tv [untitled] February 27, 2012 10:00am-10:30am PST
>> item 1, a hearing to consider the type 48 on sale general public sales liquor license from 1525 mission street to 1525 mission street for expansion of public occupancy into adjacent portion of the building. doing business as sloane square, willful -- will serve the public convenience or necessity of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> do you have a report for us? >> the applicant is seeking a promised expansion, type 48 for
public promise license, located between 11th street. hours of operation are daily 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. and this was a licensed as a type 48. the owner has expanded his business to the rear. the purpose of the hearing is to determine if the expanded portion of the premise will be licensed as part of the type 48. letters of protest for, letters of support, no record. please call for service, 19. police reports during that same time, 6. there is no opposition from the southern station. premises is located in a high crime area. premise is located in high
concentration and we recommend approval with conditions. the current conditions shall remain and be transferred to the new license with additional conditions as follows. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and until one half-hour past closing, the license shall provide security personnel. the number of security personnel shall be sufficient to maintain order therein and maintain activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property of nearby residents. said personnel should be identifiable as security personnel. security personnel shall make frequent visits to areas including parking lots to ensure patients from the premises do not disturb the peace and quiet and comfort of persons in the neighborhood. the petitioners call utilize electronic surveillance and recording equipment able to view all exit and entrance point of the exterior of the premises.
the electronic surveillance recording shall be operational at all times in the premises. electronic recordings shall be maintained for no less than 72 hours and shelley made to the police department on demand. 3, and the doors or windows that open to the street shall be kept close and not be used as an entrance or exit for patrons. it will be used for emergencies or permit deliveries only. the doors are not to consist only of a screen or ventilated security door. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: members of the public here to speak, we will give everyone two minutes to speak. >> i'm here today with the managing member of zfc concepts.
we have had an extension -- extensive conversations and there have been no less than 10 neighborhood meetings, mostly with the neighborhood association. that is primarily behind these premises which go from mission pack 2 minute street. this location is directly across from goodwill industries which starts on the corner of mission and runs back to 11th. it used to be a great little bar. they have been unsuccessful and are expanding from 2,000 feet to 5,000 feet. this will create 15 new jobs. they have been operating for sometimes on a series of
temporary licenses and there have been no problems with the neighborhood. they have brought in a sound attenuation expert who has button up the sound and i think the makers are happy. i'm not sure if we have anyone here today from the neighborhood -- the neighbors are happy. the conditions enumerated are fine with us and we're here to answer any questions you might have. supervisor elsbernd: seeing no questions, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? see in thenone, public comment is closed. >> with regards to the calls for services, there were 19 carl's and the span of the year. do you believe -- 19 calls in the span of the year. do you believe this addresses the conditions?
>> we do feel the conditions are sufficient. >> there is a typo which i would correct. it says between the house -- it should be between the hours. if we make that adjustment, i will move the item. supervisor elsbernd: can you please read item number 2? >> hearing to consider the issuance of the lobby bar located at 835 hyde street. it will serve the convenience and necessity of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> this is a license for 835 high street located between bush
and setter. hours of operation are 4:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. 835 high street is the nob hill hotel. this would be for beer and wine inside the lobby hotel. the bar can only be accessed through the hotel lobby and would not have street access. letters of support, no record. letters of protest, no record. police calls for service from october 2010 to october 2011, the team. police reports during that same time, three. there is no opposition from central station. the premises is in a high crime area and the premises is located in undue concentration. approvals are recommended with conditions as follows -- sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages should only be allowed between 4:00 and 2:00 daily. no noise shelby audible are on
the area of control as defined in 257. interior lighting shall be sufficient to make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of persons and asians -- persons and patrons wear all call is served, delivered, and consumed. the petitioners shall not make any structural changes without prior written approval from the department. 5, the sale of all college beverages for of sale is strictly prohibited. sixth, there shall be no exterior advertising are signs of any kind or type including advertising directed to the interior from within and promoting more indicating the availability of a hot beverages. the interior displays about collet beverages which are visible shall constitute a violation of this condition.
