hundreds of the people that have nurtured my work over the last 12 yearsthe cooking school thatt into the building has been put into the building. we are here to discuss how we properly take care of this that has not been properly taken care of. there are laws that are supposed to be overseeing this project. those continue to be made. it is inappropriate. for further taxpayer monies to be put into this project until a global plan is in place.

there has to be a proper order for things. not to continue to take out a permit after permit. i can show you a few pictures that may interest you. in my brief, i discussed at the entrance to the storefront, number 731 note was an ornate wooden door. that was at a time for tax payers to receive the best.

this store has replaced this. there was some level to copy what was there. it is not recognized in historic preservation. the duplication of effort and funds that could have just as easily been extended well doing this in recognized fashion. that door that was there was perfectly solid and strong. there are ways in which the doorway could have been addressed from a handicap accessibility standpoint should that need to happen. it was not choir -- entirely understandable in what had been written. if that doorway was not in compliance with the conditions of approval. it is now being used as a means to attempt to put further

handicapped facilities into a neighboring store front. all the while, there is nothing that explains how we get over the fact that this store front is pictured here and the store fronts are not level with each other. if they are not level, it is impossible to put a doorway between the two that the plan show. it is important that we zoom back. how do we put mitigation into this project so that the public interest and the preservation is now a singular building? it is overseen properly. there have been millions of

dollars at the fun of this organization and have funded work on this property. it is not too much to ask that a very small amount of money be directed, not from an unforeseen and unplanned time. but as a plan into the project standpoint direction. that that oversight be put in there. i think we will continue to be here with small permits and small permits and small permits. we have better ways to expand our energies. we all agree that this property is special and needs to be taken care of. i will show you other things that are necessary for your understanding. thank you. >> in your brief, you talked about that you to replace the fashion frame and you do not replace the fashion frame in the

insertion. the word not. >> in the plans in some places and it says to replace the fashion frame. in other places, you do not. we have been on the record with this project that if you allow plans to go through that have conflicting information on them, when you have done is set up an opportunity for somebody after the fact to say that it was not clear. it says here that i could do it. it says here that i cannot do it. the plan needs to be reviewed so that but there are not mistakes like that. if that was reviewed properly by somebody qualified to do so, they would say what? why would you do that? it may be discussed as a

mistake. it needs to be corrected. i think it is best if we do not correct them as one little thing. >> would you talk about your attachment? ed looked like a picture of the door. >> i do not have the brief in front of me. thank you. those doors are the historic century doors to storefront number 735. at the time i was attending bear, those doors were in need of much worse -- much work. i spent a significant amount of time and money working on them. they were professionally stripped to get them perfectly down to the so we could -- to the wood so we could see what

needed to be replaced. at that point, it would be found at work would be done with some of the finest and wood craftsman in its efforts as go. they are sound and what has happened in this process is that somebody has written on a plan, replaced broken door with same kind. to replace those doors, thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent to make a perfectly sound. if anything is wrong with them, perhaps they could be dirty or need some adjustment. they are sound. qualified is not a pejorative. qualified people to assess those and to take care of it, they

would say that they are sound. there is no reason to replace them. for unqualified people to replace them, while they may be trying to do the right thing, you are going to end up with more and more of a hodgepodge, such as the door that was replaced there. the door is of inferior quality, though it looks like the original door. it was much heavier and larger and in the front of the plane of the building. it was not recessed back. qualified people need to determine how to put this together. one unqualified people do it, we end up with a standard that is not acceptable. >> where they replaced the door

with the same kind, that is 735. the 731 commercial, that is the one that has already been replaced. >> thank you. >> the original door still read -- still exists. >> i was going to ask that question of the property owner. >> i read your brief twice. it was not that clear to me exactly what you are asking for. but me summarize -- let me summarize it nancy if these are your issues. you showed the door, which you said was flushed. the new door was added under which permit? >> under no permit that i am aware. it is claimed that that was done under a later permit.

i could read you something that this would explain to you. >> there is something written by one of the planners involved in this. it explains that this -- how we came to this. i received a phone call regarding the above address. this is a project receive federal funding and must comply with the federal code regarding

preservation of historical resources. the project was reviewed by myself. we determined that all character defining elements must remain in order to be eligible to the category for -- federal funds ultimately receive for this project. this is on the east end of the ground floor of the facade that was removed. the doorway was recessed 24 inches from the traditional location and replaced with a smaller door. this alteration has been previously disapproved by the board of appeals. the plans that were proof for that section of 106 review the building application. both and my -- both mary and myself signed off on that permit. that is where it gets long.

other permit was only discovered at a time when i was away in a foreign country. one of my supporters alerted me this has happened. i called the planning department and building department. a week or 10 days later, this permit was discovered. this matter has been heard before the population of city of san francisco in the san francisco chronicle in 2003. the resolution was that there would be no further changes to the project to what had been decided as far as the section 106 review. now that i am back on this completely, i looked at this new permit number. if you look at the drawing, it is not clear that this entryway, if you look at the front page -- >> let me stop you there. i understand that point. the suspension that do appealed

and the drawings of the plan permits do not match up. in other words, you have requested an appeal on the release of the suspensions on the permit ends with 4484. the drawing that you provided as part of your brief -- that is permit 9554. >> what those plans are is when the suspension was lifted in january, you will see that there is a long explanation, at that time, they told me that while they had overseen and some revisions would be done that were going to bring does permit in line with the section 106 review from 1999. those have been signed off by

the planning department. they had approved. they are waiting in the wings behind us. those are the plans that commissioner goh referenced. >> the suspensions that you are appealing -- >> those were the permits that were under suspension. >> we can hear from the property owner, permit holder, mr. lee. >> and madame president, commissioners, i represent the permit holder. i want to mention that the appellant, i regard him as a

