title

Good morning.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the March 5th, 2026 regular meeting of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Jackie Fielder, Chair of the Committee, joined by uh today's Supervisor Dorsey in place of Vice Chair Sauter and Supervisor Cheryl.

Our committee clerk is Monique Creighton, and our thanks to Suze Enos of SFGUB TV for staff in this meeting.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes.

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 in writing either of the following ways.

Email them to the government audit and oversight committee clerk at M O N I Q U E.

C R A Y T O N at S F G-O V dot O R G.

If you can submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit, place room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you have documents you would like to be included as part of the official file, please submit them to me before the end of the meeting.

Please make sure to science all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent any interruptions to today to today's proceedings.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of March 17th, 2026 unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues and members of the public, as you may have noticed on today's agenda are eight items that were previously agendized at our February 19th meeting and action was taken at that time.

During the posting process for the February 19th meeting, the San Francisco examiner represented to the clerk that the newspaper posting required by Charter Section 2.108 occurred and the meeting was duly noticed.

However, after the meeting adjourned, the clerk of the board and I were informed that the San Francisco examiner actually failed to properly notice the February 19th meeting in the newspaper.

Therefore, unfortunately, all actions we took that day were null and void.

I ask for everyone's patience as we reconsider these items during today's meetings so they become valid and can move forward to the full board.

Madam Clerk, we're also going to go out of order today.

Can you please call item four first?

Yes, sure.

Do we want to do a motion to excuse Supervisor Saudder?

All right, sounds good.

Move to excuse Supervisor Sauter.

Yes, and on the motion to excuse Vice, excuse me, Vice Chair Sauter from today's meeting.

Member Dorsey.

Member Dorsey, I.

Member Sheryl.

Member Sheryl I.

Chairfielder?

I.

Chairfielder, I have three eyes with Vice Chair Sauter Excuse.

All right.

Madam Clerk, please call item four.

Yes, item number four is a resolution approving the Department of Emergency Management.

Annual surveillance surveillance report for gunshot detection technology.

Thank you.

And today we have Ms.

Janet Fallings, the assistant deputy director at the Division of Emergency Communications, who will be presenting on this item today.

Is Ms.

Fallings here?

Welcome.

Please come up to the podium.

Good morning.

Oh, also here with me is the Deputy Director, Rob Smuts as well.

And you had a couple questions for us.

Um, as I understand it, you are going to present on this item, which is the annual surveillance report for gunshot detection technology.

You already submitted.

This is the required annual report for um surveillance technology in this case, uh, gunshot tech tech detection technology.

Sorry.

Um contract that is held by the police department.

Uh and the police department also files an annual report.

Uh our reports are not sequenced timing-wise, though, so we are presenting this uh ourselves.

Um the Department of Emergency Management is uh runs the city's 911 center.

Uh in that capacity, we have this technology enabled on our supervisor bridge, and it alerts us when it detects a gunshot.

Uh, and we uh then send that up as a call for service for the police department.

Um, this is a pretty straightforward surveillance report.

It is unchanged from previous uh reports of the same.

Thank you, colleagues.

Any questions or comments?

I have a couple questions.

Do you keep data on the false positive rate for ShotSpotter?

Yes, for um 2024 to 2025.

We had 797 instances of shot spotter.

We have a specific uh radio code that we use for ShotSpotter so that we can pull data and track the information.

Um, out of those 797 incidents, do you know how many might have been a false positive?

Uh no, we don't necessarily know the outcomes of all the calls.

Of course, we know if there is actually a victim when we get the shot spotters, but we don't keep track of like what's um bad calls or what are good calls.

Um also shot spotter has their own monitoring center, so they do a precursor monitor to determine whether they feel that the uh sound is a backfire or firecracker before they even send it to us.

So um that's how that process works.

Thank you.

And what is the duration of this contract?

