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] hey, yo, check out this chef, right? right? that's so gay. that's really gay. dude, look at those pants.

please don't say that. what? don't say that something is gay when you mean that something is dumb or stupid. it's insulting. it's like if i thought this pepper shaker was stupid, and i said, "man, this pepper shaker is so 16-year-old boy with a cheesy mustache." just saying. >> good afternoon, ladies and

gentlemen. welcome to a gorgeous day on treasure island. in the redevelopment director of the treasure island authority. would you please rise for the singing of the national anthem? >> ♪ o, say, can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets' red glare

the bombs bursting in air dates proof through the night -- gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o, say, does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ [applause]

>> it is a tremendous honor to be here today on treasure island with the honorable speaker of the united states, house of representatives, nancy pelosi. [applause] the honorable secretary of the navy, ray davis. [applause] and the honorable mayor of the city and county of san francisco, gavin newsom. [applause] today we stand on the brink of the future of this island by commemorating the historic agreement with the transfer of the formal the -- naval station from a united states navy to the city and county of san francisco. i know i speak for many people who have worked extremely hard to make this day a reality, people on all sides of the table, across organizations, when i say that it is truly an honor and a proud moment.

i would like to take a moment to acknowledge our many partners and supporters who are here today. please forgive me if i do not mention everyone. there are too many of you to name individually, but i would like to recognize, and if you would please stand, former mayor willie brown, current and past members of the treasure island development authority board of directors. our treasure island citizens advisory board, and the treasure island homeless development initiative, one of our great partners, and of course, our private sector partners, the treasure island community development.

and to the many folks in the audience, the many members of the city family and regional partners who we work with on a daily basis, and now, it is my great pleasure to introduce the mayor of the city and county of san francisco, the honorable gavin newsom. [applause] mayor newsom: thank you all for being here. i could not hear a word that jack just said because i'm sitting next to the flag, but obviously, it shows who is expandable up here, the person sitting on this side of the stage, but let me welcome speaker of the house nancy pelosi and secretary mavis and all the people that helped make this day possible. welcome and thank you for your leadership and your stewardship, to mayor willie brown and all of his hard work. his then staffer, now my staffer, who worked so diligently through two

administrations to get us through this day. i thank you. to the development team. to the residents of this island that have been patient beyond imagination. with the hope and expectation we would get to this point. to all those that are looking forward to the ground breaking to be hosted some time next year. it is pretty remarkable -- this is a small city, and about 10% of our land happens to be on three principal areas. all three of them former naval bases. out there in hunters point. the army out on presidio, and here on treasure island. 25-plus-hundred acres in the '70s -- the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's.

since then, we have been talking about revitalization. we have been talking about reconstituting these pieces of property. just two weeks ago i had the pleasure and privilege of signing 12 pieces of legislation, marking over the course of over two decades over the course of hunters point. creating a framework on an economic development framework for 10,500 new housing units, 32% of them below market. hundreds of thousands of square feet of new retail space. yes, a new stadium for somebody someday as well as revitalizing the county, which is long overdue. this was an extraordinary moment, and here we are just a couple weeks later celebrating another extraordinary and historic moment. we have been talking about this since 1993, informal process

that began this. the formal negotiations in 1994. the navy ceased operations formally here in about 1997. we are standing, remarkably, on awpa project -- on a wpa project were folks started taking land and rocks and putting this project out here. then, it was supposed to be converted. you can only imagine, as an airport. luckily, there was some wisdom, and that vision did not take shape, but for over half a century, the navy has been out here doing administrative work and training work, and we have been figuring out what exactly to do in the last decade and a half. we could not do it alone. we needed to work with the navy. we needed the process of an agreement. we needed a private partner, and we worked to gain that support, but it was not easy because this

is a different era, appropriately, where you cannot just take a dollar bill out of your left pocket and handed to the secretary of the navy and say, open a " thank you for the property" and walk away and start to develop it. we needed to create a different framework with a participation agreement. what we're celebrating here is a long negotiation where we developed a strong partnership with the navy and the private developers, where if we do well in the city, if the developer does well, then the navy does well. our federal taxpayers do well. we have a participation agreement that in many ways we think will become a model for other similar agreements across the country. it was not easy to put together, but we are here today to celebrate that agreement. we are here today to celebrate a two-page term sheet that the secretary, myself, the speaker, and others agreed to in december of last year that now is about and 80-page legal document, and na