the budget and a great summary, but it does speak to of the challenges we face. each of the department's year player role in making sure the budget becomes balanced, so they are all here today to answer questions. we want to hear from you directly so we have people who will be asking their questions. each person will get two minutes. if you would like to have a question answered, your questions should come within the one minute timeframe so we will have time for the department's answer. if you would like to make a statement, me have your full two minutes. >> first question is from susan. come on up. >> when we were asked to pass an additional amount of money for street improvements, one of the things listed as a problem was the lack of curved cuts around

the city. if memory serves, there almost 6000 intersections that did not have curved cuts. why are we spending money all over this neighborhood whipping up perfectly sound sidewalks with existing curbs cuts to replace them with different curved cuts when there are places all over the city that do not have them at all? that is flushing money down the toilet. i do not understand it. >> thank you for having me. we did it pass proposition be bond which allows us to improve the conditions our streets. their federal standards and so as part of rebuilding our streets, we will be building all of the streets and repaving and rebuilding all of the cuts to standard on the street. we do need to comply with the federal mandate for standards so when you see a curb cut being

repaired, it is because we are trying to bring them up to standards. >> i understand that. but wouldn't it be better to put them in places we don't have them now? >> we work closely with the mayor's office of disability and they advise us on the critical areas. just because we have one in a certain location, use is a big concerns we have to prioritize. >> one of the areas we have seen is in the past, we might have had a rap that was compliant based on previous laws and as the rule change, we had to fix or repair them to come up to the new standards. >> i am with the mayor's office on disability. the city has a transition plan for the public right of way that

addresses the curb ramps specifically at we have a rating system where we evaluate all of the different curb ramps. our priority is always on public safety. so what we rate the existing ramps, if they meet a certain threshold, we leave them as they are and put them on the list for a later upgrade. but this failed to pass the safety test, having a lift at the bottom up my cause a wheelchair user to tip over -- we do prioritize of four replacement. we tried to do that in conjunction with other infrastructure upgrades taking place in that neighborhoods like street repaving programs. >> i am going to read out a few more names and asked if you could line up to be more efficient with our time.

[reading names] [applause] >> good morning mayor and supervisors. i am here to represent these seniors for self-help for the community. we are in non-profit based organization and we serve about 25,000 seniors in the bay area. over 90% are low any comment from minority communities. senior services has always been a very important that the senior population. different social, educational and educational things to decrease but isolation and promote mental health. our senior centers provide 1200 meals to the elderly every day.

it has been the most busiest center in san francisco. in district 4, we have over 9000 seniors 65 years or more. we only have one the city-funded new site which we can always serve around 500 seniors each day which means thousands of seniors may not benefit from the senior services. i would like to take this opportunity to thank the officer at park and recreation for providing as a great place for the past 10 years. however, with limited space and resources, many activities are restrained. the seniors want to find a place to have meals and meet friends and mingle with old friends. but because of the space, they are limited.

on behalf of seniors,

secretary: good morning, this is a special meeting of the planning commission for thursday, april 12.

before i take role, let me just repeat some of the ground rules. for those of you who are in the room, again, if you leave your seat, you have lost your seat. the sheriff's department will let someone else come in and take back seat. turn off your cell phones. there is to be no extra talking to because we need to be able to hear. this is a crowded room. the commissioners need to hear what is going on so they make -- can make informed decisions. for those of you who are in the south course, as we call your name, we will give you time to come upstairs. once you come in, just let the sheriff's department know that your name has been called, and you will be allowed to come in so you can speak. with that, roll call. [reading roll] commissioner cindy wu is absent

today. commissioners, i am going to -- i need my glasses. ok, commissioners, the special calendar today is all about this, and the commission will hold one hearing for the public to provide testimony on all items listed below, including consideration as to whether to certify the eir. following the public hearing, with they will consider action on certifying the final environmental impact report following action on that item, the commission will consider all other actions and entitlements with the long-range development plan project. i am going to call all of the items, commissioners, which includes all of the components, and then we will have staff presentation followed by the project sponsor and their consultants, followed by the

request for blocks of time, followed by special accommodations, followed by the general public. item one is case number 2005. 0555e, the california pacific medical center long ridge development plan. this is a certification of the final environmental impact report. item two, case number 2005.0555, 2004.0603, 2009.8885, 2009.0886, 2012.0403, the california pacific medical center long ridge plan development plan projects. item 2a is the proposed adoption of the findings of the

california development plan act, item 2b is the campus, and c is the campus amendment, and 2d is with the planning to a policy is with section 101.1. 2e is for the amendments and a request for the planning code text amendment, to ask if they request for a conditional use for f, and 2g is the statements request for authorization, 2h is a consideration of the general plan referral, 2i is the cathedral hill campus, a request for a planning code text amendment and a request for a

plane could zoning map amendment, 2j is the van ness campus, requesting for a conditional use authorization, 2k a request for the office of development authorization. 2l is cathedral hill, consideration for a motion for the general plan referral. 2m is the davies campus request for conditional use authorization, and 2n is also, ok, this is the medical center long-range development plan, a request that the board of supervisors approve a development agreement pursuant to chapter 56 of the san francisco administrative code. commissioners, with that, the matter is in hands of staff. the staff presentation.

