Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 5, 2013 12:00pm-12:31pm PDT

12:00 pm
12:01 pm
12:02 pm
12:03 pm
12:04 pm
12:05 pm
12:06 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of the board of supervisors neighborhood services and safety committee of thursday september 5, 2013. my name is david campus and the chair of the committee and joined by supervisor eric mar and supervisor supervisor yee is replaced today by john avalos and the clerk is derek evans and we want to thank sfgtv staff for covering the meeting and as well as john gibner our city
12:07 pm
attorney. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements ? >> make sure to silent phones and devices and speaker cards and items somebody submitted to the clerk and items will be on the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> great thank you very much. if you can please call item number one. >> item number one is a hearing to consider the transfer of a type 21 off sale general license from 701 fillmore to 6333 geary in district 1 for patrick davis for grocery outlet inc. >> thank you. this is a liquor license transfer request that involves a property in district 1. before we turn it over to the applicant and the police department i want to give the district 1 supervisor an opportunity if he wants to say anything, supervisor mar. >> yeah, thank you chair campos. i was going to say this grocery outlet market that is going
12:08 pm
into geary and 27th avenue i really appreciate the business' outreach to my office. they have been really transparent in the different proposals. they have reached out to neighborhood organizations. working with the architect and others they have listened closely to the planning commission as well. i think this is alcohol permit is a small tiny percentage of their floor space and i support the police recommendation to approve this transfer. >> thank you supervisor mar. if we now can turn to someone representing the applicant, so either patrick davis, david blare or mr. peterson. thank you for being here. if you could come up and tell us briefly about the application and include a little bit about any community outreach that you clearly have done. >> i am patrick davis with
12:09 pm
grocery outlet. since the beginning of this and working with very closely the city and the neighborhood associations our original outreach was march 6 with a community outreach we did through the planning commission directed right in the neighborhood to outreach to local businesses and the community there, and since then have had outreaches with the planning association for richmond, the greater geary boulevard merchants. also had meetings with the outer balboa merchants the clemon streets merchant to make sure we are welcome and they understand where we're at. our business was originally started in san francisco. we are now berkeley based is where our corporate offices are currently at.
12:10 pm
we're -- this is very exciting for our company of getting back into the san francisco area. we have been out for a long time and we are very excited about coming back into the area. for us the liquor license is 1% of our sales floor. it's a convenience that we offer our customers to be able to have a bottle of wine to take home with dinner, to be able to have beer to take home with dinner depending what they're purchasing but we are definitely excited about coming to the neighborhoods. we offer great values and especially for the working class family. >> thank you very much mr. davis. colleagues, any questions of mr. davis. okay. thank you again. why don't we turn it over to the san francisco police department. is it inspector gordon or whoever
12:11 pm
would like to present. >> good afternoon. i am inspector nelly gordon with the san francisco police department alu division. grocery outlet incorporated asked for a liquor license for 6333 geary. police calls for service from may 2012 to may 2013 are two. there are zero reports for the same time period. this premise is located in plot seven three two. applicant premises is not located in a high crime area. the premises is located in census track 47401. applicant premise is located in undue concentration area. there are zero letters of protest as well as of support recorded
12:12 pm
with the california department of alcoholic beverage control, and there is no opposition from richmond police station if the applicant agrees to the recommended condition. alu recommends approval and recommended to the alcoholic beverage control. sales service and consumption of alcoholic beamplgs shall be permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. daily and no advertisements shall be used and the sale of more than 200 mill grms is strictly prohibited and noise shouldn't be audible under the license as depicted on the form. the sale of beer or malt beverages in quantities of 20-ounce, 22-ounce, 24-ounce, 40-ounce or similar size
12:13 pm
containers is prohibited except for micro beers, craft beers and organic and specialty products sold under distionz as port, stout, ipa and isb and intend to offer high alcohol products that are frequently abused but not prevent the sale of craft beer products. july 29alu received an email from jeremy osborne that the applicant agreed with the stated conditions. thank you. >> thank you very much inspector gordon. colleagues any questions of the inspector? i don't think we have any questions at this point. thank you very much. why don't we open it up to public comment before we deliberate on this item. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item number one? if so please come forward. upon good
12:14 pm
afternoon. >> governor supervisors. i douglas [inaudible]. i would like to speak in favor of this item. from my own experience it's been very favorable with grocery outlet at their south san francisco location, so i think this merchant is the type of mensch antd that people all over the city will support because of their pricing policies. i also would like to consider whether grocery outlet or the supervisors had considered moving into a vacant location on south van ness? i drive there enough times. i still see it vacant and i think that neighborhood would support a grocery outlet very well, so i bring that subject up for consideration even though we're technically we're talking about geary, and the last thing i would like to mention is that i noticed there are only two items for this committee. i think there should be a lot more
12:15 pm
items, and for the record i would like to read four items that might go under the jurisdiction of this committee. the first head line says "sf firefighter faces discipline for helmet camera. second item "deaf blind man called example of patient dumping. third item child prostitution bust. the office has most children rescued and last item 12 children rescued in bay area prostitution sweep. according to the information i was told none of the pimps or children were arrested in the city and county of san francisco. i would like to know why nothing happened in the city and county of san francisco yet it was going all over the bay area? i think that's a very interesting thing that should be checked out and see whether it is true or not.
