Good morning, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the regular meeting of the

Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for

Thursday, December 11th, 2025. I'm Supervisor Matt Dorsey, Chair of this committee. I am joined

today by Vice Chair Bilal Mahmood and Supervisor Alan Wong, who is filling in for Supervisor

Welcome, Supervisor Wong.

Our always capable clerk today is Ms. Monique Creighton, whom we thank for staffing us.

Together we'd like to express our gratitude to Sousinos and everybody at the SFGovTV team

for facilitating and broadcasting today's meeting.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

Documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk.

public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. When your item of interest comes up and

public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right. Alternatively, you may submit public

comment and writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email them to myself,

the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee clerk at monique.crayton at sfgov.org.

Or you may submit your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file in which you're commenting.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' Agenda of January 6, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Before we get started on our agenda today, I'd like to make a motion to excuse Supervisor Sauter from today's meeting.

Yes, and on the motion to excuse Member Sauter from today's meeting, Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Chair Mahmood?

Vice Chair Mahmood, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, aye.

I have three ayes with, excuse me, with Member Sauter excused.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, would you call item number one?

Yes, item number one is a hearing to consider that the person-to-person,

premise to premise transfer of a type 48 on sale general public premises beer wine and distilled

liquor license to big sky llc doing businesses club 895 located at 895 oferro street will serve

the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco thank you madam clerk

i'd like to welcome officer brandon erickson from the san francisco police department's

abc liaison unit officer erickson the floor is yours thank you good morning i'm officer erickson

with the Alcohol Liaison San Francisco Police Department.

You have before you a PCN report for Big Sky LLC as Club 895.

They have applied for a Type 48 license, and if approved,

this would allow them to operate an on-sale general public premises

at 895 O'Farrell Street.

There are zero letters of protest, zero letters of support.

They are located in plot 547, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in census tract 122.02, which is considered a high concentration area.

Tenderloin Station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation approval with the following conditions.

Condition 1.

Except as provided in condition 2 below, no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee.

Condition 2, any noise caused by entertainment or amplified sound that is subject to the provisions of an active entertainment permit issued by the San Francisco Entertainment Commission shall be authorized in accordance with the limits established by that entertainment permit, including any limitation on hours during which entertainment or amplified sound is permitted.

A violation of the entertainment or amplified sound conditions of the entertainment permit,

as determined by the San Francisco Entertainment Commission,

shall be deemed to be a violation of this condition.

Any noise that is subject to or is beyond the scope of the entertainment permit

shall be subject to condition 1 above.

Entertainment permit means any of the following,

a just-to-add music permit, a limited live performance permit, a place of entertainment permit,

a fixed-place amplified sound permit, or any similar such permit issued by the San Francisco

Entertainment Commission. Condition 3, at any time the premise is providing live entertainment,

the petitioner shall have two uniform security guards on the premise and shall maintain order

therein to prevent any activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their

nearby residents or the surrounding community. The uniformed security guards must be licensed by the

State of California Department of Consumer Affairs. Condition four, petitioners shall

actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons

on any property adjacent to the license premise as depicted on ABC form 257.

Condition 5, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent

to the premise over which they have control as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

It's my understanding that there may be representatives from the applicant present.

There is no requirement that you speak, but we usually like to extend the courtesy of

asking if you want to say a few words.

Either.

David Villalobos, CLA Consulting.

I worked nearly two years with the planning department

on permitting requirements for this project.

As you may know, this building for several years has been a blighted eyesore

in the community that happens to be my community.

I've lived there for 40-some years.

The project sponsor already spent nearly $9 million purchasing the building

and expect to spend a little over $6 million on renovations and remodeling

of the building in hopes to make it the city's premier

multi-entertainment venue.

We're hoping for your support this morning.

Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments,

Madam Clerk, may we open this item up to public comment?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line

up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

It appears we have no public commenters.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

So I would like to move that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the

issuance of a Type 48 on sale general public premises beer, wine, and distilled spirits

liquor license to this applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call on that motion.

Yes, and on the motion to direct the clerk to prepare a resolution and forward the resolution

to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Chair Mahmood?

Vice Chair Mahmood, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three ayes with Member Sauter excused.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations to the applicant.

Madam Clerk, can we call item number two?

Yes, item number two is a hearing to consider that the person-to-person premise-to-premise

transfer of a Type 20 off-sale beer and wine liquor license to Caldero LLC doing business

This is Caldero, located at 2149 Union Street,

will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and we welcome back Officer Erickson.

Thank you.

You have before you a PCN report for Caldero LLC as Caldero.

They have applied for a Type 20 license, and if approved,

this would allow them to operate in off-sale beer and wine at 2149 Union Street.

