sidewalk? and the 735 plants that replaced the door. can you talk about the two doris? >> what would you like to know? >> it appears that at least the 731 door had been replaced. it was set back. in compliance with any valid permit that you know about? >> i have not reviewed the specifics about whether or not the permit was pulled on the review -- removing that door. >> would there before planning because of the age of the structure. >> we would request of the building department those structures that would alter character defining features. >> thanks. >> mr. duffy.

questions for you. do you have any comments? >> have you any questions, commissioners, for me? if you want to know about the suspended ceiling, i can speak about that. that was a previous issue. i know that the board did give them a permit for that. i did believe that not signed off on this morning >> for having a suspended ceiling? >> the suspended ceiling is totally gone. >> it is for taking it down. can you talk about the door at

731 commercial and how it used to be flush with the sidewalk? that would require a permit? >> yes. >> are you aware of the permit that was pulled for that work? >> i am not aware of it. it certainly would. if you move the door from the front of the building in 3 feet, you would need a permit for that. >> the list that you have, i do not know what that is that mr. sanchez was referring to. if such a permit existed, would it be on that report? have you already determined that that permit -- such a permit is not on there? >> i have not determined that. this that i have in front of me goes back to 1999.

>> we would expect to see it quite recently in your list. >> it is hard to tell from a description of permits if there were alterations to the door. if they did work on that property in the last 10 years when the accessibility law as it came on, they may have had to do some work to the front of the building as part of the work that they were doing. it would not necessarily say on this list that there was work done. my understanding is going back. that had all been discussed with regards to them bringing in the plan to upgrade the facade. i think at that time, mr. blair was happy with that kind of

arrangement. the recessed door, i am not sure when that was done. >> you cannot tell from that list? >> it does not say a remodeled front entrance or anything. it is possible that it was done as part as -- part of accessibility upgrades, which is typical for a commercial building that has been altered in san francisco. >> i do not mean to ask you to come in on something that mr. sanchez says. there is a permit in the way. you have not seen that permit? >> i find out tonight that that permit is with the planning department. the building department has approved the stage. >> i thought i heard mr. sanchez says something about that particular permit addresses the idea of an exterior door.

i am assuming this is the exterior door we are talking about at 731. is that a false assumption? >> there are a few doors on the front of this property. >> it would be a different door. >> echoes from 731 to 739 is the actual address. >> what president garcia is talking about a permit that has not yet been issued. we would not expect to see work have an been completed under the work that you cannot not yet issued. >> i am not talking about what has been completed. these are two things that should have been done properly. i wondered a bank that addressed the exterior door. -- if that address the exterior door.

>> unit 731 is that the front. that is -- that has not included any bit of that door. it looks like it is focusing on the adjacent unit. it focuses on unit 735. it does not look like the door will be changing. >> will not be changing? there is some suggestion that that door still exist somewhere. out in the heat. >> that is what the appellant says. >> i am going to show how clearly i am about this case. is that door in any way what is

under consideration this evening? >> no. >> is the interior door anyway into this? >> the interior door between the two units is one of the permits. >> from which the suspension is being lifted. >> are you satisfied that going on with what is going on with the interior door can be replaced? is this on a national register? >> not to my knowledge. >> the same consideration might be shown to it. this actually applies? >> this is a federal environmental requirements that is required when federal funds are given. it is fairly exceptional to have happen. it is only triggered when an entity is getting federal funds and that is a separate level of

review that they have to go through. >> the interior door that was discussed at many thousands of dollars of work that had gone into was under consideration? >> i believe so. my understanding of the project is that there is no connection between the two spaces for the use. one of the issues raised was use size. based on the figures i have, they would not. in terms of use and the connection between the units, i do not think we have a connection between that. >> has been stated that someone has been given permission to remove that. even if something more on the national register, issues having to deal with materials for the most part do not get dealt with. >> that is correct.

