just something to say, but the department of public health. and also the architectural barriers. i don't think we have grappled with enough as a city. people that financially are able to age, it is not a financial issue. they are trapped in their home or they can't leave because the kids deal with architectural barriers. >> one of the things we are looking at, the idea of livable communities, you have a group that is starting, very preliminary, but looking into what it means to have a livable community for anyone.

and what kinds of things make it livable community. those accessibility issues are a big piece of that. supervisor avalos: just to follow up on other questions, in my district, we have a large number of seniors and often aging employees and multi- generational households, and we don't have a lot of services. we could have some of the highest in the city. i am wondering what the strategy is to reach out to seniors in the southern part of san francisco, and what these strategies are that you need to employ in order to reach the character of the population that we have.

>> i think it is an issue city- wide that there are fewer social services in those areas. and i think we constantly struggle with the limited dollars with the geographic spectrum of san francisco. the senior centers or any of those things, we look at the geographical area had those providers are covering and we have done as well as we can. we're always willing to go on and talk to constituents in the areas to figure out how we can do a better job. we had some providers that we were working with, and we need to figure out better way to spread the services out a little bit. we might need to have a further conversation of what that will

look like in the district. supervisor avalos: we have been able to be somewhat at a standstill. they are pretty scattershot at times. there is a whole range of services that we need to look at. >> it might be good to set up a meeting. and also your whole district. >> is very similar in terms of the high aging population. i know is in my district already, but we need to grow and figure out what strategies are building that we can work on. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, for that

question. we have a similar situation in the sunset where seniors are aging in place in their homes, and i am not sure we have the best connection to them making sure that we are doing ok. we recently had a service hall that was recently taken away, and part-time community where seniors can check in. we are looking forward to hearing about what we can do to help seniors in the sunset as well. we would really like to hear from you about that. a follow-up question, you went through the budget overall in you were reading your target for the upcoming two years. i wanted to clarify, in the

different production items, there is no call for senior services. in terms of the reduction target, this was inclusive of your entire department of budget, right? so there was not a huge impact on the document portion? >> again, we were able to balance in a way that would not impact services. supervisor chu: so the only area that it may affect those services is on contract savings? >> right. supervisor chu: at this moment it looks like you have met the target except for the $5 million from the mayor's office? >> correct. supervisor chu: it may well be that the mayor's office will ask

for additional cuts, i am guessing? >> supervisor, from the mayor's budget, yes, we continue to be in discussions with the budget, although you can see that they have been extremely helpful. we are still looking everywhere we can for additional money. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. colleagues, if we do not have any questions at this time, of like to open it up for public comment. i would like to draw attention to the fact that even though it books balanced at this moment, we are not sure if it is yet, because we need a decision from the mayor's office. that's open this up for public comment. are there members of the public it wished to speak on this item? >> sethank you, supervisors. thank you for raising the item. it was exactly the peace that wanted to speak to.

i can speak on behalf of the human services network, on behalf of the network in the providers, certainly my colleagues and provision service homeless folks were very grateful for the approach that the apartment " -- that the department took in the revenue approach. i think we are optimistic, but deeply concerned as well, should we have to go to the alternative plan. there has been little discussion of that. i am sort of glad for that, because i think it adds to the ammunition of getting not enough revenue for balancing this. as i do not recall the numbers exactly, i think we were looking at something like $900,000 in the alternative plan, if that

had to be called on. $600,000 cut from shelters. i think i am putting it on target, maybe $1 million cut to resource centers. of course, other cuts would have to happen as well. i had the misfortune of not being able to be at the meeting in hearing last week. i know that you cover the base on this, but i can only tell you that caught on that level would be nothing short of disastrous in terms of our ability as provider agencies to continue the services we are doing. i hope we do not go there. i expect that we probably will not, but i just wanted to make sure that that did not escape your attention. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, budget and

finance. ♪ you have got money you have got rhythm you have got your services, man trying to do the best that you can you have got city rhythm you have got a budget money you have got your services trying to do the best that you can clear the ethics desk like the budget likes you are going to hit the money heights you will be great you will be swell because the budget for human services will come up roses i can tell ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

number one? seeing none, public item is closed -- public comment is closed. can we entertain a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? we can do that without objection. thank you to the department for your presentation. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you, we are adjourned.

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 not meet the definition of significant new information. the ceqa guidelines state that we circulation is not warranted when new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes any significant modifications to the eir. as detailed in the findings before you, evaluation issues contained in the eir found that implementation of the project would result in significant unavoidable in a carnival impacts that could not be mitigated to below significant levels. in a certain number of years. air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and another.

the eir is an informational document come and it is supposed to inform you and the public about the potential impact that could result if the project were implemented and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. certification of the eir is not an action to approve or disapprove the project. the move to certify the eir basically means you believe the eir has provided you with sufficient information about and our model impact and potential mitigation measures. the information presented in the eir is accurate, and eir has come to a proper conclusion supported by appropriate evidence. we therefore recommend that you adopt this before you, certifying that the eir is accurate and adequate, and that it complies with ceqa, the ceqa guidelines, and chaer 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation on this matter, and if any commissioners have any questions, i will turn the stage

over to the next item. thank you. commissioner: thank you. >> thank you, good morning, president fong, members of the commission. items 2a through 2n gather constitute the required approvals for the long-range develop a plan projects. theyl