conditional use authorization and the overall entitlement window of the project. looking holistic play at the. that was submitted in 2001 with the application, it took several years to go to the planning commission. that was 2005. several years to get the variance decision approved. the following year, the notice of special restriction was recorded, 2008. that could have been recorded any time after the variance was granted in february, 2007. it seems it could have been recorded sooner, but it was not. it was recorded in early 2008, when the department approved the project. the department has worked with the project sponsor this whole time through. it is not as if they got their conditional use authorization back in 2005, never submitted a building permit, never did any work with the department, never tried to obtain authorization, just came in one day four years

later and said here is the building permit. that is not what happened in this case. i think this is a unique circumstance because of the fact there has been an extensive amount of time devoted between all the parties to come to a resolution on the project, and that is where we are. for those reasons that we did determine the conditional use is still valid, allow the building permit, that is why we approved it. when it came to the issue about the notice of special restriction and noncompliance with that notice of special restrictions, we issued to stop work request. we also initiated enforcement case to get compliance with the notice of special restrictions and get those details and appreciate those. it is unfortunate we have to rely on members of the public to enforce these conditions of approval. it should be the private sponsor doing that right off. that is frustrating for the department, frustrating for the public. in the ideal world, the project

sponsor would have done all of the work initially, but we have work to get the notice of special restrictions adhered to, and that is why we have allowed the project to go forward as it is, meeting the notice of special restrictions. that is all i have to say for that, and i am available for questions. >> in one of the explanations for the delay, it was said that was for the variance, because they were waiting for the code to change. >> the building code change, the 2007 building code, which i believe it was adopted in january, 2008, i think that resulted in the change of the exit in requirement. the variants itself is for the lot coverage and a lack of

parking. vice president goh: and the height? >> the conditional use authorizes the height in the chinatown community district. there is conditional use for the height, variance for the parking, and also full lot project coverage if. that is because it is a unique lot, only 24 feet by 29 feet. it has special design considerations. i wish i had more details on why it took two years to get the variants issued -- variance issued. it was issued two years after. vice president goh: and why do you think that they included a three-year expiration for the

conditional use? what is the reason? >> the planning code talks about expiration of conditional use within a reasonable amount of time. that is what the code says. that is the interpretation that a reasonable amount of time is three years. that has been our policy, it is reasonable, three years, and that has been adopted and the approval for the variance and conditional use is quantified as a reasonable amount of time. in looking at this and the project in the history and how we work with them to come to resolution, we think a reasonable amount of time is the time that it takes to get the project approved. we feel it's still complies with the time limitations of the planning code for conditional use. vice president goh: okay. i'm still able bet unclear. i know you addressed this earlier. why wouldn't product sponsor

have been asked or required to have an extension, or whatever mechanism it would be? >> it could've been the determination of the staff working on the project at the time. they still had not cleared up the variance issue, it was still a project in motion, and we had not started the time clock then. the department work with the project sponsor at the time and to my knowledge have not requested they go back and obtain an extension of conditional use, because we were reviewing this project actively over those years and felt it was still consistent. vice president goh: when you mentioned the people in your department who were involved in that are no longer with the department, you mean we cannot bring them forward and ask them why? >> i am the person who was last involved in this case on behalf of the state. it vice president goh: okay,

thank you. >> three minutes. >> thank you. this is what 605 kearny street looks like today. with, ironically, the help of the appellant, the project sponsor it retained two preservation architects, and they put together 37 pages of job orders that resulted in the stop work order on june 17, 2010. we're trying to stay positive as well. to me, that is a preservationists dream, to have that type of effort and care put into a project like this. in addition, the appellant says he wants it to be built, but this is what it would look like if it was built.