fine person. i regard him as a person that has compassion for historic properties. i have also seen his vision. this building itself is not listed in federally, state-wide, or local as a historic building. that is a key factor. this project has been going on for some years. the first phase of the project was finished several years ago by the city of san francisco. the main component of this project is to train the unemployable workers. programs such as esl, english as a second language. then you have the families in transition. finally, the bulk of the project in terms of cooking schools,

western cooking and asian cooking. a number of the graduates have finally been placed and employed by companies such as google, uc- berkeley, safeway, etc. there are comments in this area of the brief period -- brief. this is one of them. he refused to accept that we wanted to put garbage there. we have approximately 15 people living, upstairs. garbage is taken out once a week every wednesday. this is an opportunity to have the garbage down the stairs at the first floor away from the

walkways and the exterior. number two. we mentioned the no ada restrooms. there is a ada restroom. he mentioned serial permitting. you tell me that there is not one building in san francisco, serial permitting is very common. this second phase is to add additional square footage for additional students. now you are skirting the building code again by having more than 5000 square feet. in fact, the total square

footage for the project the improvement is 4200 square feet. the first floor and the small mezzanine for storage. then there was the proposed seating on the interior. if anyone of us know on old victorian buildings circa 1910 or 1920, they always have high ceilings. the owner wishes to lower the ceiling from 14 feet down to 11 feet for efficiency. this is for energy savings. nothing wrong with that. at the same time, the drop from 14 to 11 feet, from the street,

you cannot see a thing. you cannot see the drop seating from the exterior. you mentioned about gate 731. there are a total of 20 properties. we have taken photographs. 15 out of 20 properties with gates. i am not sure why he is picking on us. i will ask a couple of students to at least come up and say a few words. the folks behind me dressed in white colors, these are the students.

current students and other students cannot show up now because they are working. would you come out here, please? >> good evening, president and commissioner. we are a nonprofit organization. we have served san francisco residents for over 28 years. we serve the community college and the local union and business. we held over 4000 families each year through our program. with a job placement assistance, and youth services, and education. our goals are to empower emigrants by allowing them to utilize their skills.

last year, the mayor office of housing recognized our many years of outstanding outcomes. they granted our organization funding to remodel our suite into a multi-use classroom and the occasional space. this project is our organizational priority. the sooner you can compete, the sooner that will begin expanding our service to have more community members to obtain employment. >> sorry. >> thank you.

>> director gold steen, there is still a public comment period. we will ask the zoning administrator to speak now. students have to speak during public comment, which will come later. >> just to clarify the item that is before the board this evening is a letter that i drafted that we placed on two permits. these are for interior work to accommodate the use. we suspended the permits initially based on the comments that we receive from the appellate. we were concerned that there would be changes to the building. we understand the appellant's concerns. we try to address those issues in order to protect the

building. we suspended the permit and review the permits. what was proposed under the permits was acceptable. we did note that there were issues with the exterior of the building. that is what commissioner fung noted that was earlier this year. it was to address some issues on this building. it was in addition to one of the permits that was suspended by this action. the permit that we will see as fixing one of these problems cannot be issued until the suspension will be released on the permits here. the appeals of the suspension prevents the permit from being issued. it removes the existing steel gate at the front or replaces the windows with the same kind of places the exterior door with

the same kind of paint on the outside of the skill building and you can have some consistency on the outside of the building. we appreciate the concern about the replacement permit. it has not yet been issued. if there are issues that we need to clarify, we need to do our best to work with the appellant. we need to make sure that we have clarity it with all parties about what needs to be done. given the history of the project and the length of time it has been, it is somewhat understandable. if the board can provide any leadership or guidance about how the -- this should move forward, we would appreciate that. we are assuming that if be board were to move forward, that the appellant may appeal that to this board.

that is my understanding of this project. i am available for any questions that the board may have. >> can you talk about the drop ceiling? >> the board heard this in december. the board did not hear this. they upheld the permit. they wanted the suspended ceiling deleted. the whole scope of the permit was the suspended ceiling. i think i proved that last week. it essentially has no work on it. it deletes the entire scope of the work. that is the suspended ceiling. that is no longer allowed. he has some updates on that as well.

>> is there any understanding why it that there is discussion about the suspended ceiling? >> i believe that has been addressed through the appeal process and through this board's actions of last week. >> before you come up, commissioner, may i expand upon this? how many permits are there? >> there are -- it appears that there are 19, including the one that we have on file. 20 permits within the last 10

years. then there is a few that go back into the 1990's as well. maybe six from the 1990's. >> let's look at the last four or five years. how many are there? >> 14 within the last five years, since 2006. several of those are renewals. one, two, three, four. those appear to be renewals. i could maybe put that on the overhead.

these are a list of the permits. i would be happy to read them off individually. >> it is not necessary. we have had two appealed to this body. i believe one was the 1750. >> there have been many more appeals than that to this board related to this property. >> maybe they were aggregated. i remember seeing those drawings before. the one that came most recently was predominantly the lighting and the drop ceiling one. >> correct. >> mr. sanchez, if 20 permits is not serial permitting, what is? >> serial permitting is doing in multiple permits but you cannot do in one.

having five or 10 per mets is not bad. we are happy that people do give -- and do get permits to do the work on building. serial permitting and the negative connotation is that you are incrementally doing work that you are doing work that would require a different process. the sheer numbers, they could be revisions or renewals. they are not a fault. it would raise suspicion. we will look at it more closely. the fact that there is more than five permits is not a problem. >> can you look at the ornate door that