modify. >> my explanation for that in present was just by way of reference of demonstrating that it -- that a similar provision has been used in other districts and is part of the code. the sponsor is requesting to do a substitution that has some precedent in other areas of the city. >> i would also like to address a few of the ceqa issues that were raised. first, with regard to the construction truck traffic, i want to reassure you that that, in fact, was what was analyzed in the comments and responses. there was also the provision that the construction traffic would not occur during the morning or evening peak hours so that the trips would all be between 9:00 in the morning and 3:00 in the afternoon. the 200 trucks are staggered. they are not all coming at one time.

they are staggered throughout that period we look at that as roughly 30 trips per hour. that got translated into a vehicle trips equivalent that was found to be less than a significant and comparable to the vehicle traffic from the project itself once in operation. the main point is that we did specifically analyze that amount of trucks. we found it to be a -- not a significant impact. with regard to the air quality, the analysis was done for that amount of construction, traffic, and none of the air district specialists for emissions were exceeded. there was no significant impact for that as well. the eir does look at that. in terms of the northeast study, all the eir says is not that the

project is trying to implement a plan, but for immigrant -- but for informational purposes, we want to acknowledge that that study has been used. it was for informational purposes for the commission. it was not intended to state that the sponsor is trying to implement that plan but to let you know what that plan found. the project was analyzed, the height and density, not because it was trying to implement a plan, just because it was what was proposed and that is what we analyzed. lastly, in terms of the viewing impacts and the findings of less than significant, i want to clarify to people that the threshold -- a significant impact is where there is an obstruction or significant average impact on a scenic view

from public places. the eir presents those scenic views both from the embarcaderos looking up towards telegraph hill and from telegraph hill looking back towards the embarcadero. the eir points out for both the text and imagery that the scenic vista that we are looking at is not just the view of telegraph hill. if you are walking along the embarcadero, the scenic vista is downtown, the bay, the bay bridge, telegraph tower, the ferry building, all of that comprises the scenic vista. as you are walking along the embarcadero, we have the cd which shows that entire trip to the ferry building used towards

telegraph hill and the tower are instructed. in some cases wholly but more often partially. we present all of that information. that information is in there. there is that partial obstruction for a portion of the trip along the embarcadero of that one aspect of the scenic view. but the rest of the scenic vista is still all there. the day, the bridge, treasure island, the ferry building, the clock tower. we concluded that, because you still have a majority of the scenic vista, a partial or whole obstruction for a limited part of that trip was less than significant. that was the basis for our decision. it is not trying to convince anyone to agree with us but we are laying out the evidence as to why we found less than significant.

i wanted to make sure that that was made clear. president fong: i will make a couple of comments. i am continually impressed by the technical questions that this commission is able to bring up. i feel like i am intimately knowledgeable about this project and this site. after growing up on the waterfront, spending five years on the port commission when this product was being discussed initially, and watching the project sponsor shift the project, it has probably gone through four or five different changes in response to the community input and some of the workshops that have occurred. i think it has come quite a long way. i also know the project as a swimmer and member of the golden gate swimming and chess club. i will miss the pool for four years, but i think it will come back bigger, better, stronger.

it steps down as far as massing adequately. it's sort of asks for this kind of step down in massing. some of the comments i fault -- i thought were interesting work challenges about whether or not this property owner has paid the right amount of property tax during the last transaction. i want to point out that that came from an article, which i thought was a interesting source carried whether they are wrong or right, i'm not sure if our commissioners should be basing our decisions on the balance sheets of a project sponsore. i thought that was interesting. as far as the comment about developers making money, the developers who need affordable housing are in there to make money. we need a little bit of everything. a lot of one thing, one way or

the other, is obviously not the right direction. i am going to take a position, hopefully representing most san franciscans who do believe the embarcadero has come a long way. we have much for -- we have a lot to go forward with the exploratorium and this will make the embarcadero and much more active area. president buell: i will be brief. as evidenced by 90% of the testimony, it has been directed to the planning commission. the rec and park commission has heard about 10% relating to the shadow impact on the site. what we are being asked to do is assess whether or not the shadows created by this project create significant adverse affects on the park. i thought staff did a good job in establishing the criteria.

part of it is how the shadows occur, time of day, time of year, and location. we have heard from a staff that it is a small fraction of 1%. those shadows occur in the month of june and july between 6:45- 7:00 in the morning and between 6:15-6:30 at night. we normally would not be sharing this time with the planning commission were it not for that fraction of 1%. with that, i want to let the audience know as well as our commission that that is the scope of our interest in this project. we do not weigh in on bulk, height, transit, parking. commissioner levitan: i just wanted to echo my colleague, president buell. this has been an interesting hearing. i am truthful when i say i cannot remember the last time seven hours went by so quickly.

