consideration and urge you to certify as recommended. president olague: thank you. is there additional? >> my name is jamie whitaker. i live in the rincon hill neighborhood, in a humble studio. i am very much looking forward to the construction progressing for all the different aspects in the trans bay area. i am happy to say construction cranes are starting to appear again in my neighborhood. i think 45 lansing will start digging soon. it is exciting to see people moving in. hopefully, businesses will come. air quality is my big concern. i think it will always be a concern, with the bay bridge outside my window, literally.

more parking space is being proposed for projects like eight washington. i think there are tools to mitigate the traffic. we just need to find some leaders politically to consider traffic, the congestion charge, and give folks some incentive not to be driving downtown, or at least not to be leaving all at once between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. that is my main comment. you can already see traffic getting snarled in the neighborhood with existing transit center construction, the central subway utility relocation. with america's cup coming our way, please do not drive in our neighborhood for the next two or three years. totally supportive of the building heights and the trans pay -- bay jpa.

every friday, we get an e-mail of the construction that will be happening for the next 10 days. it is commendable. i support them. the eir looks fine to me. i hope politicians can embrace trying congestion fees to mitigate the air pollution. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> sue hester. i know nobody struggled to bring this document up, because it weighs so much. you have a report on downtown center two weeks ago that talked about the assumptions that were made by the city when this was drafted around 1980. the assumptions that were made about how people were going to

work, about the amount of office space, about the way people wanted to work in buildings. the report you have two weeks ago was that people do not want to work in tower office buildings. we have had a shrinkage in the financial district. people want to work in different types of spaces, like the last agenda item. the assumptions that were made on 25 years of growth in 1980 have not come to pass. we needed to think differently. this is going back to those assumptions. if you look at the eir -- it is too heavy to list -- to lift, but it is on page 6. i will show you, because i can do it on the tv. the map of the area -- this is

this planning area. this is the planning area you are looking at now. here, we have this area that was in the downtown plan. the assumption in the downtown plan was that this area, the screen area we are we planning all over again, would have enormous growth of office buildings, because that is where everyone wanted to go. it has not happened. you have to think about whether a report that is given 25 years later, based on assumptions -- i will write this in. what were the assumptions made in the downtown plan? what with the assumptions made in the wind on health plan, -- the ring cone hill -- the rincon hill plan? where are they now? there was also a redevelopment

plan area along the waterfront. the second thing is, unlike other speakers, i care about prop. case. the shuttle as good a portsmouth square. if you are going to throw out the vote of the people, put it on the ballot. do not interpret it away. proper -- prop. k was voted on by the citizens of san francisco, and it limited show. you forget about what you here with your assumptions. the planning department does not really know how people want to work. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you. i think this is a very well- done environmental impact report. there were a couple of questions i wanted to ask, i guess at the

very beginning. it talks about generation facilities. it does not specifically deal with steam heat, which is done in the dark. i am not sure if that is part of the plan, because this is the perfect area for that kind of thing to happen. it is piped into different buildings, and they do not have their own heating systems individually. that should be looked at and perhaps analyzed, if it is not. i was in agreement to some degree with the gentleman who talked about the 1,200 foot tower. i do not see it analyzed here. i am not saying it needs to be, but i guess my question is why is it not part of the analysis as an alternative. i am not saying it needs to be. i think we have plenty of

preferred options, and other options presented being lower. maybe it could be answered in terms of their response. in terms of general demand again, this is an environmental impact report. commenting on the adequacy and completeness of the plan, there were some comments about the direction of the plan. i think the plan is on target, as far as future growth. i think there are a lot of reasons people will want to be here, both to live and to work. with eight $3.75-cost and maintenance of suburban spaces -- with $3.75 gasoline and maintenance of suburban spaces, there is a huge cost. people will come. the business community will

still want space in towers, as they do today. there will be some people who need the broader workplace. it depends what the function is. i think you see towers built in cities throughout the u.s. and other parts of the world. it seems to me there is a demand for them. i do not think it is going to be any different here. i think this is also, to some degree, a throwback to the past. hopefully, we will reach a point, as we were in the first half of the 20th-century, when almost all business commercial activity took place in san francisco, and almost anyone employed here lived here, because we're were essentially an island. almost everyone rode public transportation, because it made a lot of sense. if you did not have to leave the city, it was just as easy to hop on a trolley car. i think we are moving in the right direction with this analysis. and i think the analysis of the

various factors, be they shadow, wind, and the other ones brought in here, traffic impact and historical, are quite well done. i am very happy with the report so far. i have other comments i will send in writing. vice president miguel: i find it very interesting. we moved recently from western soma to the central corridor. now we are moving further east to the transit center, adjoining areas, but very different. as to the eir, i think it adequately covers such things as the tower separation. it obviously, as and eir should, considers the maximum

build out. i do not truly expect that maximum buildup ever to be achieved. i think it is going to be a lot less. but then i am no economic guru. in any case, it is when to totally change the downtown skyline. i think the focus simulations give us a good idea of that. my concern is not the powers at their top and the separation. i am still, as a voice before, concerned with what happens down on the ground. they are commented upon in the document. the downtown streetscape plan of 1995, the trend space streetscape plan of 2006 -- transbay streetscape plan of 2006, and the plan of 2010.

