this is a significant tree. this would maine on the street a tree which i think is $1,700. i would like to overturn them also an order to place a condition on the permit to that any replacement tree be done at the discretion of the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. >> can we call the roll on that? >> the motion is to uphold a permit with two conditions -- >> you are modifying the order. >> we still need the objectives. >> the permit would be upheld by

your modified to permit in two ways -- you are striking defeat on the street fees -- >> no, on a significant tree. >> the tree that will be replaced. >> and come you are granting -- and, you are granting for the planting at the discretion of -- in terms of size and species. >> ok. again, to uphold that the -- strikes the significantly, granting a replacement tree in terms of species and size. on the motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the permit is upheld with

those conditions. thank you. >> i would move quickly to our next two appeals and see if we can get them done before 6:00. please call the items. >> colin 2 items a and 2 b, the appellant in both cases is jason bley and the respondent in the first case is is zoning administrator and in the second, the department of building inspection. the first appeal intel's the release of suspension addressed to the dbi director asking that the bpa be lifted. the second appeal is the protest

of the issuance on december 1st, 2010, to the charity cultural service center, a permit to alter a building, this is a revision to the plan. dinky. >> we will -- thank you. >> we will call these together. >> it bears repeating that i am sad that we have to be here but i'm excited that we are at the tail end of this issue and we very much need your thoughtful input. >> the permit holders not here? >> no, no one is shown. >> for the notified? >> yes. >> i actually spoke to one of them today and i mentioned a time and they said that they understood that. they had written notice prior to

that. >> sorry to interrupt you. >> no problem. >> commissioners, you have the decision to make whether we should go forward. >> the group this year. -- is here. >> i did not think this was possible today. nevertheless, great effort has gone into explaining what has happened in the last six months and it has provided you with a lot of reading for the benefit of the public or anyone can -- a could be watching. there has been a slight deviation from what was discussed here in may and some work said occurred which exceed

what was approved at that time. that work could seen as very small. the spirit of it and what it is doing and the final product of what we want, this is significant. that period has extended beyond just myself and has involved various people from various city departments. i and stand people from the planning department made some good efforts. where this was stopped, it was stopped at 8. that the ceiling that was proposed. putting it back four feet, that

mitigated the problem. even at 4 feet, it mitigates it more than nothing. it does not really satisfy the spirit and i think that there are so many other alternatives and chinatown is worthy of those better alternatives. i am not a designer but i have enough time and experience to know that there are all sorts of different light fixtures and ways in which important buildings, people design those things. that is really the direction the discussion should go. how do we smooth out this over so this work does not impede the restoration and preservation of this structure? i suppose i should give the floor for any questions. >> and do you have a photo

showing the height of the ceiling? >> i hope that it comes through on my computer screen. 6shlt>> the front and the bottoe been put on to that so that is the exact location that it is still in. >> are you aware of where the structural framing for that is in relation to the window? >> that is a very thoughtful question. i've not been in there in many years and i was wondering that as one of the possible alternatives. i know that there is a hundred year old metal beam that goes

across the front of all of the storefronts and in the neighboring two storefronts, i know that this is at least two feet. what the suspended ceiling has done is that it has gone down fam the ceiling. theoretically, all of these things could be on line with where that is and that would not block any windows. . thank you. >> there is no representation here from the permit holder. mr. sanchez. >> yes, we tried to get to these

issues resolved here. my understanding of the history of this is that the project sponsor had started construction without the benefit of permit. the building permit issued a notice of violation. we have indicated that any permit would be routed to planning for review and we requested as such. we thought it be the ability to mitigate the impact on the building and we did not believe

that any of the decisions that we made had violated the board's 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.