So the um San Francisco Police Department holds the contract, and they hold the contract with sound thinking, and the ShotSpotter Technology um contract ends April 31st, 2029.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Those are all my questions.

Madam Clerk, let's go 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.

Madam Chair appears, we have no public comment on this item.

Thank you.

Seeing no one making public comment, public comment is closed.

I now move to send item four to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on the motion to forward item four to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Member Dorsey, member Dorsey, aye.

Member Sheryl, Member Sheryl, aye.

Chair Fielder?

Aye.

Chair Fielder, I have three ayes with Vice Chair Sauder excused.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, please call item one.

Yes, item one is a hearing regarding financial commitments made by private developers for housing developments at two zero zero zero through two zero seven zero Bryan Street and 681 Florida Street in the mission district, including 500,000 in capital funding for tenant improvements to the community art space at 681 Florida Street.

Thank you.

And colleagues, this is one of the items we're reconsidering from the February 19th meeting.

Any questions, comments?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, let's take public comment.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now on the slide by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Madam Chair, it appears we have no public comment.

Thank you.

Seeing no one making public comment.

Public comment is now closed.

I now move to file this item.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on the motion to file item number one.

Member Dorsey.

Chairfielder.

Aye.

Chairfielder, I have three eyes with Vice Chair Slaughter excused.

Thank you.

This hearing is now filed.

Madam Clerk, please call item two.

Yes, item number two is an ordinance amending the police code to require that individuals who notarize or assist people in completing immigration documents, offer a document prepared by the city that identifies free or low-cost immigration legal services providers and consulates, and to authorize the human rights commission to provide assistance to members of the public who wish to file a complaint with a state licensing or enforcement entity against a notary or immigration consultant who allegedly violated legal requirements applicable to their activities.

Thank you.

And colleagues, uh this is my item, so I'll be presenting on this today.

I want to thank Sophie Hayward, the legislative and public affairs director at the Office of the City Administrator, Alessandro Lozano, legislative and government affairs manager for OEWD, and Anna Maraga Abchila, civil rights division manager from the Human Rights Commission.

They're all here in case there are any questions for their offices, as they're all partners in this legislation.

So this ordinance will put in place further protections for immigrants from being defrauded by notaries who illegally provide and charge for legal counsel on immigration cases, which has been a documented problem in San Francisco.

This measure requires notary businesses and individuals who assist people in notarizing and completing immigration documents who are not licensed attorneys to provide a listing of low-cost or free immigration legal service providers and consulates, a list provided by the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs, OSIA.

Additionally, the ordinance authorized the Human Rights Commission, HRC, to assist members of the public who wish to file a complaint with a state licensing or enforcement entity against a notary or immigration consultant who allegedly violated the law by providing fraudulent legal advice and can investigate, cite, and levy a fine should the notary not comply.

And finally, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, OEWD, will work with city departments to identify and implement a plan to inform notaries and the public about this local requirement.

I became aware of this issue after meeting with uh government officials in Mexico, and we talked about our shared constituents and how this has become a growing concern for immigrants everywhere, but it including here in San Francisco.

In Mexico and most Latin American countries, notarios públicos are legal professionals and attorneys authorized to provide legal services.

So when immigrants come to the US, they are often unaware that there's difference here, and that notaries are not licensed attorneys and not legally allowed to provide legal advice.

There are notaries who have taken advantage of this confusion, resulting in countless instances of notaries providing and charging for fraudulent legal advice, putting immigration cases at great risk.

California state law requires notaries to post-signage, stating that they are authorized to give legal advice about immigration or any other legal matters, and they are prohibited from referring to themselves as a notario.

However, the lack of compliance and enforcement has left the door open to unscrupulous actors.

And here in San Francisco, they've been many reports of such activities, including the very high-profile lawsuit filed by the city attorney against notary Leonard LaCayo, resulting in the courts requiring him to pay $600,000 due to his predatory behavior against hundreds of immigrants.

