for edition san francisco, located at 691 market street, will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos: inspector, please. >> good morning, supervisors. the licence applied for is a person to person, existing license for a new owner, and a promise to premise transfer for the new location. this business wishes to operate between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. on a daily basis. if approved, this will allow the applicant to sell beer, wine, and the distilled spirits at this location. there will not be an off sale privilege. there are no letters of protest or letters of support. sutter station is not opposed to this license. the alu recommendation is to improve, with conditions. the following would be number

one -- the sale and service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shelby from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. daily. no. 2, the sale of the alcoholic beverages for of sale consumption is strictly prohibited. number three, no person under the age of 21 shall furnish alcoholic beverages. no. -- no. 4, any time a third party promoter is licensed that the promise -- premise, the licensee shall maintain control and approve all marketing materials. no. 4, the condition will be that no noise should be audible beyond the area of control by the licensee. supervisor avalos: thank you very much, inspector. we can open this up to public comment. i have a couple of cards. margaret, stan, and this one has

item number two -- these are not for this item. anyone with public comment on item number two, direct? >> my name is michael. i did submit a card. i am the executive director for the alliance for a better district 6. this is regarding the item petitioning san francisco on market street. it would be an excellent addition to market street and the surrounding area. they have done outreach about their venue to the surrounding neighborhood associations. they are responsible operators, with several successful businesses. they have been involved in the community for many years. their partners have been involved in the issues of safety

and other issues like that. i would hope that the board would approve those conditions. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. if there are no other members of the public who would like to comment, we will close public comment on item number two. colleagues, the item is before us. with a motion to move forward with recommendations on condition, we will take that without objection. well done. madam clerk, next item, please. >> item 3. hearing to consider that the issuance of a type 20 off-sale beer and wine license to jay esopenko for little vine located at 1541 grant avenue, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos: very good. thank you. inspector? >> the applicant has filed for a type 20 beer and wine application.

this would be a person to person existing license with a new owner and a promise to premise transfer existing license with a new location. the business hours of operation would be tuesday through sunday, a 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. if approved, it would allow for the sale of sale. wine at the current location. there are no letters of support or letters of protest. the recommendation is for approval with conditions. number one, the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily. no. 2, no more than 5% of the square footage of the premises will be used for the display of alcoholic beverages. number three, they shall not exceed 25% of total gross sales.

supervisor avalos: would any member of the public like to comment on item number three? seeing no one, we will close public comment. motion to move forward, taken without objection. thank you. madam clerk, item number four, please. >> item four. ordinance amending the san francisco transportation code, article 7, division i, by adding section 7.2.104 to regulate the use of clipper cards on transit vehicles or in proof of payment zones. supervisor avalos: welcome. >> thank you, supervisors. a very simple item, requesting a change to the transportation code for the regulation on transit cars and vehicles with payment areas that have better

tracking for fare transit. currently, we only have one. we would like to separate into two codes in order to manage our resources and track card fraud. i am happy to answer any questions. supervisor avalos: any questions for mr. rose? thank you. this item is open for public comment. item four. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak in support of this ordinance. i feel that the community needs to be modernized, so this is obviously a no-brainer. one thing that i would like to say is that whatever improvement clipper makes to the overall system, it needs to be stated formally, for the record, that

the mta is too costly with administrative costs and that needs to be handled quickly, even though a clipper system might bring improvements. also, when i use the muni for some of my assignments, i notice that the clipper system has numerous errors. either i am reading the card or whatever else happens. -- either in reading the card or whatever else happens. also, i hear people on the buses murmur to each other whether the clipper card can be faked, just like some of the best passes used to be. i would like to bring that to the attention of the clipper system, since i hear people discuss that on the bus rides when i go through some of the -- whatever you want to call them. anyway, i am supporting the idea.

i think that the clipper system is an improvement. i also feel that the mta needs to get its costs in line. why should passengers make sacrifices, go through the improvement of the clipper system, only to see all of that money wasted at the top end of the system. from what i understand, the clipper system is successful in other areas of the bay area. i am sure that it will be successful in san francisco. i would like to say that whatever improvements it does with the system, it also needs to be addressed, the mta costs too much money. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. would any other members of the public like to comment on this item? we will close public comment. moving forward with recommendation, taken without objection. thank you very much. that was kind of loud. madam clerk, if you could please

