funding versus what is programmatic. as frustrating as it is that we are in essence capital well in doubt -- wecapitally well endow, there has not been much dramatically for these services. what we did a year and a half ago is ask comcast, who agreed to provide a one time infusion so we could keep that programmatic funding, moving forward. the agreement before us for consideration is to receive that from comcast. i do not believe that is something that is held indefinitely and that will always be there, whether we decide to do it last year or this year. i do not think we should take this for granted. it is important to note that

what they have gone through in the transition -- this is not just on bay back's shoulders. this is on the city and the department of technology. in many ways, the city has removed itself from the driver's seat of making sure that public access is preserved, made safe, and is able to evolve in a way we would like. san francisco was once a pioneer and a leader in public access. i think it has since fallen off that horse considerably. i do not like the wave we have seen over the last few years of trying to deflect this on to bay back or its predecessor. i think the city is moving in a direction of trying to stifle public access because it is not committing the funding they need to do so. the fact that we were able to get this money from comcast for

programmatic purposes does not answer the long-term question of how public access is going to survive. what we are trying to settle is an old question of money we were able to extract that has already been spent. when i hear commentary from people saying they are well in doubt, at spending $1 million in budget because they have this capital funding, it is not telling the whole story. i think there has been a disproportionate placement on the fact that the dollars for capital are still not being able to serve us well program radically. there is nothing we can do about it, although we have tried. again, we were coopted by both state and federal authorities. ultimately, whatever question is answered here today about releasing this particular

dollars, i would definitely suggest to advocates who really want to see public access thrive is the city needs to be held accountable. the city needs to be held accountable in putting up to its general fund or other avenues a commitment towards public funding of the evolution of public access. until that happens, there is going to continue to be this squabbling over the limited dollars made available. this is a one time infusion. what happens beyond this one time does not answer the long- term question. i agree with a lot of the advocates who have expressed a concern and distress, but i do not think that the stress should only be aimed at bay back. the department of technology needs to be standing next to them on this, as well as the rest of the city, making sure it is umpiring the proper

transition of public access to bay back's studios, as well as making sure that public access, as it applies to this population, for those advocates in the general population -- they are able to continue with their interests. i agree technology has evolved to the point where we should make good use of our cultural center. we could satellite public access to rte. san francisco. that is a smart endeavor. i think it would be shortsighted not to seriously look at that. in terms of bay back making sure it is sensitive and it is heightened to our sunshine laws, that is a very minimal aspect that we should always make sure we can insist upon of an

organization that receives in part city funding. i would be more than happy to ask the department of technology if they want to step up and speak to this. but at this critical juncture right now, much of this is not just in bay back's hands. i think it is in the department of technology's hands about what the service intends to do. [applause] >> machairperson campos: madam y attorney, some guidance as to what can be said, as this is a closed session item? >> deputy city attorney cheryl atoms. the real question before the committee is whether to accept the offer comcast has made for an amount of cash. the fact that the offer is out there and you are considering that supplement -- that is public. to the extent you want to talk about the legal reasons of why

to do that, we can do that in closed session. i do not see any issue with speaking with the department now if that is your pleasure. chairperson campos: that is fine. we can hear from the department of technology. thank you. >> thank you. barry frazier with the department of technology. i am an analyst. thank you, supervisors. i do not have a formal presentation. i would be happy to answer any questions you have specifically about the administration of the bay back grant agreement, or the background in choosing them as the operator for the funding mechanism that we employ. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. we had to exhaustive hearings on this over two years, leading up

to a year and a half ago. it also bothers me greatly that even before bay back was chosen that there was so much investment in marketing goph. why that decision was made to dismantle that, after considerable investment -- it was seen as ground zero and a place that people came -- became familiar with. it served its community for a lot of people. the decision was to shift facilities and equipment over to bay back. to many, it seemed that was squandering investment. please refresh people why that happened. >> you probably recall a lot of the story. it goes back to your description of the change in funding available to operate public access. we went from a situation where the prior operator was

receiving $900,000 a year for operations. that allowed them to hire a staff of between nine and 12 folks on a yearly basis. we were also providing them with between three and $500,000 a year in capital funds to buy cameras and equipment, that kind of things. when divca was enacted, we realized almost all of that operational funding was going away. the capital funding, fortunately, was still available, and actually is increasing. but the operational funding has gone away. it is true that the studio itself was funded in part by the capital. we are not talking about operational funds to keep the studio open. we are talking about a staff of nine people to keep it in

operation. we did not have the funding to keep those people in place to operate the studio. in addition, we had a bad lease on a particular property, a very high lease. it had a 10% automatic increase with a five-year agreement. it increased 10% over five years. in my opinion and in the department's opinion, it was difficult to justify keeping that facility, given the fact that we had very little operational funding to keep the doors open. that is why we embarked on an rfi to try to come up with a different model and a different way of providing public access that focused on the capital funding and minimize the operational expenses. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. colleagues, what has happened is -- is the neutron bomb, in

