supervisor mar's legislative aide, rick pavalatos. rick confirmed in an e-mail to me that the public hearing would not proceed today. no public hearing today. >> mr. harris, because it's agendized, we have to listen to public comment. so, that doesn't make any sense to me, but that's what was said by my staff. i have it in an e-mail. the matter will not be heard today is what your staff told me. >> we're not taking action, but we're obligated to hold a public hearing because it was noticed. i have many people who were lined up to come in and present written testimony. i had written testimony to

prepare -- to present. and i called them and told them not to come because we had been told by supervisor olague whose matter it is and by your staff that the public hearing -- >> we are not acting on it today. if you could continue your public comment. that's the point. that at such time that it is considered at a future, i just want that confirmation from you that public comment will be allowed when you have it continued. >> yes, we will have public comment when it's continued probably to december 3rd, but that's going to be the motion after public comment is over. thank you very much. hi, my name is sally stevens.

i'm the chair of sf dog. we support active recreational uses and adamantly oppose any move to give sharp park to [speaker not understood]. it is suing san francisco to try to force us to close the sharp park golf course and give it to the gg & a. the lawsuit is in the courts right now, but preliminary [speaker not understood]. this resolution will help their lawsuit. a cynical point by them to get you supervisors to do what they don't seem able to get the courts to do, to push their extremist plan to close sharp park golf course and give it to the [speaker not understood]. you shouldn't make it easier for people suing the city to win their lawsuit. stay out of it and vote no. you should not assert pressure on planning while an e-i-r is being developed. that is the intent to change the results of the nap e-i-r. don interfere and vote no on this resolution. the e-i-r in question is supposed to be for the natural

area management plan, not just parts of it. you should not allow extremists with a stake in this to pick and choose which parts of the overall nap plan are considered in the e-i-r. if it is to have any real meaning it is to look at all, not just some aspects. it should not be completed if it does not include sharp park plan. it will be wasted. please vote no on this. please do not let extremists with an agenda and lawsuit use you the supervisors to do their dirty work for them. don't let them fool you into giving them what have not been able to get from the people, from rpd, from the mayor or from the courts. please ask supervisor olague to pull this resolution so no one ever has to see it again. thank you. >> is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. so, if there are no comments, we have a request. supervisor wiener?

>> i understand that supervisor olague would like to have this continued to monday, december 3rd, two weeks, and i would be supportive of doing that. however, before we act on this resolution, i think it's important that we receive advice from the city attorney's office and i'm requesting that. there are a lot of issues here. there is the pending litigation that was just referred to. there is the issue of the fact we're in the middle of the e-i-r. pulling apart the e-i-r in the middle of the proceeding and what the ceqa impacts are. i wouldn't feel comfortable proceeding waynn or the other until we receive -- make a request of the city attorney and i'm requesting of the chair to keep that in mind as our request because i think we

would all benefit from having advice from the city attorney's office. >> and mr. givener, also, is this a binding resolution or nonbinding one? those are the questions i would like answered as well. thank you. >> absolutely, we can pass all those questions to the committee. >> great, thank you. there is a motion to continue -- there is a motion to continue until december 3rd at the request of supervisor olague. and my hope is that she shows up for that meeting or her staff are here so that -- and also rec and park staff as well so we can have a thorough dialogue and discussion on this item. so, without objection, we're going to continue this until december 3rd. thank you. thank you everyone for showing up. mr. evans, is there any other business before us? >> there is one more. >> thank you, mr. chair. item 6 is a hearing on municipal transportation agency's [speaker not

understood] as a way to produce better taxi service. >> supervisor wiener is the sponsor. >> thank you. i move to continue one week. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, let's continue this item until november 26 without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. evans, any other business? >> that concludes today's agenda. >> thank you. meeting adjourned, everyone. thank you. [adjourned]

>> good morning and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services committee. i am sean elsbernd and i am joined by christina olague and we will be shortly joined by ms. carmen chu. mr. clerk, can you read item one. >> item one is issuance of on sale beer and wine license for mikhail brodsky for pectopah, llc located at 748 innes avenue. >> thank you mr. clerk. to the department. >> [inaudible] >> hold on one second. turn your mic on.

