mr. buscovich said was the big problem, having to he to ex this building is not a fire trap because mr. gall said that himself in front of the building inspection commission, it's in our brief. i fully support what zoning administrator sanchez said about because the law is currently is at, this permit cannot be issued, you should not abuse it. however if you feel you should find an abuse of discretion in his release letter, i will give you a way to do that. originally it said to investigate compliance with prop m, specifically planning code section 320k as to whether the office use had lapsed. mr. sanchez's letter did not address that, it didn't address any compliance with prop k, it simply ignored the issue. and that is a classic example of an abuse of discretion. when an abuse is presented to the decider and the decider simply ignores it, they are abusing their discretion by not investigating that, especially when it was the basis for the initial request so this matter should be referred back to mr. sanchez if you want to find an abuse of discretion to have him determine whether prop

mr. buscovich. when did you start to perform the work for this property again? >> 2008. >> in 2008. so you made the owners aware that it was not habitable at that time? >> i told them i could not legalize this building, yeah. couldn't figure out a way to legalize it, probably around 2010. >> so they knew at that time that they had an illegal usage building? >> i would assume so. >> okay. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the appeal before you is an appeal of a release of suspension for the subject prompt. i'm here to ask you to grant the appeal and maintain the suspension of the permit. briefly, there is a long history, i will only touch on a portion of that tonight, the permit that is at question was issued in august of 2013, was not routed to the planning department for review, had benefit to analyze the project appropriately. concerns were raised to our department so we suspended this permit in october of 2013. that decision was appealed to this board. however, the apellant, the permit holder, withdrew their appeal. therefore that decision became f

mr. buscovich mentioned he had tried at dbi to get the residential use in the building. i'm not sure when that happened, i believe we met in 2008, i saw the permit that was withdrawn at that time. it didn't look like it had been reviewed by plan check, it looked like it had just been brought in and maybe it was going around for a while but it was certainly withdrawn for some reason. i don't have any evidence of any preapplication meetings during that time. what i do know is after speaking to mr. ma today is that there had been meetings at dbi in mid-december, 2013, regarding the possibility of creating live-work occupancy in this building. the department had asked the building reps, owners, whoever was at the meeting, to apply for a formal pre-application meeting with dbi that process involves, you can involve people from other departments, you can have fire department, mechanical, structural building, it's a good process. that process has not been followed up on. that's what i'm being told, that is still outstanding. there is a path to legalization for live-works in thi