with our labor partners. we try to ensure we are getting value for all our premiums. this has been sticky, because it has gone back so far in history. of course, we are in a collective bargaining environment in which we cannot dictate the terms of a contract. we will be proposing, in the next round, the new definitions for lead pay, which will hopefully set numbers as to minimum numbers of employees you have to supervise or direct, before you are eligible for the benefit, and to make sure we are not paying people for doing what is already required as a minimum of their job duties. that is one. when the dust settles, we will know if we have changes, and what those changes are. we will produce guidelines for our department so we have uniformity across the

department. we will also be issuing some guidelines in the stand by rome -- realm about duties which are primarily administrative in nature, which is already existing language. one of the things the audit showed is that departments are not defining consistently -- different departments are using different definitions of what is primarily administrative in nature. we will offer some guidance to departments. chairperson campos: right now, are there guidelines that govern lead pay or standby pay? >> no. the standby pay section -- assignments that are primarily in administrative in nature are not eligible for standby. when the department asks dhr for advice, we say it is primarily

clerical, people in budget supervision who do not have the technical skills to turn the water off or get the computer systems running. they should be excluded. but we do not have written guidelines on that issue. chairperson campos: right now, you rely on a department calling you and asking you on that? >> we are -- we rely on the controller's office and the mayor's budget office. budget analyst -- we are not and auditing agency. we do not rely -- we do not do audits of departments. we rely on departments to ask us for advice. we find out to the budget process, for example, that departments are out of work. we move forward with the auditors. chairperson campos: is there a reason we have not had guidelines? just wondering. >> i would not say there is a reason. we've had these provisions in place for at least four years,

back when this was controlled by the board. now, it is controlled in the collective bargaining process. literally, as we go into our new payroll system, we are being forced to configure it every single practice or contract. that is, frankly, allowing us the ability to see all of these in one place and react to them. chairperson campos: i am glad you are establishing those guidelines and training departments, so there is consistency in implementation. that will be helpful. >> i agree. chairperson campos: thank you. is there anyone from the information and technology department? any other department head who is here to speak on this item? please come forward. >> nancy holmes, director of insurance and controls. not a department head.

we had three recommendations. chairperson campos: speaking to the microphone. >> we had three recommendations applicable to the puc regarding stand by and call back pay. the majority of our standby pay relates to emergency responses for water quality and water service delivery. what our water and power group has committed to doing is they are looking at operational protocols to define the levels of service where such a response is needed. once they formalize those protocols, they would then define situations where standby pay is necessary. they did have a bit of a late start. this will take place within the next quarter or so. for our information technology services group, they disagreed with the recommendations. they felt that due to the high level of expertise needed for our networks, they would like to

retain high-level positions in those areas that may require standby pay. however, what they have done in the meantime if they have eliminated the help desk and looked at cross training functions where employees can do not work and how that functionality, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary standby pay in those areas. chairperson campos: ok. >> there is still a little more work to do. what i intend, when i get back there -- i will be working with the agent for water to get more information from the water treatment folks, seeing where they are. chairperson campos: with respect to lead pay, you agree with some of the findings? >> from what i understand, the group did agree. i did not have an update for that area. "we are doing -- our human resources group is looking at active assignment play -- pay.

there is a study in progress. we do not have preliminary people in there now. chairperson campos: one of the things the report points out is that puc staff agrees that, for instance, you assign more lead plumbers than you may be need. just something to follow up on. >> will do. thank you. chairperson campos: is there anyone else who is here? there you go. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure. good afternoon, the chair. from a realistic perspective -- john updike, director of real- estate. we have made good progress in dealing with standby for our stationary engineers. we have over 15 buildings in our portfolio. many require 24-7 monitoring, or have activities tour de force

7, everything from 3112 active police stations. -- from 311 to active police stations. a robust training program brought our engineers to a level where we have comfort with those assets to have only to engineers, one for each campus, assigned for standby. within six to nine months, we should be able to go to one for the entire combination of two campuses. that is only made possible with collaboration of local 39, who have been supportive of our training efforts, and the benefit of present members. with regard to the management issue, we think the process is working fairly well. we have technical staff be the person who gets the immediate phone call of trouble and triage it through our engineering line staff, as opposed to a manager. i think our costs are

relatively low in comparison to what other departments are seeing. lastly, the report accurately notes we have identified our immediate services group. we will be making a change, working with the mayor's office of budget. we did not do a full year, but more a half year implementation. most of that was because of the board chambers project, which we knew would require a 24-7 presence through the summer break and before, to prepare for that pretty intensive audio and video upgrade that was associated with the disability improvements we made to the chambers. we are ready to effect that change as we turn the calendar year for media services. i hope that is helpful. amy brown hoped to be here, but had a conflict. she sends her regrets. hopefully, we can answer any other questions you may have. chairperson campos: thank you, and thank you to ms. brown for

her offer. questions? again, i want to thank the budget legislative analyst for their good work armas -- on this, bringing helpful information to the departments, and for responding to the recommendations. we look forward to a follow-up on this issue in a few months, just to see where we are. again, i want to thank you for being here. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. going back to the agenda, this is an informational item, simply a hearing. so if we can continue this item to the call of the chair, so we can follow up? motion to continue. i take that without objection. is there other business before the committee? >> there is no further business. chairperson campos: thank you.

meeting adjourned, and happy holidays.

