decision. the board's concern was with the exterior of the building and alterations to the character- defining features of the building and not something which is a the dropped ceiling is not the only way to get the project sponsor what they want. that said, the planning department is not typically in the role of defining what someone should do what their ceiling. that goes a little beyond what we typically would require in a project. i think in this case we did not feel that was necessary. out so i don't think we necessarily have a strong position on this, but would defer to the board and try to find the best possible solution to this issue. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, is a typical one a building this historic, for the

planning department or any other department to get involved in issues involving the interior? >> not unless the interior is historically significant. to my knowledge, this is not one of them. they had an adverse impact on the exterior, and in this case there would not be adverse impact. vice president garcia: except to the facade? >> yes, and they felt that it could have remained to the front, but to be extra cautious and considerate, we would ask them for the setback. thank you. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, it did your staff visit the site? >> the staff visited the site numerous times. i do not know if one was conducted as has been stated.

this is an ongoing issue. i believe that staff, when the first complaint was made about the dropped ceiling, i believe that was the time. commissioner fung: in a report from them as to what established a height of that ceiling? was it some type of hvac duct from the structure above? >> i believe staff did not enter the premises. it was a drive by to see what visual impact there was. commissioner fung: ok. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, mr. bley, you have three minutes of rebuttal.

>> hello. that would very quickly. i did not even hear it. i'm an architect, and the bigger issue here, and why i am involved, knowing that jason has been one of the few people that has truly been active in helping advocate for the historic resources of chinatown is that there is a perception that property owners and private sponsors tend to evade the permit agencies and the code because they feel they can. many inspectors from the building department and planning the there are very stretched in their responsibilities or perhaps don't even really have the true understanding of the plants or

the approvals, because there is a gray area where certain things are in public whelm the republican realms and miscommunication. in this case, architecturally, when you walk throughout san francisco but san francisco and most cities, not only this country but the world, but retail at the ground level, especially small retail, usually has much higher ceilings. also, the windows of really good at retail streets and commercial and historical, at one point it was one of the most vibrant streets in san francisco, thereby being named commercial street, leading to the maine maritime delivery to the old part of san francisco. but these old retail, and all retail, have high ceilings, have

large windows that include transom windows above the entry windows, because that is very good for the commercial tenant. it is also very good for activating the sidewalk and street. so if you think of cities in paris and italy, new york, old loss angeles -- old los angeles, or even the modern shopping mall, the glass of the street and what you see through that retail space and what you see from inside the retail or commercial space out is very critical. so we new lowercase ceiling, that may be a very inexpensive solution for some designers -- when you lower a ceiling, that may be a very inexpensive solution for some designers, but

not necessarily for the tenant or the owner. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, three minutes for rebuttal. >> i will close by saying, again, while this may in and of itself have the ability of coming off as being a small thing, if we remember the history of this entire matter with this property has been an entire series of small things. what we can take away from that is a chipping away at the integrity of the historic building, and this is a stand- alone building. it is the only property left in chinatown that has a nearly completely intact ground floor, for when the historic area was first built.

as i expressed in my statements earlier this year, i think in the past there have been some people who honestly misunderstood my intentions and thought, well, he wants to preserve everything. and that is not the case. chinatown is a living, breathing community, with people coming and going all the time, and nevertheless, this building, of all 380-some odd buildings from 30 years ago, was called out at that time as being basically a supreme example of what once reigned in the entire neighborhood. so i thanked -- so i know what i am asking for is the board decision on this property really well. it has been for too long piecemeal and picked apart, and there is a lot more understanding of a lot of the other people who have been party to this, as to the significance,

as to the meeting, and as to what is going on. and i think if we can direct this to a better design, everybody will have won. and there is no loss. i have never been looking for anyone to lose any thing. and that said, whether it is a foot back for a few feet back, the effect of looking at from the street is the same, and i note that is pretty simple to find a way to mitigate this. and that is where we need your assistance, thank you. commissioner hwang: i wanted to make sure that what you are asking today, basically you want to deny the release of the suspension? is that right? >> i suppose from a procedural standpoint, that would be what we would have to ask.

and in return -- commissioner fung: it is actually, the only thing you had asked. >> you are right, commissioner fung, thank you. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> there is the other appeal, commissioners. commissioner fung: i apologize, there is an appeal of the permit. commissioner peterson: so you have the second appeal which is protesting the issuance of the permit. >> the revision permit, yes. that is why i was not exactly sure how procedurally you would put that out. the net effect is what i am looking for, how you guys see that from a parliamentary or whatever it is standpoint, perhaps mystical steam or the adviser to the board, the city attorney, would know how to call that. i don't know.

