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]

[indistinct voice on p.a.] announcer: when charles bennett graduated from high school, he dreamed of returning to his old neighborhood as a teacher. but without the money for college, only half his dream came true. [car horn blares] he's back in the old neighborhood. please support the united negro college fund. because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

>> the eastern neighborhoods plan is an effort to change the rules and update the rules for the poor neighborhoods. the mission, show place waterfront and it's an effort to look at what should happen in the future what happens to be . the decision has been made. so we assume that's gone. basically looking at the central waterfront on both sides of mission bay. there's a cluster of remains production activities that's one. one of the more interesting ones is the northeast mission. it's basically between potrero

avenue and south van ness. very mixed neighborhood. and thirdly, i would point to show place square. but it basically at the base of potrero hills where the design related businesses are. it's the 3 clusters we look at. the fourth one is bay view's hunter's point. we have recommended to transition about half of the industrial land in those 4 neighborhoods out of industrial and into neighborhoods. it's a finely wrought compromise for the city's need for housing and the imperative to keep some of these larger

rougher businesses able to survive in the city. from catering kitchens to auto repair. furniture wholesaling, a lot of things that need larger, cheaper spaces to occur. those businesses they provide support for the the city's front office economy. the downtown offices, tourist industry. all of those businesses need support for linen washing, printing and what have you. so the idea is to support the economy and secondly the jobs provided are very good stable jobs. some activities that used to be

clearly unindustrial active, because of technology changes take place in a base that looks like an office. printing takes place in some big, industrial places. now a lot of graphic work is done in a space that looks no different than a law office. we struggled in how to define those activities. we are forced to call them offices. yet clearly they should be allowed to go on. we have figured out how to parcel. in come areas, we saw, no we want real true industrial businesses. we need to preserve an amount of production distribution and industrial activities.

we need to do something proactively to change the rules. the market will probably push it out of the city over time. some people, they look at how much industrial land to retain. what should the rules be around affordable housing? we have a proposal. and in those areas, we are asking for a higher percentage. it's been the most expensive process we have done in san francisco. we estimate we have had 50 commission hearings.

we have had dozens and dozens of meetings. we may never have consensus. we will always have different sides of the position. we believe we are a solid, compromised proposals. we will see a bit of a surge in 09 and 2010. what you will see is multi-family developments. condo projects in buildings in some cases 400 units. we will see between 7500 and 10,000 new units. a lot of industrial businesses maintained and some that go bay the way side. the es