit, blah, blah, and blah, blah. there are a total of 19 windows

replaced. corrective action: obtain building permit with proper approvals for all windows replaced. so then, my neighbors -- oh, and i want to just show you the windows. so they talk about the rear facade of the 19 windows. this is the rear facade. these windows are also the rear facade, but these are the lot line windows, so there's four right there. these are also lot line windows, but these are part of the north elevation that was on the permit, and then, these are also the north elevation windows, and these are visible from the street. couple days later, my neighbor files a permit to comply with the notice of violation. this is what they filed. it says, to comply with notice

of violation, you factor .32 max, approval previously installed fiberglass windows on rear of building, work completed, not visible from street. this ignores all 19 windows that were cited. most importantly, the six lot line windows that represent a danger to my home and my family. i want to show you why i'm so concerned about these lot line windows. so this is a survey -- did i not do it right? i'm sorry. this is a survey we had done on our house in march of 2017.

so first, just looking at the picture, this is hi house. this part with the red arrow is 1.25 inch on my property. this blue arrow, this second part, is .625 inch on my property. so with regard to lot line windows, it applies to all -- current code applies to all new windows. all of these windows are within zero to 3 feet of my house. they are not permitted. four of the windows are on my property, two of the windows

are within 12 inches of my property lines. these windows are not to building code. i also want to call attention to what i believe is the most hazardous of these lot line windows. this windows is operable. they keep the window ajar. it is not fixed with fire rated glass, it does not have sprinklers. i cannot find anything that says electric to code. it serves no purpose other than to look into my house. this is a reckless endangerment on my house. my neighbors keep avoiding the permit process to ensure that windows are per the building code. while i agree with the original and current n.o.v., it is the six lot line windows that tern me the most. to ensure the fire safety of my home and family, i am asking the appeal board to modify the

permit and include all six lot line windows, so that these windows can go through the process of legalize, modify or removal. and if i have a few more minutes, i just want to kind of talk about the rebuttal that i received from the attorney and just briefly touch on this. one of the comments they made on this, of which 16 were installed, many with issued permits by owners of the property. they -- they didn't include the permits. i pulled an r-3 report. there were no permits that were pulled for previous installed windows. >> president fung: you'll have three minutes of rebuttal following this. >> okay, yeah, i'll just do it then. >> commissioner honda: you

indicated you lived there for 19 years. you didn't have a problem with them for the last 18? >> no. >> commissioner honda: and were they different neighbors? >> oh, they're different neighbors. i want to point out that the window i find the most hazardous, my neighbor never used that part of that house. those two rooms are not insulated. it was shut off, there was a curtain, i never saw that window. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> my name is alice walker, representing mr. bromaci. what you see is the window that

was permitted prior to the windows before you, the 19 windows she talked about. when they purchase this home, all the window except for these two window were already in the building. they took our permit when she complained to legalize all 19 windows. let me say 17 windows. i take it those two are fine. those permits were issued lawfully. she did not appeal the permit. now she's trying to bring all the windows into this permit, and this appeal, which is two windows. those two window, we will acknowledge that one of them was existing. they had enlarged it, and then,

they put a new one above it. the issue before you is whether this was approved by the department of building inspection or whether they should be fire rated. because of the fact that the window is not absolutely perpendicular, 90° to the property line, the question is whether it should have been fire rated windows. my client is perfectly agreeable to replace those windows with fire rates window if that is what the code require. i would just mention that in the past, the planning code have a provision -- i mean, not the planning code, i'm sorry. the building code had a prifg that if the property line is at angle or maybe it's less than

that, that the window can be perpendicular -- will be treated as perpendicular, but in the new building code, th that's gone. i cannot find it. so we will do whatever the building code ask us to do. if not, we would ask the board to issue a condition of approval that the windows be put in -- that they should be fire rated. but all the other windows that she talked about is not before this board. in fact, they were lawfully approved, legalized, and she did not appeal it. >> president fung: counselor, are you finished? >> thank you. >> president fung: are you finished? >> yes. >> president fung: what is your response to the survey that the