commissioner peterson: okay, thank you. >> mr. sanchez, no rebuttal? ok, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it is a different permit. icommissioner fung: for the main permit that was there before. president goh: they cannot have !zthe second without the fir, right? commissioner fung: they could. >> scott sanchez, planning department. it depends what the board wants to do. if the board were to uphold the appeal and require changes, then that would be there revision permit. at that point, the board could overturn or pulled -- overturned the appeal on the suspension, which would allow the whole project. but i would refer to deputy director kornfield as to whether a revision permit can go forward when the main permit is

suspended. i think the board would have to come under revision permit, take whatever action the board wants to have happen, and with that they could release the suspension on the main permit. and then everything would move forward with that revision permit. commissioner fung: can we clarify that? mr. kornfield, i thought this was a separate permit, not an addenda. >> as long as we resolve the pr'm and fixed methodology. as long as there is a subsequent permit that replaces the scope of the problem that comes before the board, we are happy to do it. president goh: i was going in the other direction. i would uphold it -- or i would

grant the appeal and overturn the release of suspension. therefore, the first permit would be suspended, and then the second permit would be mooted, because they cannot set back the ceiling 4 feet for a ceiling that was not permitted. ito me, the dropped ceiling has an adverse impact on the exterior. they could address it in a different way, and they began this work without a permit. the 4 feet set back, to me, it seems that would be very visual from the street because you are looking up and you would see the end cap of that drop ceiling. it would be very visible. those are my comments for now. commissioner fung: i've looked

at it slightly differently. we acted upon the original permit, which had a minimum amount of work, discussions related to the counter, the door, etc., etc. i would find that the revision permit is not a very sensitive solution, whether this building is his to work or not. whether it is a commercial building or not. there are a number of different ways to handle the hvac ducts. if you have restricted had room and height, especially in an older building, there is nothing wrong, in fact it is recommended in the state preservation guidelines, to have exposed ductwork that are architecturally treated.

but i find the revision permit is extremely utilitarian and it does not reflect creating -- whether it is significant, and i will not use that, but decent architecture -- i find that is very insensitive. therefore, i would revoke the revision permits, suspend the main permit, and let them finish off the resident work. vice president garcia: the rest of the work, other than the work of the ceiling? commissioner fung: the ceiling would be revoked. president goh: i am sorry, i am confused about the first, appeal 2a, appealing a request for

release of suspension. it is the 11/29/2010 permit. that is the ceiling, is it not? vice president garcia: there was no permit. commissioner peterson: i believe the suspension is to legalize the ceiling, no? >> no. >> so the suspension is of the building permit 2010/11/30/5770. president goh: the ceiling permit. >> right, so if you lift the suspension of that, then the ceiling without the 4 foot setback is allowed to go forward. >> scott sanchez.

deputy director kornfield has an excellent idea, and that would be the board suspension release, saying that it is released with the condition that the suspended ceiling is removed from the original project. that would work, perhaps. vice president garcia: which means the permit that is suspended has to do with the original project, nothing to do with the ceiling, which is beyond the scope. >> the permit that is suspended is the permit that has the full suspended ceiling. so the permit that is under suspension has the full suspended ceiling. the revision permits simply cuts back the first 4 feet of that ceiling. so if the board or to revoke the permit that has the revision, the revision permit is gone, then the suspension could be revised and the suspension is being released upon the

condition that the suspended ceiling is removed from the project. and if they submit another revision. that shows that. vice president garcia: they start work on the ceiling without a permit. then it went out and got a permit and it was allowing them to suspend all the way to the front 4 feet, and then that was suspended and got a permit that would set the ceiling back 4 feet and be suspended for feedback. >> correct, correct, which is on appeal as well. vice president garcia: so we have two ceiling permits. >> correct. commissioner fung: then i think mr. kornfield's suggestion is an excellent one. ivice president garcia: i would agree. that surprised me when i first got involved in the board of appeal that the board upheld communities on issues having really to do with aesthetics.

the board's basically have said, the planning commission, whoever grants permission to a building, they have the right to make the determinations about the things that are static. i don't know that that generally applies to the interior of a building. but i think i am going to go along with this because it will be visible and aesthetically it sounds like it is pretty displeasing. one thing, not to pick on president goh, but one thing that planning used to do, whether or not somebody starts work without a permit has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a permit ought to be granted. that should be a stand-alone issue. if somebody started work without a permit, there are processes in place to deal with that and that should always be totally separate from whether or not somebody is working without a

permit. so i will go along with what seems quite what they eat are suggested. -- what they are suggesting. commissioner hwang: i think mr. kornfield's suggestion is very good. if somebody wants to move on that? commissioner fung: i will move. >> i think it would be to uphold mr. sanchez, on condition that the suspended ceiling -- >> the first motion would be to grant the appeal and to allow the release of suspension to go forward, on the condition that -- and i need you to fill in what the condition is. commissioner fung: and that the ceiling be removed. >> will be removed. commissioner fung: the suspended ceiling be removed.

