about what the data is saying other than just providing the data to you. vice chair avalos: ok. i'll follow up with mr. fried about that, too. thank you. chairperson campos: and one suggestion is that depending on where the additional information that mr. fried collects gets us, it may be that, commissioners, that you decide we want to go and get an expert to come out and analyze the data and provide further comment. and mr. fried, one thing that i would say is that obviously the suggestions you're getting here, it may be that commissioners after the meeting think of additional points that they should always feel free to contact you. >> absolutely. i'm always available for anything else. chairperson campos: ok. thank you. why don't we open it up to public comment. thank you, mr. fried, for your good work on this. please come forward.

>> good afternoon, again, commissioners. eric brooks, representing san francisco green party and the local grass roots organization, our city. it's really, really exciting to see this preliminary report because it shows exactly what advocates of rank choice voting have always said, which is that voter participation is higher during rank choice elections and you can -- if you're part of any given political cadre that wants to downplay that and make look like that's not the case, you can do what happened over the last year and go to the media with cherry picked numbers and make it look like participation is lower during rank choice and higher during a runoff but we're seeing from actual numbers that have been crurched that that's not true, and that rank choice voting, as we've always said, increases participation. and so that's really good to

see. and i would say, as far as looking for more information, i think it would be good to compare where we can in rank choice elections where people did have more than three choices, compare the error rate between that and what we had. also, ballot styles could be very important. you know, what the ballot looks like and how easy it is for the voter to understand and i'd like to see that compared, like, what our ballot style was compared to other ballot styles that have been used for rank choice. commissioner olague: i think that would be interesting. >> i wanted to put in one note on the touch screen idea. sounds like it would be really effective. however, whenever that subject comes up, it's really important for voter clarity, hard-liners to get up and say that if we were to go to touch screens, it would be absolutely imperative that when a voter gets done voting, a physical, printed out

ballot comes out right in their hands that they look at and take to the voting machine to put a hard paper ballot that they have seen with their own eyes into the collection basket so that nobody can game the system electronically but it's really exciting to see that what we've been saying for years and years and years is exactly right which is that when you have rank choice, you get more participation, not less, and of course we save money which is a big deal. chairperson campos: thank you, mr. brooks. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is david carey. i'd like to thank mr. fried for the information that he's putting together. i'd like to point out a few items about it. one is that when he's comparing san francisco's june primaries to november turnout and making some comparisons to that to some of the proposals that have been put further, it's important to keep in mind that those proposals actually proposed some

september primaries where turnout is likely to be much, much lower than it is in june primaries with other state ballot items on them and so if you had a september primary, even bumping things up to 80% to 90% isn't going to get you to 50% of the november turnout. the other thing that i'm glad mr. fried is showing is that san francisco has elections where the percentage of invalid over-voter ballots is highest and that's not rank choice voting. it's the plurality multicandidate elections for the school board and community college board so if san francisco really wanted to focus on how can you reduce the amount of invalid votes, we'd focus on what can we do for those elections, not rank choice

voting. the other point is, that it's not just the invalid votes, it's the exhausted votes, as well. for example, compared to the mayoral 2010 election, using rank choice voting, or, excuse me, the mayoral 2011 rank choice voting, and the 2010 school board election, the school board election had a higher rate of exhausted votes than the mayoral election did. so doing something about those plurality multicandidate elections could improve -- would be the place to start for improving both rates of invalid votes and exhausted votes. the other thing i'd point out is that the multicandidate plurality elections, when you mark those ballots, you mark three candidates all in a column. that's exactly the sort of voting that is invalid for rank choice voting and for a small number percentage of voters, that's a source of confusion.