wall these windows are in are over the property line? >> first of all, on the survey, we going to be doing that, and on -- this building was built in 1930, and all the property line windows were put in way before, and they were -- some of those windows actually have permitted, and as this board know, in san francisco, when a building is built in the 1930's or before, even in the 50's, sometimes, they do encroach on the property line. we will have to go and do a survey, and if there is an encroachment, i don't think that it's the proper subject matter for this board to determine that it's something to be removed, that it's

something we can talk to them about, some kind of -- that is something that should be addressed by the court if they wanted it removed. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. nothing? thank you. okay. we'll hear from the department of building inspection. request. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. probably be better if i used the overhead again just to have the drying on the overhead. >> commissioner honda: i like paper. >> i printed it today off our paper version. as you can see, it is a very odd-shaped property line, and i just marked up the windows in

question are on here, which is not on the property line, but perpendicular to it. and just real elevation, you've got an existing window here, and then, we've got -- this one's enlarged, and then, we have a new window above it. now, it's actually a very good code question because you could test a lot of inspectors on this one. i do believe from my toerp interpretation on the code that i believe it should be under ab 009, which i haven't talked about in five minutes. they probably should have been 45 minute ab rated windows. and follow the code. it's -- and i ran that by

another colleague at d.b.i. and i'm just getting his opinion on this. we didn't get this approved on this permit. we did it as regular windows. i think the young plan checker just missed it, but you know, they definitely should be 45-minute rear windows. the other windows that the appellant is referring to, in my opinion -- let's move it up a bit -- over in this part of the building, and there's one set back over here. well, they seem to be far enough away from property line that they don't need to be fire rated based on these plans and elevations. they're not part of this appeal. there was a permit issued by d.b.i. and completed. there was 16 windows, as you

heard. the planning department don't have much of a say on the approve. d.b.i., whereas you can put in what sort of windows are historic. at the back of the building, we allow vinyl windows that are not on the property line and just at rear elevation. i think that's all. if you have any questions, i'm happy to address this. >> commissioner honda: i have one. we just had this particular case recently where there's a property line in dispute and there's one survey done. how do you issue a permit if it's encroaching? >> the survey, we didn't get a survey on this. there's no survey there, but that's a civil matter. we refer those to the courts, to honest with you. >> president fung: i think his question is can the department issue a permit for one property

when it straddles another property. isn't that your question? >> commissioner honda: i believe so. and i believe you answered it -- >> yeah. if we got a survey, we could present it to the permit holder and say we're in receipt of a licensed survey, and go speak to them, get this figured out. there are ways to do that. and if the -- they don't agree on that, there's a possibility that the windows would have to come out. we refer disputes that are down to a matter of inches to the courts. >> president fung: understood, and we've seen them, too. >> we don't get into that side of it unless we have to. >> president fung: i didn't understand the question about perpendicular to the property

line. did you understand that? >> if anything's 90° to the property line, they don't require it to be fire rated, but once you start getting angles, you're getting into that. we used to -- the code used to address that. now, it's a little bit different. it's interpretive. you've just got to look at each one, but 90°, the property line, the code definitely does not require that. if that window -- if that was a straight property line going straight down, like -- if the property line was going down on a straight line there, just continuing that way, everything on the -- looking at those -- these two windows definitely wouldn't be a problem. >> president fung: but what is the difference between when

that line was straight -- isn't it the distance? >> yeah. and i think these are less than 3 feet. >> president fung: even if it was a straight line, property line less than 3 feet. >> you'd be okay. that's the way the code's written. i know. i've challenged that, too, but it's the way the code's written. it's tested, jumping over property lines. we're going to go into the property line consulting business. we've got a lot of them. okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. we'll move onto rebuttal. miss tracy. >> so they talk about the windows being permitted, like, when the first 19 windows

