>> you will call a chair? >> okay. >> i do think that it is important for us to continue to monitor this situation. and i would love the opportunity to come back, perhaps, in a couple of months or three months to see where things are. and i want to thank all of the people who presented, all of the law enforcement partners for the work that they are doing and hopefully we will have you know, a better educated public around these issues. so again, thank you for the presentation, so colleagues could we have a motion to continue? >> a motion by supervisor mar, if we could take that without objection? >> thank you, colleagues. >> thank you. >> mr. clerk, if you could please call item number one >> item number one, a hearing to receive a briefing on the san francisco public safety conditions on the san francisco police department or the mayor's office of criminal justice. >> this is an item that is

usually introduced by the chair of the public safety committee. and it is an ongoing discussion about crime trends, city-wide and so we will make a point of in future meetings when this issue is discussed this will be the beginning of the meeting so that we have some context for the things that we are talking about. again we want to thank the police department for being here, commander? >> thank you, supervisor, if you allow me a few minutes to get the powerpoint up. so the crime trends that i have and i will present you with statistics and broken down by police dikts. some of these i discussed already in the earlier with robberies but over all, if you look at the city wide crime statistics for this, period which runs from december 23rd to january 19th, there is an

increase in robberies, compared the year to date statistics from 2013 to 2012, again, there is a ten percent increase in robberies, and also, if you look in the property crimes there is an increase as well. this was the holiday season and during the holiday season, you had the individuals who leave their goods in the vehicles. and due to the invaoes. moving down to central station, the over allpro file that you could see, that, there was no change in homicides. there was an increase 100 percent increase although, it is just, a one crime, but, the

one crime is one too many, but there was an increase in rapes, robberies in the central were down. >> if there is data or information that we can get for a couple of days before so we will have an opportunity to review it and ask the questions. but thank you. >> proceed. >> okay. >> and just, on the side note, this data is publicly available, it is on the department's web page under the com stat data information and so they can review this and the members of the community can review this data as well.

so you can see that there was increase in the property crime for the year to date, 2013 verses 2012. southern station, the homicides, the violent crimes and the homicide and the rates are down and so are the aggravated asults and there was an increase and the other crimes burglary, auto theft. etc.. bay view station, there was an increase in no increase in homicides from this year, the same time last year. again, you could see the percentage increase from rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults. year to date there were two rapes this year compared with none last year and there were

no homicide in the mission year to date but again, the robberies in the mission dropped and so did aggravated assaults. >> northern station, there was one homicide. >> oh, and the homicide, and earlier this year. and we did make an arrest in that case. so that case the investigation continues, but the person responsible for that has been ap-rehended. and the robberies in the north dropped 10 percent for this time frame compared to last year. >> park station they had a downward trend in all violent crimes, rapes are down 100 percent and robberies are down 67 percent and the aggravated assaults are down 67 percent. and richmond station. and they have only logged that,

and that is eight compared to 5, compared to last year. and again, this is a trend that we talked about earlier robberies in the increase and had a 16 percent increase, and a 6 percent increase, 19 this year compared to the same time frame. 18 last year. experienced a 14 percent increase in robberies during the same time as compared to last year. in summary, the homicide city-wide, there is no change, rapes are down 36 percent and robberies are up ten percent from the year to date compared to last year for a total of 17, aggravated assaults are down 9 percent and property crimes are

up a locality of the crime fighting strategies and i don't know if the committee would like me to cover these or you are satisfied from the responses from earlier? >> i think that we are fine for now. >> okay. >> and the colleagues can ask the questions and just proceed. >> any questions? >> okay. >> that concludes my presentation. >> great. thank you, very much commander. colleagues any questions? >> i guess that i would ask a general question, in terms of city-wide, i mean, where do you see things in terms of public

safety right now, are there specific trends? you know we talked earlier about the increase number of robberies, do you see anything else happening that we should be aware of? >> no, i am sure that as many as the members of the committee are aware as well as the community. we did have a slight increase in gang shootings last summer, which, we addressed in august, that trend, i am happy to report that we did not record any homicides in the month of august due to a lot of the strategies that we discussed earlier. but lately it seems like the robberies have been an issue and we have the strategies in place to address those robberies. >> okay, thank you very much. commander. >> sure. >> unless there are any questions, why don't we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> and so, this will be an ongoing item, so should i continue it to the call of the chair? >> yes. >> so we have a motion by supervisor mar to continue to the call of the chair. seconded by supervisor yee, without objection. thank you. >> mr. clerk if you could please call item number three. >> yes, a hearing to consider the transfer of a type 21 off-sale general license from 345 eddy street to 135 powell street to daniel kramer for wal greens. >> great. >> is anyone here on this item? >> if you could please come forward. >> good morning, supervisors, community and my name is inspector rich van coal representing the san francisco police department. i was under i believe that we are continuing this, but the sfpd is ready to proceed if that is necessary.

