than 50% of the first-choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote transferred to their second choice. third, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he or she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. in this example, we have three candidates: candidate a, candidate b and candidate c.

in this example, we have three candidates: candidate a, candidate b., and candidate 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 votes cast. candidate a has received 25% of the votes, candidate b has received 40% of the votes, and candidate c has received 35% of the votes. . because no candidate received a majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes, candidate a, is eliminated from the race. voters who picked candidate a as their first-choice candidate will have their vote transferred to their second-choice candidate. of the voters who picked candidate a as their first choice candidate, 15% chose candidate b as their second-choice candidate and 10% chose candidate c as their second-choice candidate. these votes are then applied to candidates b and candidate c and the votes are recounted. we see now that candidate b has 55% of the votes and candidate c has 45% of the vote.

candidate b now has more than 50% of the votes and is determined to be the winner. thank you for watching. we hope that you have learned more about ranked-choice voting and who is elected using this method. you have seen the ranked-choice ballot, learned how to correctly mark it, and learned how the ranked-choice voting process works. if you have any further questions about ranked-choice voting, please contact us at: department of elections, city hall, room 48, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california 94102. call us at: 415-554-4375. visit our web site at: wwww

>> before i take a roll, please turn off your cell phone, pagers, electronic devices. will call. -- roll call. [roll call] commissioners, the first item on the calendar is items proposed for continuance. at the beginning of the calendar, there were nine and since then there were none. we can move on to other matters. item number one under consideration from the june 3, 2011 hearing. we would ask that you adopt the draft minutes.

president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice-president miguel: i move to adopt the draft minutes. >> on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye commissioner moore: aye. vice-president miguel: aye >> are there any other commission matters? president olague: yes, i noted an interesting article with the title "medical office play." you remember the trying goal -- triangle matter that was before

us. this is the property directly across from 16th street. it is in mission bay. it is four large blocks -- lots on 17th and 16th streets, running street through. it is being discussed within the department and everything, but they are thinking of putting in a medical office building. while it could possibly be an excellent adjunct to what is happening in mission bay, i remember back when the parnassus campus of ucs was buying up residence -- residences and putting in housing and small medical offices until the neighborhood stopped them from doing that. and while certain medical-

related facilities are undoubtedly necessary, it is possibly something we should be cautious about. >> ok. commissioners, if there are no other concerns -- commissioner antonini: 1 more. if you will pardon me. the payment to the and parks program was paid by san francisco beautiful. >> congratulations. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i guess as long as we have some time -- >> now, now, now. commissioner sugaya: it is an ad that shows the clarity of the glass by showing it landscaping,

which does wonders for birds. [laughter] i will pass this off to the bird people, whoever they are. i do not remember the website, but this does show the outline of an owl flown into a window. it apparently flew away, because they could not find the al. but the outline is clear because the owl had some kind of powder on its others or something. anyway, i will e-mail this to you guys. president olague: thank you for that. can you keep us posted on when this will be at the board? i think some of us may want to go and give support to the department recommendations. commissioner sugaya: ok. >> commissioners, we can move on

to the director's report. the directors announcements. >> thank you, linda. good afternoon, everyone. i want to give you a short updates on staff working with wholefoods on the situation at -- did you get a memo in your packet today? from a wholefoods -- whole foods. the bottom line is the neighbors are not completely happy with the situation, but we do believe they are now in compliance. there are two main issues that i think we're part of your conditions of approval even one as the hours of loading and the other is the staging of trucks on the street. your conditions did allow them to load between 4:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.. we believe 4:00 a.m. is the time when the conditions would allow that.

