>> item 27 is an ordinance amending the planning code to admit bowling alley and single screen theaters in the mission alcoholic i introduced this legislation along with the co-sponsor and the district encompasses on some of the special use district. this was heard at the planning committee and received approval. prior to the hearing, we heard from one of our movie theaters which is a nonprofit that they have been looking to sell beer and wine to offset some of their

revenue. many of our movie theaters are struggling. we did amend the legislation to include single screen movie theaters. this was approved. i'm looking forward to the support of the full board on this legislation. boleyn alleys and simple screen theaters are the kind of businesses that want to encourage here in san francisco. the bowling club is two women owners that on a mini bar on this is a hero and they are excited to open up a smaller bowling alley bar and restaurant. we approved 8 transferred to open and build a new park. we are excited about the

elements happening in this part of the mission. excited to support our small businesses. we did make sure that they did to outreach to the community. they reach out to be organizations to make sure that this was in line with a lot of people's vision for the neighborhood. we would like to allow the bowling alley lanes to be used after school for free. we are excited about this partnership. thank you for your consideration.

>> i support this legislation. i would like to use the think supervisor came for her leadership. i do want to state through this process that although this is a good first step that the mission alcohol special use tissue it has outlived its usefulness. this is a hindrance on entertainment, on creating new businesses, and it should be repealed in its entirety. this was put in place in 1990's to address alcohol light in the mission. it was a very well-intentioned ordinance. over time, because it makes it impossible to transfer liquor licenses, what it does is

friezes in place some very bad uses like package liquor stores while preventing new businesses from coming into the neighborhood. the valencia wholefoods cannot sell beer or wine. we should address this one problem. this will be coming up over and over again as new businesses want to come in and be able to offer all all. i hope as this conversation continues that we will get to the point where we address the root problem. >> of like to echo my support.

the mission bowling alley, i cannot tell you how much i try to get them to stay in my district. the owners of mini bar were part of our renaissance. this is unrecognizable when it was 8 years ago thanks to a lot of the proprietors, liked proprietor of the bar which opened the bowling alley. i think this will be a huge success i think it is unforgivable that japan town bowling alley was shut down for market rate on doucondos. this should be well supported by legislation that does not look to the past but looks to the

future. in terms of the entertainment and night life industry. but it needs to be supported. with the limited live performance, it goes hand in hand with giving credence with a special use district. my house off to supervisor kim. >> we wanted to look at a more comprehensive reform district but normally we would not have picked off a tapering approach to this. small businesses are moving forward and they cannot wait for the community outreach to take place to look at the overall district. we do support looking at it. this came into being for a reason and we want to do the

purpose it out reached before we do any whites killed changes. i am excited about the bowling alley. i want to remind supervisor mirkarimi when your a huge advocate for bowling, there was one of the saddest closures. this is a place for young people and old to go. it is sad that we don't have that. i'm looking forward to seeing more bowling alleys. >> i am not in any way criticizing the approach. this is the right way to proceed. we can strike while the iron is hot but i want to make sure that the broader issues stay firmly on the agenda. >> can we take this item same house, call? this is passed on the first reading, let's go bowling. >> item 28 is an ordinance

amending the transportation code to authorize the administrative and misdemeanor penalties for submitting false, misleading, or fraudulent information. >> same house, called? this is adopted on the first reading. >> item 29, ordinance amending the police code to prohibit public nudity. >> i know the car could not read the rest of the description. fowe are addressing it discreet issues that are primarily affecting the castro it could be elsewhere as well.

there has been allowed discussion about this and the press has been upset about it. when we had a hearing, no one came out to oppose it. we did hear from one person in the neighborhood that this is a tangible issue happening in the castro. colleagues, i respectfully ask for your vote. >> can we take this same house, same call? without objection. this ordinance has passed. >> why don't we go to item 30? >> item 30 and 31 work is diverted by a.d. neighborhood as the services ready item 30 supports the occupy wall street movement and the people's right to peacefully.

>> i called the committee report, item number 30. >> first off, i would like to thank the co-sponsors for this resolution. that would like to thank supervisor wiener for his amendments. this is all the language which i included, the peace of language that supervisor wiener will mention in a moment. this is discussing a shared responsibility between the mayor

and the board of supervisors and being more specific with the language. this supports the occupy wall street movement overall and the goals of the occupiey sf moveme. i can see the consciousness that is changed across the country. this is a very welcome thing occurring create meaningful change in our society about how we can restructure our society and our government's relationship to the economy to promote the welfare of the people. that is the goal. we need to have a government that is truly accountable to the 99% so i wholeheartedly support

the movement. this resolution does about support for the movement. this is also about free speech and the right to assembly and their recognition that the occupy wall street movement consists of 24/7 assemblies that happen in public spaces and in some cases private spaces around the country and currently here in san francisco, on market street. i have been at the site and number of times. i've been called to intervene against the police action against the occupation, the first time was about a month ago when the police were about to move on the occupiers and separate their belongings from them. i went to market street and try to intervene but i did not get the support from the police department as i had hoped.

