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.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor avalos: good morning,

welcome to the budget and finance committee. joined by my colleagues supervisor mirkarimi:, supervisor elsbernd. madam clerk, do we have any announcements? >> all persons attending this meeting are requested turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to submit speaker cards, please place them in the container to your left. please submit extra copies of the bile. supervisor avalos: thank you, caller. please call our one item. >> . item number one, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, 106 through 106.28, to impose a wholesalers and certain other persons who distribute or sell francisco to: 1) recover a portion of san francisco's alcohol-attributable unreimbursed health costs, and; 2) fund administration costs.

supervisor avalos: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, this is our second hearing on this item. last week i embedded amendments that we discussed that i will summarize the day. basically we had changed based on the economists' report that there is a higher level of consumption of alcohol in san francisco and alcoholic sales in san francisco, therefore the fee would not need to be as high to obtain cost recovery. we have lowered the amount by about 25%. the amendments included where we had originally had a fee based on 7.5 cents per ounce and now that the fee is applied three ways for beer, wine, and

spirits, beer would be 35 cents per gallon. why would be $1. spirits would be $3.20 per gallon. this would make a bottle of beer about 3 cents, i believe. the reason why we put three different types of alcohol, it would be easier for us to apply that fee without taking into account the different ways that alcohol can be manufactured and make it easier for the tax collector to do the work and businesses to report on their sales. the amendments, we allowed this hearing to consider the amendments and are facing a timeline based on prop. 26,

which is on the november ballot. prop 26, if it were to pass, would prevent the municipalities and state government from creating any fees in the future unless they had two-thirds of the public or the electorate. you might think that that helps to yield fiscal accountability in the county's, but it might also severely hamstring local governments from making decisions about their finances. today, primarily we have it open for public comments. everyone that wishes to speak will be allowed to speak on the

measure. i will be asking my colleagues to move this item forward to the september 7 board meeting. it will be the first one after our recess. i will be around after this week for the month of august to take in concerns. there has been a discussion about possible amendments that i will consider in the process. we will have those available for introduction on september 7. following are timeline, because of prop. 26, we would like to be able to get this to the full board and make an amendment to have that some members seventh as the first reading. the 14th would be the day for the second reading, moving along our time line to make sure that

we can improve this before the prop 26 november election date. we wanted to make sure that these folks have already considered the timeline and potential amendments that we might consider as a part of the legislative process. colleagues, and the other questions? or do we have a summary of the changes? >> good morning, supervisors. my office is prepared to present a report on the amendments that supervisor of the los introduced last week and their economic impact.

we have also modified some of the calculations from our previous report based on calculations and conversations from the initial fork and i would just like to review with you some of our new findings. as the supervisor indicated, the fees are a lower rate broken out by a gallon for beverage type. 35 cents for beer, $1 per gallon for wine. what that means in terms of the price impact of this feet on a serving of the alcoholic beverages is a 3.3 cents increase for 12 ounces of beer, 4.7 cents increase for a glass of wine. where the changes come in our how this affects consumer spending at restaurants and bars

on one hand, a grocery stores and liquor stores on the other. given that these fees represent a lower price increase, the change in consumption is lower than what we predicted or projected last time, 1% for each of the beverage types at bars and restaurants. and a grocery and liquor stores. in terms of the impact of the revised feet in kofi revenue, this is capable of expression in gallons. as i said last week, this is an uncertain figure because of our uncertainty over the overall level lot alcohol consumption in san francisco, as well as the

effect of a fee and compliance in the first year, but this is our best estimate of what we might expect to see. the ft also affects our estimate of what will happen with consumers spending and our review with outside economists found an error in calculation where last week we rectified here. the fee will actually read -- result in a decrease of spending at bars and restaurants, for a total net spending decline of establishments that sell alcohol of 13.6 million. double what we reported last time, despite the fact that the fee has gone down. however, the net economic impact is not greatly affected by this. the reason for that is that what

we reported last time is a fee revenue in the neighborhood of $20 million, declining by about $4 million in establishments to sell alcohol with the remainder of 14 million at establishments that do not sell alcohol. what would really be going on there is consumers accepting higher prices at bars, restaurants, liquor stores, grocery stores, spending more cash and sucking consumer spending out of the rest of the economy, even though 20 million of that would simply be reimbursing retailers for the fees best to wholesalers. the decline in spending at restaurants and bars, liquor stores and grocery stores, is less than total fee revenue. the difference is just a much smaller magnitude.

really, our corrected calculation is reallocated in the private sector associated with this feed. not the total economic impact. just to show the final chart here, we still project that the changes between, in this case zero jobs and 20 jobs each year, i would say that the point of view of precision in the model of neutral economic impacts, hire public-sector spending through the result of expanded revenue, which has an impact on public sector employment and private-sector contractors that work for the city and those businesses supported by city employees and their wages. on the other hand we have the employment impact of reduced spending in restaurants, bars,

liquor stores, grocery stores, and the rest of the private sector. the point was made that our assumptions about the pricing in san francisco and what consumers are willing to do in the change in prices is too small. based on national outside research it basically said how much does consumption change when you change the price? the price was made, -- the point was made, and it is a fair point, but that price sensitivity could be significantly higher because of the availability of places that were recently acceptable in the suburbs where even by of all of beverages. you would expect a bigger reduction in consumption outside, rather than say the national level, where it might be difficult to about side of the united states. we tested the sensitivity of the

results for the elasticity of demand. we said that if we tripled the assumptions, what does that do? what it does is dramatically reduce spending and revenue generated at liquor stores and grocery stores, significantly reducing the amount of consumption in those places, tilting the economic balance from neutral to slightly negative. i think that that assumption of it being triple before is very extreme. this somewhere in between. what that means uneconomic basis is that there is a decline in spending that we project establishments that sell alcoholic beverages in san francisco. we do