>> good morning and thanks for your patient during the delay. i apologize for being late. this is a special meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday december 8, 2011. before i take role, i want to remind all of us to turn off our electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. roll call.

we have a full commission. commissioners, the item before you at this special meeting is 8 washington street, a case to the us and 7.0030 m. it is a consideration of intent to initiate. >> good morning, president, members of the planning commission. the request before year is for an initiation of an amendment to the general plan in relation to the 8 washington street project. the project proposes to demolish an existing surface parking lot and existing golden gate swim and tennis club, would create a new club, residential buildings containing 145 dwelling units, ground-floor retail space is approximately 20,000 square feet, and 400 off street parking spaces. map 2 within the general plan

indicates the 84-district applies to the entirety of the project site, have never, several of the buildings at the southwestern portion of the project site would exceed the existing 84-foot height limit. the sponsors proposing to amend the map to show a limit of 92 feet at one portion of the site and 136 in another portion of the project site. the remainder would remain at the existing 84-foot height limit. procedurally, the planning code requires initiation of a general plan amendment before the amendment can be considered at a future public hearing before the planning commission and more supervisors, along with other record in tenement actions. the initiation does not constitute a recommendation for approval of the amendment, nor does it constitute an amendment of the progress associated with the amendment. future hearings would consider the design and special uses of the 8 washington street project.

i should also not the department has drafted a special report and is in the process of preparing comments in response, and the file eir would be before you for consideration at a future public hearing. staff recommends the commission approve the request initiation in order to enable future consideration of the proposed amendment, as well as other entitlement actions associated with the 8 washington street project. phil williams and of port staff is here to answer your questions. the project sponsor wishes not to make a formal presentation but are available to answer questions you may have, as am i.. thank you very much. >> open it up for public comment at this time. we have a group that requested a block of time. if you are ready, now is the time.

>> thank you, madam president, commissioners. i am with the loyal opposition today. you have seen a lot of details at a washington, but this is the big issue. do you want to raise the height? spot zoning for one project, when it contradicts one major city policy that has protected the waterfront for over half a century. what am i talking about? we have had a city what consensus for 50 years to protect the northern waterfront from these kinds of high increases. why? we can see the results. we have protected the water from all these years. so if you are going to improve it 50-foot increased on the embarcadero, it would be for significant public benefits. what would it look like? maybe it is for lots of housing, but housing that is affordable to middle-class families, families that need it

now, the family tried to stop from leaving the city. and we know that is not the case -- i will talk about that in a second. maybe financial benefit for the city? and that will not happen. maybe it was to heal the wounds left from the freeway ramps at broadway and washington, but in fact, it puts a wall on washington and puts a 400-car parking garage into it. maybe it is for lots of new open space. does not do that either. maybe it is the only way to remove a major blight like the freeway ramps. the ugly green fence? that is put up by one of the owners of the property, one of the parkers. in washington does none of these a million things, so what does it do? it built condos that cost that2.5 millionto $7 million. -- $2 million to $7 million.

on top of that, mr. fu is a partner in the spirit he will be making millions of dollars selling the land. he has been systematically converting rent-controlled apartments in the golden gateway for years. so we are going to raise the heights for the two benefits. housing for the half percent, and are going to reward somebody for taking away the red- controlled house in the middle class family in the city are crying for. so why? revenue? i would plead with you to read the port term sheet. it is robbing the city. let me show you how. if you can see this on the overhead, this is the site. one of the major claims is they will raise $40 million through

infrastructure financing. as you can see, 20% of the site is owned by the port. 80% is owned by the city. if you read the term sheet, they are taking all the tax increment. they are taking a $40 million. they are entitled to aid, they are taking all of it. it will go partly to public improvement, but mostly for the cruise ship terminal, which they already have funding for. they have increased the transfer tax. the real reason that it is a problem is it -- there is a better way to raise more money faster, and it was in our alternative plan which four groups work on. we looked at all the sea wall lots. we said to people, there has to be revenue generated uses on some of these things, recreation. there was a consensus on three of those seawall lots for

hoteliers. for seawall lot 351, for a bike, transit, and retail center, that by itself, would not generate as much as this project. but if you look at them in the appendix, it talks about how much revenue we could expect from all four seawall lots. we are asking you to raise the height for housing for the half percent, and to get less money than our alternative would provide, if you do a comprehensive redevelopment of the sea wall lot. i have a hard time understanding how we can rationalize raising the height when there are better alternatives that do not require a change in the height, or the status and land properties. thank you. >> good morning. i am the president of the