>> you still have a chance. i am confused. it seems as if mr. lee talked about the garbage rule. mr. bley did not talk about that when he came up here. >> i believe that is one of the permits that is under suspension. we were ok with that because it did not alter the properties on the street. it was an interior alteration to accommodate the trash. >> we have dealt with the suspended ceiling. mr. bley talks about two offices having been combined. >> maybe the appellant can correct me. >> mr. bley talked about the fact that it was not between do and reduce.

that has all been corrected, that my knowledge. the second notice, having to do with lifting the suspension. that language has been corrected, right? >> there was a language that was corrected in the amended letter. that was plans that were in the eighth in -- the wings. we wanted to have something good come from this. the permits and the suspension, which could have released that without any permit and not having any additional work to the property. we pointed them to correct some of these issues. that is why we had required that permit. we are open to any direction that the board has or that the

appellant could provide as to how to improve that permit. these are all good things and positive things that are happening to the building. the appellant wants them to happen. it is a matter of getting clarity for everyone about what needs to be done to achieve that. removing the steel gate, which has always been a point for the appellant. keyboarding will come off the windows. the windows are to be replaced. any doors that needs to be replaced will be employed -- will be replaced in kind. i believe is not at the issue stage. we have a hold on the property overall. we have placed a hold on anything that happens on this property. we are trying to do what we can. if we can get a list, something that would be simple and easy

for us to get all of the points on the plans and get the permit holder on board to do all of that work, that is what everybody wants. >> do you feel like there are a anyhanging chads? are there any issues that would cause for you to rethink having lifted the suspension? >> no. all issues raised have to deal with the permit that is waiting in the wings. >> mr. sanchez, i am still confused about the door at 731. we saw photographs-share would itinset. it used to be flashed. f --lush -- flush. >> that is something that you

can add to the permit. we are open to the permit. our reservations have reviewed the fix it permanent. if there are additional changes that need to be made in the other -- order for the suspension to be lifted, we can make the changes on the permit. >> i guess i do not understand the process. in other cases, the department would have issued a notice of violation for having done this work without a permit. >> i did not see any enforcement cases specifically to the door being inset. i spoke briefly with the planner. >> i think that may be part of the issue. the planning and forspent action -- enforcement action on

06, i do not think that as part of this action. we do not know when that door moved. what the appellant showed us was a very old photographs. then we saw another photograph that showed it removed. the enforcement document shows that as an 06. the permit number is 99. >> it did start in 99. that is when this all started with the section 106 review. what we were trying to get back is going back to what the building was like in 1999. if the door needs to move forward, we can request that that be done and then maybe the permit holder wants to speak on that. >> thank you.

>> we can take public comment. how many people are interested in speaking under public comment? please step forward. >> i just see two people, is that right? three people. all the other people sitting out there and tend not to speak. three minutes. >> my name is michael. today, i am here to tell the reality of this situation. i have been going to the chinese cultural service center for about two months. i have been training to learn how to cook restaurantstyl-e -- restaurant-style chinese meal.

this is the only place offering the equipment. offering cooking training for all students. i will be a chef after i graduate. on top of having a unique skill taught by the master, we have wide resources. potential employers could get me into the industry. about 20 students cannot fit into the classroom. we literally sit in the hallway. at the end of each lesson, our lunch is the meal that we cooked during training. we do not have enough space and

chairs. most of the students need to stand at the kitchen to have their lunch. if we are able to remodel the first four, that is what they are talking about. we would be able to have a classroom that would be able to fit us all year. we could sit down and enjoy our lunch. thanks. thank you for the hearing. >> next speaker, please. >> a good evening. my name is arthur chang. i was made aware of this project about a year ago. i have to commend jason's effort for spending his time, money,

and love of this project to retain the quality that the record shows that it is a valuable to our culture here. i think that jason has been a whistle blower work as well as a watchdog for this project. he watchdoged the administration by the city. this comes to a disregard of their commitment to the federal funds that were used to allow them to rehab this building. by the confusion that was expressed here tonight, what was relevant. even the planning department seems to be confused. the incident that they pointed out in the letter from mr.