primarily because we did not want to stage trucks on the street during traffic hours, and because when they are using the building without making modifications, the trucks have to go through the parking lot. it is very difficult, if not impossible to load during store hours. that is the challenge we have. it is a very early hour, admittedly, to load, but that was consistent with the commission. we did have the department of public health test for the noise conditions, and we believe they are in compliance at this time. did you have a question, commissioner? commissioner moore: do they unload with the motor is running for the motors off? >> i believe with the motors of f. obviously, that is an annoyance, as well. we have tried to do that in such a way that they have agreed to minimize the amount of time they are backing up. but i believe they do turn the

engines of. i will clarify, but i believe that is true. sense we will be in -- since we will be in right after this meeting, i want to give you a heads up that in the packet you will have a memo from housing on housing information, updating the commission where we are, meeting the various categories of housing, the various affordable categories, as well as market rates. you will see that in this packet. bottom line is we are doing a little better on meeting the low in come -- low income goals. president olague: low to middle income? >> that is right. it is low and middle. there are four categories of low market rate. two categories are doing better

than others. we are slightly ahead of the market rate, but i was surprised it is not more than 113% above bowl. finally, i will be out of the office starting tomorrow through june 22, and kelly will be in charge of the department at that time. then i will be out again the week of june 29. bill will be in charge at that time the banks got sanchez will be out at the same time i am -- bill will be in charge at that time. scott sanchez will be out at the same time ibm. president olague: i guess my question -- do you know what the neighbors in the haight are concerned about? >> i believe it is the early loading our. i believe that is the key issue. president olague: i just glanced at the report when i got your.

50% to 70% of the ami, at 15.9%. moderate, those of the categories were we seem to have not achieved our goals. >> that is right. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: wasn't there a neighborhood complete about trucks on the street and in the early morning? >> yes, there was a concern about that. whole foods agreed to pull them off the street. >> thank you. >> sure. >> for review? >> board of appeals? there are three items scott thought would be of interest to the commission from last night's hearing. one is that the board presented

an award to lawrence for his years of service. as you know, he is serving as the special assistant to the city administrator working on the earthquake safety program. at the mayor's office. second has to do with 2334 market street, the site of the trigger bar. you heard the code enforcement case. the board heard a jurisdiction request related to the violation and the penalty issued on may 7, 2010. trigger requested the board to reduce the penalty. is currently at $50,000. they are able to go to the board to reduce that penalty, but in this case, the board voted to deny the jurisdiction request and the nob remains in effect. the third item has to do with

1727 union street, the brickyard restaurant. the board heard that appeal on june 22, and continued to allow the petition holder to me with neighbors and address of noise concerns. the permit holder did not meet with neighbors and did not submit alternatives and until august 3. the board addressed that with them, that they did not meet with them in a timely fashion. they voted to continue the item until september 21 to allow more time to meet with neighbors. that is it for my report. >> just for the record, commissioners, the board is on break. the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. commissioners, we can move to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address you on items

of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, with the exception of agenda items which may only be addressed during their time on the calendar and not during this category. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. president olague: is there any general public comment? if you can come to the microphone at this time, ma'am. >> hi. i came here at of concern for people who are working and are employed, but they are living at below poverty levels of living. there is in and out prison movement in my community. we do not want to live in the jail system. we want to be able to afford to live and thrive in san francisco. we need to reiterate the reentry

program for people who are getting a second opportunity to work. there is a lot of work in san francisco that we are more than capable of doing. we need a better quality of life. the teenagers that hang on the street corners, stuff like that, there is not a lot of places for them to go to have something to do. the community is isolated. and there is a liquor stores on every corner. you know what i am saying? we want opportunities to work, not just in the bayview, but all over san francisco. we need someone to take us on. give us an opportunity to improve ourselves so we can stop recycling our children in the prison system. president olague: thank you. and you live in the bayview?

thank you for your comment. is there any other general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, we begin your calendar with item #5. and then the to planning code section 602.10.607.1.608. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. before you, this is a special sign district ordinance. it would amend the planning code, and it was introduced by supervisor farrell for the existing shopping center located -- it is bounded by

masonic avenue, geary boulevard, lyon street, and o'farrell street. it has a proposed senate amendment today, and it proposes an exterior changes to be building that require a building permanent -- building permit application. after the july 11, 2011 meeting, you approved the request for the conditional use authorization. that is case 2010 -- to allow it to occupy former retells basis to occupy the first and second levels of the shopping center. after that hearing, we have the