were -- the notice of violation was issued for the 19 windows. there are no permits correcting those windows. there are six lot line windows. there is no permit correcting that. they say that my neighbor received permits. i pulled the r-3. she did not pull any permits. those are new windows that are installed. they are subject to code. there is a window that is on my property line that is open, and there's no protection. it's not permitted. they talk about a 90° degree angle. i had a structural engineer look at it. it's a 10° angle that they are. yeah, i guess show me prove that there's permits, that these windows have been legalized. i can't find it. i've looked everywhere, and i have to believe that there is a hazard having a window open on

my property. it's within zero to 3 feet it's -- to the table. i don't know -- yeah, and the property line that they showed in that drawing is not accurate. if you pulled the s.f. property information map, you can see that there's a big chunk that is extended past their -- of their building that is extended past the property line. so i respectfully disagree. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> in the letter and the brief that was submitted by the appellant, all you will see photographs of all the windows

that she complained about. those photographs was from. those photographs were put when the house was being sold at the time before my client had purchased it. so a lot of those window have been around for long time. they are lot of grandfather property line window in san francisco, and these are -- her complaint started when my client received a permit to use the side yard for parking, and she didn't like that, and that's how this whole complaint, one after another, started. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. anything further, mr. duffy?

we're getting our money worth. >> obtain a permit for previously installed fiberglass windows on the rear of the building, work completed, not visible from the street. that was issued on 3-20-2018 and signed off on 7-11-2018. these are nothing to do with the windows that are under appeal. we then -- on 16 november, 2018, filed a complaint, a complaint has been filed. no building permit for this work. corrective action, filed a

building permit action to comply or remove windows. that then was the permit that they came in for the two windows. while i respect the appellant, she needs to bring this up with d.b.i. complaints. we've issued two n.o.v.s now, and i thought we covered all the windows, but if she's got an issue with windows other than previously issued n.o.v.s, she needs to bring it up with our people so it can get resolved. but this permit tonight is for these two windows. and the only thing i can say is they should be 45-minute rated windows

windows. >> president fung: do you recall what we did on the previous windows where it was alleged based on the survey that the neighbor's wall was over the property line, and therefore these windows there were there would have required the adjacent neighbor's permit to be installed with the permit. we continued it to see if they could -- >> i was at the property last friday. this is a little different because permission is not sought or needed here because the appellant doesn't have an opening within 6 feet of the property line windows. smart, there's a yard there, i think. i saw a photograph of a fence. >> commissioner honda: no, it would be different because those windows were side by side. those windows were potentially

on her property. >> the neighbor has an open within 6 feet, they have to have something to allow it. that was the property on beaumont. it's number six in our administrative bulletin. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president fung: commissioners? >> commissioner honda: well, we've heard most of the property line windows, and it's unfortunate most of the hearing was spent on something that was not before this body. what was before this body were the two windows in the rear and unfortunately not a lot of conversation was directed towards that. as per what the building department indicated, i believe

they should be fire rated. >> commissioner lazarus: would you like me to move or do you want to move that we agree to modify the permit so the quoted windows are fire rated? >> commissioner honda: yes. >> commissioner lazarus: inspector duffy has further ideas? >> i think to comply with ab 009 of the san francisco building code to comply with property line windows. >> clerk: we are going to require drawings? okay. so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require that the two windows at issue in the rear of the building -- i understand it's the new window on the sxd floor, enlargement of the

existing window on the first floor be require rated in compliance with ab 009, and the permit holder needs to submit revised plans to be approved by d.b.i. and the board office. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries. so the permit holder understands, we need revised plans. thank you. okay. we will now move onto item number 10. thank you for your patience. >> commissioner honda: i was just going to say that. >> clerk: i'm going to say it again for the people on item number 11. item number ten is appeal 18-121, vera court versus zoning administrator. protesting the issuance on september 6, 2018 of a revocation permit requesting that building permit flix

numbers 200 # 123492, 20090992422, 20090457 # 4, 2009007053, and 201503191342 being revoked due to the determination by the planning department that the -- [inaudible] >> -- and only allowed for the alteration of the building with retainment of the front facade.

