other cities -- san bruno, east bay, even marin county in the future -- and we would need a joint powers board that, hopefully, would be elected. things like that and the broadband issue that i raised -- we could end up setting up a democratically elected communication's board. this really is a big deal for lafco, especially to the extent that any elected boards like those would have oversight over issues that have to do with ratepayers, which is primary when you have an elected body. i think this is a perfectly natural direction for lafco to go and wholeheartedly support it. thanks. commissioner campos: any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an information and possible action item. could we have a motion directing staff to pursue this item.

commissioner avalos: i would like to make the motion that staff pursue some analysis of rank choice voting, here, locally in san francisco. what are the trends? what do we have in terms of services for public education? a measure of how successful that has been. if possible, looking at trends elsewhere around the country and -- i do not know if we want to look elsewhere globally, but i think the country is useful. also, something else to add, perhaps, if there is controversy around financing of rank choice voting in other places, we could elucidate what that might look like as well. it might be different in other places. i think it is with developing a broader perspective of it as well. how does that sound? commissioner campos: great. commissioner pimentel: i would like to second the motion. commissioner campos: we have a

second. i assume there is clarity in terms of what we are asking. if we could take that motion without objection. again, thank you, colleagues, for your support. i think it is good to move in that direction. >> item 7, goals and objectives for 2012. commissioner campos: this is an item to provide the commission an opportunity to talk about our objectives for this calendar year. one thing i would say is that we will have a new commissioner coming on board pretty shortly. i think by our next meeting. i do not know if this is an item where people want to engage in the discussion now or if it would be better to wait until we have a full complement to the commission. one of the things that i want to say is in terms of the objectives of lafco from my

perspective, the main, i think, objective, at least has to be right now to make sure that we have an effective and successful community choice aggregation program and that not only includes, you know, the contract that is before the board, but that is also on parallel tracks a robust buildup, and i think that has to be the priority of lafco. that said, i also think it is important for us as a commission to think of different ways in which we can be a part of a discussion or review of issues of importance to the city. the issue of voting and rank choice voting as an example, but i think there are other areas where lafco can also weigh in. as a share, and would welcome any suggestions or proposals that members of the commission have in terms of things that were -- that we are not working on, that we are not looking at

that maybe we should be working on and looking at. i think that is important for us to think outside the box of what we have been doing in the last few years. commissioner avalos, anything to add? commissioner avalos: i am thinking we could initiate the conversation now. perhaps we could open up again when we have a larger number of people. commissioner campos: commissioner pimentel, thoughts or comments at this point? no? why don't we open up to public comment? any member of the public that would like to speak on item 7. >> eric brooks again. this is the opportunity i will take to talk about what i mentioned before, and that is public broadband. i am sure that some or all of you followed what happened recently in washington, d.c., are around the "online privacy act" which would have sent to

the internet -- censored the internet. it looks like thankfully, that has been beaten back. if you look over the course of the last decade especially and even since 1996, we can see that corporations are making more of an effort every year, and no matter whether there is a democrat or republican in office, to get more and more exclusive control of the internet and keeping the public walled off so that it can charge high fees and decide what content we see on the internet. a few years ago, myself and some other organizers with a coalition called public net, one of whom is bruce wolfe, who i recently spoke to around this, got through to lafco, made sure that hearings happened to stop what was going to be a monopolization of our local wireless service in san francisco, and part of that discussion was -- if we are not

going to do this city wide wireless, what are we going to do? during that discussion, it came up that the obvious answer and much better answer is to do city-wide fiber optic broadband. at least start with a citywide luke that people can hook into with wireless and eventually build broadband out to every single home. if we do it right and use revenue bonds, it would not take a lot of tax money to do that. i e-mailed some of you, and i could e-mail it again, a study that was done early in the decade about the possibilities and how to rollout fiber optic broadband in san francisco. based on the conversation i had with mr. wolf and based on what a lot of us have been observing with corporations really moving hard in this last year to get control of the internet from various corporate angles, i do not think -- i know i have been kind of quarterly bringing this up, but i think it is time for

us to start really hitting this again. i do not think we can wait much longer. i would urge you to agendize this session so we could talk about the possibility of fiber optic broadband as a public system so we no longer have to deal with just getting our service from comcast and at&t, which, from personal experience, has been held for me. i am sure some of you have probably had problems with those sort of duopoly carriers as well. there will be a key component with how we build howcca and -- how we build out cca and smart birds. i think it is time for lafco to take this on. -- smart grids. commissioner campos: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will come back to this in a future meeting so that once we

have a fuller discussion, we can take action in terms of adopting a set of goals and objectives. commissioner avalos: i had been looking at fiber and -- i think looking at fiber and broadband is worthwhile. i just do not know if we can bet that within our year, given our timeline and scope of work, but i think it is a worthy thing to look at. we can continue the conversation when we have a fuller contingent of people here. commissioner campos: i think that makes sense. commissioner pimentel. commissioner pimentel: [inaudible] in with maybe in october, closer to the end of the year? commissioner campos: ms. miller? >> i think what we will do is keep it on the agenda for our next meeting so that our newest commissioner, we can talk a little bit about if there is any additional point of interest or subject matter. then we can talk about timing. we will have a better idea then, i think, about timing, for some