we don't want to force a new environmental review when none is necessary, bicol's -- because the goals have been accomplished. there are people in place who are ready to start working on this project tomorrow. forcing any type of further delay would leave a gutted property and blight on kearny street in chinatown. the planning department has overseen a vigorous environmental analysis, and the 605 kearny street development team has fully worked with city officials during this project. extraordinary efforts have been made to follow the guidelines of the city planning department and dbi. the time it took to obtain the building permits, to get everything in place was well

worth the effort, and we are requesting the board allow this project to move forward without delay. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: i am sure everybody in the audience recognizes that i could speak for hours if we were to discuss the nature of ethnic enclaves, the nature of chinatown. many of us have been in that very discussion, such as myself, since the early 1970's. the issue before us is relatively narrow, but it has wide ranging impact. i think i would share with my fellow commissioners that is not

necessarily the formal process, but during my tour at planning, we used to hear the continuation of conditional uses, and we would always ask the question why they were not proceeding. they range from those, predominately at that time, because we were in recession. a lot of projects were not continuing because of the economic and financial issues. housing projects, large ones, etc. one could almost predict that there was a reasonableness to allow for continuances of

conditional uses. very rarely did we hear one that was based on the type of ongoing dialogue that may have been necessary to finalize a particular item on a particular permit. in the time that have been on the board of appeals, it has also been fairly consistent that the zoning administrator office has in general provided continuances, and it is something that is relatively easy to get. reasonably easy to get. the question, then, is, why wasn't that done here? if you look at it, the overall process and the time line, it is apparent there were a number of steps.

i am not sure they were so difficult that it would have taken that much time to accomplish each, but it is also not very easy sometimes to navigate through the city processes. i will not name any names or apartments. that is not always so easy. -- i will not name any names or departments. it is not always so easy. in this particular instance, if one accepts the start time, then, yes, the three years elapsed and there was no continuance of that entitlement offer. i choose to interpret the period that it should have started as when the final entitlement was in place, that allows one to have built with this particular use asked for, and for me that would be the time that the

variance was finally recorded. so that is 2008, and therefore the three years, in my opinion, ran from that point in time. vice president goh: i am taking kind of a different view of the start time. i mean, based on the clear language, the three years running from the date of the adoption of the motion, even apart from that, the difficulty, where the time, i understand the project sponsor has been involved with the department throughout, but there are these various points where the time that was running really seems like maybe a choice of the project sponsor. i am thinking about that variance code change that was

mentioned. the other thing, we heard a couple of times, the noncompliance of the n.s.r.'s was so great that the printed sponsored at the preservation architect involved and has a long list of things to pay attention to and sort of fix. but the preservation architect was required by the n.s.r., so the time that was eaten up by that seems to me on the printed sponsor and not on the city department to explain -- seems to me on the project sponsor and not on the city department to explain. we heard that they did not apply for an extension or l.o.v. to extend the c.u. maybe it would have been granted relatively easily, i don't know. and then more globally troubling

for me, and maybe it is sort of bad timing for this project, and mr. wong said that, he said the application of the laws should be applied similarly to everyone, and i think that is true. i think we have had trouble with that. we heard some of the people involved are no longer with the department, and we heard from the very beginning of this hearing, during public comment, we were reminded of a permit expediter who was facing 200 felony counts for dealing with the same department in a way that was not -- this is mr. bley's language, it was not above board. mr. bley has been saying he does not think this is above board. taking that all the consideration, i have a harder time explaining away or excusing

the time that has passed and caused the c.u. to expire. i think those are my comments for now. commissioner garcia: i will go. if other people want to wait. it is very hard to ignore the fact that so many people care so deeply about this project that they gave up an evening to be here late. obviously, they care about this. but as was stated early on by mr. bley and others, this is a very narrow issue. the issue is whether or not this is a valid c.u. because the language in paragraph 2, of the motion, -- i am sorry, in the

n.s.r. that had to do with the motion states that after three years, after that motion was adopted, which was 2005, i think, february, that the conditional use would be invalid and expired. but there are several things that really troubles me, and it occurred to me when i was reading this. the statements i am going to make our legalistic, and it is certainly not from going to law school or treading as a lawyer, but it stems from the variance here, we have dealt with the issue of stock border. had this been brought before the planning department, to declare this was now an invalid c.u., i would think someone, certainly i