special sign district ordinance pending ceqa review. at the july 28 hearing, commissioners did express a variety of concerns. of particular concerns, the compatibility of the exterior modifications and. in approving a conditional use authorization, they pledged to work with the product sponsor on these issues. the department has two sets of recommendations. the first set specifically addressed to commercial sign district ordinance. the department recommendations regarding the sign district is

that the proposed freestanding sign on masonic avenue near o'farrell, that it be reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet in height. in addition, the department recommends that the freestanding directional signs be reduced in height from the proposed 15 feet to 70. -- to 7 feet. the project sponsor also proposes the following changes to the project. first, the four new projecting signs for geary street, the department recommends those four sons be visually distinct from and subordinate to the existing signs, that they be at least a

little bit smaller. the second is the copy on the existing projecting sign up for geary street should be oriented vertically. lastly, the existing cyanogen the building exterior should be visible, and that would entail removing the proposed -- decorative panel. it should be located in a way that does not obscure, where there are no existing windows. in some, the department report a composed or in as to create a new special sign district to approve the senate and facilitate single use for the subject site. modifications to the proposed signing to better integrate the

proposal with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. it would ensure better compatibility. the project sponsor is here to make a presentation as well. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, members of the commission. i am representing in the project sponsor. we were here four weeks ago for the conditional use authorization for the target that was approved. we are back here tonight for this afternoon, showing you the sign ordinance. we had to wait on that. we work calendar couple weeks ago. -- were calendared a couple

weeks ago. it will show you some of the design elections we have made. adam miller is the representative of the ownership group, and he will make that presentation. we are all here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i will walk you through a brief presentation highlighting some of the aspects that are before you. we had three main goals as relates to sign district at the property. one is to create a consistent program across the property. right now it is very inconsistent between the various signs the tenants have put out, other locations, etc. we wanted to replace the antiquated silage that is there

today and we wanted to have this ability and circulation. better something that has plagued the property over its time, especially when it is changed from a single tenant used to multi tenant use in the early 1990's. to give you some examples of the current condition of the property -- there is one existing sign where the former merchant had a sign on their right now. best buy put up a number of signs within the existing window based. they have also hung banners for potential hires. each of the tenants have mounted their sign edge on the passat. these are all prior to our ownership. they are consistent with what the code allows. the other important thing to note is these are allowed per the leases at the tenants have with the property. we cannot just take down the

signs. we do not have the ability to do so. we are proposing integrated signed it and we need to provide them with other options, because we do not have the right to take down the signs. this is an image that you all saw a couple weeks ago. this shows, this shows the integration of the additional signs all along. -- along geary. it shows the signs we have introduced along geary, masonic, o'farrell. from some of your feedback we have heard two weeks ago, we're looking at a couple options we wanted to show you. these are some of the recommendations. we have approached the signs and we have reduced their scale as you go down geary.

the main sign, the other as you go down is smaller in scale, hopefully tying into the recommendation of having more subordinate blades has to go down. instead of the panels that we have previously -- the place themselves. just trying to respond to your previous comments. the other comments, as it relates to the screens, the colors, that. we have shown you one other element where we changed it to a singular color. as we continue to work through with planning staff, i think there are a lot of different options in your. between the green, the yellow, and the orange, i think the intent was not to have something that would become more prominence than the building itself.

the set its is to replace an update antiquated signs at the property. this is the sign proposed at lyon and geary. it helps as an integrated britt -- as an integrated plan. as you know from the property, we have these separate properties. you cannot go to another area from the parking lot. you have to make an informed decision.

as you can see -- this is a rendering of what we proposed. these are the structures along o'farrell, and it is important to note the cited as we proposed and the height is to ensure we get over the obstructions. it would not have two-hour parking typically surrounding @. these are the major way finding siphonage -- signs as you go into the parking lot.

would cut down on the contest and issues and also cut down on traffic that could seep into the surrounding neighborhoods because people make the wrong decision and the need to circle around, given that o'farrell is a one-way street. these animations will take you up and down o'farrell. the first reflect our proposed sign its height. we will show this first and then we will show a second animation that shows the proposed seven- foot level. the instructions and everything else, both animations are identical. it