12:16 pm
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> [inaudible] dufty, north of market activist. i agree. canned foods. the original location was quite a bit closer to my neighborhood. we tried to get a canned foods in the one location in the tenderloin we have a shortage of low cost large groceries but parking. we don't have the parking. so i can see why they went with this location instead. the only thing i would say we have to get -- perhaps south van ness would work better for us as well. as it is now we have to get on the geary street line and we lost the fight with mtc7 years ago and took bus stops out of the year in the tenderloin on geary and we have a lot of para-people and to walk two blocks to get the bus and think about it with
12:17 pm
groceries from the grocery outlet and it's a big challenge and i guess we live in an imperfect world but i am more than happy to see canned foods coming back. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor mar. >> thank you chair campos. i wanted to thank mr. peterson for being here and others as well and reaching out to the community. i think besides the community organization and the letters [inaudible] who is a transit advocate and ron miguel and others speaking in support is really important. i want to say that the richmond district is opening to the grocery outlet bargain market to that site that has been empty for years and i want to thank the market for
12:18 pm
being flexible about the planning commission suggestions coming forward and being a partner and i know the valley is looking forward to it as well. again a san francisco born company coming back to san francisco. it's great you're coming to the richmond district, a family run business that really hire people from the neighborhood and give back to the community so i am really appreciative of that. i wanted to thank inspector gordon and fong of looking at this application and i will be strongly supportive of this. thank you. >> thank you supervisor. i want to thank first of all the applicant for the presentation as well as our police department and the members of the public who spoke. we have made it very clear in this committee these applications require that the applicant come before us having done a great deal of outreach
12:19 pm
to the district and the entire community and i want to thank mr. davis for really making it easy for us to support this, this application, because you clearly have done your homework. i know there was a comment made about south van ness. i know we have been working to try to fill that space for quite some time. i think we had a conversation with grocery outlet and that was a consideration and who knows what is going on happen. notwithstanding the lapse in judgment of moving to berkeley i think this is a good thing and i am happy to support this and i again want to thank the applicant so if we could have a motion to move it forward with a positive recommendation and a motion by supervisor mar. if we could take that without objection so without objection the item moves forward. thank you very much. before we move to the next item just to be in abundance of caution even though supervisor yee has been replaced at the meeting with supervisor
12:20 pm
avalos i would like to entertain a motion to excuse commissioner yee from the motion and if we could have a motion. motion by supervisor mar. if we could take that without objection. without objection commissioner yee is excused. as noted earlier we only have two items on the agenda and there is a reason for that. the next item is a very substantive and important item and we want to make sure we have enough time to have the requisite discussion so with that mr. clerk if you could please call item two. >> item two is an ordinance amending the administrative code for 12i to prohibit law enforcement officials from retaining individuals for a immigration detainer after they are released from custody. >> and thank you very much and this was sponsored by supervisor
12:21 pm
avalos and i am happy to be a co-sponsor and i will turn it over. supervisor avalos. >> thank you chair and i want to thank my co-sponsors and supervisor mar. thank you very much. supervisor breed, david chiu, supervisor cohen, supervisor kim and supervisor norman yee. this is a great backing for this ordinance that i believe needs to show that we have strong support for it. the due process for our ordinance is one that has been months perhaps years in the making. it is to assert our local jurisdiction for supporting our immigrant community against f com, the secured communities program and named secure communities program which under the federal government has deported thousands and thousands of people across the country and many people here in san
12:22 pm
francisco. overall this legislation is to assure that our city is not going to be cooperating with the s-comprogram whose violations have played havoc with public safety here in san francisco. we want to make sure we're up holding our right, universal right, that's embedded in our constitution for due process ancy these things that is in the 14th amendment. we want to make sure that we separation in san francisco between our system and the federal immigration system and enforcement system under homeland security and the program. i want to go into some of our findings for the ordinance that provides a
12:23 pm