effect. that has nothing to do with anything we have done municipally. we have been divorced from the control influence we used to have. it was a hail mary pass two years ago to get some funding. comcast was agreeable to it. it was to on a short term put it on life-support and go from a $900,000 budget, where we were flushed in assets, to practically one-quarter of that for programmatic funding. that is what is before us, was that continued infusion. the fact that capital funding remains -- buildings can be made pretty, but with no programing for people to help serve the community, there go the neutron bomb effect. this gets us through the past year, based on expenses

accrued, and maybe the upcoming year. this question is still not settled in the future, which i will ask that we return to, as to how the city should be held obligated to make sure public access is made to thrive. if we do not do this, we lose our position, a nationally speaking, in being a forward thinking city. today, this is closing the books on a passed agreement we have not yet quite released. i think that is something we should seriously consider doing. chairperson campos: thank you, supervisor. can we have a motion to go into closed session? a motion by supervisor mar. having taken public comment, we will go into closed session without objection. thank you for your comments. we need to ask members of the public to step

chairperson campos: were we on when that was reported? >> emotion regarding closure. -- a motion regarding disclosure. chairperson campos: we have a motion not to disclose. >> we were not on. chairperson campos: can we go back and redo it? >> we met in closed session to discuss pending claims in litigation involving the city. the city will move items 8 through 14 through with recommendation. chairperson campos: that is correct. if we can have a motion not to disclose? a motion by supervisor mar. we take that without objection. do we have any other business before the committee? >> there are no further items. chairperson campos: thank you. the meeting is adjourned.

supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the regular meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services committee.

i'm joined by supervisors avalos and dufty. are there any announcements, victor? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and turn them in to myself. if you are presenting documents, please provide a copy to the clerk for inclusion in the file. items acted upon today will appear before the board of supervisors again on september 7, 2010, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you. item one, please. >> item 1, hearing to consider that the transfer of a tight 21 off-sale general license from 605 kearny street for david's food store will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, madame chair, supervisors. what is before you today is a store that is currently licensed

as a type 20, which means it currently sells beer and wine. the store across the street recently went out of business. he took that as a type 21, which allowed it to sell distilled spirits as well. individual to the opportunity to buy that led and transferred directly across the street. i wanted to point out to you that there is no net gain in licenses, and he will be sending his current type 20 when he gets through the whole process -- he will be suspending his card to play. we recommend with the following conditions. i would point out that the current type 20 at his business is and condition, so we are allowing more opportunity by enhancing the license with the 21, but we are coming up with some labor conditions -- the current 20 at his business is unconditioned. our -- sales shall be permitted only between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. each day of the week except for december 21 from 9:00 a.m. to january 1 until 2:00 a.m. sunday years, he will be able to

go until 2:00 a.m., which was important to him. -- so on new year's, he will be able to go until 2:00 a.m. again, this primary a food store. next is that no distilled spirits shall be sold in bottles or containers smaller than 375 millimeters, basically a half point -- a half pint. we're trying to avoid airline bottles usually consumed on the streets. they shall not be concerned -- sold in bottles smaller than 355 millimeters x up for a prepackaged multiple unit quantities of four or more. shall be sold in alcohol content is of for dinner one man in a court bottle. next, no mall beverage shall be sold with alcoholic content greater than -- no malt beverage shall be sold with alcoholic content greater than -- i'm sorry, i'm just trying to make sure that is correct. 5.7 by volume. this condition -- no beer or

malt beverage shall be sold in quantity smaller than remanufactured six packs per sale with the exception of wine coolers, beer coolers, which must be sold and manufactured prepackage multi unit quantities of four or more. there shall be no cuts, glasses, or similar receptacles commonly used for drinking at the premises quantities of less than 24 in the original multi- container package. next condition, all eyes shall be sold at or above prevailing price and quantity is not less than 3 pounds for sale and shall not be given away. next condition, no person under the age of 21 shells sell or deliver alcoholic beverages. no alcohol beverage shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the premises under the control licensee. the conditioner shoulder responsible for keeping free of litter the area over which they have control.