[laughter] i go on road trips with two small children so i know what seven hours can actually feel like. it is interesting because the subject matter is interesting and the testimony has been interesting. it has been varied and diverse and well-thought out and articulate it. my temptation is to weigh in on more of the substance of the issue before us that my esteemed colleagues have far better expertise in. the extent that i am able to vote is what president buell suggested. to that end, i do think that the amount of coverage and the duration of that shadow, relative to all of the benefits of the project, really are such that the shadows are not in the least bit of verse to the area and projects. i look forward to supporting it. commissioner lee: likewise, this

has been a very educational experience for all of us. i would like to also add that that area of san francisco is changing. it is changing at the capitol committee, at the rec and park commission, we just approved the installation of a playground at the park. there are more families living there. that is why we decided to do that project and that will provide some amenities for families with kids. we also recognize that that entire neighborhood has undergone enormous change. i remember in 1989, pre-1989,

that part was under a freeway. it was covered by a freeway. today, of course, that has completely changed after the earthquake. we do live in the city. we have to balance the needs of change with the need for open space and parks. given, on balance, this particular project, the public benefit outweighs the minimal shadow impact upon the park. i would also support, along with my colleagues, this proposal. i do have a question -- actually, with regard to tennis. we have heard a lot of testimony from the tennis club.

regarding the loss of use of the club and so forth. i would like to see if we, as a department, our general manager, can reach out to some of these families. clearly, we have a very robust tennis program at golden gate park. for instance, i was there -- our capital committee approved the repaving of the tennis courts that are now in the golden gate park tennis center, with a donation from the united states tennis association. we have also undergone, through our capital division, repaving and improvement of tennis courts all over san francisco. i would like to see if our general manager could reach out to the families of the golden gate tennis club to see if we can include some of those

families in the public tennis programs we have at sanford and -- at the san francisco recreation and parks department. we do have some very committed staff that are deeply committed to promoting the sport of tennis. i believe that we can provide a public venue for the members of the golden gate tennis club. thank you. commissioner antonini: i move to certify the final environmental impact report. commissioner miguel: i would like to second that and add that i was remiss in not mentioning in my previous remarks the letter presented by peter from will. any individual is spent 16 years as the executive director on ee has a depth of knowledge of this

area of the city far more than i could ever have. for the majority of people who are in this room or have been in this room today. i think that his recommendation should be acknowledged. >> planning commissioners, there is a motion on the floor for item number one, the proposal to certify the final environmental impact report. if the motion has been seconded. on the motion to certify the final environmental impact report. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes 4-2. may i call item 2a?

the proposal to adopt the environmental quality act. is there a motion? commissioner antonini: i moved to adopt the findings. >> second. >> it is for adoption of the findings of the california environmental quality act. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes 4-2. i will turn over item 2b to you. item 2b is the ferry park request to consider jointly with the rec and park commission to

establish a cumulative shadow. i will call the roll if there is a motion. commissioner miguel: i moved to adopt the item. >> second. >> there is a motion for adoption. the establishment of a cumulative shadow limit. comm aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes. >> we are still on item 2b and we need a motion from the rec and park commission to establish

the cumulative shadow limit for the park and to adopt the findings under the ceqa. do we have a motion? commissioner levitan: i would move that my colleagues adopt this resolution, including a statement of overriding consideration and mitigation of monitoring and reporting the program and establishing a cumulative shall limit for sue berman park. i move that we adopt the resolution. >> second. vice president harrison: aye. commissioner bonilla: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner levitan: aye. president buell: aye. >> we are on item 2c. do we have a motion? >> yes. i would move to recollect -- a

resolution recommending the planning commission finds eight net new shadow cast by the proposed project at eight washington street will not be adverse. >> second. vice president harrison: aye. commissioner bonilla: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner levitan: aye. president buell: aye. >> with that, the recreation and parks commission will adjourn if we have a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> >> ok. we're back in session. i think this is the last third of this session. the planning commission is by itself to finish off the other entitlements for 8 washington. commissioners, we are just -- rec park has adjourned following

