supervisor avalos: good morning. welcome to the city operations and neighborhood services committee. my name is supervisor john avalos. join to my left by supervisor elsbernd, and we will be joined shortly by supervisor mar. madam clerk, can you share your announcements? >> all persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off cell phones and pagers. if you wish to submit copies of material to the committee, please submit an extra copy for the file. if you wish to submit a speaker card, please put it by the container at the rail in front of you to your left. items recommended out of committee today will go to the full board of supervisors for consideration monday of next week unless another date is

indicated. supervisor avalos: thank you. please call item 1. >> item 1, hearing to consider the issuance of a type 42 on sale beer and wine public premises license to james meade -- mead. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. inspector. >> supervisors, good morning. san francisco police department. what is before us today is an application. they are currently licensed with a tight 21. they are now applying for a type 42. if approved, it will allow them to do on-site wine tastings. they will have of sale privilege with onsite wine tastings. kind of a typical wine bar approach. we have several letters of support -- support. there has been one letter of opposition. we are recommending this application for approval with

the following conditions -- condition one, the two licenses shall operate with one another and shall not be separated. the point of this is that it stays a valid wine shop and not eventually turning into perhaps a liquor store. condition terribly low, sales service and a half between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. monday through saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on sunday. condition three, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only at the tasting area as depicted in the diagram except for private events that are closed to the public would sign it posted. next, the tasting area must be sectioned off with no one under 21 allowed sign clearly posted. next, a single tasting wine shall not exceed 1 ounce.

again, we want this to stay as wine tasting, not turning into a bar. the on self-service of beer or wine products is trickle prohibited. the sale of distilled spirits is strictly prohibited to the sale of beer, beverages, and one in 16, 32, or 40-ounce of similar size containers is prohibited except for microbreweries, organic breweries or similar craft products sold under such distinct designations as south porter, ipa, and esb. this is intended to prohibit high alcohol low-cost products that are frankly abuse. our last condition -- no person under the age of 21 shells sell or serve or deliver all of beverages. with these conditions, the department recommends approval. supervisor avalos: 90 very much. any public comment on this item? seeing none -- thank you very

much. any public comment? seeing none, we'll close the item. motion to move forward with a recommendation with the conditions. we will take that without objection. before we go on to the next item, i forgot to make an announcement that there was going to be another item on this agenda today. the military budget. but we actually -- it has not been scheduled. if you are here to speak on that, we will have another date for that. i apologize for the error on our part. madam clerk, if you could please call item two. >> item two, hearing to consider that the issuance of a type 48 on sale general public premises liquor license to peter acworth for the armory club will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos: inspector.

>> just for a purpose of clarity, the records show this as a valid address of 1799 mission street. i will work it out with the quebec to the hearing to make sure the our people work matches up. my report reflects only the 1799 mission address. i would point out that the premises was previously licensed. they are looking to upgrade their license to a type 48 license. we are recommending it for approval. there's no record of objection. i will read the conditions to you now. sale of service of alcoholic beverages be permitted between 12:00 noon and 2:00 a.m. daily. front door shall be close was the privilege of the license is being exercised, except in the case of emergency and to permit deliveries. said or not to consist solely of

a screen or ventilated security door, again in a spirit of minimizing noise exiting the premises. condition three, no noise shall be audible be on the area under the control of the licensee. the sale of alcoholic beverage of the premises is strictly prohibited. condition, there shall be -- the petitioner shall not make structural changes to the premises without prior written approval from the apartment. ex condition -- no person under the age of 21 years of age shall enter or remain in his public premises. our last condition -- the petition shall utilize electronic surveillance and recording equipment that is able to view inside and outside the premises and that is actively maintained and recorded. this electronic surveillance shall be in place during operating hours. according shall be kept up to 72 hours and shall be made available to the police department upon a man -- recordings show because the to 72 hours. with this, we are recommending approval. supervisor avalos: public comment? seeing none, we will close