that is where i think everything is important. that is where the public is: to thrive. that is where the district is going to thrive. the manner of the bill to form at the sidewalk is much more important to me the new tower separation in order to achieve 50 feet in height. those things at the top are easy to work with. the personal impact on the ground level is extremely difficult to deal with. because it comes in the public realm, we often do with the

actual individual buildings, without having a good idea of how the mass of them, because many will be built, are going to affect the street level. open space, connections to the five baker park on top of the transit center itself are very important. requirements on street widening, the color you go, the wider the sidewalk should be, in general, to make it comfortable for these hopefully masses of people that will inhabit the area. there is a plan for a second and howard open space, individual open spaces. that will complement the park on top of the transit center

itself. they are extremely important. the privately owned public open spaces that will accompany the office towers to be built, in my estimation, the downtown plan did a very good job. we heard that recently when we were discussing the 1% art situation. it is possible in this area, as we are concentrating so many large buildings, that those spaces should be expanded. the should be required to be larger. they should be required to complement each other. the traffic implications are impossible to imagine. this document, i think, does a decent job in trying to lay them out. you look at every single street in the area is impacted. i started to write down a feel

as i was going through. you have a situation now where the market street design adviser leeboard -- advisory board is going to suggest some bus lines move off the market in order to stop mid-block boardings, and move onto mission, where possible. that will impact the area as well. we have gridlock in certain areas of south of market right now, without any of this being built. we put into place, particularly, real lines and overhead wire lines that are very expensive to move.

it is easy to move a bus from one block to another, but when we start with overhead lines and rail lines, it becomes very expensive. everyone is reluctant to start making those changes. in the transit assumptions we have for this area, they must be built on a flexible underlay. they are not going to stay the same way 20 or 25 years from now, and they should not. they should be flexible enough to be able to be changed with time. we were just talking, obviously, about the border plan, fourth street, and the streets that surround it. the cross streets, and what happens on the central corridor, are going to affect this area. they have to work in conjunction with each other.

that has to be flexible enough to work 10 years from now, when we have a little better idea of how much of this is planned for or studied here and will actually start to be built. i have a question of how much will actually be built. if we get 50% of it, in my estimation, we will be doing good. commissioner sugaya: let's see. in order to improve the public disclosure of aspect of the eir, i would like to have the comments and responses of some graphics to the coal resources and japan -- to the resources section. in terms of historic resources,

it would be nice to have some graphics showing existing historic district boundaries, existing historic resources, california register properties, city landmarks, eligible properties. it has already been identified, so something more graphic to illustrate that would help. just to comment, i think that although the downtown plan, as it was presented to us before, did not completely fulfill, you might say, what we were thinking of in terms of office development at that time. there have been a number of office buildings built south of market just before the recession started.

unless occupy wall street is extremely successful, i would think there would be a continual need for the type of office space characterized by high-rise towers. the kind of development we are seeing relative to high-tech will, i think, continue to be addressed in the corridor plan we just saw, and perhaps other areas of san francisco. commissioner moore: i am not sure whether i can answer questions, but since we have several large projects following each other rather closely, i think the simulations, looking from your balbuena -- yerba buena east, would be appropriate if we look at the museum of modern art expansion. that will be too close to each other, looking at it together.

in one image, that would be useful to me. this is in the spirit of cumulative, that particular project. these things interact with each other. we might as well know what we are looking at. i am not saying what my thoughts are, because i do not have it, but i would like to see it. again, the issue of prop m continues to puzzle me. i think it puts an unusual burden on this commission to continue to grapple with an issue i do not think we fully understand. there are all the right reasons to look at proposition and, benefits we have to judge on, and i think we need an

independent, clear discussion on what it is we are doing. that is a legal issue. that is a historic planning issue. president olague: is that prop m or prop ? -- k? commissioner moore: prop k. and i personally am troubled by it, because i do not have a clear idea of what i am doing. >> all right, commissioners. that will place us under public comment. members of the public address the commission on items within the subject jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. i have no speaker cards. president olague: is there any general public comment? general public comment on an

item not on today's calendar? >> i am sue hester. when you have printed out documents that are color saturated in the background, it is hard to read, it wastes money, and you cannot write notes on it. i was trying to write notes on the central corridor thing, and it is all black. the staff has to get disenchanted with color saturation in documents. it is wasteful and dysfunctional. maybe like it for graphic reasons, but i want to write on my documents. >> research shows you can more easily read white on black and black on white. >> you cannot write any notes on it. it is expensive, if you have to pay for your own ink, rather than having the city pay for it. you know how much it costs, and i do. thank you. commissioner sugaya: i would like to adjourn in memory of

someone, if that is all right. i would like to adjourn in memory of robert maocol, the main preservation architect for the city hall. he passed away in august of this year. actually, he had moved to new york to join another firm, but we did not know that he had purchased a nation -- a niche here. there was a memorial service for him last week, and his friends and family came out. i would like to honor him. president olague: thank you. with that, the meeting is adjourned.

♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is

and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election.

in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to

rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the side by side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one

column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the

eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and c. after all the first choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first choice vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the