>> ok, and then the motion for 138 would be to grant the appeal and denied a permit, correct? commissioner fung: that is correct. mlk, thank you. >> ok, i think we are ready? maybe not. president goh: i guess i don't understand why we would not just grab both appeals? >> we are granting both appeals. granting the first appeal, and then it -- president goh: okay, removing the condition. >> yes. >> so the first motion, then, is to grant this appeal of holding this request for release, allowing it to go forward. >> conditioning it, yes. president goh: the condition is critical, though. commissioner fung: condition at

to the removal of the suspended ceiling. >> from the scope of this permit, to be deleted. commissioner fung: yes. >> ok, we will go on that first. suspended ceiling. again, to repeat, is to allow this request for release to go forward, upholding the zoning administrator, with the condition that the suspended ceiling be struck from the scope of the permit. on that motion from commissioner fung -- [roll call vote] so the vote is 4-0, the zoning

administrator is upheld with that condition. the second motion, also from commissioner fung, is to grant this appeal and deny this permit. >> can you recite the appeal number? >> this is 10-138. and no finding. so on that motion to deny this. [roll call vote] thank you, and commissioner hwang is absent. this vote is also 4-0 and this appeal is denied. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, we move on to item no. 3 which is general public comment. if there is any member of the public would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's

agenda. seeing none, item four, commissioner comments and questions. if commissioners? ok, seeing none, adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the meeting for january 19, 2011. president goh: commissioners? i move for adoption. and any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, if you could call the roll on the item number five, please? %ñ4x8 president goh to adopt the january 19 minutes -- [roll call vote] the vote is 4-0, those minutes are adopted. >> no further business, commissioners, we are adjourned.

>> welcome. i am the executive director of the tenderloin development membered corporation. we provide social services and

affordable housing in the tenderloin and run the city and county of san francisco. we now own 30 buildings with 2500 units affordable to san francisco's most vulnerable residents. we are standing amid a massive, an adaptive reuse of a building that was originally erected in 1910. when it is finished, 172 chronically homeless individuals will live here, and we will also be developing a wellness center, a community clinic, 11,000 square feet, where some-4000 homeless people will be received medical services. if not for the stimulus act, none of this would be happening. the affordable housing capital

that we typically access could have and would have financed the project, but for the financial crash of two and half years ago, and only because those funds were replaced by sen missestimulus funding are able o undertake this project. this represents a vision of not only this area but the city's office of mayor housing and public trough. i would like to call to the podium the mayor of san francisco edwin lee. >> thank you. isn't this a wonderful place? we are in the middle of our tenderloin community watching exactly how 174 supported housing units are about to happen. we have done it the right way. when i saw this opportunity to come here, i rushed over.

this neighborhood is a great opportunity. i also wanted to have the opportunity to thank our congresswoman nancy pelosi. you have been so instrumental in helping to guide and identify these funds and in making sure that we do the right thing. every condition that the stimulus money has, in order that it is done right. this project does it right. last night, i joined over 400 volunteers throughout the city counting the homeless population. we have yet to have those numbers, but we know that is a serious effort to count the homeless and make sure that we know what we're doing, in terms of ending homelessness. we now have a government that has come out with its own end homelessness program, and stimulus money with which to work. this housing is unique because

it is supportive housing. it will have services attached to the housing. if you read the federal program, you will see, this is the core of the answer to ending homelessness, building this kind of housing to make sure we have those services attached with it. i enjoy this lovely group of people because not only are they building this housing, with all of these conditions, but as you can see around us, we have a workforce that is going to work. we aren't giving people the opportunity to go to work and we have the buildings, in the historical and careful fashion is done, and using $50 million of stimulus money again, i am so thankful to our congress members for helping us to get this started. as you can see, lives will

literally be changed because of this project. i guarantee you, congresswoman, that we will see this through for you and for us. thank you. [applause] >> i would now like to call to the podium one of the workers and beneficiaries of the stimulus fund, mark grayson. >> thank you. my name is mark graven. i am a carbon performing here on the site. i was asked to speak here because about a year and half ago, i did not have a job and did not have many prospects. my wife and i were living up the coast at fort bragg. a lumber mill closed, construction dried up. we made a choice to move back to san francisco. san francisco. i was lucky enough