some what of the unique resolution here, and i thank you very much, commissioners. >> i have some questions. i did not follow what you were saying about how the unilateral withdrawal power in woodland. -- power would land. and >> the language was inserted with a notice of special restriction by the city, and the agreement essentially says if at some point, it gave the power to remove at and restrictions to the zoning administrator. it did not say to any other party, and to every other experts i consulted with, that is giving up the power of one

individual, and while i could appeal it, it would be bringing it back at a future date and leaving it where we left off. time is precious. life is short, and don't we have better things to do? >> basically, we have an agreement, and the question is how will it be recorded. >> how did the responsibility get taken from jason as an individual? >> if it is not in an nsr, what is your suggestion as to how it should be? >> one of them is an nsr, but it is a private nsr.

the same language is there, but the problem is it puts it all on me, so i've vigor and the way to flush out intention -- i figured a way to flesh out the agreement would be to add two sentences, that if i incurred in its legal fees on an attempt to undo this agreement, the other side would not pay his legal fees, so that is a simple way of saying, is this an agreement, or is it not, because i can tell you i do not want to sue anybody. this has been a long and drawn- out process, and by putting that in there, that says to people in tend to abide by this? >> we can hear from the permit holder in now.

>> i am representing the sponsor. may i present copies of the agreement? >> could you describe what it is? we need a motion, and we need to vote to accept it. iraq's we have enough copies for everybody. -- >> we have enough copies for everybody. >> i would move the except these documents. >> is there any public comment on this motion? we can call the roll up your good -- we can call the roll. >> on that motion to except this late in the middle -- this late

submission. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0 to accept. >> have the appellants and been given this? >> yes. >> the appellant also has a copy. should i give you a minutes to review it? >> why don't you go ahead? >> we have spoken by telephone, by e-mail, and met with the president at least four or five times, and i asked the appellant what it would take to compromise or moved forward.

my suggestion is what is the language presented by e-mail. with that memo, i accepted the language. he came back on july 22, and scott said the agreement is between two parties, so he wrote a different version. i also upset the version. and the appellant disagreed the city should be involved. there is nothing i can do. the third version is for anything that happens, and the

government can sue the sponsor. we cannot afford to have an open contract. >> did you ask if he would be willing to pay your attorneys' fees? >> i did not. i did not think it is fair for him to pay my attorneys' fees, so i do not think it is fair for me to pay his attorneys fees. i have three copies in front of you. the green start is the one i recommend your good estate has the same language as in los -- i recommend. it has the same language as in los angeles. >> we would not accept additional briefing, and now that we have voted to take a

look at these, i am going to give us a five minute break, and we are going to read this, so i am going to gavel out.

>> we are resuming the october 26 meeting, and we are returning to item no. 5. how would you like to proceed? >> next, we would hear from him. >> mr. sanchez. likes thanks. -- >> thanks. there are two permits that are at issue. one was issued in may, and the other was issued in june. we issued a suspension letter, and it was brought to our attention they did not receive the review, so we suspended the permits in july of 2010. we spent the following months working to review those permits

but also to look good ways to make other modifications to improve the facades and come into compliance with the permit. they demonstrated an attempt to work once the department -- to work with the department. they filed of permits to deal with the stock issues. we released the suspension on january 10, 2011. there were language issues, so we've issued a revised letter on january 25. we had a hearing several months ago. i must apologize, because i failed to provide that to the board, and i apologize. now i do have a partial

printouts. when i region one thing i apologize is just we of the appellants to submit a list of outstanding issues he had. also, the permit holder worked to come to a resolution. what you see, i acknowledged at a time my authority and putting it into in the star -- in the nsr. it was something we were trying to work with the parties. we had agreement of the language.

>> i think you have 30 more seconds. >> he added an additional processor to run doom -- to undue. it was way beyond the scope, so we pared it down and had a private agreement. but was still not acceptable to the appellant your ego and -- to the appellant. i believe if the permit holders were able to record their private agreement with the recorder's office, that is an appropriate documentation of the agreement they have.