This unlawful conduct has dangerous consequences for immigrant families, and this ordinance seeks to mitigate these harms by implementing further protections for immigrant communities from this type of rampant fraud.

The city administrator and OSEA, OEWD, and HRC have worked with my office to craft legislation they are comfortable with, and as such, I have a few amendments to the language to present today that are non-substantive.

I want to thank Jorge Rivas from OSEA, Sophie Hayward from the Office of the City Administrator, Director Mooley, Tugbenyo from HRC, Director Anne Topier from OEWD, and Director Katie Tang from the Office of Small Business for their work and partnership on this ordinance, as well as the Mexican government and consulate and community organizations who have also advised and supported this measure.

DHR conducted a meet and confer on this legislation, and the union representatives are also fully supportive.

Colleagues, any questions or remarks?

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Fielder.

I really appreciate your leadership on this, and I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor.

I was in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office when then City Attorney Dennis Herrera first filed the case against LaCayo and Associates.

And it is heartbreaking the kind of fraudulent activities that can play out when people are facing really difficult legal situations.

And especially in the environment we're in today.

The last thing we need are fraudulent players out there.

I want to commend City Attorney David Chu and his office for the great work they have done.

But I think this is important and needed the legislation.

So I'm really happy to support it, and I will say that as uh someone whose husband is an immigrant.

Um I appreciate your leadership on this.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

Alright, seeing no one else on the roster, Madam Clerk, let's take public comment.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the Wendells.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Hello, members of the government audit and oversight committee.

My name is Michelle Migueles, and I'm here representing Good Samaritan Family Resource Center.

We fully support Supervisor Fields' ordinance that will straighten protections of our immigrant community from unscrupulous notaries and consultants who give unauthorized fraudulent legal advice on immigrant immigration cases.

We have been witnessed to vulnerable immigrant families that have been victimized by dishonest notaries and immigration consultants who misrepresent their services, charging fees, and harming immigrants' legal cases.

We urge the government audit and oversight committee to move forward with this ordinance and strengthen California state laws, regulating notaries by requiring local notaries in San Francisco who provide services to immigrants to list low-cost and pro bono legal services and consolate listings provided by the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs.

The Human Rights Commission will also assist immigrants in filing complaints with the state for anyone subject to these fraudulent actions and find notaries and consultants who are not in compliance with the local law.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder for this item.

My name is Susana Rojas.

I am the executive director of Calle 24 Latino Cultural District, and I am represented several organizations today.

As you may imagine, the work that we now have is much larger, and it doesn't give us the capacity to be everywhere at once.

But we wanted to be here to support this because as we know, we are in a moment where the narrative against immigrants is very damaging.

And unfortunately, there are people who are taking advantage of people who are afraid and are trying to find the ways to stay here and follow the law and take and being taken advantage of.

So we urge you to please support this and to help us make sure that we protect those who are most vulnerable in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Matthew O'Glander.

I want to note that I am an employee of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission and also a member of SCIU Local 1021, which represents HRC employees, but I want to be clear that I am speaking here today in my personal capacity as a San Francisco resident and voter concerned about civil rights enforcement.

I appreciate the goals of this proposed legislation, but I am concerned that the proposal adds a new enforcement function for HRC without any funding or resources to accomplish its goals.

Specifically, Section 978.2 would designate HRC to enforce a business referral document requirement pursuant to Admin Code Chapter 100.

For context, it's important to understand that HRC's civil rights division already has responsibility under several local ordinances to enforce a wide range of anti-discrimination requirements involving investigation and mediation of discrimination complaints and housing, employment, and access to public places.

But HRC does not have any current enforcement duties under admin code chapter 100.

HRC does not currently have any comparable enforcement function regarding business referral documents, and HRC does not have staff with experience working under Admin Code Chapter 100.

Implementing this legislation would necessarily divert staff resources from existing core functions, and HRC would need to promulgate new procedures and shift staff functions in order to implement this legislation.