public comment. and a motion to move forward with approval with a recommendation and within a conditions. we will take that without objection. madam clerk, if you could please call item 3. >> item 3, hearing to consider the issuance of a type 48 on sale general public premises like a license to steve and broke waterhouse for the project one gallery located at 251 rhode island street will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> what is before us now is an application for a gallery -- bear with me one second -- that is applying for a type 48 licensed. this is basically going to be a

typical bar. no one under the age of 21 allowed. we are recommending it for approval. i would point out, we have no record of protest or support. we are recommending the following conditions. no noise shall be audible be on the area under the control of the licensee. next is our loitering condition, defined as standing idly about, lingering aimlessly without lawful business, prohibited on any sidewalk adjacent to the property under the control of the licensee. the petitioner shall my -- shall now -- not pay based upon money collected from many forms of admission judge including minimum drink orders or the sale

of drinks. they shall not require an admission charge or cover charge, nor shall there be a requirement to purchase a minimum number of drinks. next condition -- the sale of alcoholic beverages for of sale consumption is strictly prohibited. condition -- no person under 21 years of age shall sell, furs, or deliver alcoholic beverages. interior lighting maintain shall be sufficient to make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons in the portion of the premises where alcoholic beverages are sold, delivered, and consumed. next condition, petitioner shall be operated as a bonafide art gallery, a room or building devoted to the exhibition of works of art, with the sale of beer and wine and distilled beer. premises shall be used for no other purpose. there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type including advertising

directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. interior displays of all of beverages, or signs clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. lastly, the princes shall not operate as a private club. with these conditions, we are recommending this art gallery be approved. supervisor avalos: very good. thanks very much. we can open it up for public comment. while they're working it out, if there's any member of the public who would like to comment. we are open up for public comment. there's not anyone coming forward. we will close public comment. inspector. >> if you could just give me one moment here.

supervisor avalos: while we are waiting for this, if we could call item four. we are now joined by supervisor mar. >> item 4, ordinance amending

the san francisco transportation code by adding section 7.2.104 to regulate the use of clipper card on transit vehicles. supervisor avalos: i am emotion in this to be -- i am motioning this to be delayed to the call of the chair. without objection. public comment on item four. >> good morning. during my frequent assignments, i have made use of the clipper system under different buses. i was under the impression that there was going to be uniformed officers on the buses. at the times i have ridden, i

have not seen one yet. i just wanted to bring that to your attention. i ride at different times for different reasons, but i find it interesting that i have not seen a uniformed officer on any of the buses. some of the bus is i take i think should have them. i just wanted to bring to your attention that maybe if we are going to talk about the clipper system, which in my opinion sometimes has a lot of malfunctions because the clipper card i used sometimes does not register, and i do not see anybody questioning me about whether it was valid or not, and then when i see that the clipper card is not in use, i guess people that day or at that time get a free ride for whatever reason. i just thought i would bring it to this committee's attention. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. we will close public comment on

the item four. we will continue to the call of the chair without objection. we can go on to item 3 again. >> i apologize for the confusion. i think the simplest solution is to be read the conditions. i will point out the significance as i rolled through it. sale and service about alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12 midnight on sunday through wednesday and 4:00 p.m. to 1:30 on thursday through saturday. in that case, what we did is we are allowing alcohol consumption on sunday. i was reading an earlier draft. no nor shall be audible be on the area under the control of the licensee. the petitioner shall not sure profits or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, a cover charge, or any other form of admission charge. petitioner shall not require

patrons to purchase a minimum number of drinks. the sale of yahoo! beverages for of sale consumption is strictly prohibited. -- the sale of alcoholic beverages for of sale consumption is strictly prohibited. the premises shall be used for no other purpose. next condition -- the licensee shall not maintain or construct any type of a closed room intended for use by patrons or customers for any purposes. with these conditions, we are recommending this license for approval. supervisor avalos: thank you, inspector. we have already had public comment on this item, so that is close. we can accept the conditions and move forward with recommendations. ok, that we will do. thank you very much. madam clerk, if you could please call item five.