>> mr. sanchez. outside of special agreements applied to certain projects, the ultimate enforcement arm is the planning department. >> the issues would be the appropriate agency and retaining and enforcing that. >> given the code and the changes that applied to the presentation but also given your own internal procedures related suit buildings over a certain region related to buildings of a certain age, scrutiny will --

also given your own internal procedures related to the building, scrutiny will come. >> how are we to feel assured that would have been given that it did not seem to happen earlier? >> it did happen. at issue are to permit, and we found they did not have a negative impact on the building. the issues are more of the maintenance of the building on related -- non-related to the permits. they have a permit to make some exterior changes, and that is pending review at our apartment, awaiting the resolution of this issue, but they have been working to address outstanding building issues. they have filed permits to address fathat and are working o

comply with the permit. >> setting aside the nsr, why would it not be kept to hpc? >> this is not a landmark building. it is not a historic district. goonot every his story building requires review by the historic preservation commission. goo>> we will move into public comment. can i see a show of hands of how many people are interested in speaking on this item? the first speaker can step forward. whoever would like to speak

first. >> i saw three hands. i see a lot of people. sometimes i make a decision about how much time public speakers can have, and all of a sudden, 25 people stand up, so raise your hands. three minutes. >> i am here to add my voice to my friend and colleague, who has been one of the few residents who has actually defended the character and history and architecture and cultural values of the buildings and the history of chinatown. when he lived on a commercial street, it was the first

interesting encounter i had with him, and when he started working on his building in which he lived in as a renter, i was very inspired by what he was doing. the bigger issue is we are often dependent on public agencies to recognize a building is a historic resources. in many cases, the shortage of staff, the lack of training and perhaps in staff, many in the building department intend to let what normally would have some scrutiny or a professional scrutiny allows projects to go through the should not, and over time, we are led through these

drawn-out surveyed said -- drawn out debates, compromises. many are brought out from what could have been a simple solution in the beginning, when company with proper credentials, attitudes, perspectives, looks at a project and says, this is adversely impacted, but they are very simple solutions. let us solve this now before we grant the permit, rather than years later having to take thousands of dollars and your time and our time to achieve something of should have been done earlier. there seems to be some relatively simple solutions, and that is that this building is a

historic resources. these are historic districts. let's make sure all of them are looked at from this point forward. >> next speaker please. >> good evening, president and commissioners. my name is larry. six years ago, i had no hope for my future. i was just released from my job, and i had no idea how to get a job. one day i was reading a newspaper. then i decided to get some more information from them. that was the best decision i

have ever made, and it changed my life. the people were so helpful and helped me with the city building program. not only that, but they helped to guide me. i graduated and got an apprenticeship from the carpenters union after four years. i now make a living, and i can support me and my family. i have the insurance. all of this could not be possible without the help i received from the cdfc. everyone feels like family, because i know they care about

me and my family. for me to hear they are having some problems with the community center, as a community member, i think it is very important for cdfc to be able to build this. and we should help them. thank you very much for letting me speak. >> thank you. >> next speaker please.

>> i can turn the microphone on.

just drag it over. >> good evening, madame president, commissioner. >> i am sorry, but as a board member of the organization that owns the property, your time to speak was in the three minutes mr. lee had to speak. >> i did not know that. >> that is the board's rules. the rule is the affiliated party has to speak during the time given. >> never mind. >> >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> comments, commissioners? >> i have a question for mr. waong.

you can tell us a little about your organization in one minute. >> it is an organization to assist new immigrants in chinatown, in job readiness, in employment. we are assisting a lot of new immigrants who have sought on- the-job in english as a second language. every day who have -- who have got jobs as teaching english as a second language. we have an after-school program for the kids, so this program is very strong for the community. i am one of the kids who grew up in chinatown. i see how these new immigrants are trying to earn a living,

learn a job to raise their family. these folks spend morning in the cooking class and work at night, so please consider. thank you very much. >> i will start. i think this issue before us on this specific permanent and the nuances related to this permit is not about who use of the building. it is not about the nonprofits that is going to be housed there. it is about a process in san francisco but has many different approaches. the issue here is the degree to which different segments of our

community look at the extent of preservation within itsel. there are those who feel not an of preservation is occurring -- not enough reservation is caring. i do not want to be like a city where you cannot change of paint cover without a certificate. what is important for this body is to look at both sides. the side of the appellant in terms of his concerns with preservation who needs to however adapt what he is planning in