call item was numbers 5 and 6. >> item 5. hearing to hear all persons interested in commenting on the status of negotiations between the mayor's office and california pacific medical center regarding cpmc's long range development plan. item six. motion scheduling the board to sit as a committee of the whole on december 13, 2011, at 4:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the status of negotiations between the mayor's office and california pacific medical center regarding cpmc's long range development plan. supervisor avalos: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor mar: we have heard a number of presentations on very large cpmc projects on cathedral hill. a number of community organizations, as a community,

have come together to be involved in the process to make sure that the community benefits from large developments like this one. but, many in the community feel that there has been a lack of transparency and adequate communication between the city and the california pacific medical center around the project. i have called the hearing at different times within land use. i also hope that there can be as broad a hearing as we can have before the full board of supervisors on our december 14 meeting. therefore, i have called that. i would like to emphasize that this was brought up not to harm the conversation, the but to make it more transparent so that communities can have a say. whether it is transportation issues, affordable housing, or even the impact on communities around the development. that is my urging before the committee as a whole. thank you.

supervisor avalos: we will open up these items for public comment. i have one card on item number five. [reads name] >> good morning. my name is [says name] i am long-term resident of san francisco. i would like to comment about knowing more. i support the idea of having a hearing on it. i find it sort of shocking, may be outrageous, that a project with so many things wrong with that, environmentally and in terms of community benefits, that the mayor would be negotiating with a hospital --

with the hospital, in effect selling the right to demolish a building and replace it in an inappropriate location, in my opinion. so, my comment, i guess, is that i think it is wrong that the city should negotiate for a sum of money to allow this project to go forward. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public that would like to comment on these items? seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. supervisor mar: in my communications with of the clerk, i would like to amend it to a motion to calendar this

before the full board on december 13 at 3:00 p.m., the general time that we schedule these committees as a whole. that is what i meant. supervisor avalos: colleagues? supervisor mar: my understanding is that there are two appeals occurring on that same day. it will be a long potential evening. but i know that time is ticking of a lot of things before the sport. -- on a lot of things before this board. i just wonder at 4:00 is the right time. i imagine that this hearing will go for a long time. what about having this hearing, instead of at 3:00, after the appeals? we will be there late anyway as. >> -- supervisor mar: 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other -- supervisor elsbernd: 6 of 1,

half a dozen of the other. supervisor avalos: someone is going to have to sit there for long time. supervisor mar: i do not know the order of who goes first. i leave that to the clerk and the president of the board. i know that it is a balancing act with different constituencies. supervisor elsbernd: i will make a motion to table item number five, move item #6 forward for 3:00. supervisor mar: that sounds fine. supervisor avalos: do we not need item #five to go forward to the full board as well? supervisor elsbernd: no. 5 is our hearing right here. supervisor avalos: so, motion to table item number five, moving item #6 as amended, taken without objection. thank you very much. supervisor elsbernd: we do need

item 5? supervisor avalos: motion to rescind the vote. dejection. supervisor elsbernd: we do need item 5? supervisor avalos: ok. so, we will be make that motion to move item #5 to the full board, as well as item #6, as amended. we will take that without objection. good, that is what i thought. ok, great. madam clerk, please call item no. 7. >> item 7. resolution urging the united states government to reduce the military budget, end the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and redirect the savings for domestic needs. supervisor avalos: thank you, madam clerk. this is a resolution that i brought forward with folks out in the community and decided

that i share, as well, after 10 years into the war that began with 9/11, we do not see an end to this war in sight. it is causing great, dramatic pressure on governments at the federal, state, and local level to respond to the needs that we have around education, health, and maintaining the public well- being. a good portion of every dollar has approximately 68 cents on every federal dollar. every federal dollar is used to pay for military expenses. that is something that we cannot tolerate much longer, as a nation. it is important that we are able to speak, on a local level, up to the federal level, on the conditions that we are facing. trying to maintain the levels of service that our residents and

citizens need in san francisco. i do believe that these resolutions, from time to time, are important, sending a message to the federal government that we need to be doing something different in order to have a future for generations ahead of us. i want to thank folks for bringing this forward. you can open this up for public comment. i have a few cards i can read as well. if you are in the north court and want to speak on this item, item number 7, please come upstairs. i will begin by reading the names on the cards. michael, [reads names], amber, abdul, amber rose, -- if you her your name, please come forward.

looks like debbie guy. joannie [reads names], kathy, will scott, sandra, delores perez, susan solomon, jeff johnson, [reads names] if you lined up along the windows? -- if you could line up along the windows? i want to apologize for the folks who came to our last meeting thinking that we would have this item scheduled been. that was an error in my office. i apologize for that. >> good morning.

thank you, supervisors, for giving us this opportunity. in the national communicator 4 u.s. labor against the war. i would like to make a few points regarding this resolution. first of all, u.s. labor against the war represented a substantial portion of the labor movement in the city and county of san francisco. among our more than 30 affiliates, uesf, awe 2121, the san francisco labor council, and many others. number one, for every dollar that we invest in the military, more jobs could be created for the same investment in education, health care, tax

cuts, rebuilding, or any number of other socially productive means. studies have been done that show, for example, education dollar for dollar produces 238% more jobs than the amount of money invested in the military. no. 2, the wars are not over. despite the fact that we have a status of forces agreement, we will be leaving behind tens of thousands of private contractors in iraq. many, many more in afghanistan. clearly, our government is seeking to maintain a military presence as well. time that we put the pentagon on a diet, so that we can feed our communities.

until that time, we hope that the council but advocate for this resolute -- for this resolution. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is susan and i am from the united educators of san francisco. we heard over the weekend that there are 2200 homeless children in san francisco. for us, as educators, it is a huge concern. federal dollars would help to solve that problem. in terms of education, we are relatively fortunate. voters continually come to us,

and we are told that we need to find how to do more with less. the money is going to war as well we have four children, homeless children, underserved children, killed with our tax dollars. families ruined in other countries. when i first heard about this initiative, i assume that some people would probably say that this is a statement about policies that they cannot control. i disagree. it makes meeting of something that dundee -- gahndi said -- whenever you do, it is most important that you believe wholeheartedly that you should do it. we need to stand up to bring our dollars and soldiers home. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> thank you. mike and hisanne. -- my name is anne. i work in a long-term care facility. long-term care beds are disappearing rapidly as the reimbursement rates that do not cover the costs of nursing care in nursing homes. there is no doubt that the infirm and elderly on one sector are a terribly underserved population in this country. with reference to the last speaker, it is heartbreaking to breed of 2200 homeless children trying to attend school with that staple -- without staple shelter it -- without a stable shelter and reliable food. it is shameful and wrong that our money goes to destroy the

livelihood and the lives of people, leaving in their wake orphans and widowers. these survivors of the so- called civilized society, if that is the truth, our days are numbered. and we demand the changes that will appeal, rather than harm. supervisor avalos: next speaker. >> thank you for bringing this resolution forward. my name is jonathan. i worked as a paramedic for years in the city. i wound up retiring, taking a position with my union. the hardest job i have ever had. i am here, representing 50,000

members that belong to my union. several thousand are workers here in san francisco. i just want to say that the union expects this resolution to go forward. even the supervisor in a hallway. we expected to pass the board unanimously. with supervisors and labour working together to creatively take the next steps that we need in order to cut the military budget and bring our troops home, and our money home, spending it on the things that are more important to us. thank you. think we supervisor avalos: thank you. the supervisor avalos: -- thank you. next speaker, please. >> i was disappointed to see,

when i was given the new resolution, that one of the resolutions was dropped. it had been there. it was to hold hearings in san francisco to determine the effect of the exorbitant military spending on our local needs. a good example of why that is important is that i received notice, recently, in the neighborhood that the san francisco housing authority has applied for a permit to operate a natural gas burning coal generation unit at rosa parks apartments in my neighborhood. it will go all over the city. the reason for applying for that facility is to save money. now, it does not make any sense

for the city to be asking to save money on energy generation when the effects will be negative on the health of the citizens. especially since they have health programs that they have to pay for themselves. at any rate, we would not be pacing that, but we would have the amount that we would need if the money was not going to wars. by the way, there is a second application that has been put in for the apartments in north beach. the cumulative of fact has not been taken into account. and we need to pay attention to that. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> thank you. my name is delores pervez. i am a member of the unitarian universalist society of san francisco. thank you very much for presenting this resolution. supervisor mar, especially, as you are my supervisor. one thing that i would like to mention that was not in the resolution, as it cannot it -- contain everything that we oppose in these terrible wars, the fact that so many american soldiers are committing suicide. there are 462 american soldiers killed in combat in the 2010. while 468 county enlisted men and women took their own life that year. that was the second consecutive year that more soldiers died by their own hands? in combat. in 2009, 389 suicides of active-

duty soldiers, recorded by the military, also exceeding the number. this new data, that american soldiers are now more dangerous to themselves than the insurgents flies right in the face of any suggestion that these wars are working. it is wrong. i mean, it is true. the other thing is that many of the soldiers, when they come home, one out of four have pst. that is going to affect an impact this community directly. we will have toa lot of abundans say they should not be considered by the board of supervisors. this is a community and local supervisor. thank you for bringing this resolution to the floor. >>