zoning administrator. this is at 282 sanchez street appealing a notice of violation and penalty dated july 13th, 2010, regarding an allegation of illegal commercial activities at the subject property. we will start with the appellant and his attorney. you will have seven minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. i just received during the recess for response, i have not had an opportunity to look at. based on that, i would be seeking a continuance of this hearing to permit myself to respond to this.

>> are you talking about the response dated march 17th? >> correct. >> i have not seen it until a few minutes ago. >> there was another attorney. >> he is a general manager. "did she receive it? >> i am not aware of it. >> we understand that you just served the party. >> i just realized there was no proof of service attached. i was looking at my files.

i thought that there was surface to counsel but apparently it did not go out. >> it was not served. >> you are not party to this? >> no, i represent a property owner. >> commissioners, what is your pleasure. >> i move to continue. >> that would be my ordinary feeling but i don't know the relevance of the document that the appellant did not receive and how it really bears and with this board of capable of doing which is of holding or reducing. i don't know what else is before us. i am not sure how what has been submitted plays into that. >> well, while we have no

objection to the application to reduce the fees, it seems that -- is characterizing his request based on some impropriety on the part of the owner and we wanted to go on record and say that was not the case. >> if we don't continue, i would want to start a brief at a minimum. >> may be the executive director can give clarification. this is from a member of the public. >> my understanding is that the penalty would fall on them as well. >> i don't know it will change

how wide you the case but i think there is a process of consideration that the appellate has touched the appellant has not received the brief. i have some concerns about that. -- there is a process of consideration that the appellant has not received the brief. >> we have always been cautious so i would support the continuance. quest can remove this april 6th? >> can we do that even though we don't have eyes president garcia? >> we don't have a full board. >> if his vote will affect the proceedings, we will continue at that point and time.

>> there is a motion to move this to the sixth of april to allow the appellant time to review the subject property owners brief. no additional briefing allowed. is any public comment on this motion? seeing none, i will call the roll. >> was very motion? >> i so move. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes.

>> this is jason bley verses the zoning administrator. this is appealing an amended request for release of suspension dated january 24th, 2011, which requests that the suspensions be lifted because the owner has worked with the tying department to clarify the improvements under these permits.

>> ladies and gentlemen of the board, jason bley, the appellant. i was not presented with or made aware of the response from the other parties. i hope that you will forgive me. the comments are not exactly reorganized. as you will have seen from my brief, there remains substantial issues related to this property in terms of how we will not arrive at the present -- preservation of the property.

what is special about this property is that this is the last property in san francisco's chinatown to have an extensive and impressive ground floor and integrity. san francisco's chinatown is a world-class heritage area and the heart and core of our city. commercial street is the original commercial strip of the gold rush. this is where a good number of san francisco as pioneers would have disembarked upon arrival here at the time of the gold rush. this property has an appearance which existed before pre chinatown -- that existed before chinatown. there is the problem of serial permitting. there is absolutely no objection

on my behalf or any of the 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.