>> item 5, ordinance amending the san francisco environment code by amending section 1702 to extend the restrictions on check out backs from supermarkets and chain pharmacies to all retail establishments and food establishments in the city and clarify terms, adding section 170 3.5 to require stores to add a check out by a charge of 10 cents, rising to 25 cents, if they provide a customer with a check out bag, setting an operative date of july 1, 2012, and making environmental findings. supervisor avalos: thank you. we have legislative aide to supervisor mirkarimi. >> good morning. supervisor mirkarimi could not be here this morning so he asked me to be here and introduced this ordinance. before i get started, i wanted

to hand out to you the amendments and a list of frequently asked questions. the origins of this legislation go back to 2007 and more recently 2010. in that process, the planning department played a big role -- the department of environment has played a big role. the city attorney's office has done a lot of hard work and various advocates from different places have worked very

diligently on this. supervisor mirkarimi and i want to thank everybody for their efforts. it requires a charge for providing composed of all recycled paper and reusable bags for customers. businesses keep the revenue they gain from the bad charges, and the goal of the legislation is to reduce the availability and use of single use plastic bags. the issue that this addresses is singhalese plastic bags have been the most pervasive and arguably the most damaging form of litter in san francisco and the u.s. paper bags also contribute to litter, depleting resources, and pollution. i have a few resources that illustrate the point more graphically. american shoppers use an estimated 102 billion plastic

bags every year. plastic bags are a significant source of litter in the san francisco bay, specifically. a study showed that approximately 25,000 plastic bags were removed from san francisco bay in just one single day. there are many other examples. as you may know, the city has a zero waste policy. as part of the plastic bag are very difficult to recycle and they contaminate san francisco's recycling and composting programs. they interfere with san francisco's official goal of zero waste by 2020. i want to give you a little history of how the problem has been addressed in san francisco.

i mentioned the 2007 ordinance. i will tell you more about that in the 2010 revolution. as a result of supervisor mirkarimi's legislation, san francisco became the first american city to ban plastic bags from use at large grocery stores and pharmacies. all other san francisco stores or restaurants currently may still offer single use plastic bags. supervisor mirkarimi, the department of the environment, and others, have always contemplated since 2007 that the legislation would be a first step and imagined event at all stores and a charge for bags. that has now been done overseas for many years and now-in number of california communities as well. san francisco was in the lead on the issue in 2007 and is now trailing other jurisdictions in terms of charges. san francisco's legislation was not new in 2007.

in 2002, ireland placed a 15 cents charged on plastic bags and now charges roughly 33 cents. other countries like france, switzerland, and belgium charge for bags while italy has banned all non-, postal bags -- non- compostable bags. santa cruz and san jose have just approved laws that would also charge for bags. santa cruz, malibu, and others expanded their plastic bag band and charge to all stores and restaurants without broad resistance from industry. as a result, as a 2007 ban, san francisco has seen some good results. the department of the environment and others think they can be improved. the city has seen an 18% decrease in single use plastic bags in the waste stream, but we feel like we could do better.

the question has been raised of why charge. why charge customers for these bags? research indicates clearly the check out back charge was reduced consumer use of single use plastic bags dramatically. we have seen an 18% decrease in san francisco. in one example, in washington, d.c., a bag charge reduced single use bags by 81%. ireland has seen a reduction of 90%. i will conclude soon. in 2010, supervisor mirkarimi interest legislation which expanded the plastic bag band in san francisco to all stores. the legislation has not move forward for the past year essentially because the city attorney and planning department specifically wanted to make sure the city applies a proper environmental review standard to the legislation and considered everything from a categorical exemption all the way up to a full environmental impact