>> thank you. >> testing. good morning supervisor supervisors. i am from the san francisco police department. they have filed an application with the city and on cite beer premseses for 748 innes avenue. for the purpose of this hearing the california department of alcohol and beverage control seeks determination from the board of supervisors as to the approval or denial of this license. from the period of july 2011 through january 2012 there were no police calls for service, nor any police reports. the plat

information located in here and 354 police actions for the calendar year 2010. the pemz premises is located in a high crime area and sensus track listed here. applicant premises is not located in undue concentration area. there are no record protests with the california department of alcohol and beverage control and also no records of support with the department of the california alcohol and beverage control. department of recreation. there is no opposition from the station. alu recommends approval and recommended to the california alcohol and beverage control. number one, sales, service and consumption of alcohol beveraging shall be permitted between 10:00 a.m.

and 12 midnight and off cite sales are strictly prohibited and have to maintain the area over the upon premises they have control. loitering is defined to stand idle about without lawful business is prohibited to any property with the licensees as depicted on the form. number five. debris shall be removed from the premises within 74 hours of the application. if the graffiti happens on a holiday they shall remove it within 72 hours of the next weekday. the exterior of the premises shall have lighting and sufficient power to illuminate and make apparent the persons on

the premises. additionally the position of the lighting shall not disturb the neighboring residents. number seven. no noise audible between the area of the licensee as defined on the abc form. number eight, the interior lighting is sufficient to make easily discernible and conduct of all persons and patrons in that portion of the premises where the alcohol beverages are sold and consumed. thank you. >> no issues with the eight months of operation at this place since they have been going beyond the issues here? >> everything has been fine? >> yes. >> it's a very interesting business model. is the owner or the applicant here? no. any

comment on this item? >> mr. yep -- >> yeah, i'm just waiting for the timer. i am used to waiting for it. i am mr. yep and lived in san francisco for 50 plus years. this is a neighborhood i am familiar with especially at night and i am questioning since the city is on record for supporting small businesses why we're still issuing new beer and wine licenses? if i remember correct leeann earlier discussions here. >> >> at city hall there was going to be emphasis on trying to slow down the spread of these licenses, so if we're serious about supporting small

businesses, especially in this area, maybe not issue it and this way give existing businesses, and also i think in the future when we have these liquor license statements i would also like to hear from the district supervisor in the area where the license is being considered so this way we have some sort of district input from city government rather than just the police and the planning department, so i think if we're going to support small business in san francisco we should try to limit new issuances of beer and wine licenses so this way the existing businesses could -- in a certain sense flourish, and it also sends a message to the potential crime breakers that they don't have another place to hang out. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public? >> excuse me for being late.

>> it's okay. come up. are you the applicant? >> yeah, i represent -- [inaudible] >> just a quick question. are you comfortable with all the recommendations made by the police department? >> i didn't hear it, but i will hear it previous gentleman and i will tell you like specific type of our facility if you allow me. >> we read through the pack get we have a good sense of the operation that you run, and we heard you have no record and it's operating just fine. >> so this is closed facility. it's russian german center and only for members and we have kind of up scale client which is is not connected with the local crime, and other issues with hunter's point area, so we're trying to bring kind of

different type of people to hunter's point and this, so -- yeah, and this is like our part of our tradition to have a beer with a spa, so is there any question i need to answer here? >> i don't think so. >> all right. >> any other public comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. then unless i hear otherwise we will send this forward with recommendation with the attached conditions and can the department just make sure the gentleman gets a copy of the conditions he was unaware of, and that will be the order mr. clerk. can you please read item number two? >> to the board of supervisors to be considered a week from tuesday, next tuesday. >> [inaudible] >> you don't need to be here. next item please. >> item two is a hearing to consider the transfer of a type