>> good evening, commissioners. i represent vera cort. there are a large number of permit numbers, but it all comes back to the single use permit issued in 2001, and that was a site permit to renovate this building and have use approved for the renovation. so at that time, and prior to that, this building was a wreck. it was in shambles, it had been approved for demolition, and demolition, including the entire facade. so when -- but vera cort purchased it, she had a different plan. she had a plan to retain it, and she wanted to keep as much of it intact as possible, and that was part of her plan. and part of the plan, too, was not to keep the entire facade as it was. the original plans included opening up two of the bays for reinstalling the original

windows, and there was no condition in the approval or the plans that said you must retain other elements of this facade. there was conditions on the permit at that time, and it did not include this. the permit conditions were concerned with blight from the current sign and said that you can only use so much of the sign at that time. so -- and a lot of work's been done. there's been a lot of permits. there's a plan with four addendums here. the first three have all been approved, and the fourth was submitted. after a year of waiting for the planning department to review and approve the fourth addendum and working on them with comments, they came and said we want to reevaluate what's happened six years ago. and so what happened six years ago after -- and this is one of

the plans that happened in 200 # will. plans were submit -- in 2008. all three plans were submitted there just like they want to do it today it. in 2012, they found the concrete was unsafe. it was damaged, crumbling. the same that had been discovered in the 90's, in every structural engineer who has looked at this found that this is dangerous concrete, and it can't stay there. the concrete has to be removed. and there would have been no process any which way to have saved this concrete. it would have to be removed, and so it was. and the planning department has suggested without any structural evidence whatsoever,

without anybody with any knowledge, that somebody -- that the failing concrete was vera cort's fault. there's no evidence of that at all. the evidence was this was failing concrete for over 20 years. and so -- and the other key issue here is this is not really a dispute or a challenge to what the front of this building is going to look like. the reason why this permit has been revoked is not to say we want wanted it to look this way and we want it to look at way. they want to stop all the process of figuring out what the building's going to look like and move forward, and they want to go back and undo the use of this project. so this isn't about the face of the project, this is about planning wanting to redecide how the building can be used and to undo the prior approvals. and along with that, and maybe they don't fully appreciate

that, is a tremendous burden in terms of not just the process of getting a use permit changed, but the changes in regulations and laws and things that will be applied to the new permit. and vera cort has relied for years -- and after the additional work was done in putting in sprinkler systems, in putting in new floors, new roof, all being inspected by the department of building inspection with the front of the building off, approving these things as they went along. and millions of dollars have been put into the building. and now planning wanted to him this out from under here, and -- her, and it's not fair, and not under the law. to go through some of the things that are under the brief, we have a vested permit here, where a permit has been

approved, there's been substanti substantial reliance on it for years and years. it was taken away without any fair hearing. this wasn't hidden in the basement, it wasn't in the back of the building. it's something that everybody could see. there was articles written about it. if anybody wanted to bring that up and address it, they could have wanted. since that time, vera has relied and put in more money and obtained additional permits and approvals going forward. and this is put in the brief, and planning had no response to it. they just had no response that this is an untimely action. third point is that planning didn't follow their own procedure. the san francisco thoughtfully knows that people are entitled

to a fair process and set out a process for planning to fairly vall evaluate processes where there's a planning preparation. i saw that there's this kitchen sink proposition here that says that i can do appropriate actions. i don't think anybody thinks that other appropriate actions means that they can do whatever they want without regard to the process there. the fourth point is that planning states that there should be new permits, and we agree. there should be a new permit for the work that was done and for the work going forward, but that's a separate issue from deciding to revoke all past permits, permits for sprinklers, permits for anything else that they want. so it's not an issue of whether it should be corrective permits, it's not an issue of whether there should be corrective work being done -- >> clerk: you have 30

seconds -- oh, i'm sorry. >> commissioner honda: finish that thought. just go ahead and finish that thought. >> any ways, you know, in conconclusion, i just think -- conclusion, i just think that the scale of penalty involved here for what was done is completely out of whack, and i think the brief sets forth in detail all the reasons why the decision should be reversed. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> president fung: counselor, a question. when i went through the brief, it wasn't totally clear to me. your addendum four, did that include the out-of-scope items? >> yes, i can -- and i can put it up here, a little example, if i can get the overhead. >> clerk: overhead.