>> good morning, president fong and members of the commission. this is the first item before you. planning department staff. the first item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report or eir for the long-range development plan. certification of the final eir is required before any action can be taken. a copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you. the draft dnr was published on july 21, 2010. the public hearing on the draft was held in september 2010. it closed after a 90-day comment period in october 2010. this was published march 29, 2012. you also have before you a supplemental informational packet for today that contains a sheet that presents minor revisions to the eir related to the clarification of the

significant threshold for analyzing interior noise levels for nonresidential uses and correcting the eir text to say that the noise level standards for the residential uses is 45 instead of 45 of another measure. this change does not present any news in the information and does not result in the determination that any news in the impact would occur or that there would be an increase in the severity of previously disclosed in packs. -- impatcs. -- impacts. yesterday afternoon, we received two letters on response for the documents. the first comment letter, april 25, 2012 letter submitted by engineers raises a number of comments related to potential traffic conflicts on the alley with the development of the

cathedral hill campus. these comments are substantially the same as those that are raised during the draft eir, period by the same organization, and these comments have been fully responded to in the document. for example, 43 from the engineers, in the document, which was submitted on september 26, 2010, and the response to that is 22 starting on page 3721 in the document. accordingly, no new information is presented, and no new issues were raised in the april letter from the engineers that change the conclusions of the eir. the second, the letter we received was the april letter submitted by the california nurses association which raises a number of comments related to population, housing, and employment, air quality,

greenhouse gas emissions, and hazardous materials. these are substantially the same during the draft eir by the same organization. these comments have been fully responded to in the document. please see the comment letters and the document, which are submitted by the california nurses association on october 19 and 20, 2010, respectively, and the comments contained in these letters can be found throughout the documents. no substantive new information is presented, and no substantive new issues have been raised in the california nurses association, a letter that would change the analysis or conclusions. during the draft eir hearing, commission members and members of the public raised questions and comments which we have tried

to fully address in the document. i want to take a few minutes to highlight our responses to the issue, based on the letters received and the testimony heard which appeared to be of particular concern to the commission and members of the public. some commissioners have questions about the project impact on housing. especially of affordable housing, and with the van ness special use district 3 to 1 housing requirement. as discussed in the land use and planning and population and employment subsections and the response document, starting with pages the environmental analysis did not find any significant impact related to housing, and there is no change to the finding in the document. i do know that through the development agreement, they have agreed to make a contribution towards housing. we also have from the mayor's

office of economic development and the mayor's office on housing which can speak more about the housing proposals in the development agreement. we also received a number of questions and comments about the need to discover additional alternatives other than the ones analyzed in the draft eir or what was contained in the er, such as alternatives. the document addressed his comments in detail in the alternative subsections. as explained here, the study revealed alternatives that would affect the significant or no impact on meeting some of the project sponsor all objectives. document -- the cnr document determine this would not differ in scope in connection with the

alternative, and therefore, the alternative would not further reduce or have additional significant impact compared to the eir analyzed. some commissioners and the members of the public raised concerns regarding the project routing, distribution and traffic analysis in the draft eir. in particular come in relation to the implementation for the campus. just to clarify, the project tripped distribution was based on a variety to and from the development site, consistent with the guidelines and travel conducted. this included more streets, including streets to the east of the tenderloin area. additionally, based on comments received from commissioners and members of the public, supplemental analysis was done regarding the impact on the tenderloin little saigon area.

this analysis, which is included in the document, looked at an additional intersection in and around the tenor line, and a summary of this analysis is presented in the document, 124, and as discussed, it was found it would not have substantial traffic, pedestrian, or bicycle impact in the tenderloin area. nor does it affect the significant environmental impacts or affect the draft eir findings. in addition to the traffic analysis, we also conducted a trip distribution sensitivity analysis. as described in the document, on certain pages, which increased by 64% the proportion of overall project trips going through the

south of market and tenderloin areas. even with the distribution, the majority of the projects were assigned to south of market and the tenderloin area, and most of these intersections continue to operate at the same levels of service with impact similar to those discussed in the draft eir. the sensitivity analysis therefore did not affect about tuition of the significant environmental impact of the project or change the findings of the draft eir. i have with me susan and greg from the planning department it commissioners have specific transportation-related questions. i also want to point out that based upon the review of the environmental review guidance from the bay area quality management district, the supplemental air quality analysis was conducted. this analysis was presented in

the document in the air quality subsection responses, starting at a certain page, and this analysis does not affect our about the mission of the significant to environmental impacts of the project or result in any new or more severe impact than those identified in the draft eir. the commission and the members of the public in the emergency services provided. we address these comments in the document, and the other issue, the health care subsection, starting at page 323-1. we also have something from the department of public health if commissioners have a specific child care and health-care related questions. finally, i want to note that the staff has reviewed what was published in march 2012 and found that the provisions in the

agreement, to the extent that they include physical changes to the environment are adequately covered in the eir or other review documents. questions were also raised regarding potential -- draft eir. as discussed in the document on pages -- we circulation is only required when new information is significant. the draft eir is fundamentally adequate and conclusory. the ceqa guidelines document what is a new substantial impact, including the increase in impacts that cannot be mitigated, declining to adopt feasible mitigation measures, differing from one previously analyzed, new information included in the document does