There are zero letters of protest, zero letters of support.

They are located in plot 518, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in census tract 0130.02, which is considered a high concentration area.

Northern Station has no opposition.

ALU recommendation approval with the following conditions.

Condition 1.

Petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control

in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons on any property adjacent

to the licensed premise as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Condition 2, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter

the area adjacent to the premise over which they have control

as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Okay. Thank you, Officer Erickson.

It's my understanding that there may be representatives

from the applicant present.

Again, it's no requirement that you present,

but you're welcome to do so if you want.

You don't have to.

Okay. Okay.

Seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments,

Madam Clerk, may we open this item up to public comment?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item

should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

It appears we have no public commenters.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And seeing no further questions or comments, I'd like to move that the clerk prepare a

resolution making a determination that the issuance of a Type 20 off-sale beer and wine

license to the applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

We may have a roll call on that motion.

Yes, and on the motion, directing the clerk to prepare a resolution and forwarding that

resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong?

Aye.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Chair Mahmood?

Vice Chair Mahmood, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, aye.

I have three ayes, with Member Slaughter excused.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And, Madam Clerk, may you call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a hearing to consider that the person-to-person premise-to-premise

transfer of the Type 21, off-sale general beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license

to Royal Mart LLC doing business as Unimart located at 1201 Howard Street.

We'll serve the public convenience for necessity of the city

and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and welcome back, Officer Erickson.

The floor is yours again.

You have before you a PCN report for Royal Mart LLC as Unimart.

They have applied for a Type 21 license, and if approved,

this will allow them to operate an off-sale general store at 1201 Howard Street.

There are seven letters of protest, zero letters of support.

They are located in plot 230, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in census tract 0178.03, which is considered a high concentration area.

Southern Station has no opposition.

ALU recommendation, approval with the following conditions.

Condition one, petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control

in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons on any property adjacent to the license premise

as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Okay. Thank you, Officer Erickson.

And I don't know if there's any representatives from the applicant present.

Again, it's no requirement that anybody speak, but you're certainly welcome to do so.

Omar Albaughan Reyesha- Good morning and thank you all

for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Omar and I'm the son of the owner of this business.

I understand the concerns raised by the community

and I want to be clear, our goal is to operate responsibly,

safely and as a positive partner in this neighborhood.

As you know, we already manage an existing beer license

at this location and the issues mentioned, homelessness,

trash, and loitering were ongoing challenges in the area

before we received our beer license.

We are committed to reducing these problems, not adding to them.

To address concerns, we are implementing enhanced lighting,

expanded camera coverage, strict ID verification,

hourly exterior cleanups, and a policy of refusing

to serve anyone loitering or causing disorderly behavior.

We will maintain a safe, controlled,

and clean environment at all times.

Our commitment is simple, a safe, well-managed business

that contributes to the neighborhood instead of harming it.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

David Rubenstein, Okay.

Thanks so much.

Seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments,

Madam Clerk, may we open this item up to public comment?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak

on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

First speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Susanna Singer.

I'm a local resident on Howard Street, two doors down from the Unimart.

I'm also the president of the board at Episcopal Community Services, one of the principal homeless

service providers in our neighborhood.

I speak in opposition to this permit.

ECS operates three facilities within half a block of the corner of 8th and Howard,

housing for single adults and families and the 200-bed sanctuary homeless shelter

right across the street from the Unimart.

Essentially, the sanctuary acts as a de facto sober housing environment

since alcohol and drug use is not allowed on the premises.

For our guests, many of whom are taking the first tentative steps towards sobriety,

all of whom are attempting to turn their lives around,

For them to be exposed daily to the kind of public drunkenness that regularly happens outside the Unimart is extremely detrimental.

Many guests have mentioned how difficult the scene on the corner of 8th and Howard makes it for them to maintain their sobriety.

The presence of this attractive nuisance puts burdens on our staff, too, in terms of their need to be constantly looking at street conditions around the shelter.

The guests at the sanctuary are our neighbors.

Let's not make it even more difficult for them to move towards stable, productive lives.

This is against the public interest.

I urge you most strongly to deny this permit application.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

There's a picture that I've put on a projector there.

What's up?

My name is Nikhil, and I'm a resident of the West Soma neighborhood

near Unimart at 8th and Howard.

I'm here to strongly oppose the approval of their liquor license based

on the significant negative impacts we've all experienced in our community.

Since the new ownership took over about a year or so ago,

we've seen a real decline in the quality of life around our homes.

There's been more public drinking right outside the store, loud music,

late in the night, people urinating in the alleyways and against buildings.

as you can see in this particular image.