57 on cite special license from 2100 market street to 550 montgomery street for ami arad for wingtip. >> good morning supervisors. i am with the san francisco police department. the applicant filed an application with the california alcohol beverage control, abc, and seeking a general license for 550 montgomery street, tenth and 11th floors on the northeast corner of montgomery and clay street. this up scale private club will have a full service restaurant and operating on the 10 and 11th floors and currently open monday through saturday. for the purposes of this hearing the california department of alcohol beverage control seeks a determination from the board of supervisors as to the approval or denial of this license.

this premise is located in plot one five zero. this plot had 355 police reports recorded for 2010. applicant premises is located in a high crime area. this premise is located in census track listed here. applicant is currently located in an undue concentration area. there are no -- there is no record of protest with the california department of alcohol beverage control, and there is one letter of support with the california department of alcohol beverage control. no opposition from central police station. the alu recommends approval. no conditions have been requested from abc. thank you. >> thank you. is the applicant here on this one? sir. >> (inaudible). >> only if you have something you would like to share with us.

>> it all sounds good to me. i did receive a call from ken on friday explaining the license. we currently have a club right around the corner where we had a beer and wine license for the half two years. no issues there and we had a number of conditions on that one so we're used to that and my understanding this one is no conditions and just asking for your support. >> thank you very much. any public comment on this one? seeing none public comment is closed. colleague any questions? seeing none we will move forward with recommendation. mr. clerk item number three please. >> item three is a hearing to consider the transfer of 64 type on site theater license from 533 sutter street to 450 post street. susi damilano for the san francisco playhouse.

>> good morning supervisors. i am mr. cole from the san francisco police department. the applicant filed with the california department of alcohol beverage control. this is general theater for license for 450 post street, second floor. this license is transferred from 533 sutter street second floor where the business previously operated. it has capacity of 211 patrons and 6:00 p.m. to -- for the purposes of the hearing the california department of california beverage control seeks determination as approval or denial of this license. from the time period of october 2011 to october 201256 police calls for service. from the same time period there were approximately four police reports generated.

this premise is located in plot 166 and 67 police reports for the area. it's located in an high crime area and in the census track listed. it's in an undue concentration area. there are no records of protest with the california department of alcohol beverage control and there are no record of letters of support with the california department of alcoholic beverage control and as well as the liaison unit recommends approval and the following conditions have been recommended. first one, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages between 2:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily. number two, the sale of these beverages

limited to ticket holders only during and two hours prior to a bonified theater performance of the theater company. it's define that the licensee must operate a troop of actors for the purpose of putting on a performance. number three, the sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises is strictly probabilitied and served in containers clearly distinguishable from non alcoholic containers and limited to the sale of no more than two per person per sale. number six, an employee or security guard shall ensure the beverages are within the permitted area when the abc license is being exercised. number seven, laterring and defined to stand idling about and linger without lawful business and prohibited

on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premise under the control of the licensee on the abc form 257. number eight, the petitioners are responsible for freeing of litter and with sufficient power and emlum nate and easily discernible of all personos the premises. no noise shall be audible beyond the area and control of the licensee as defined on the abc form 257. finally number 11, no one under 21 serve furnish or sell alcoholic beverages. thank you. >> thank you very much. is the applicant here? any public comment on this item? mr. yep.

>> good morning supervisors. i notice on today's agenda there are actually three items dealing with liquor license so if i was a tourist of san francisco i would say that in san francisco, at least in relation to this committee there is nothing going on in san francisco except liquor licenses and we all know that is definitely not true. i would like to make a recommendation on two subject matters which in my opinion the city and county of san francisco has not done enough. number one, the obvious one, child pornography. the federal government has been cracking down on california but i don't see too much activity in san francisco and number two, the obvious one, which most people don't want to talk about is the sex slave trade. san francisco is one of the cities along the main routes in the west coast, so i would like to see a

discussion because in my opinion it does operate in a certain sense within san francisco, so i think it falls within city operations, and i think having three liquor licenses on a monday morning -- i don't think if the taxpayers are getting our monies worth, but i want to say one thing for sure. i would like to thank supervisor olague for her independence. thank you. >> thank you. any further comment? public comment is closed. can we send this forward with recommendations? that will be the order. mr. clerk, anymore items before the committee? >> that concludes the agenda. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned.