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 the mayor's office of disability, we have talked about this at length. i have never objected i would imagine if we can sit down with them that they would agree that the two groups have to work together. this does not come at the total expense of the disabilities thing. >> we were talking about a list because it seems like there were things that were either waiting in the wings or the suspended ceiling.

>> i would be very happy to make a list. >> thank you. >> is that all the questions? >> the plan does show that this is hidden behind the gate. number one. if you are combining the entire buildings, you are more than 5000 square feet, but we are not.

we are counting two units, plus a small area in the mezzanine. this is way below 5000 square feet. it is easy to get confused. finally, there are stations between the subjects. are we talking about the historical preservation of this area? the permit requested the interior, nothing can be in the next year. we came to the conclusions that if all possible, we would find a way to get funding from somewhere, either private foundations.

i don't like this. at this moment, there is nothing about the exterior, only about the interior. thank you. >> i appreciate the president taking the initiative and asking the appellate to work with the department. we will work to make sure that the issues will be addressed. the one that was before previously was 739 commercial. it does have as part of its proposal with the building permit to add the acoustical ceiling for the space.

if it is the board's desire and the modification of release of suspension if the board wanted to remove this from the scope of the permit. in regards to the door for the commercial being recessed, i believe that the permit history does bear that out. we were just reviewing the permit history and there was permits from 2002 and 2006 that had that listed on there. i don't have all the details but it was ultimately reinstated. there was modifications to the storefront. there is a note to that the door was as per the plans which had been reviewed by the board of appeals.

this was a complaint without a permit. that was updated. on these two permits, the plan showed this from the sidewalk. i have looked at this and this was to the board of appeals. this was an extension. i can look that up. neither of those were provided to planning. >> they were not brought it to

planning? >> that is correct. >> how does that jive with the mayor's office? >> this was heard by this board and it seemed like the board had improved the permit and subsequently there was a complaint made and the department reviewed the complaint. this is the information i was able to come up with in the past 15 minutes. it is not that we can not restore the door. that can be accommodated under the building code. that is something that we can ask the project sponsor to look at.

>> ok. thank you. >> it feels like we're discussing many things that are not before us tonight. let me expose my lack of understanding. and my understanding had to do with making certain that the permit holder was not doing anything, any exterior modifications. use suspended it. you apparently met with someone and you reviewed the permit. we don't have the permits. that is part of my confusion. i have not been able to look at the plans and determine what was in those permits.

my understanding is that having determined that no exterior modifications were taking place, you then asked to have your suspension lifted. there are two letters. what is before us? what is before us? what was in those permits that caused you to suspend it and then lift the suspension? >> they were suspended as a precaution. we did this so we could review them and make sure there was no issues. there was outstanding other issues not directly to these permits. these are things that have not

been keeping in the character with the building. we used this as a number to 90 to have the project sponsor address those. the palette is concerned that this is not comprehensive enough. also, the suspended ceiling. maybe that was our mistake. oif the board believes that the suspended ceiling is removed from this plan, we can have this removed from the 735 unit.

we can make requests but they have to be willing to make these changes and work with them and i am sure that they will. >> it would seem as though the issue that you just raised had to do with 1750. it would seem reasonable for us to continue this, and have them meet with planning or some other representative of this charity and get these issues worked out -- i feel somewhat confused as to whether we should be of holding this or lifting the suspension. these other issues are resolved or if it is better to try to take care of everything that

could potentially come before us. >> with the board's direction, i hope that they would come to some resolution. >> there needs to be more direction than just that. that is too general. the suspended ceiling that is part of this permit, you made a statement that this is not visible. does that mean that you are talking about not dropping below the window line? >> i cannot say for certain on that. >> he made some kind of statement to that effect.

>> i don't know what the impact would be if this is comparable to 739 which the board did have an impact. i am sure the appellant or the property owner could weigh in on that and make that comment. >> this was not a way of adding a ceiling where the edge of the ceiling at the expiry wall bisected the window. it is not that this particular commissioner is against all drop ceilings. >> if it was visible from the street, that would not be a way of dealing with it. if it was not visible from the

street, -- >> then it is up to them whether they want a ceiling. that is my point of view. there might be different points of view on the board. >> do you want to disassociate yourself? wholethe question is quite different to the lifting of the the suspension. what is before us is this is

relatively simple for us to digest and terms of whether we concur or not. one thing we have already discussed in terms of the suspended ceiling. some of the objections relate to process. some relate to a vision for this particular building, which is not necessarily shared by the owner. this is an important issue, the question is at what point does that vision intrude on someone else's rights? i have walked this particular block many times.

i see a building that is very old. i only see one retaining what historically had been there for a significant amount of time. the only day that i think has significant historical resources is 731. that is the one where the wall was removed. where we left it the first time when it was a much larger issue

in terms of what can or cannot be done to this building, i thought that some of these things we brought forth. not all elements of this building are historical. if it came to push and shove verses 88 issues, i probably know where i will go with that. if there is the consensus to provide the following direction to planning, i would suggest

that the one day be kept as pure as possible and maintained as possible through the offices of the planning department and that would be 731. i think that the others, and i know there is no historical architectural historian that will accept this position. however, this is one that i would except as a practice and that is to do as much as possible within that. let's deal with those things

that have been traditionally done and that is related to what we think our historical elements that can be saved. >> would you choose toehold lifting of the suspension or should we continue this so that all of the process can be addressed at once which would be to have some representative of this building, planning, and perhaps dbi involved in this and any issues that might not have been resolved by that permit and the purpose of which is to resolve all issues. >> i fully expect that permit to get appealed.

based upon the history the hearings, i don't see a resolution. >> would you agree that there would be the opportunity to have some consensus. if that was not to take place, we would see an appeal of the permit that is in the wings. it seems as though some of the issues having to do with the lifting of suspension would be incorporated. for us to lift the suspension might add more confusion. >> i would always support allowing some kind of consensus. i'm not sure that is even possible. >> i would support allowing the

parties to have an opportunity to do that. >> we know the building is eligible for listing. >> i would want it known that the commissioners expressed that point of view and might well have some support up here. i would support his comments relative to what is going on in the interior of the building. but to those who are involved in the process decide to pay heed to the comments