report. following a california supreme court case this summer focusing on manhattan beach and another one this fall in marin county, the city attorney advised the department that the proper review of a categorical extension and planning department has now completed the categorical exemption review and it is finalized. i will just give you a very brief overview of the high points of what the legislation will do. i mentioned it a couple of times, but it will reiterate it with the date. it will expand the ban on single use retell plastic bags from stores in san francisco starting july 1, 2012. it will expand the ordinance to include all san francisco restaurants starting july 1, 2013, and require a 10 cents minimum charge on allowable check out back to increase to 25 cents in 2014. bags allowed under the ordinance are as follows -- certified paper bags with 100% recycled

content, reusable bags designed for 125 uses and 100 washes. the ban does not apply to the following -- bags used inside stores for bulk items. this paper bags and laundry dry cleaning bags. i mentioned that there are a number of amendments that are really just to clarify language and clean up some phrases in the ordinance that you will see in the copies are provided for you. there are say liniment -- salient amendments i wanted to draw your attention to. definitions have been clarified. the ordinance now a sense doggie bags from -- exempts doggie bags from restaurants and out exempts stores from charging for

regional bank when the store is providing them to a customer without charge during a promotional event. it wants to get people up to speed on the legislation and offer them to have a bag on a limited basis. the legislation allows seven days of promotional events in the year. finally, the legislation prevents a waiver -- provides a waiver for companies that have unique hardships, and that is clarified in the legislation. i am here and happy to answer any questions you may have this morning. supervisor avalos: thank you very much for your presentation. supervisor mar: i just wanted to ask about one of the amendments of that body bags. can you explain in a little bit more detail how they are exempted? >> yes, the policy, as i

described, is to discourage consumers from using single-use bags and not bringing their own bags to a store, take out food place, or another retail establishment. that policy did not seem to apply nearly as directly in the instance of a doggie bag because in the instance that a diner goes into a restaurant, does not know the policy of discouraging them from single use bags doesn't apply in that instance nearly as well. we felt like that category did not line up with the policy goals of the other types of establishments and created a bit of a hardship on restaurants where they do it as a courtesy basically. supervisor avalos: ok, why don't we go on.

>> good morning, thank you for letting me speak today about the ordinance that is up for consideration today. many of the salient points were just spoken to you by rob selma so i would like to keep this brief. i would like to speak here in support. as you know san francisco was the first u.s. city to ban plastic check out bags over four years ago. that ban only applied to supermarkets and to pharmacy chains, and the ordinance helped to reduce plastic bag litter in san francisco as you heard by 18% which was a great victory. it also reduced contamination in our collective recyclables and compost. although we do take great pride in being the first city to have banned plastic bags in the u.s. and are pleased with the impact that the original ordinance made, plastic bags continue to be a problem in san francisco. i would like to highlight a

couple of those concerns. plastic bags cannot be recycled through our curb side or pickup program do the economics and are still the largest and most costly contamination. there by continuing to pose a threat and a real obstacle. and then finally plastic bags are continuing to be a threat to marine and wildlife. a 2010 study named san francisco's mission creek as one of the most plastic bag choked waterways in its annual trash top survey. as you also heard there's many other cities and countries in fact that have followed san francisco's lead and have put plastic baghbans in place. as you heard ireland and washington have had great

success in implementing a charge that provides an incentive for individuals to bring their own bag to an establishment. as you also heard stores would get to keep the charge that is part of your ordinance to help offset any additional cost for allowing check out bags. so there are as you probably know a wide variety of reusable bags on the market that many shoppers already use which are being sold from anywhere from 25 cents to a few dollars from bags that can easily fold up in one's pocket or purse. to large canvas baggings such as the ones that the department of environment gives out for free events that are made out of scrap cloth here in san francisco. our department pledges to conduct extensive outreach to the retailers and restaurants in san francisco to help them understand the benefits and prepare for this ordinance and to promote this to the general public. public. in sum, we are here in support