This is just from yesterday and it's right outside my window.

This behavior is not just an occasional nuisance.

It's a recurring pattern that has deteriorated our sidewalks

and made our neighborhood less safe and pleasant.

While it might appear that Unimart is on their best behavior right now

because this hearing is happening, my experience as part

of a local volunteer cleaning crew tells a different story.

Every Saturday at 4 p.m. we find empty bottles and litter

around this location that shows people are buying alcohol

and not disposing of it properly.

The bus station at 8th and Howard has become a spot

where people sit, drink, and play loud music,

often forcing us to call Somawest Security or SFPD.

We know that the previous owners did not have these issues,

and it's clear that the 24-7 operation

and sale of alcohol is a major factor.

This is not just a short-term inconvenience.

It's a sustained problem that will likely return

if this liquor license is approved.

I urge you to consider the voices of residents who live here

and want a safe and peaceful neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Sean, a resident of Tahama Street,

and I live right across the street from that PP telephone pole.

I ask you to vote no on the public convenience

and necessity of this hard liquor license.

I support the owner's grocery improvements, to be clear.

However, they currently sell beer and wine,

and we're already struggling to manage the safety impacts

of just that existing license.

This corner is so volatile that neighbors maintain a group chat

on WhatsApp just to warn each other of trouble.

We do this because the police cannot.

I pulled the data from the last 90 days for 8th and Howard.

Calls to police here are up 71% year on year.

Wait times for response are up 50% year on year.

Two-thirds of our calls result in no police contact

because officers arrive too late and mark the case unable

to locate or gone upon arrival.

This is not just data to me.

On November 7th, men who had just purchased beer

at Univart threatened my neighbor, who's behind me.

When I intervened, one man turned to me screaming anti-gay

epithets and threatening assault.

SFPD came and filed that as a hate crime, but again,

due to their late response, the man was long gone.

The case remains unsolved.

Last Friday, as I mentioned to you, Supervisor Dorsey, we had an overdose a half block away in front of my house on this exact corner.

This is a high crime area from the police's comments here directly opposite the 200 bed homeless shelter.

Approving this contradicts the city's health goals and undermines the millions you invest in recovery services right across the street.

Adding hard spirits here is not a convenience when you cannot guarantee a police response to a hate crime in progress.

expanding alcohol access is negligent. Unimart can return when the police are staffed enough

to handle it and maybe we could consider their license then. Right now we're not there. Vote no.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

Good morning supervisors. My name is Cheney. I sit on the board of the Somo West Neighborhood

Association. Just wanted to start off when camping on sidewalks, public defecation, public drug use

are permitted, they undermine safety and the freedom of others. Words that I truly abide by.

While I support any businesses right to expand their horizons, I want to point out that the

the public safety comes before all.

While I do want businesses to prosper,

we want to hold them accountable for what they are doing,

not just inside their stores, but outside,

and how it affects the general public overall.

I urge you to take that into consideration

when deciding on whether or not to permit this Unimart license.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Nancy Kim Parker, and I'm a business owner on Howard Street across the street from

the UniMart.

I oppose the liquor license transfer.

The previous owners of the Mini Mart really handled the loitering in front of the store

and in the corner.

Since Unimart has moved into that location, there has been, I would say, up to 50 percent

increase in loitering, public drunkenness.

We've had urination in front of our building increase by, I'd say, 80 percent from before.

And we would greatly appreciate not approving this transfer.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Supervisor.

My name is Henry Connuller, I'm President of the South Offer Market Business Association.

Over the past year, our neighborhood has faced a growing problem connected to the Unimard

convenience store.

Ever since the ownership changed about a year ago, the conditions around the store have noticeably deteriorated.

Multiple neighbours, myself included, have documented recurring issues,

things like public drinking outside the store, loud and disruptive behaviour that often continues late into the night,

and music blasting at high volume.

The sidewalks have become dirtier, litter has increased,

and the overall environment feels far less safe and welcoming.

The fact that the store operates 24-7 only seems to make these issues worse.

It attracts activity from individuals who are not part of our community,

people who loiter, make noise and contribute to the ongoing uses.

What's important to note is that none of this was happening under the store's previous ownership,

which tells us this isn't a neighborhood problem, it's a management problem.

To make matters more concerning, the same owner operates other stores in San Francisco,

including on 6th Street, where residents and local business owners have already started a petition

about nearly identical issues.

As a community, we care deeply about maintaining a safe, clean, and respectful neighborhood environment.

We're not opposed to local business.

We value them.

But we need responsible ownership that respects the people who live and work here.

We oppose an alcohol license transfer to Unimark.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Supervisors.