telegraph hill dwellers. in neighborhood association, one of the largest in san francisco, with more than 650 members. we are here today for two main reasons. we are concerned with of zoning in the manner reposed. number one, we are talking about a dramatic 50-foot increased in the height limit on this project, which we passionately believe would open the door to potential up-the zoning to create high rises along the waterfront in years to come. those of you who have been around for some time know that there is a checkered past along the northern waterfront of bad ideas, the u.s. steel project with the skyscraper. that was shot down because people spoke up. there was a proposal to pave the northeast corner of the bay to

create a walking mall, commercial area here that was struck down because people spoke up. the issue here today is up- zoning, scaling up by five stories of space that is an historic district, makes no sense. the other issue is what people can see. my organization is often challenged, and in the interest of people who live in that area, we are there to protect our view. this up-zoning would destroy the views of those people that come to the ferry building to enjoy the view of coit tower. i stood in front of the ferry building just yesterday. although there are some pretty picture that the developers submitted, but in this project were built, nobody would be able to see coit tower or telegraph hill. people who visit, who live here,

shop, would dramatically change things, the experience of people on the waterfront and attach them from the rest of the city. let me speak to three issues, the waterfront plan being first. the waterfront land use plan was something mandated by voters in 1990. the port has had to abide by it i read it since 1997. this proposal raises the issue that the land use plan has been violated and this piecemeal change to it would be violating it once again. the plan stated that every five years, the waterfront land use plan should be in about a weighted. port commission should decide, on a comprehensive level, to amend it in every way. every five years since 1997. my math is not great, since i am a lawyer. not once has there been a comprehensive the valuation of the land from -- of the

waterfront. it has been piecemeal, but no comprehensive citizen review. we met last night on the america's cup here we are keeping ourselves busy, as are you. the developer in this case has said that the waterfront land use plan requires or supports this proposal. that is not true. i looked through the entire land use plan earlier this week. there is one single sentence that speaks to this parcel. on page 129, it says "explore the possibility of obtaining economic value for seawall lot 351 by combining it with the entries in golden gate residential site to provide expanded opportunities for mixed residential and commercial development."

it says explore the possibility. but in one place, buried in the plan, is the plan promoted before our body and yours, that the waterfront land use plan requires this change, and it does not. the other thing i want to speak to this public amenities. challenging the claim that this project provides significant new public parks, open space that would benefit the public. i understand that is one of your mandates. you can only approve this change, if you find it promotes public necessity, convenience, and welfare, including opening of the streetscape. we would urge you to scrutinize that closely. let me show you a couple of slides that make that point.

this is a comparison of the existing site plan. this is the green space -- these dots in the existing plan. this is the proposed change. another -- this corridor -- by opening up this very to public access, that is a huge benefit. that is already a public thoroughfare that the public has access to. that is not a significant change. let me show you another slide that makes that point. the drum street walkway. this is the existing walkway that i walked through this afternoon on my way home. you can walk through an access,

if not recreant. this is the proposed change. while there is more activity, it is the same. there is more pavement, i suppose, but it is not expanded public access. the other point, as we referenced to state land -- because like you, they need to find, to remove parts of 351 from the public trust, there would have to be amenities in its place for the public. the removal of parcel 351, a sea wall lot, would be substituted under the plan with three smaller parcels, none of which is anywhere near in size of the current parcel. the trade-off is questionable, since none provide a large-scale public park with a real access. we would encourage you to look at the claims that have been made about this being a part of the waterfront land use plan, the failure of the port in a comprehensive way, only in a

piecemeal way, as proposed here, and challenge that, as well as the public amenities claim. thank you. >> sue hester. this is only the first of the proposals to suggest increasing height. there is now a proposal for 75 howard st., about equidistance south of the ferry building as the site is north. there will be another one -- and it is the same development team, the same architect, attorney, same pr person. what we're asking you to do is question what is going on today. what is before you is an amendment to part of the general plan and part of the height. this section, the map for the plan -- this is the waterfront land use plan. you cannot quite see it here, but you can on your own.

these sites are listed as 275, incorrectly. this area should be 84 feet. when the redevelopment plan was changed to accommodate golden gate way, it was a major issue at the planning commission at the time. the entire three blocks of golden gateway commons was zone from 275 feet, to 85 feet. the planning department's -- commission had to recommend it because it was an amendment to the redevelopment plan. it went to the planning commission, but the planning department did not initiate the redevelopment to its own that spirit only in the redevelopment plan. if you look at this section of the planning code math, you have the same heights. you have the illusion that this site is surrounded by 275-ft parcels. it is not. these parcels are zoned.

golden gateway common spirit 84 feet. you do not have an initiation for an amendment to your map today. you have an amendment to a general plan map, and they are inconsistent. how are you going to make them consistent? i did not hear one word from staff on how they are going to resolve the inconsistencies in your own maps one says you were going to adopt one that would be defective. the waterfront land use plan has wrong heights in it for all of the golden gateway commons, so when you look at this, you say it is surrounded by 275. it is not. it is surrounded by 85 feet. how are you going to straighten out the mislabeling of these sites? how are you going to amend your own math? there is no initiation. what