sanchez. it would not reduce the historic value. this kind of onslaught of serial permitting is not how many. that seems to be an issue. what was the intent? i think an entity which receives that kind of money from federal public sources shall live up to their obligations and not carry on a campaign of circumvention and omitting what their obligations are to be met. it is like almost declaring a war on the city. a famous sixth century bc general that was well known even today among military strategists, i will replace the word city -- the word army with

the word city. if you expose the city to a long campaign, the city of's resources will be inadequate and their spirit will be depressed. when their strength has been expended and resources consumed, then we will take advantage of the exhaustion to prevail. it is up to you that you have as a board, denied the respondent in these events before the board. this is a continuation of the same tactic used again. the watchdogs of the city approved and in some of the failings of the letter. >> what specifically do you not want done in these permit stocks in these permits act specifically?

>> not to allow them to diminish the quality of the historic elements. >> next speaker. tampa, >> good evening. i was born and raised in san francisco. i do not reside here anymore. i am interested in this property because my grandfather lives in one of the units. he raised many of my older siblings. maintaining the integrity of the faca is important to me. i am asking commissioners here to consider the solution to the problem, which is that there

needs to be some acute oversight into this permit process for this particular project. i am confused about the hearing and what was done when it was done. my request is that there be some manner of oversight to be placed on this project. thank you. >> i will ask you the same question. is there something specific in these permits that you are against? >> i am against the permitting process and how things have been approved. and the work that has been done without permits. does that answer your question? >> yes, thank you. >> is there any other public comment? please step forward.

>> good evening. i am with the mayor's office of housing. we funded this project many years ago. it has been at least 10, maybe 15 years since the agency bought the property and we have been involved in the property. the word this evening by the appellant is that millions and millions of dollars were put into this project, which is not the case. our office provided roughly $700,000 to date towards this project. early on, the facade was not to be touched. the mayor's office of disability put a lot of restrictions on desks job. i am not sure bank debt door

being moved was a part of the process. we still have some money that is being held up while this gets ironed out by the commission. i just wanted to make clear that we are still involved in the project. we want the project to proceed. we want it to proceed on the appropriate grounds. any questions for me? >> your agency requires certain sign-oss ffs in order to allow the funds to flow. how did you respond to a historic review? >> eugene, our compliance

officer went through the process with this agency. there was a sign-off given. i do not particularly know how that was given. there was a process. >> can you tell us before and after the prasad was touched? it was said earlier on that the facade that was not to be touched. >> earlier on in the project. >> any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. you will have three minutes. >> that is all that i can say, ladies and gentlemen. this has gone terribly confused. perhaps we could realize that we

can run completely in the wrong direction. you commissioners are correct. we went over the suspension. looking at it in detail, these plans call for a suspended ceiling in the next door front. we have very little time. the respondent has not showed where this proposed garbage room is. the plans call it on the other side. this is lifted as 1 foot, 7

inches big. there are no commercial size garbage toters that would fit in there. as far as square footage, that is wrong. they are discussing the issue of square footage. if the majority of this building is to be used, it will exceed square footage. i have never complained about the gate. the gate is not beautiful. chinatown may have people that you want to agate to protect us against. the way that i said it, millions and millions have been put into this building.

this is not impossible to calculate. we are all here about the community. there is a community spirit and some complication that goes a long ways when you are spending federal funds. in terms of the property being listed or not, properties can only get listed in if bay are maintained in order to get there. this property is fully eligible. they have a doe for the national registration of historic places. this is not an interior door. these are exterior doors and they are called for being replaced. >> i have a question. since you left off with the

door, w will startith the door. when did that happen? >> that happened in june, 2006. in the photographs provided by the atlantic community photographer, and his photographs document that the photograph was there. you can look in the other picture from 2002. i have the other cell phone at home. that door was there until june, 2006. i read you a letter from the planners. that change was specifically disallowed by the section 106 process. as far as mr. harris is talking about