Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  February 15, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PST

6:00 pm
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
6:01 pm
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
6:02 pm
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
6:03 pm
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,
6:04 pm
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
6:05 pm
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.
6:06 pm
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
6:07 pm
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
6:08 pm
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
6:09 pm
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
6:10 pm
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.
6:11 pm
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.
6:12 pm
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.
6:13 pm
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
6:14 pm
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.
6:15 pm
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
6:16 pm
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 --
6:17 pm
>> 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 propty 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?
6:18 pm
>> 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
6:19 pm
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.
6:20 pm
>> 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
6:21 pm
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
6:22 pm
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
6:23 pm
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
6:24 pm
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.
6:25 pm
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
6:26 pm
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.
6:27 pm
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
6:28 pm
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
6:29 pm
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
6:30 pm
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
6:31 pm
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
6:32 pm
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
6:33 pm
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
6:34 pm
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
6:35 pm
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
6:36 pm
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
6:37 pm
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
6:38 pm
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 it would take to have the historic loss for this building, but the building as it existed in 2008-2009, was found to be historic, what removed of the building. you could have changes to a building in 2008-2009. just because changes have been made doesn't mean a building loses its historic rating. >> president fung: no, agreed, but we have not seen anything related to that survey.
6:39 pm
you know? in other words, the question is what did they find in that survey, and does it compare to, then, the 76 survey? >> also, our argument isn't just the loss of the historic resource that was achieved. it's that they exceeded the scope of the permit. >> commissioner honda: we definitely understand that, but a lot of this is in regard to the facade and you know, to me -- and i'm not a historic preservationist. if you cover everything up with cement, that iffacade is not functional. that's a question. i would have liked to see how that compared to the previous -- how they got to that point. >> president fung: it's simple enough just to show us what they had there for that
6:40 pm
building in the mission survey versus the 76 survey. >> i should be able to pull that up in rebuttal. >> commissioner honda: okay. >> vice president swig: so i need some education, please. on the subject of a historic resource, you understand. it was 1935, or 1912 or whenever it was built. what is the -- if i was to buy a building in 1912, adjusted in 1935, designate it a historic resource, what standard am i supposed to pay attention to if i want to change the building? do i have to go back to the 1912 original, or do i go back
6:41 pm
to 1935? you said in your presentation, 1912 historical, but what is -- >> it's my understanding you can seek to restore to its very original condition, and that's something that preservation can investigate, but at the very least, you preserve the facade of the building that it existed in the 1930's, that you could be exist -- would be existing at least that portion of the property. >> what if we made the same thing on another item, and we said okay, we approve a demoliti demolition permit contingent on the demolition of a plan?
6:42 pm
what is the shelf life on that -- on that motion that we might approve? >> i think there would be two issues if there had been a permit issued for the demolition, which it was my understanding there was no permit issued for the demolition. >> vice president swig: no, take it at your face value, which i believe you said a permit was made, demolition was approved with a new plan submitted and approved to rebuild the structure. with something like that, what is the shelf life on that? when does it become a moot point? >> permits have expiration dates. so one has a permit expired. two, was there an entitlement have the planning department? if you have a variance,
6:43 pm
conditional use authorization, you're required to obtain a permit in three years. whether or not there's a valid ceqa determination, and that could change based upon new information. certainly, there's no ceqa determination from the early 1990's when the planning commission and the board of appeals heard those permits to today that would remain valid given all the change taz have happened in that time. >> vice president swig: and given the fact that three years have certainly passed since that motion was made and approved. we can throw that over board. >> i believe so. >> vice president swig: okay. final question. do you believe this is something with eyes wide open, if she got caught, you take the action and beg for forgiveness
6:44 pm
earlier? we have seen on a few occasions where somebody has taken action to demosomething and go oh, i'm sorry, and then beg for forgiveness and then has taken action as we deem appropriate. is this where they destroy the if a sudden and all the options that you represented and now they're begging for forgiveness on that subject? >> well, a couple things i would look at that. is it someone with a known pattern of this history of activity? we have seen certain people or entities that have committed these types of issues over and over again. i can't say that that's been the case for the current property owner as i am aware. that said, the current property owner does own multiple properties. they are someone who should be knowledgeable about the city's processes, and i think that
6:45 pm
they have responsibility for knowing those processes. and what raises a concern to me is the lack of action on the building. putting holes in it, not weather eyesizi weatherizing it. that said, the interactions that we've had with the property owner. they acknowledged that they exceeded the scope they're not lying about that. in their brief, they're clear that there's a violation of the scope. they're willing to come back and try and restore the facade, and we appreciate those efforts. our opinion is they've lost the ability to go back to that permit, given the exceedance of the scope and they need to go back through the process again, so their actions to resolve it
6:46 pm
don't meet the point that we think they need to be with compliance. >> vice president swig: so this this negligence, carelessness or just gross ineptitude by somebody who should know better, and therefore, your point of view is regardless of how you characterize it, we've got to start this all over again, and we need to go back and do it right, folks. we've got a project, there's been mistakes, asking to wipe the slate clean and start again. is that what you're asking? >> i think that's correct. >> vice president swig: okay. thank you. >> commissioner honda: one last question.