there was some confrontation on the street that led to one person getting hurt and one person getting arrested and my concern for the police intervening was that it would create tensions that would be an unmanageable use of public space and it would be difficult to negotiate how the public space could be used. the movement itself would probably grow as there's police used against it. sunday, police action occurred and we saw that the occupiers increased in number and that made it difficult to action negotiate the use of space again. then we saw what happened in oakland. this was something that was horrendous in terms of how the police department in oakland had used teargas, reports of more bullets or protect those that

cause the damage to people's bodies including bruises, cuts, and one member was hit by a projectile and suffered a skull fracture and was in critical condition for a couple of days. after the police force and oakland use force against the occupation, the occupation only grew in number and this created a very difficult way for the city of oakland to negotiate how the public's base could be used in the time to come. shortly after that, we have the threat of imminent use of police forces are not last wednesday, thursday morning and luckily we move from that and the refuse of force that was quick to happen to the mayor sitting down and

talking with members of the movement and people who are part of the movement and also supporters like the san francisco labor council, the interfaith coalition, the teachers' union, the nurses association, a number of other organizations around the city. i want to commend the mayor for doing what this resolution urges which is that we have a discussion about how we can use the space and minimize the health and safety concerns and not use any kind of force to dislodge the occupation because that will only lead to tensions that would make it difficult. i think the mayor for coming.

i think it is significant that the mayor has made these that an it is worth mentioning. thank you. i also want to thank the promise of a been going above board and working around the clock and make sure that this area is safe. supervisor kim has played a large role. there are a number of members that were there and is prevented any real action from happening. the presence of ourselves with

the interface organization, all work together to prevent what happened and i want to thank the mayor for not moving forward with the rate. -- the raid. thank you for your consideration. [applause] >> we have a role within the chamber of not expressing applause or opposition to statements so that we can move with our proceedings in an efficient way but if you want to make a silent hand gesture, but that is absolutely appreciated. thank you.

>> this is to make an amendment as a whole, correct? course correct. -- july >> correct. any discussion on the amendment? the motion passes. >> thank you. >> i would like to thank supervisor avalos for being open and collaborative. i did suggest a number of changes to the resolution which i think make a better resolution. i would like to thank supervisor avalos to -- for agreeing. i am very supportive of

occupy sf. i went to the general assembly. what it stands for is incredibly important and i will not go into those details. the times i have been down there has been peaceful and people have been friendly and passionate. what happened in oakland was abhorrent and unacceptable. there will be ramifications and repercussions for a long time.

the last clause says that the mayor should instruct the police department not to use force at all. what happened in oakland was terrible and was completely inappropriate use of force as far as i can tell, i don't think that it is appropriate for us to tell the police department no matter what happens, come on a matter how anything changes between the peaceful state and what could happen in a week or in a month or three months or a year, that no matter what happens, you cannot use force. although none of us want forced to be used, we all know that things can change and so i think that we need to take that into account and i don't think that we should hamstring our police

department's ability to ensure public safety. i have distributed an amendment that at a frieze of the very end. but ed, unless there is a move that amendment. >> supervisor amendment has made the motion, is there second? any discussion? >> i understand the reasoning why this of the puzzle but to include the language and i feel that was performed in a clinic was on the pretext of a result of safety concerns so i don't think it means what they need.

i do believe that the line is we have without it is adequate because we're talking about the use of force to dislodge the occupation, that is what this whole clause is about an hour think that if we were to do that, we would see a return of people the next day or the death after -- or the day after. that is how people respond to the use of force and i think that what happened as well. i prefer to keep it as it is. >> just a question to my colleagues, i understand what supervisor wiener is saying. it seems to me that that is already given.

there are paternities to do different things. i'm wondering about the language that supervisor wiener is looking at that, if that becomes unnecessary instead of talking about the occupied demonstrators, we change this to a demonstration so that this is a general statement about the demonstration as a whole so that it does not address any specific instances. >> well, in response to the question, the current language is a categorical -- it asks the

mayor to categorically instruct the police department not to use force and that is the problem that i have because we have no idea, 100,000 different things can happen over time and so that is why i made at the amendment. i don't think that the word change really changes anything. i did indicate earlier that if there are other ways of phrasing, i am completely open. we talked about several different possibilities. this was probably the phrasing, i want to make it as descriptive as possible. if others have ideas, i am game.

>> we're trying to address public health and safety concerns. this is implicit in the way the mayor operates and this is urging the mayor to a symbolic statement. this is about protecting the right of the protesters to be there. i know there have been efforts from the city's part to have a key liaison person and occupiy f is looking for one as well. everything i've seen is that occupy sf and its allies have reacted quickly. i see this as unnecessary and i support the language as is. thank you. >> any further discussion?

should we take a roll call on the motion to amend? >> on the motion -- -- do i >> the motion to amend passes. any discussion on the underlined resolution? >> i meant to speak early before this amendment. i appreciate what the supervisor was trying to state and hours trying to think of another way to say it. i am almost certain that oakland police felt it was necessary for

the threat to public safety to allow them to use tear gas. i appreciate that there are things that we cannot predict and i appreciate your thoughtfulness on that. i really just want also to jump in and say i have been very appreciative both of occupy sf and the mayor's office. they're sitting alongside with the heads to see how we can work together. there is nervousness on both sides. there are the commitments that everything thought that everyone would like to see on the table but i appreciate that everyone is patiently moving along and a ton of progress has been made. a month ago, many of us were

nervous about what happened. there have been a few bumps along the way, i think that right now what i am seeing, i am very optimistic about. >> i want to take supervisor kim for being out in front in trying to have a measure solution enshrine contrast.

despite what the resolution it tends to say, this is non prescriptive to either the mayor or the police department. the general orders is what prescriptive. the orders of the police apartment supersede a resolution that is afforded by the board of supervisors. as it comes to public safety, the place of garmin will be guided in their response as likely to the mayor. -- the police department will be guided in their response. it is important that measured and cool heads prevail and continue to foster the kind of collaboration that has been demonstrated thus far. that makes me