you will find that the average wage is 37 feet. the eight washington project consists of a team of aesthetically driven architects and planners who will provide the city with a remarkable development which will make us all very proud. there also accepted -- since -- acceptable of other things. we expect the same high-quality of washington -- of 8 washington. i am here to give you this binder full of letters, and i would like to read to you this is support -- to read to you the support. the san francisco bicycle coalition, the carpenters local 22, the chamber of commerce, a city car share, the american

institute of architects, and there are many more local businesses, merchants, and businesses in these binders, which i will leave with you. >> mr. chair, mr. president, members of the committee. prior to my years of experience with national issues, this was also as a 25-year member of the planning department and a five- year member of the planning group, so i have had considerable background there, and i currently keep my hand in as a quote interested citizen on the northeast waterfront advisory group, and as such, i have had the opportunity to participate in the planning of east of the embarcadero steady

and many presentations and many comments pro and con of this project -- the embarcadero study. one thing i would like to say, i think that the members in this room are probably very concerned about the testimony they heard about the golden gate towers and how it has been finding ways to avoid paying higher taxes on the property and to get around the city rent control board, and i would hope that the city would find this legislation in this regard. also, having said that, as was indicated, the golden gateway owner is not the developer for this project. the developer for this project has done a tremendous job on the east side of the embarcadero. they did a project that no one could have believed came out as good as it did. i do not think there is anyone in the city to has applauded their work -- who has applauded

their work. providing retail that activated the waterfront. they had the primary financial backing from the california state teachers' pension group, and clearly, the teachers are not part of the 1% that people are concerned about, reaping some of the financial benefits. i am a planner. i think from an urban design point of view, a transition from the golden gate towers towards the waterfront, these projects would provide, would be a very desirable thing. the urban design plan never contemplated the removal of the

freeway. my first day at the planning department, coming to the planning commission meeting, we are going to be doing something historic today. the planning commission adopted a plan that day, in the planning department has carried it forward with the northeast embarcaderos study -- embarcadero study, so for these reasons, i support the project, and thank you for your time. >> i have a couple of points and a couple of observations. this was one of seven suval lots that was the reason for supervisors request for a study. the six other lots are north of broadway and have a 40-foot

height limit. this was in the dancer area. i have been on the citizens advisory committee from the beginning representing the preservation committee. and been through this project from the beginning of that i was against it originally. until the configuration of a building and i joined forces because it was a nice project for the site. this is a developable site. i question shadows. maybe i am not informed well enough. this project is north of washington, the park is south of washington. is not the son generally not in the direction of casting shadows? one of my main causes and as a

preservationist i am concerned about the port's billion dollar plus a list of creating on it sound. this has poured revenue like crazy. a comment about the rush parking. 255 will service the ferry building. which brings up another lot. this is a fine development and this is the same development. i hope that in fact this does not become a problem. it is a terrific project for the city. thank you.

supervisor mar: is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor president chiu, , any closing remarks? >> thank you. president chiu: as i said at the beginning, i thought it was important to hold this hearing today in part because there have been numerous public hearings with other city agencies. and planning, the port commission, we have not started that conversation here. the most recent public meeting was last thursday when the planning department voted to initiate a process to consider the site.

i thought we have had not an adequate consideration of the community with issues that have been at the heart of the debate over 8 washgin -- washington. when i came into office the discussion at that time was whether and 84-foot proposal was an appropriate proposal versus what i think many folks in my district wanted which was to seek a rezoning -- see a rezoning. i think a lot of letters in this book provided by the sponsor of the project are in support of what had been that 84-foot height project. we're talking about a project that is 136 feet. it is a different project and will have more conversations. these are issues i think we need to start earlier.

within a few short weeks we will be considering this project in front of the board. there has been discussion about the planning department, the report did put out. while placer electric -- appreciate the work that was done by staff, i did not think it reflected the input of many members of the community that participated and i did support a separate process that is embodied in the community vision report that has been circulated. there are a lot of interesting ideas in this division that have not been part of the process and the project we're talking about. i thought it was important for us to begin this conversation. we're going to continue it in the coming weeks and i want to thank you and everyone for this conversation. this not the end of this, just the beginning. thank you. supervisor mar: if there is no other comments, let's continue this item to the call the chair.

are there other items? >> no further matters. supervisor mar: with no other items, meeting adjourned. thank you. [gavel] [thinking] glucose...plus oxygen... equals...carbon dioxide plus water... hey, gina, what's up? and energy... pulmonary artery... coronary artery... teacher: i'd like to pass them back to you now. i'm very pleased with your work. ...two types of endoplasmic reticulum... 3:00 already? [girl's thoughts overlap]

announcer: she's got the drive, the energy... the heart... and the talent. pre-med. announcer: but she wouldn't be here without your help. please support the united negro college fund. because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

>> good morning. today is monday, december 12, 2011. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. commissioner hechanova: good morning. i am sure everyone is getting ready for the holidays, carrying over from thanksgiving. one of the special announcements i would like to make is, san francisco was awarded the best marine building policy -- green building policy award last week in durban, south africa, for its building ordinance. we had 22 other cities that competed against us. all told, we graded out to be the top in the category at the ordinance projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in san francisco and produce a 10-year

present value of almost a billion dollars from those savings. that is great. the award is from the green in building council leadership award for excellence. it was a panel comprised of the un habitat and green building council. it is terrific, and most recently, mayor ed lee did a press release and also saluted staff efforts of the building inspection department, and also the department of environment, public utilities commission, for their commitment to a sustainable and green city. along with that, i would also like to say thank you very much for some of the commendation that came about four ben mann of

the staff, along with evelyn cart and their service for helping to produce the high level of quality and service to the public. they had been commended by that panel. last, and most importantly, i wish staff, commissioners a wonderful holiday -- let's close out the year in a wonderful way and be blessed by all that has been brought to us, on the rising tide of economics, all the things that the commission has done and takes responsibility for.

>> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item four -- i'm sorry, item three. public comment. this is the general public comment. if anyone would like to discuss items not listed on today's agenda. there is no general public comment. item 4. discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members of the board of examiners. reappointments/appointments recommended by the nominations sub-committee are: michael cashion, high-rise sprinkler- building owner. seat to expire september 15, 2013. mr. cash john is present.

commissioner lee: as you recall from the last meeting, the commission met about six weeks ago. week revealed -- we revealed three possible applicants to the seat. we recommended michael cashen to the committee because his presence was impressive, fit what the board needed. he has been managing high-rise buildings. he is right now managing 255 california street, a high rise building. he lives in san francisco, has experience with dealing with advisory committees and the government as well because he was on the advisory board. that is why the nomination committee recommended to the

full commission to appoint michael cashion to that seat. >commissioner walker: i would like to second that recommendation. commissioner lee: michael cashion, would you like to make a statement? >> hello, my name is michael cashion. i am very honored to sit on the board of examiners. i was on the graffiti advisory committee for two years. i look forward to this next that in my service to the city. commissioner hechanova: commissioners? commissioner walker: thank you for being willing to serve on this body. you have been very helpful to this commission and looking at the safety issues of tall buildings, having good

discussions. thank you for being willing to sit on this. an important position. >> thank you. >> there is a motion by commissioner lee, seconded by commissioner walker. is there any public comment on item 4? seeing none. we can take a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. now we need to go to the next item -- president hechanova, please read the oath. commissioner hechanova: please repeat after me. i will swear you in.

the oath of office begins with -- i, michael cashion, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california, that i will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of the division -- evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter, and during this time

as i hold the office of a member of the board of examiners, high- rise sprinkler building owner seat of the city and county of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner hechanova: we all look forward to working with you. >> item 5. update on process for cancelling permits and notification of customers. >> good morning, commissioners. we have put in your package item 5, which is the process for the cancellation of current

applications. this is the main concern of the commission. right now, we send out a 21-day notice prior to the cancellation of any application for permits. as you see in the table, there are two values that are set for the cancellation. any project up to $1 million has 360 days from the date it is deemed acceptable for building plan review, not when we take it in. and that is a big item, because it can sit in planning for any length of time, but when it comes to the building department for building plan review, that is when the clock starts ticking for the process in the

department and cancellation of application. commissioner murphy: that is where the problem lies. it can stay in dbi for up to a year before it is kicked out. shouldn't that be the time of the clock starts ticking? >> no, the clock starts ticking at the beginning of the plan check, not the last. commissioner murphy: that is what i would like to see changed, suggestion to a change in the code. >> we can take that to -- that is a whole different way of looking at it than the state looks at it. we can certainly look at it. commissioner murphy: it would be

a good place to discuss that, the pac meeting, and then bring him back here. >> definitely, we can do that. we are also looking at increasing the time limit of the vacation -- notification, from 21 days to something longer, to give people more time to actually try to get the fund together to get the permits, plans renewed. commissioner hechanova: is there a declaration sometimes why there is the delay, the basis by which the extension or approval of extension can be given, or is it automatically given? >> right now, we automatically give the extension. we have been giving more than one extension automatically. we have not been canceling

permits just to cancel permits, unless the project sponsor wants the project cancelled. commissioner murphy: that was something we changed two or three years ago, a combination of 36 months. that is another problem now. that was 2008. a lot of these projects are homeowners, small developers, are still not able to get the funding, kick them forward. i would also like to discuss that in the pac meeting, maybe 24 months, to get these extensions going. >> we can certainly discuss that in the pac meeting. commissioner hechanova: that would be another 24 months, 12 versus 24, 36?

commissioner murphy: if the projects are within the envelope, planning should not have a problem with that. perhaps if you go beyond the envelope, they could take a look at it. there needs to be some kind of process put in place that these homeowners, stakeholders do not have to go back through the whole process again, two years in planning, another year in dbi. we need to discuss that. commissioner hechanova: so it is a form of chewing up -- queing up continuity from where they were before? commissioner murphy: the 36 months is up. that is where we are now. a lot of these permits will be

expiring, will not be able to extend thaem. we need to build something in there so that that does not happen. i am mostly referring to the smaller projects, and vertical, horizontal conditions -- whatever. would be unfair for them to go through the process again. commissioner hechanova: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: if you do the initial renewal after the current timetable expires, does it really have to go through a planning and dbi review, or is that just a perfunctory evaluation of they need more time? >> if the project had been approved by planning for more than three years, we do send it as a cursory approval back to

planning. quite frankly, we have won the night in the time that we had been doing this. commissioner walker: that is for the one that are more than 36? >> the one approved by planning 36 months before. commissioner walker: that seems to apply only to the larger projects? >> it can be any level of project. it can be a small home owner who cannot get the financing also. the years have been bad for the last three years. now, the financing is just breaking loose to where the home owners can get them, but planning approval might have been three years before. commissioner walker: is that a state law that planning applies? >>