really good understanding about why this is so important in san francisco. as we know in san francisco we are home to a very diverse ethnic racial community with backgrounds from around world and we as a city up hold the rights of individuals regardless of where they come from. we also want to make sure we provide the sanctuary and home to people from all over the world and we have relationships in the city that are braced on mutual respect and where people come from and an understanding public safety is based on relationships of trust where people can have the ability to know that they can pick up the phone and call the police department when they feel their lives are in danger. when there is a program like this that creates a dragnet where people actually have fear
12:24 pm
of picking up the phone, even if it's one phone call, to pick up the phone to call the police because they're witnessing a crime or their lives are in danger we know that everyone's lives are in danger and we would to uphold the trust and all residents here in san francisco. we know that the federal immigration system is in dire need of comprehensive reform and at the national level there is a debate about that going forward. this legislation can assert our local control here over local policies and also guaranteed that we are not spending a lot of our precious local resources to comply with some of the demands of the civil immigration detainers coming out of the s comprogram and the way it works when they get into the justice system they are
12:25 pm
fingerprinted and the fingerprints go up to the california state, and they actually get passed onto immigration, who gives us back requests for anyone they might identify as they believe not documented immigrant. they ask us to hold them -- hold people beyond the time they're eligible to be released so they can be picked up by the ice program and eventually possibly deported from san francisco. we know that hundreds of people in san francisco have been deported since the s-comprogram has been enacted. in july i said there were 784 people that had been deported in san francisco alone and we know there is more possible since that time have been deported. our due process for our ordinance recognizes that we need to safe guard the precious right, the
12:26 pm
constitutional right of due process against arbitrary denial liberty. given that civil immigration detainer are offered without officers without judicial oversight and this provides no minimum standard of proof of their issuance there are serious questions as to their constitutionality. unlike criminal detainers secured from a warrant and there is no requirement for a warrant or suspicion or probable cause for requesting a civil immigration detainer. at least one court in indiana ruled that because civil immigration detainers and other ice documents are issued without probable cause or criminal conduct they don't meet the fourth fourth amendment requirements to hold an individual in custody. last
12:27 pm
year our attorney general in california clarified the responsibilities of local law enforcement agency and clarified that it does not require a state or law officials to determine an individual's immigration status or enforce immigration laws. the attorney general also clarified that these detainers are voluntary request to local agencies that do not mandate compliance. complying with this falls outside the scope of the responsibilities of the state and local governments and frequently raises concerns of due process. the city -- this city seeks to protect public safety which is founded on trust and cooperation of community residents and local law enforcement. however, civil immigration detainers under mine trust by law enforcement by instilling fear in immigrant communities coming forward to
12:28 pm
report crimes and work with law enforcement agencies. there was a study in 2013 titled "insecure communities and immigration communities and law enforcement" and 40% of latinos surveyed are less likely to give information to police because they risk deportation and these are resulted in a transfer of victims of crime including domestic violent items to ice. according to the early warren institute on social policy at berkeley an analysis of demographics and due process approximately 3600 u.s. citizens as a result this program have been falsely detained. that is u.s. citizens have been falsely detained and s-com leaves those
12:29 pm
with let status with issue of judicial review and criminal activity and complete disregard for the due process rights with these detainers. the city enacted numb rowses laws and policies to keep families united. in contrast ice detainers resulted in a intraigz of families. according to the 2011 warren institute study it's estimated that more than 1/3 targeted have a u.s. spouse citizen or child complying with civil immigration detainers thus results in the deportation of potential aspiring u.s. citizens. according to the 2011 warren study latinos make up 93% detained through this program but account for seven 7% for undocumented population in the u.s. and they have a disproportionate impact on
12:30 pm
latinos. the city has enacted laws to prevent residents from getting in the system but this is the responsibility of the federal government. a news release stated that deportations have reached record figures each year and according to the report "immigration enforcement in the united states rise of formal machinery" the federal government spends more on this more than all criminal law enforcement combined. local funds should not be intermingled with these effort and not expanded on the these efforts and this undermines policing community strategies. i would like to end by thanking my colleagues for coming forward and supporting this legislation. i also want to thank the san francisco imguarantee rights defense committee for