>> president fung: okay. so that's the addendum four? >> this is the addendum four proposal. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> thank you. good ee good evening, members of the board, president fung. scott sanchez, planning department. the building was developed in 1912 with approximately an 18,450 square foot movie theater. in 2010, it was identified as a historic location, a historic resource. the subject property does have a very lengthy history going back predominantly until the

1989 earthquake and the effects of that earthquake on the subject property. the claimant has claimed that demoreported were obtained on the building -- demoreports were obtained on the building. they have never obtained the permitted to demolish the subject building. the appellant purchased the property in 1998, according to city records. they came in with this permit application in 2001 to do a change on this property, to go to the planning department. that was denied. it was appealed to this board

of appeals which overturned the scope of denial. at no time was the building ever demolish. this was not to demolish the building or facade, it was to do an adaptive reuse for the building that was going to be a gym operated by touchdown climbing, who was the applicant for the permit. all the environmental review, all the materials provided by the planning commission and board of appeals were specific to that scope. the application can telephone and all -- itself and all of the approvals were based on the fact that the facade was to be retained. there was a significant length of time after the planning commission hearing before work did proceed on the property. i understand that back in

2004-2005, the engineer that was working on the project passed away. permits were set to expire at that time. that was one of the arguments for extending the permit. they did notably commence work in 2009, and that's when they punched large openings on the outside of the building. based on photographs, it doesn't appear that the property owner took steps to maintain or preserve the facade. yes, the status of the building and the building and its kind of propensity for the seismic issues which came about after the 1989 earthquake, that was well known. so i think that the property owner could have taken appropriate steps to preserve the facade, to otherwise preserve or protect the facade of the building. over the years that followed, these openings were added in

2009. according to the appellant between 2009 and 2012, they were made aware of more serious issues that led to an emergency situation. at that time, they should have contacted the building department so determine if there was anything about the if a sudden. we don't have anything direct to say that the owner of the building is directly responsible for the demolition of t of the facade. subsequent to that, as i noted in our brief, the historic preservation commission took action to designate this a historic resource. the designation was in 2010,

the removal of the facade was in 2011-2012. this should have been resulted in additional environmental review. i did speak with staff, when that was submitted, it did not know the demolition of the front facade. yes, it showed how they wanted the facade in the end, but it does not know the change in the project scope. this was submitted in 2016 or '17, aefrl years after they had exceeded the scope of the permit. we did respond to the obviousness, and the permit holder misrepresenting the scope of work in their addenda. we have followed the appropriate processes in planning code 307. it does outline the ability of the zoning administrator to

taken forcement action. this is -- take enforcement action. the suspension remains in effect. we did after subsequent review of the materials and discussion with senior management in the planning department did discuss that the appropriate way of bringing the property into compliance was to revoke the permits and require compliance with the conditional use requirements which requires a conditional use of the demolition of a movie theater. we don't know exactly what their plans are for the property at this point. they may require conditional use authorization or other authorizations for prospective tenants for the subject property. also, they've expressed concerns about the special inspections that have been performed and kind of losing

credit for those? we've discussed that with the department of building inspection and we'll work with them to make sure that they don't have to duplicate unnecessary inspections, that they can get credit for all of the inspections as appropriate, but we do believe that the appropriate process is for them to start over with a new process, to have a public process, community process that needs to occur. so that's all, and i'm available for questions. >> commissioner honda: so i have a question. in the recommendation from historic preservation, in the permit holder's brief, it says in 1935, the facade was filled in with concrete and so how is it still historic if most of

the historic features have been removed? >> historic doesn't require that it be in the original condition. when the evaluation was made, it was based upon the condition of the building, when it was surveyed, in 2008 or 2009. so what they were looking at when they were designating the building was the facade as it existed in 2009. so because there were changed made in the 1930's -- 1930's can be historic. it was still determined to be a historic resource after the the original construction of the building are. >> commissioner honda: when would that trigger it not being historic with the features being removed? >> it would be a question of what kind of changes were made. since it wasn't done to this building, i can't say what i