6:47 pm
on brotherhood way. we had a project that had gone on for years and years and years, and in that case, we found that lack of action on a permit for three years is declared a pause. >> i can't accurately make that as a comparison, but what i can say is they've exceeded the scope of the authorization here. what was listed is not what they've done. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy, do you have anything to add? okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay. if there's public comment, how many people -- if you could lineup against the wall, and make sure you give a speaker card to gary. okay, and given the volume of the public comment, public comment will be limited to two minutes per speaker.
6:48 pm
>> commissioner honda: first speaker, please, come forward. >> larissa petrucelli with united to save the mission. in the appellant's appeal letter she feels she's being punished for being a wealthy landowner, but it seems that she is in denial that she is not above the sur view of the codes and regulations and standard practices that define our planning and building codes. there was ample time before they even started this project for -- i mean, it's been years and years and years. there was ample time for architects and engineers to survey the site and to prepare and for them to say that some
6:49 pm
of these things just came up, and they had no idea, and they needed to immediately demolish it for safety is really egregious. and we have processes in our planning code that allow for discovery. you know, there are processes that are well established. i'm actually in the industry, and if you discover something that was unexpected, you show an inspector, you present it to planning, and you go through the process, and both the department of building inspection and s.f. planning work with you on these processes. she has stated that she doesn't think this building is
6:50 pm
historical, but it would have been defined under ceqa. it would have gone through historical planning, had a hearing if need be. there is a process, and it's the belief of this community that they knew what the process was, and they chose not to follow the process because they knew that they might not be able to tear down this resource, and we'd like to see it restored if they come back with another project. >> clerk: thank you. your time's up. next speaker, please. >> good evening, everyone. my name's vickie castro. i'm artist, active and home grown in the mission. born and raised in the mission. and live and work there still, still trying to hang on and hopefully i'll be blessed enough to take my last breath in the mission. many of us who grew up in the
6:51 pm
mission seeing a latino is a main character in the mission. seeing a latino is a main character in the story of our life. it was beautiful, a beautiful facade. it was kind of like next to the new mission, were beautiful earnings that was on the face of the mission. that marquis holds personal significance. it does tell a lot of the story telling of the people who live there. it is a place mark for the history of the mission; and it should have been conserved. it should not have been touched. for me, it was an act of violence against the community. when you take away result cal legacy from us -- cultural legacy from us, that's cultural
6:52 pm
erasure. i'm still up set that i walk by this building and i see that it's not kept, and it should have been kept. at the end of the day, the removal of the sign is critically important to us. it is part of the historical legacy of the community. today, i think the decision to reaffirm the revocation is siding with community. we shouldn't -- as we see in this time of gentrification and displacement, a lot of decisions are going in favor of those who have the building and the money. we're just looking for
6:53 pm
community equality and respect, and i think that you should acknowledge that. >> clerk: okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is alicia sandoval, and i work with housing right committee and united save the mission. i was born and raised in san francisco in the mission district. as a native, i have witnessed a lot of the changes, gentrificati gentrification that happened in my community. you grew up in a beautiful community, and then one day, everything that you knew as a child is gone, vanished, theaters, restaurants, community centers, mentors, gone. our culture is gone, our history is gone, our childhood memories with gone. i grew up near 21st and mission, and my parents still reside there. my community was a safe haven. i could walk to a nearby theater. growing up, i attended all the theaters. i felt like i blimnked, and thy were all gone. i have memories growing up to
6:54 pm
cine latino. it wasn't only a theater to me, it was a community space for families. so many memories. i remember going to see latino with my dad to watch spanish movies. i remember watching one specific. that.
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
they'll try to make it affordable, try to point little things at us, but the fact it they -- is they weren't allowed to do that under the law, and we in san francisco do not want this project to go forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you so much for listening to me today. my name is arturo mendez, and i have been working with commission cultural -- with mission cultural center for a couple of years. hearing so much of the emotions in this room, i really worry that the historical culture and character of our community is being lost. but not only that, i think that we as a community, we are not
6:58 pm
closed. we are willing to be open and talk to the people coming to the commission. we just need these people to come with an open heart and awareness of all the changes and to talk to our community and listen to bha thwhat they o say. this is proof that the people that own the building are not willing to follow the guidelines, and it's a shame that we have to be here, think -- because there's many, many people that want to hear that. i think we need to come into communication and really develop something together or give space to someone who's willing to interact with the
6:59 pm
community, who's willing to care, and who's willing to interact with the mission district. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening again, board members. we're here again, protecting our neighborhood, obviously. i'm here to support the planning department's revocation of these permits. unfortunately, the reputation of the cort family does precede them. this is a continuation of action this community has been seeing over 20 years. let's call it what it really is, systemic cultural erasure to financially benefit themtss. this subject is the benefit of multiple manipulations to circumvent the law and benefit their own financial gains. i've been in the architectural business for over 25 years, and facade retention is a standard practice, especially today. there's ample technical practices to achieve this, no
7:00 pm
matter what condition or the facade is in. i new of numerous masonry complex brick restorations all of which have been executed very well. if there were problems maintaining the structure, they should have asked for guidance from the city. that is the law. the 2016 permit applications did not know they had already knocked down the facade. in 2001, the planning department actually denied the request for a gym, a very upscale-type business that the mission really doesn't need. however, the board of appeals in 2002, it was overturned, but that vote did not authorize the destruction of the theater facade. it's completely unauthorized and illegal. i just found out that