>> good morning, supervisors my name is katy and i am here on behalf of walgreens, we would like to request that this item be continued until the next hearing, the 21st because we found out about this item this week and that did not give time for the walgreens representatives who would like to be here to attend this meeting. this is in regards to their flag ship store, the third such store in the country and we would like to be here to tell you more about it. >> okay. >> i know that supervisor kim, the district supervisor has she in her office have made effort to reach out to the applicant and you know, unfortunately it seems there there has not been the desire of response, so hopefully between now and the time that this comes back and

if we decide to continue it, that you know, it would be out reached to the supervisor's office. >> okay. >> if i may, we have met with supervisor kim's office but we will be in touch to make sure that any other questions or concerned that you have may be addressed. >> okay. >> before we take any action, why don't we move up to public comment, is there any member of the public who would like to speak on item number three? please come forward. >> first, my name is john nolty and i am a long term, and i am a native san franciscoan and walgreens has a monopoly on pharmacis in san francisco and have killed the mom and pops. i am concerned about the continuance that does not help the community or any organizations that is opposed to it or or for.

they have known about had application, if you look at your packet this has been ongoing, the dates in which the emilie they have had this, in front of your committee has gone almost, eight months. so, therefore, continuing it, i don't think that it is wise. it should be here like the officer said. he is ready to proceed. >> i don't think that anything will change in their presentation because it is all hype. now, getting to the pictures of walgreens could i have the overhead? >> this is walgreens. and in this item right here, we have the person in front of it and we see the garage cans taking up the space in front of their location. and the above lories this is open space, we just lost open space. i don't know if you understand about open space, but we are

never going to get that back and those are umbrellas and that is wait that restaurant above them was functioning with open space. and our neighborhood does not have as limited on open space. and then, here is another picture of walgreens, this shows them congregating in front of their property, it shows, again, another panhandling going on. and then, this picture shows their truck unloading taking over half of the sidewalk for pedestrians. this is a major corridor, this is powell street. you know? this is the tourist part of the city. and you are taking up all of this space. and then, here is another picture of walgreens. we have graffiti, on their property. right here and then you have another panhandler. and then you have all of this mess right here again, on the

sidewalk. so, i'm concerned about how they are not even taking care of their property that they have had there for over 20 years. and how it is effecting our neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please? >> they are both working? >> okay, my name is michael nolty and i am the director of alliance 66 and it is a district-wide improvement organization that addresses land use, and public safety concerns. currently there are over, could i have the overhead?

>> currently there are over, overhead, please? somewhere? currently there are over 800 liquor licenses in san francisco. and i consider that an over concentration and adding and if you see all of these dots, this is downtown where they are going to have their store. recently our membership, i surveyed our membership and public safety was our top priority. and there are many reasons why the community feels that the license will not service the convenience of the community and the list is 22, reasons that have been given to you. and i just a brief list. and the community is saying

enough is enough. you know, when could i have the overhead? >> when walgreens posted back in march of 2012, they notified the community that they were going to have a liquor license at 135 powell. the reality is not just there but also 149 powell because they are taking over lories. the neighbors did not know that there was going to be a super store at the time of posting. we also question the proper posting of the notice. walgreens says in the packet that you have gotten from them that they are only going to be getting three percent of their sales will be coming from alcohol. well, do they really need three percent extra income from alcohol? so.

there is just many concerns, they were not addressed in the community out reach meetings that took place long after the post this posting took place at on the window so the community did not know at the time that was going to happen at the site and it is time for the citizens to are heard and enough is enough as far as alcohol licenses. okay? thank you. >> thank you very much. >> is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. and let me just go back to a comment that i made earlier. i just realized that the item that we are talking about is a district three item and so my reference was involved in six and so i apologize to the applicant for any negative inference in my comments.

my understanding is that a request for a continuance, i have not heard anything from the district supervisor in terms of you know being against the request. i understand from public comment that there is, you know, there are some legitimate concerns here. so, colleagues? i don't know if there is any motion? >> i just have a question and i appreciate the letter from the alliance for a better district six and mr. nolty, both their comments and i share concerns about the over abundance of liquor licenses in that area of the city especially around the tender loin and i see that in the abc record that there is a number of other letters of protest and i am wondering if we could have a summary of if they are smaller businesses. do we have a sense of the

letters of protest? i think that there are 14 letters of support and a handful of letters of protest. but do you have a gist of what those protests were? >> as you corrected stated there are recorded 14 letters of support for abc and for recorded letters of opposition to the abc.

i don't have those letters in front of me, but they all seem to have the same theme as you brought up as the over saturation as well as a high crime plot area. >> and i do see the conditions recommended by you and and the department, that limits the hours required for clean up and minimizing the nuisance and i sigh those as well and your recommendation is to approve so this is very helpful. is there a way for us to access those letters of protest before those hearing happen? if they could be placed in the packet or a way for us to easily scan them before these meetings? >> yes, i will have those for you at the next meeting. >> thank you. >> okay. great. colleagues?