of these issues, particularly the voting worked -- voting were--voting work. commissioner campos: as we come back to the idea of setting goals and agendas, the staff to think about the timing of when these agendas could be taken up. maybe you have some suggestions for us in terms of how to plan out, you know, the different things that come up, including the issue of fiber, which i think is actually a very good one. commissioner, anything else? if it is ok, can we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? i will make sure that we put it on the next agenda. we have a motion by commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner pimentel. we will take that without objection. please call item 8. >> item 8, executive officer's

report. >> there is no report. we can move on. commissioner campos: public comment on item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. if you could call item 9. >> item 9, public comment. commissioner campos: public, not at -- not on the agenda but is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the local agenda agency commission? public comment is closed. item 10. >> item 10, future agenda items. commissioner campos: be on the items we have identified, any future agenda items you would like to bring up? is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. last item. >> item 11, adjournment. commissioner campos: meeting adjourned. i want to thank everyone for coming up to the meeting. we look forward to our follow-up meeting cca -- on cca and

setting up a joint meeting with the public utilities commission. again, thank you to the members of the public, to puc staff, lafco staff, commissioners. thank you, madam clerk.

supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the city operations and neighborhood services committee. i am vice chair of the committee. i am joined by supervisor olague. our clerk is ms. gail johnson. at sfgtv, we have john and nona. we have announcements? >> yes, all persons attending this meeting are requested to turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you have materials, please submit an extra copy for the file. if you wish to submit speaker cards, please put them in the container in front of you to your left. items recommended out of committee today will be considered by the full board tuesday of next week unless another date is indicated.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. can we excuse supervisor elsbernd? yes. we will do that without objection. >> item 1, hearing to consider that the issuance of the type 40 aren't-sell beer license to mark e. rennie for bart downtown, doing business as craft, located at 440 mission street to serve the public convenience or necessity of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> inspector for the police department. good morning. the applicant has applied for and the original type for the on-sell beer license at 440 mission street, located between first street in fremont street. hours of operation, daily, 11:00

a.m. to 2:00 a.m. currently, this business is not operating. if approved, this will allow the applicant to sail on-sale and off-sell beer at this location. no wine for distilled spirits may be of promises. full meals and not required, and sandwiches or snacks must be available. minors will be allowed on this premises. there is no record of letters of protest, letters of support, no record police call for service from july 2010 to july 2011. police reports during the same time span. supervisor chu: to be clear, those are police calls for service in that area, not particularly related to that establishment, correct? >> yes. no opposition from southern station. alu recommendation, approval with commissions.

number one, sell, service, consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be from 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. and from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., when the premises is broadcasting real time the world cup soccer and the olympics. this privilege shall be subject to an advanced written notice to the department at least one week prior to the events. two, no noise shall be audible be on the area under the control of the licensee as defined in the law. 3, no person under the age of 21 shells sell, furnish, or deliver alcoholic beverages. four, loitering, is defined as, to stand idly by, a leader aimlessly without lawful business, is prohibited on the sidewalks or property adjacent to the license under the control of the licensee as depicted in the law. 5, the petitioners shall be responsible for maintaining free

of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control. 6, graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee within a 72-hour application. at the graffiti occurs on a friday or weekend day or on its holiday, the licensee shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next week day. seven, the exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting sufficient power to eliminate in make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises. the position of such lighting shawn not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residents. supervisor chu: does this complete your presentation?

>> yes. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> yes. my name is mark, and i represent craft, the new mission -- business being billed as 440 mission street in 1930-historic building directly across the street from a new transbay transit center, which is going to be ready in about 2017 and is now a big hole in the ground. however, we have applied -- my client has applied for a type 40 abc license, which authorizes the sale of beer only. note wine or spirits music -- may be served on the premises. and light meals must be served. our business plan calls for the craft to serve craft beer from

small independent breweries, using traditional ingredients. specifically, this location will have 40 tap beers and 40 bottled beers available to the public. this craft beer movement is strong in cities such as portland and san diego, and it is becoming larger and the rest of the country. san francisco is in a region surrounded by small craft breweries, and we see this as they focused focal point for that emerging movement in san francisco. the place will be approximately 2,000 square feet, large windows looking out onto the new transbay center and the park across the street. it will have large community tables. and what this neighborhood is going -- there is a number of large residential projects going into the neighborhood in the next 10 years, already built in

fende tower, millennium tower, and what the neighborhood unfortunately lacks is any neighborhood focus or any casual environments that serve as a neighborhood meeting place for a community hub. that is exactly what my client intends to do with this location. basically, my client is here for any questions. my letter to the board on october 14 lays it out a little better. but i would like to just summarize that we think this will be a great asset to the greater san francisco community. it will upgrade a historically significant buildings. it will increase business to other businesses in the neighborhood. it will serve unique beers and non-alcoholic beverages, as well as be in an informal setting and will be a great community gathering spot. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. other members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

please, for work. -- please come forward. >> my name is douglas yet, and i lived in san francisco for 59 years. i am opposing the liquor license because, number one, it is a new license. i think most people are willing to admit that there are too many liquor licenses in san francisco. i am glad to know that kraft -- craft is one of the new brewery- type establishments, so i feel that maybe they should be located in a different place in san francisco, especially now that the new transbay terminal is in doubt, at least according to supervisor elsbernd. it is kind of interesting that a company would be willing to locate the into an area where the business climate is not that good, in my opinion.