>> we should remind everyone that to supervisors have had their phones go off. we should not be an example to other people. >> we have the life venue to box up the hill now active in a way that it has not been active in a few years. i assume this addresses any potential concern you might have with the relationship there. >> i would have to check with the inspector's office, but i think so. >> any members of the public with like to testify on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move this forward with recommendations. thank you.
item #3? >> a resolution authorizing the department of public health to retroactively accept an extended it grant in the amount of $815,350 from the centers of disease control and prevention to participate in a program entitled san francisco health and transforming places and empowering people. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm with the department of public health and i would like to respectfully request your approval to accept this grant from the centers from the disease control. the amount is $815,350 and we expect the same amount in the next four years. the focus is to integrate strategies to achieve the long
term objectives of reducing health impacts of tobacco use, heart disease, and stroke. we will partner with various city agencies and community- based organizations and i am happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number three? >> good morning, supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 60 years. i would like to speak in favor of this resolution. this is money that is going to be well spent, especially since the previous speaker mentioned it would be for four more years. we are talking about big money here rather than just a one-your
item. since we're talking big money, i would like to say my usual statement about the department of public health. from my experience at san francisco general hospital, we have to closely monitoring the spending to make sure as little money as possible is wasted on waste and inefficiency. i would also like to make a statement whether how much of the money being discussed here will actually be used for services to the recipient and how much would be used for so- called administrative costs. listening to the previous speaker, i thought since this was going to be between different administrative bodies that may be the money is going to be spent for administration
rather than services. i would like to propose a discussion on how much money is going to be used for services to that and recipients rather than just administrative costs and i would expect as the program goes forward that more and more money be spent on the recipients rather than administrative costs. thank you. >> are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item #3? -- item number four, please. >> a resolution authorizing the department of public health to retroactively accept an extended
grant in the amount of $137,933 from the public health foundation enterprises inc. to participate in a program entitled "viral hepatitis surveillance in the city and county of san francisco" for january 1, 2012 through october 31, 2012, and waving in direct costs. >> on the project director for the chronic hepatitis viral surveillance project and i am here to formally request -- i am formally here to see if we can have this excepted. >>supervisor chu: if you could explain the grant and what would be done with it? >> we have been maintaining a
chronic hepatitis registry of all the positive lab tests that come and annually for chronic hepatitis b and c. that funding has been through the sec the of that public health foundation and we're a subcontractor for the grant. they are putting out a new funding opportunity announcement later this year, but this is a one time grant of over 10 months from january through october 31 of this year to ensure the funding continues so we can maintain a registry until the cdc foe comes up later this year. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak in favor of this resolution. since the amount of money is
less than the previous item, it becomes even more important department of public health not waste any of it sense it is for a laudable project. i would like to ask whether san francisco general hospital will be receiving any of this money since it has been involved in related work in the past. i would also like to know how much of this money is going to be used for the and recipients compared to administrative costs. also, this mentions waving in direct cost. since i'm not an expert in this area, i don't know what indirect cost mean, so i would like to have a small discussion of what does that mean and whether indirect costs is a sizable item or not. thank you. supervisor chu: any other
members of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing nine, public -- seeing none, public comment is closed. we have heard public comment on this item, do we have a motion? we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendations and we can do that without objection. thank you. item #5, we will call but i would like to wait a bit -- the sponsor of this is supervisor elsbernd. >> a hearing on the san francisco vincible transportation agency transit priorities, including funding for existing programs, proposed projects and proposals for new spending and addressing the agency's policy on the use of one time funds for new pilot projects given the lack of funding for other important programmatic needs like the transit effectiveness project.
budget, a big discussion and a lot of issues out there and i want to give you the opportunity to present to the members of the board -- other members of the public, a chance to testify. and have a robust conversation as we get ready to present to the board your two-year budget. >> good morning. i'm the director of transportation and i think it is wholly fitting we come to the neighborhood services because the transportation services provided by the m.t.a. are very much neighborhood services. i think we are scheduled to come to the budget committee on april 18.
between now and then, we will have some town hall meetings around the city and during the month of march, we will hold our first hearing on proposed fees and affairs and consider the budget first on april 3 and then on april 17. the timing is good to give an early glimpse and try to stimulate some of that robust conversation. i do have a power point i will walk through and i look forward to any questions a d a v have. i am going to first talk about the operating budget on the expenditure and revenue side and then talk about the capital budget. we've brought this to the mta board in a preliminary fashion and i am bringing to you what i have shared with them as well. on the revenue side, here is
what the picture looks like in terms of baseline. the main message here is that if you look at the funding overall, we are about a quarter of general fund, a quarter of general affairs, one-third from parking, and the rest from grants and at other miscellany and we don't expect that to change. we are about 800 million on the revenue side. this is more or less just continuing afford what we have now. changes through indexing -- i have a slide of later that will show that. supervisor elsbernd: what is the formula that produces your general fund allotment? >> we get 80% or and -- a
payment of 80% of the parking tax. >> in terms of the projections for the next year, does this include the revenue news that we had with the six-month? >> this includes what we know at this point in time. once the joint report comes out, we expect things to turn a little more favorably. they just had a modest change that would add either 10 or $13 million to this fiscal year but we will make a more complete adjustment after the joint report comes out. supervisor chu: thank you. >> on the expenditure side, this >> on the expenditure side, this is not just the baseline.