loitering, defined as standing idly about, lingering aimlessly without lawful businesses, so inhibited on a sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed premises. next conditions are graffiti conditions. graffiti shall be removed from the premises and parking lots within 72 hours of application. if it occurs on friday or weaken day or holiday, the licensee shall remove it within 72 hours following the beginning of the next week day. the exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting and power. additionally, the petitions, disturb the normal privacy of any neighboring. we would recommend the application for approval. the applicant does concur with these conditions. supervisor chu: this is a situation where the existing business that will be acquiring the tide 21 already does have a tight 20 license. >> that will get surrendered once it goes through our process. >> so they are simply taking

over the tight 21 license from across the street, during their existing type 20. >> correct, and i would point out that the current tight 20 has no conditions -- the current type 20. supervisor chu: ok, are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item 1? seeing none, the item is closed. we have a motion to move this item forward with a recommendation with conditions that were stipulated. i shall move this forward on the committee report. okay, without objection. >> [inaudible] sen forward as committee report to the board meeting of august 10, 2010. supervisor chu: thank you. item two. >> item two, hearing to consider the transfer of a type 20 off sale beer and wine liberalizes from 880 harrison street to 690

stanyah streen for whole foods market california will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> this is an application for a type 20 license, which would allow beer and wine only, and this was previously a different store. that stores currently shut down, and whole foods is now trying to acquire that space and operate it. we are recommending this license for approval with conditions, as follows. condition one -- sale, service, and consumption of alcohol beverage shall be permitted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day of the week. the condition references consumption. many wholefoods eventually do wine tasting. this license will not currently allow that, but anticipating that possibility, we are trying to allow that down the road. they still have to go through due process.

they shall be responsible for maintaining the area free of litter over the premises over which they have control. exterior premises shall be given lighting and addition of power additionally, the condition of such lighting shall not disturb the privacy of use of any neighboring residents, and graffiti shall be removed from the premises and a parking lot under the control licensee within 72 hours of application. if it occurs on a friday or weekend or holiday, within 72 hours of the beginning of the next week day. with these conditions, we are recommending the license for approval. supervisor chu: thank you. members of the public who wish to speak on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. is that a motion to approve the item, and we send this out as a committee report? without objection. >> item two, compared to the committee with resolution and set out as committee report

would date of august 10, 2010. supervisor chu: thank you very much. item three. >> item 3, resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to retroactively accept and expend a given place valued at $164,760 from the san francisco conservation corps to rehabilitate trails and retaining walls at buena vista park. >> good morning share and supervisors. the item we have before you is an accept and expend of it in place valued at $164,760, stated in the resolution, and this is for work done by the san francisco conservation corps on the southeast slow. the work actually is rehabilitation trails and retaining wall work, and the project is in progress and due to be completed this month. the recreation and park department is recommending that you approve this, you recommend the approval of this resolution.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. questions from the committee? supervisor dufty: i just want to say i'm happy to sponsor this measure, and i want to thank the conservation corps for their great work. supervisor chu: thank you. members of the public who wish to speak on item 3? >> good morning, supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 50 years. i would like to speak in support of this item, but i would also like to add a comment i think is relevant in regards to the conservation corps. i think the conservation corps should be used for a more important project, the trimming and removal or assistance of those two projects, of dangerous trees that have been previously marked by i think part and ran -- park and rec and other

agencies. i think a lot of those trees are still standing, just waiting for gravity to fall. i would like to suggest that john mclaren park be checked out. there has already been one death with subsequent city liability payment, and also, i think that sunset boulevard and the presidio drive should also be checked, even though i have noticed that some of the trees have been trimmed in the two areas, but still, when i drive on those and other areas in the city, i feel that the maintenance has been kind of substandard. i do notice that in some of those areas, there have been very nice new trees planted, but three, four, five, six months later, there has been an obvious growth of weeds, especially on portola drive,

which is interesting because it is it in a fairly affluent neighborhood. anyway, i think it is noteworthy that san francisco conservation corps do this kind of work because it is not only giving them a chance to show what they can do but also would help park and rec eliminate trees before the city as more possible payouts for maps of injury, since according to what i have seen in those areas, those trees are fairly big, and it would not take very much of a tree to fall in order to hurt someone. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i do appreciate the member of the public who did speak on the issue of public safety and about safety in many of our facilities. with past issues, the city was able to secure several million

dollars in order to work on some of the repair work on pulling down and save trees across our recreation park facility. we recommend -- we recognize that is something that needs, sterne growth, and we work with the parts department to remove the most highly rated trees from those sites, so thank you very much for that comment. seeing that we have close public comment, do we have a motion? supervisor avalos: motion to approve. supervisor chu: is that a motion to approve this item and send it forward with a committee report? without objection. >> item three will be before the full board august 10, 2010. item four, resolution authorizing the san francisco recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant administered by the california state library california cultural and historical and, in the amount of $500,000 for palace of fine arts historical landscape and park improvement. >> this item again is a grand

valued at $500,000 -- grant value of $500,000. it will go to improve the historical landscape and park improvement. the project is also in construction and is expected to be substantially complete in october. the recreation and park is requesting your recommendation for approval of the resolution. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any questions? why don't we open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item four? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> move this item with recommendation as a committee report. supervisor chu: we have a motion to move this item forward as a committee report. are there any items before us? >> item four will go before the

committee report on august 10, 2010, and that completes our agenda. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are adjourned.