i have been in that area a long time. it seems to me like the clientele, more or less, leaves that area after work, and there is not that much to do their bit of maybe having craft relocate in the more prosperous, so to speak, part of san francisco might be better in the long term. maybe if we knew that the transbay terminal was going to exist, but supervisor elsbernd has wisely suggested that if it does not exist, then that is a pretty fancy bus stop. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. this bridge is over the world. my name is as washington. -- ace washington. i am here to show a parallel on sunday.

i have been around this community for over 27 years. i have been 9 san francisco 57 years. as you see, i am an african- american. i am here to speak in a parallel situation to the way city government is run here could i am appalled. i view this city as the most racist city in the united states. right now, we had a mayor that i have known over 20 years, and it seems to me that if this is a neighborhood service this situation, i am here to give a couple parallels. the oewd, dcyf, american cup, the fillmore center, in some parks around here, i am here protesting, and i will at every meeting that i can do you have got to understand the history. i am responsible for the city government channels that you have got here. years ago, i used to take my

little camera and take it down to channel 25 and air the board of supervisors meeting. 20 years later, i am scrutinized, got to fight with being in the press room to show my credentials because i am a black man. because of the african-american population going way down, there is a problem here. i am reading over some of these items coming up in your different agendas, coming up thursday, and i am not racist or fearing of aids or lesbians, but because the african americans did what we did to open the doors for all minorities, we have been put under the rug. here we have the gays and lesbians coming up in a meeting, the growing population. they want this, they want that. damn it, there has not been one of public meeting about the african-american population going down. there is a problem with that.

if you cannot see it, my committee sees it piteously a great-great grandfather. i will not spend 20 years here and not raise my voice to raise consciousness of what is happening here in my black community. you'll see me here that every community meeting because they took my tv shows off because i am to political. i heard that i am the most black feared man here. i do not know if i need to take that on the good side or back to. but if you fiore me, if you're not, because as a telling you the truth. my name is ace, and i am assembly on a case, the african- american migration report. ed lee is going to shift its beckham to the human rights commission, and they have no damn care about what is happening here. so you'll see me stressing the issue about the african- american. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other speakers that wish to speak on item number one, a liquor license at

440 mission street? >> hello, my name is mark goldfein, and i am working with the people creating craft, the current project which is 83 proof, directly around the corner from 440 mission street. number one, it is a very successful business. we do a good business throughout the afternoon and evening. so there is definitely business in the neighborhood. and the neighborhood doesn't need a good hub, a place -- the neighborhood doesn't need a good hub, a place for people to relax and decompress after work. this is a nice place. it is a good place peter i am speaking of 83 proof, where i have been working. we have never had noise issues. we have not had fights. it is not something we want, so it is not something we are going

to track. it is not something that we would tolerate. we want to raise the neighborhood up and have a good place for everyone, hopefully a place where any of you would feel comfortable coming and just relaxing and enjoying a quality product. it is not a place to come and pound pitchers of beer. it is a place to enjoy things and relax. that is what we're doing at 83 proof, and i think that is what they want to c do wantraft at 440 mission street. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. any other speakers? public comment is closed. i do have a clarification question. on the abc unit summary page, it talks about how this is for an on-sell beer license. in the digest, however, it talks about the fact that the licence will allow the applicant to sell

on-sale/off-sell beer. is it both are just on-sell beer? >> it is both. >> is a question for the organization. it sounds like it is described as an on-sale, a location where people will be purchasing alcohol and having it there. do you imagine that there will be instances that people will be taking their beer off site? we would not want to create problems the people taking it out and drinking it at the neighborhood park across the street. that is sending we would not be able to control? >> we think it would probably be about 99.9% on-sale. in portland and san diego, there's already businesses that made this model. they sell something where, for example, la bonitas or sierra nevada, some craft brewery would

sell a larger bottle of the craft beer. but this is not the type of thing will i will come in and buy a $10 16-ounce pride or something and take it across the street to drink. strictly because this beer is so rare and unique, it is impossible to get anywhere else. we have to increase business for local microbreweries. there is a place on folsom st. called the beer store, which is a similar type of on-sale/off- sale. you can have it, but you can get very rare beers and to get off premises. it has never been a problem. supervisor chu: what will become of the containers as people take it off site? >> hello, i am one of the members of the sponsor of the project.