so turning the school board and the college board elections into multicandidate rank choice voting would actually simplify things for voters and would help reduce the rates of over-voting in the rank choice voting elections we have already. thank you. chairperson campos: thank you very much. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, mr. fried, thank you very much for your good work and we look forward to the additional information. madam clerk, please call the next item. madam clerk: item no. 5, consideration and final approval of sf lafco budget for fiscal year 2012/2013. chairperson campos: mr. fried? >> we presented the budget at last month's meeting for a first vote. this is the second vote. no changes have been made to what we're recommending. the staff is recommending that while we have the legal ability to accept all the money that the

city offers to us under state statute that we are actually recommending to return that money for this year but simply maintain our rights to the allocated amount in future years should we need it. chairperson campos: great. thank you very much. is there any public comment on item 5. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, if we can get a motion, motion by commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner olague, if we can take that without objection. without objection and the item finally passes. thank you. item 6, please? madam clerk: item no. 6, authorization to extend two lafco staff positions. chairperson campos: miss miller. >> as you will recall, we have board of supervisors by ordinance passed lafco with monitoring and advising the san francisco public utilities commission and implementation of the c.c.a. program. to further that task, we entered into an mou with sfpuc in 2009

which provided non-general fund funds to provide for those activities and subsequently this commission, through working with city and county staff, authorized the hiring of two staff -- or, actually, the setting up of two staff positions for that work. mr. fried was hired in our senior program officer position. the community development assistant, we did originally fill. that person left the job. i've not refilled it because that position is really for once we get into program launch, but those two positions are term positions and they were to be termed out as of august of 2012. so this item before you is to extend that, since we've had an extension of the launch of our c.c.a. program, is to extend that term another year. by that time, we believe the program will be launched. if you've got other questions,

i'd be happy to answer them. chairperson campos: thank you very much, miss miller. i think the extension makes sense. i think that at the time this happened, the expectation was that we wouldn't need the positions for a period longer than what was originally intended but clearly that's not the case so i think it makes sense to do that. and the extension is for how long? >> for one year. chairperson campos: for one year. >> one fiscal year. chairperson campos: great. any comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? any member of the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed and colleagues can we get a motion to authorize that? a motion by commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner olague, if we can take that without objection. item no. 7, madam clerk? madam clerk: approve the extension of the mou with the san francisco public utilities commission for the c.c.a. program. chairperson campos: thank you and before we turn it over to ms. miller, mr. fried, congratulations i think are in

order. ms. miller. >> this is similar to the previous item which is once again the mou. we thought the program would be launched by this time so the mou had a term date which we're beyond now so we want to extend it until june 2013. chairperson campos: great. thank you. another one-year extension. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion by commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner olague. if we can take that without objection? item 8. madam clerk: item no. 8 is public comment. chairperson campos: any member of the public who would like to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of lafco not otherwise on the agenda. seeing none, public comment is done. item 9. madam clerk: item no. 9 is future agenda items. chairperson campos: colleagues, any future agenda items? any member of the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. last item.

madam clerk: last item isa, jowrnt. chairperson campos: meeting adjourned. thank you, everyone, and have a good weekend. thank you to staff and to the clerk for their good work. >> san francisco recreation and parks department offers classes for the whole family. rec and parks has a class for everyone. discover what is available now

and get ready to get out and play. henri matisse. frida kahlo. andy warhol. discover the next great artist. get out and play and get inspired with toddler classes. experience art where making a mess is part of the process. classes and the size the artistic process rather than the product. children have the freedom to explore materials at their own pace and in their own way. talks love art, especially when they died into the creative process -- dive into the creative process. at the end of the classes, they

have cleaned and washup. of.com great way to get out and play. for more information, visit sfrecpark.org. that out and play and get into the groove. rec and parks offers dance classes for seniors. first-time beginners or lifetime enthusiasts -- all are welcome. enjoy all types of music. latins also, country and western. it is a great way to exercise while having lots of fun. seniors learn basic moves and practice a variety of routines.

improve your posture, balance, and flexibility. it is easy. get up on your feet and step to the beat. senior dance class is from sf rec and park. a great way to get out and play. >> for more information,

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 hh