fol folks. i don't think we know how that will be articulated. it will further come about as we start this discussion, but certainly that is one of the interests that we have as well. commissioner moore: appreciate your explaining that to us. next one is mr. whycof and item 2b and negative declarations and is the e.i.r. under that item or is that fully funded? >> as i said, we have about a quarter million dollars of actual money that comes for general fund money and things that don't have dedicated funds. that is roughly 2.4 of that item and the other 4 f.t.e. of that is the america's health care master services plan. that is the discrepancy mean the mavp of match of money we have

and doesn't have dedicated money at this time. commissioner moore: and that doesn't get you far if i remember the cost of the e.i.r., is that correct? >> pardon? commissioner moore: that $450,000 doesn't get you very far. >> this is staff time, not counting -- this is over and above all that. we show in our budget the staff time, not showing the con sut -- not showing the consultant time. >> we are not the only city department that has those costs and we are showing it currently as an unfunded project not because we don't think it will be funded but because we currently don't know the funding source but there is a whole program for the city to raise funds through the private sector to fund the city's costs. the e.i.r. consultants will be provided by the core budget and we don't have to show the consultant for the e.i.r. in the budget. commissioner moore: i'm not trying to put you on the sp spo. i just wanted to understand how you line that item.

and this is item three that you answered is communications and who communicates, who is it, and about what? >> this was an item that was approved in last year's budget and we have not yet been able to fill this position. but the idea was that the department, we felt, and i have felt particularly strongly that the department needs a communications manager that covers a whole series of activities including conduct public meetings, the website, how we have connection with the media, all those various functions that come under the rubric of communication and we have never had an information officer and we have never had that in the department. i think it's long overdue and i think there's inconsistent messages that go from the department that is very important for us to correct. commissioner moore: i think. i appreciate all answers by everybody. >> thank you. vice president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i have a few questions and we are told

we're adding money back for -- we're not going to be able to do that? >> i'm sorry, which? commissioner borden: for japan town, it looks like we're not getting the money for japan town? >> commissioner, you are talking about the chart on the front page? commissioner borden: correct. >> and japan town 50 grand was an add back and that is well on time and that will be stripped out of our budget. i show that as coming out both on the revenue and on the expenditure side. commissioner borden: i wasn't aware, did we work on japan town? i wasn't aware -- we hadn't heard about that in a while. i guess i wasn't aware of that. i had a question, and we talked about this planner technician, but i am not sure what that is, so maybe you could tell me how that's different -- >> the planner technician is something that was kind of conceived by the support staff, by the administrative staff of the department to reflect that

many of them do work beyond the normal administrative functions and promote the opportunity for the administrative staff. so it's both between the position that is between administrative staff and a planner i. and it essentially some of what will happen -- it has little budget impact because the administrative staff will be converted into that position. commissioner borden: and i was really interested in hearing about the better neighborhoods program strengthening the existing neighborhoods program. when is that -- when do we think we're going to be doing workshops on that? >> what was your question? i can't catch that. commissioner borden: the better neighborhoods program strengthening neighborhoods in community discussions in established neighborhoods. can you talk about the timeline for that and what you kind of envision? >> i can. i also maybe as they responded to the earlier part of the question, but in the work

program they do staff the japan town effort. so i don't know who was around when we started the better neighborhoods planning process some years ago, but the real purpose of that is to go out and both to listen to communities and talk to communities about what it is that makes them thrive as neighborhoods. and there are elements, eight elements of a great neighborhood and all that. we just thought we would, having done a lot of planning and a lot of serious growth dialogue in several areas of the city, we have other areas functioning and could function more strongly and better neighborhood commercial districts and all that. and we have no preconceived notion of what we try to do there and can be a dialogue to ask them what's working and not working and what they would like to see us do that we can have in the bag of tools.