their action. and now the planning commission will consider all of the rest of the items on this agenda. item 2-d for 8 washington is a request to consider whether the net new will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of a cumulative through river park to the project. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'd like to move to consider whether the new shadow impact will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle. will not be adverse, of course. naturally. and then to authorize allocation of the cumulative shadow limit for the park to the project. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion that the new chatle will not be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle for the

river park to this project of 8 washington. on that motion, -- [roll call] >> commissioners, item 2 e. the request for general plan amendments. within the northeastern area plan of the general plan. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'd like to remove request for a piping plan. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion before you for recommend approval of this map change -- >> [roll call]

thank you, commissioners. that motion passed 4-2. for item 2-f, this is consideration of a motion making findings with consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code session 101.1. this, the motion before you, with the amendments that were offered by staff earlier today. president fong: commissioner miguel? president miguel: i prove item 2 f with the amendment as stated by staff. president fong: second. >> on the motion before you for approval with the amendments offered by staff earlier today -- >> roll call] >> on item 2g, zoning map ht 01.

the southeastern areas of the development sites from 84 e to 92. and one portion in 136 e hite portion. commissioner antonini: move to reclassify zoning height and bulk, two areas of zoning map h-201, 1 southeastern area of the development site from 84 e to 92 e and another portion from 84 e to 136 e. commissioner miguel: second. >> on the motion of approval of the zoning map reclassification -- [roll call] that motion passed 4-2. and finally, on the request for

conditional use authorization with the modifications offered by staff earlier today, -- president fong: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i move conditional use authorization with the amendments made by staff earlier today. >> second. >> on the motion to approve the conditional use authorization with the amendments offered by staff -- [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. it passes 4-. mr. president? president fong: that does take us into adjournment of the 10:00 a.m. joint meeting. [laughter] we're going to go right into our regular meeting. >> i just need a few minutes to shut this one down and to restart the planning commission by itself. president fong: ok.

we'll stay right here. >> thank you.

chairperson farrell: good afternoon. welcome to the government audit and oversight committee. i am joined by vice chair sean elsbernd and president david chiu. i want to think -- thank sfgtv. >> please make sure to silence all the vices. speaker cards should be given to the court. items will be acted on during the april 3 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. item number 1, adopting and implementing amendment 2 to the service employees international union, local 1021.

>> this amendment is an amendment to the current contract the city has with sciu local 1021 to implement a legal settlement surrounding some outstanding litigation. it does not affect the current year budget in any way. all agreements will take place at the close of this. supervisor elsbernd: the costs associated for the out years, the next two years -- there was a lot in the controller's letter i did not understand. the employees have agreed to notice these costs in current negotiations and credit them as such -- what does that mean? >> based on our agreement to start paying released individuals' premiums, it will cost the city approximately

$4.80 million, which is about 0.65% of payroll. that will actually count toward the settlement in the city's favor during the current year's negotiations. we are in bargaining right now for a successor agreement. this will count toward the cost of that agreement. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. chairperson farrell: any other comments? with that, we will open it up to public comment. other members of the public that would like to comment on this item? please lineup on the side. come on up. >> my name is gus feldman. i am a field representative. i have the proud owner of representing and advocating for the hard-working employees of san francisco general hospital. as we know, back in 2009, there was a stream of unfortunate circumstances that left, i

believe, approximately 300 of our members previously classified as nursing assistants with pay deductions amounting to about 20%. there were doing the same work they're doing prior to what we called the de-skilling of the patient care assistant classification. they are doing the same exact work, yet woke up one day with a notice that their pay was to be reduced by about 20%. this was a gross injustice. as you guys probably recall, we fought against it with the utmost vigor and passion that we could. it is very much a relief that since 2009 our members voted to sacrifice their own pay to create a fund to supplement the loss in pay of these 300 edec =

= de -- 300 the classified employees. -- 300 declassified employees. we would like to thank the labor relations portion of human resources for working with us to resolve this matter. we think this committee as well for reviewing this and hopefully of proving it. thank you. chairperson farrell: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is douglas yep. i used to work at san francisco general hospital. i am a little puzzled by this mou. mainly i am puzzled as to why it was assigned to this committee. it seems this is a financial matter rather than an audit and oversight matter. i do not know whether it actually belongs here. i have a feeling that maybe it is here becae