any comments or any other questions? i know that there has been a request by the applicant to continue, and my understanding is that the district supervisor does not have an issue with that, and in light of that i think that probably makes sense. i have to say though, that the comments and concerns from the public are you know, very legitimate concerns and i certainly look forward to a resolution of those concerns. so colleagues, if we could have a motion to continue to the call of the chair? >> motioned by supervisor mar. >> we could do that without objection? >> thank you, if you could please call item number four. >> item number four is a hearing to consider the issue ans of type 42 on-sale beer and wine public premises license to jordan lewis and case lewis for the folsom street foundry, located at 1425 folsom street.

>> thank you, now we will hear from the applicants. >> good morning, supervisors and members of the public, i am case lewis and i am here with my brother jordan lewis and we are here to answer any questions that you may have. >> good morning, supervisors my name is jordan and a overview of what is the place is going to be. we believe that we have a novel idea for a art gallery in the solma area, and the type of art that we are going to be show casing is concept artwork and it is an under served style of artwork that is primarily used for the creation of video games, movies, fashion and industry. it is drawn on computers, photoshop, corel painter and thus, l is not a hard copy of it. what we have done is put an

array of monitors that can slide show and show this artwork which is very eye catching and i think that it speaks to a lot of people in the san francisco area that are involved in you know creation of these video games, movies, high-tech and we are hoping to serve that market by having a interesting area where creative professionals can come and enjoy this artwork and relax with a glass of wine or a cold beer or a cup of coffee. and that is just the basic overview of our venue. and we are getting a good response from neighborhood and they are looking forward to us opening from everyone that we have heard and we just hope to move forward. >> a quick question, have you reached out to the district supervisor? >> we have not, spoken with her directly, accept for the letters that we sent.

>> if you could speak into the mic. >> we have not spoken with our supervisor directly, simply the clerk and the letters that we sent explaining our operation. >> to be honest with you, the fact that this goes back to my prior point when i spoke about the wrong item, but the point is that it is always a concern for me when someone comes with this kind of a interest and they have not actually done the out reach to the district supervisor. and that is not a good way of approaching these kinds of matters and it certainly does not leave us as members of this body. but i would imagine that members of the community with a great degree of confidence, when the elected representative for a particular part of the city has not you know, received the kind of out reach that normally you would expect.

>> we apologize, and we had not spoken with her. most of our out reach has been to the local community surrounding us and we have been developing relationships with our neighbors all around and everyone that we have spoken with with the local business owners nearbies and the people that live in the nearby apartments and condos they have given us support. they like the idea. >> and so supervisor yee? >> campos, your previous statement and i just want to reinforce this that i would like to see you reach out to your representative in the district. >> we will absolutely do that. >> great. >> do we have any comments from the police department?

>> good morning, supervisors. cristina west on behalf of lewis k has filed an application with the department of alcohol beverage seeking an on sale beer and wine bar for folsom street, for the purpose of this hearing, the department, abc seeks a determination from the board of supervisors as to the approval or denial of this license. the police calls for service from 2011 to march for the entire year was one call as well as there was no records of any police reports. >> this particular premises is located in plot 242. and the applicant premise is located in a high crime area. the premise is located in the census track 128. located in undue concentration area. and there were no letters of

protests nor were there any letters of support. the department recommendation is based on there is no opposition from southern station. the alcohol licensing unit of the san francisco police department recommends approval. the following conditions have been recommended to the california department of alcohol beverage control. number one, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages should be permitted between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12 a.m. every day of the week. off sale consumption is prohibited >> loitering to stand about and linger without lawful business is prohibited on any side walks or property ajay sense to the premises. number four, no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee at

this find on the abc form 8257. and finally, number five, the interior lighting there in shall be sufficient to make easily decertainable the appearance of the patron and that the portion of the premiseses where they are sold, delivered or consumed. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> and colleagues, any questions? for any of the presenters? why don't we open to public comment, any member of the public who would like to speak, please come forward. you each have three minutes. >> hi, michael nolty of the executive director for a better district sick. >> you receive a packet. and the alu, and it says no letters of support and no letters of protest. that will mean that the applicant did not do any real

community out reach. right there, it will make it clear, and it is really did some community out reach and there would be some letters of support. people are made more aware of the establishment and possibly protesting it. normally how the alliance would handle this, the percentage of the food sale, that all food sales will have and that they will have to purchase food before purchasing drink if they were going to have alcohol, they have to purchase the food not just going in there and get the alcohol, so, that would be our concern. and i think that the other that the police have put on it are acceptable. because that is normally some of the things that we normally ask as a community organization, it is just a shame that i have to come down every time that there is a