we would start that if it stays in the budget, we'll start if t fiscal year and probably come to you once we have a few discussions with the community about what that might mean. and present it to you and go from there. commissioner borden: would you select specific neighborhoods or public input determine the established neighborhoods we would focus on? >> i don't think we know how we'll find out does anybody want to do the first place, but have that dialogue and are there folks that would like that kind of dialogue with planning department. commissioner borden: my next question is about the level of service impact analysis and i know you have mentioned we're getting closer. i wanted to find out where we were with that analysis. >> the task force set up with other agencies and consultants that were hired that worked last

year and are now starting at the second date. it cull mimccullough my -- it culminated in the development fee and set the plate for that level of service, but i think there's some misdirection going around that i think we have learned differently after this year and the expectation is that the work is starting now will culminate in a recommendation by the summer and there would be an ordinance that would basically, the concept, not the specifics, because the specifics still need to be worked out, that there would be a fee and whereby you would pay into a fund for transportation improvements that would offset affects of development and that would serve as a fully mitigated substitute for the level of service analysis. that's the concept.

and subsequent to the ordinance, there would be environment reviews, so not this calendar year for the change that puts everything in place so there is really not just we're going to get doing it, but a legally defensible avenue to deal with the impacts. commissioner borden: and maybe when it gets closer to the time of having hearings on it and i know a lot of people in the public have been worried about where we are. so another hearing at another time maybe closer to the time where there are recommendations would be great. >> i would think that probably would be sometime this summer. commissioner borden: thank you. vice president olague: a quick question for staff that has to do with the cultural survey. just wondering and i guess it could be the historic preservation commission that would be looking at that and a lot of question about cultural

surveys and japan town and manila and that area. >> the e.i.r. process is still well underway and those -- the question about the nature of the survey and what is the coastal resource survey. vice president olague: and that work program. >> it belongs in there and we are distinguishing between it and the historic, pure traditional work that goes on. vice president olague: but there is something obviously allocated to that. commissioner antonini. ant apt rr this has to do with city wide planning and one of the things mentioned was the chavez improvements east and i assume that this is done with coordination between the state because that interchange happened to take it going northbound off caesar chavez and i am assuming sometime in the future they plan to make that a

clover leaf and i would expect they're going to do our beautification in keeping with the future changes that may be taking place with that roadway which is probably going to be changed a lot especially with developments occurring to the east of there. >> that is correct. there is quite a component of transportation analysis that will contract to really try to understand that interchange. and i wouldn't say it's a major funder on the second degree second degree czar chavez is caltrans and they are interested in our ideas and they are participating in the work at all times. commissioner antonini: great. thank you. vice president olague: i think we're done. thank you. sure. commissioner moore: director, i have one picky question and you can tell me we can talk about this some other time. the functional organizational chart which was in our packet he

here, does that talk about work flow and communication? >> it really is just a chart to show reporting structure and how the department is organized relative to reporting. for example, that i report to the commission and then who reports to me and so on. that is really all it's spent to show. a very broad organizational structure, not really about work flow. commissioner moore: and the work flow communications chart, i am concerned about the historic preservation commission and the dashed line and how we communicate with them or not. and you are saying it is not really -- >> the question is not very clear. the reason for the dash line is because i technically report to this commission. technically you are my boss and not the h.p.s. and that is the dashed line other than the solid line. that is the only reason for that. commissioner moore: we will

bring that up in some other discussion. >> thank you. we will see you in two weeks on the revenue side for more discussion on the budget. thank you. secretary: commissioners, that puts us at item nine and anmarie rodgers is not here today because the land use committee and the full board did not meet this week. the board of appeals did meet and there are three items that the commission might be interested. the first was election of officers. the vice president was elevated to the office of president and commissioner michael garcia was elevated to the position of vice president. and they wish them well in their new position. the second item was a rehearing request for 10 lynndee lane. it was the subject of a ceqa appeal to board of supervisors last week and that was unanimously upheld and the determination was unanimously upheld. last night the board voted 5-0

to not grant the rehearing request and that decision is now final. the final item of notice of violation of penalty for 468 green street. this is a business and service office which began operating in 1991. there were no complaints received until 2007 when there was also a permit application of the same building for a workshop called honey do and that was for this commission and this commission approved it as a conditional use. just to note that they did go out of business eight months after it opened. and so this came to our attention at that time. they filed the conditional use application to legalize the use that was subsequently in legislation that was adopted in 2008 and that use was prohibited on the ground floor and they were not able to pursue the c.e.u. to legalize the continued enforcement and last year the zoning administrator hearing to hear their argument, we upheld

the notice of a violation and appealed to the board of appeals. the board of appeals considered all the facts, including relatively new information about how they operate, and their management firm for the building it. and they had agreed they would not manage any other properties and only manage that building and the board found that that would be considered as an accessory use and therefore allowed, so they will be allowed to maintain an operation there. however, the business and professional service office could not go in there in the future because they are acting as an accessory use in managing the functions of the building itself. and there was testimony from tenants of the building expressing their support for the business there. so the board will adopt findings on that matter for a later date. and that is all. thank you. >> h.p.c., did they not meet or do you have a report? >> h.p.c. did meet yesterday. we talked, as was mentioned

earlier -- vice president olague: next week is fine. that is fine. >> sorry. i forgot. vice president olague: great. hopefully we'll hear something of that next week. secretary: commissioners, this is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. >> i inadvertently heard information that i wasn't pleased to hear and heard rumors but didn't have the proof. there are a group of people that are going to the planning department, the building department, before they're going

to the planning department. and it's causing several cases to not see this as lobbyists and several cases that are involved in this and i'm still researching it. there is a loophole between the planning department and building concerning change of plans. one of the plans was the apple store. we worked hard for design, the design was built and miraculously the front of the store has changed in the last few months. and there are two or three other cases i would love to discuss with you, but i would like to talk to mr. rahm to stop the loophole of causing the department to do a lot of work they don't have to. and a lot of enforcement they don't have to. and they're changing plans that you guys okay'd and they should have come back to you and i'm a little upset about this not just because it's a case i worked

hard upon but the fact you are being shunned as a department. and i think we need to work with the head of the department of building inspection once you and i talk and see if we can close the loophole. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. joseph butler. sandra clark, sorry about that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am joseph butler and i represent david tyrie in a review case scheduled for next thursday. he is in the second round of chemotherapy for his cancer treatments and at this time needed to be admitted to be hospital and couldn't do it outpatient. it had some difficulty with his medications and his heart's reaction to them. so we don't know at this point what his schedule is, but we've asked h.p.c. if they would hear informational presentation on this unique and curious building at 226 cabrio and we would ask

your commission if we could have a medical continuance for that case. vice president olague: the address on that was? >> 226 cabrio. vice president olague: great. >> thank you. vice president olague: thank you. is there any additional general public comment? >> sue hester and i guess my question is, when do you think you will be considering your rules? because last week i think it became clear to me that there needs to be rules on when you have a rehearing so you don't blow your calendar out. i apologize for being involved with a case that went on forever that affected your calendar so severely. i plead not guilty, but it happened.

and i realize there really needs to be some understanding and some direction from the commission to staff. if you have hearing number one and you tell people to go away and redesign the building and do certain changes to it, the hearing is not that. it is not about everything under the sun because i am chagrinned that the case i was involved in really did blow out the calendar last week. and i think the appropriate way to deal with this if you are going to be considering the rules, i would like to participate in doing a reasonable draft on the coming back to the commission round two, where if you have had already had your hearing. not a continued case because you have never resolved anything, but when you come back for the second hearing or for the redesign that there should be some rules. thank you. vice president olague: any additional public comment?

seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> this puts us under agenda item where is the public comment has been closed and those who wish to address agenda items that have been reviewed in the public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. each member of the commission and the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. thank you. >> this section is commission calendar is specifically for the next item which is item 10 where the public hearing is closed and this is if you wish to speak with regard to seismic upgrade of bay division pipelines number there's and four at the hayward fault project, city of fremont, certification of the final environmental impact report, you must do so now. you will not have that opportunity when the item is

called. vice president olague: that item has been closed. >> in that case, commissioner, we will move on to consideration of final action, public hearing closed. it item 10.133688e with the environmental impact report. the public hearing on the draft e.i.r. is closed. the public comment ended on february 8, 2010. the planning commission does not conduct public review of the final e.i.r.s and public comments may be presented during the public comment of the portion of the commission calendar. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm diana sokolo from the major environmental analysis department. the item before you is certification of a final environmental impact report for

the seismic upgrade of bay division pipelines numbers three and four proposed by the san francisco public utilities commission. a copy of the draft certification motion is before you. the draft environmental impact report published on december 23, 2009, starting with the public comment period checks tended through february 8, 2010. during the public comment period, one public hearing was held in the city of fremont near the project area and another was held here in san francisco. the hearing in fremont was held on january 26, 2010, and hearing here in san francisco was held on january 28, 2010. the common responses document was published on december 22, 2010, and includes tran skriments of both hear -- includes transcripts of both hearings. the evaluation of the issues contained in the environmental impact report found that the project would result in

significant environmental affects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. these significant and unavoidable impacts include temporary impacts related to destruction of existing land uses and affects on the existing character of the project vicinity during construction. temporary disturbance from construction-related noise and vibration, temporary noncompliance with the fremont municipal code time limit, temporary construction emissions of air pollutants and diesel particulate matter. and then cumulative air quality impacts during construction related to combustion emissions of noij oxide. there were the pedestrian public utilities commission would need to adopt a resolution of operating recommendations to approve the project. and in conclusion, staff

recommends that the commission adopt the motion that certified that the contents of the environmental impact report are adequate and accurate and the procedure through which the final environmental impact report was prepare d comply wit ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code. that concludes my presentation on this matter and i am here to answer any questions you may have. vice president olague: thank you and thank you for all your work on this over the years or so. we appreciate it. there is no public comment, so commissioners. commissioner borden. >> i move to certify the final e.i.r.. >> second. secretary: commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner board board? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> commissioner moore? >> that motion is adopted knew

man unanimously. vice president olague: we're going to take a 15-minute break and when we come back, we're going to hear item 12 and reverse the order because there are so many members of the public here for that. >> when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone and we are now under the regular calendar and we are skipping item 11 and moving directly to item 12, case 201 2010.0969 for 90 turk street also known as taylor street with request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. commissioners, i'm rick crawford of staff. this is a request to relocate a liquor license from 90 turk

street within the north of market residential licenses from outside are prientd -- are prohibited and transfers from within the district are permitted with conditional use. in similar cases in 2009 the commission denied request for a full liquor license and this time the sponsor is requesting a loi license for only beer and wine to add beer and wine to the existing market. the product lines would be expanded to a full line of groceries including meat, deli counter, fresh fruits and vegetables not otherwise available in the surrounding neighborhood. the sponsor would limit the sell toless than 10% of the floor area and shelf space. liquor stores are often seen as magnets for crime and that is the restrictions for the special

use district. this is an area of high crime and that is well known. between january 1, 2010 and december 31, 2010, the police responded to 681 calls been a 1,000 foot of the project site and from drugs to disturbing the peace to theft and assault with a weapon. and police were called to 150 ips dents directly at the 9 -- to 150 incidents at the 90 turk street it. it is designed to counter the other concentration and and 13 liquor stores licensed for sale of alcoholic beverages and 35 businesses lie senned for on site sale of alcoholic beverages. the department has received two letters and three calls in opposition to the project and 18 letters and one call in support. people opposed are krpd about crime and -- are concerned about

crime and poor conditions. they like the grocery store but not the liquor transfer. supporters feel conditions with be imposed to limit the types of alcohol sold and like that grocery store. the police department and mayor's office oppose the project. the department recommends that the commission disapprove the project as it contributes to the overall contribution of businesses selling alcoholic beverages in the neighborhood t high number of crime reports has not decreased and the proposed project is not necessary or desirable and does not promote the general policy to the plan. i am happy to answer any questions you have. vice president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> acting president of the the

area and i am representing mr. kareem doing business at the market at 90 turk street. previously you should have been handed out a packet of photograph from the market. planning staff made an interesting comment regarding letters of opposition, there were two. how far, going back to september of 2009, there were 196 letters in opposition and the difference is at that time my client ran a market he had opened 20 years ago catty corner on the same corner but across turk street. that sold full liquor and had contributed to part of the crime