would have argued, strongly that the city should be stopped because a lot of the delays were caused by the city. and also, it seems -- and i am still not clear on this -- i guess when you have a project and it is required that you file an n.s.r., and has to be attached to it. the world will know it is special requirements and anybody buying the property would know that these special requirements go in perpetuity with the property. the other reason i want to stop the city, this n.s.r. is filed be on the date on which this would already expired. so if you go back to february, 2005, go three years forward, it would be february, 2008, and this is recorded by the hungs

themselves and is dated march 2008. i would argue with the city they should have caught that. they should have alerted these people that this project sponsor that there was a problem. but beyond that, i think a great argument was made by the fact that, as has been stated by several people already, not all these delays were caused by the project sponsors. if anything, most of the delays were caused by lack of action by the city. but all that aside, i still find it very reasonable that the actual date, at which time the clock should start ticking, would be that date in 2008 when the variance was decided on.

i am sorry? >> 2007. commissioner garcia: 2007. but at any rate, the city feels as though this is a valid c.u., it is still valid, has not expired, and i agree with the city and i tend to uphold. -- i intend to uphold. commissioner hwang: my analysis is not as complex as with my fellow commissioners have stated. simply put for me, if this is a technical concern, and the zoning administrator and planning feels that what has happened with this project is in part connected to the process- related issues, then the zoning

administrator has discretion to determine what would be a reasonable outcome here, i would defer to that in this case. i would support the movement of this project going forward. president peterson: i will say lastly, it does not appear to be anything simple about this matter. there certainly are some well articulate concerns by the appellate. but i also think that having the city issued the work order and obtain a number of changes out of concern, in essence it delayed the project. i think we have to concern, balance these concerns with the

community presence and the architectural concerns. it sounds like a lot of those have been made. now to penalize the project sponsor over this matter, when there has been a lot of the late not as his fall -- there has been a lot of delay not at his fault, i would tend to agree with commissioner fung as to when you would start the day. that is my inclination. commissioner fung: commissioners, i am going to move -- there is a hand raised, madame president? president peterson: yes? >> i just want to remind you again, there are substantive issues. president peterson: okay, we're

not having argument. >> i did not get there because i thought we would have a hearing before the planning commission. the planning commission approved one building. this is something completely different. it has been changed. the building has been presented to the chinatown community as being a building that is of equal height to the buildings next door because that serves the purposes here. in fact, it is 15 feet taller. if there were no problem with that, why not have pictures that properly show with the building would look like? president peterson: thank you, sir. commissioner fung: everybody should remember, then that is a c.u. issue. we are dealing with the zoning administrator's release of suspension. i find it was a reasonable decision by the zoning administrator, and i so move that the appeal be denied.

>> if you could call the roll, please? >> the motion is count -- the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the zoning administered's release because it was reasonable? >> there were no errors on the part of the zoning administrator. >> again, to uphold the request for release of suspension on the basis the zoning administrator did not abuse his discretion. on that motion -- [roll-call votes] thank you, the vote is 4-1. the z.a. is upheld on that basis. >> president peterson, since the next items were withdrawn, there are no further items. [applause]

>> welcome to coulterwire. the san francisco arts commission and department of public works has joined forces by battling graffiti by

launching a new program called street smarts. the program connects established artist with private property owners to create a vibrant murals which is a proven an effective strategy for combating graffiti on private property. artists, along with his crew, recently transformed a building turn to vandalism into a masterpiece. let us take a look. >> part of me has so much compassion for other graffiti artists. i understand why they are doing what they do. for me, it was something that was so hard to get out of. the lifestyle in general. j and tagging is addicting.

i used to be on these routes. i have compassion for these guys. a lot of these guys are super talented. i am just trying to find the median to still be involved but still do my thing as an artist and work with the city, like we are doing. we are doing this wall in a collaboration with the san francisco arts commission. basically what they are doing is trying to get rid of some of the tags and by putting up murals. they are cooking up graffiti artists with business owners. today, we are trying to get a lot of this wall buffed out and covered it. then we will spray on some sketches of what we are going to do. the rain is coming tomorrow.