My name is Alex Kane.

I'm a resident of SOMA West.

I am also on the board of our Neighborhood Association.

And I do love my neighborhood quite a bit.

And I'm speaking on behalf of many other individuals

that are on the WhatsApp channel that voice their amazement

of street issues that are reoccurring in our neighborhood,

especially at 8th and Howard.

6th Street, 9th, and Mission is also a trouble spot.

I spend my Saturdays picking up trash for an hour,

and my observation is that there is always people loitering,

drinking publicly at 8th and Howard.

The condition had improved somewhat when UD Mart did install a plywood board

over their stoop so people would not sit in their stoop and drink all day.

That issue along with the bus stop at that location really draws a lot

on savory activity.

I'm voicing my opposition to expanding any liquor license

at that location.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker please.

Hi, my name is Lauren.

I live less than a block from Unimart at 8th and Clementina Street

and I have to walk by it to take my seven-year-old daughter to get

to a bus or to Muni.

I'm generally not against liquor stores.

There are several nearby that operate responsibly

and cause no problems like Diana Market, Number Two,

and Wellcome Market, but this store causes problems in terms

of loitering and garbage without even having a liquor license.

It never caused problems under previous ownership.

Unimart, before change in ownership, was quiet and clean outside.

Almost as soon as ownership changed hands,

there was constantly people loitering outside, sitting

against the building, noise and disruptive,

intimidating behavior at all hours and leaving trash on the sidewalk and street.

Our neighborhood has several shelters in support of housing centers including

recently opened ones. This city recommends against clustering liquor stores

especially in such an environment and the owners of the store have already

shown not to be good stewards of the neighborhood. Please do not approve this

liquor license at this time. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

Good morning, thank you. My name is David. I'm a local resident. I live

on Tehama Street at the back of this facility.

First, there is no necessity.

This area is already well served by responsible outlets.

Second, I pick up litter on this corner every day,

much of which is empty beer cans and bottles

that are disguised in paper bags

that have been sold by the Unimart.

Unimart clients also regularly urinate on our street.

It constantly smells of urine.

It had to be power washed this morning

as we were leaving to come to this hearing.

The city is making great efforts to help those with alcohol problems in this area.

The presence of a facility that advertises on its frontage bargain alcohol is contrary to this strategic interest the city has.

I have been assaulted twice while picking up trash by inebriated clients of the Unumart.

I've been asked by sanctuary residents, as my wife said, to please help them stay sober and not have people drinking right outside their door.

Spirits would make that worse.

The sanctuary has been there for 40 years, so this is not a surprise.

And a 20-year-old sobering facility is only a block away at the corner of Mission and 8th.

The neighborhood needs are not met by this license application.

The city's strategic goals are not bet by this license applications, and it is not in the public interest.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Sylvia Wu.

I live at 9th and Folsom, and I walk past this liquor store pretty late at night, like often, going to and from uni.

And the loitering kind of poses, like, a bit of a safety concern.

So I'm just here to voice my support for Soma West's opposition to the liquor license expansion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional public commenters?

That concludes public comment for this item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And beyond what we've just heard, I would note that the board clerk has received multiple letters from the community

that echo testimony similar to what we've heard.

I will say I've also personally heard from neighbors of mine

in this neighborhood who have expressed similar views

that they're unhappy with the deterioration

of street conditions since Mary sold the Unimart,

I think it was a little over a year ago.

It is clear to me that the large majority

of West Soma neighbors feel strongly

that this liquor license would not serve the public convenience

or necessity, and based on that I'm inclined

to support the community's position.

Seeing no one else on the roster with questions or comments,

I'd like to move that the clerk prepare a resolution

making a determination that the issuance of a Type 21

off sale general beer, wine, and distilled spirits

liquor license to the applicant would not serve

the public convenience or necessity.

May we have a roll call on that motion?

Yes, and on the motion, directing the clerk

to prepare a resolution making a determination

that the issuance of a Type 21 off sale general beer,

wine and distilled spirits liquor license to the applicant would not serve the public

convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Member Wong.

Member Wong aye.

Vice Chair Mahmood.

Vice Chair Mahmood aye.

Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Chair Dorsey aye.

I have three ayes with Member Salter excused.

Thank you Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And now procedurally what we do is we are going to take the determination that this would

not serve the public or convenience and necessity.

And I'm going to move that the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee send this

resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Yes, and on the motion to send the resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation,

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Chairman Mahmood.

Vice Chairman Mahmood, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, aye.

I have three ayes with members are excused.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And Madam Clerk, do we have any more on our agenda today?

That completes our meeting agenda.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you everyone for your participation.

Today's meeting is now adjourned.

You