I've been told by our union representatives that they received a letter stating that HRC's scope of work would not be changed by this proposal.

That's in a letter regarding uh an in-person meeting on January 22nd.

Uh, it appears to me that that may be inaccurate.

Um, since as I read the legislation, it does involve a change in scope of work.

I urge the committee to reconsider and consult further with the union and HRC before going forward with this legislation.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public comment for this item?

Madam Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Seeing no one else making public comment, public comment is now closed.

I also quickly want to give a shout out to Burton High School, who's in the chambers.

Thank you all so much for coming out.

It's good to see you.

Um as mentioned, we have worked with city departments on some non-substantive amendments to clarify some language, and my staff has emailed the amendments to you, colleagues, and they should be in your inbox.

I've also brought copies to distribute as well.

Um I'll briefly summarize the amendments on page four, line fourteen, striking out education and replacing it with information, starting at page four, line 15, clarifying that the director of OEWD or their designee should identify and implement an outreach program to inform non legal immigration service providers who serve as notaries of the requirements of this Article 313.5 through PSAs or other outreach methods.

And on page four, line 22 line 22, striking out OSEA, replacing it with HRC.

On page five, line six, striking out technical assistance and replacing it with referrals.

And so I now move to amend the item as presented.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on the motion to the amend the item as presented.

Member Dorsey.

Member Dorsey, aye, member Shirle, Member Shirle, aye, Chair Fielder, aye.

Chair Fielder, I have three ayes with Vice Chair Sauder excused.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

I now move to send item two to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on the motion to forward item two to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Member Dorsey.

Member Dorsey, aye.

Member Shurl.

Member Sheryl, aye, Chair Fielder, aye.

Chairfielder, I have three ayes with Vice Chair Sauter excused.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, please call item three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution approving the police commission statement of purpose, persuaded to charter section four.102.

Thank you.

And today we have Sergeant Stacy Youngblood, Secretary of the Police Commission, who will be presenting on this item today.

Sergeant Youngblood, please go ahead.

I am the police commission secretary.

At the May 8th, 2024 police commission meeting, the police commission voted unanimously to approve and forward the police commission's statement of purpose, which was drafted by former Commissioner Carter Oberstone and Mr.

Paul Allen.

City Charter 4.102 states that all boards and commissions develop and keep current and annual statement of purpose subject to review and approval by the mayor and the board of supervisors.

In order to comply with the city charter and keep current the statement of purpose, the police commission again voted unanimously at the November 19th, 2025 meeting to approve the statement of purpose and forward it to the mayor and the board of supervisors.

The police commission also recently adopted its annual report for 2025 per city charter 4.103, which states that the annual report can be included in the annual statement of purpose.

Going forward at the beginning of 2027, the police commission will submit the statement of purpose as part of its annual report.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Sergeant.

Colleagues, any questions or remarks?

Seeing no one on the roster.

Madam Clerk, let's take public comment.

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on item number three should line up.

Now, on the slide by the windows while speakers will have two minutes.

Madam Chair appears, we have no public comment.

Thank you.

Seeing no one making public comment.

Public comment is now closed.

I now move to send item three to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on the motion to forward item three to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Member Dorsey.

Member Dorsey, aye.

Member Shurl.

Member Sheryl, aye.

Chair Fielder, aye.

Chairfielder, I have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, please call items five through eleven.

Yes, items five through eleven are three ordinances and four resolutions authorizing an approving settlement of lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city.

Please note that items five through eleven will be referred to the full board as committee reports for consideration on March tenth, twenty twenty-six.

Thank you.

And colleagues and members of the public, again, these are items that are being reconsidered from the February nineteenth meeting.

Um seeing no one on the roster.

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on items five through eleven.

Shall I am now along with the slide by the windows?

All speakers will have two minutes.

Seeing no commenters, public comment is now closed.

I now move to send items five through eleven to the full board of supervisors as a committee report with positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on the motion to forward items five to the five through eleven to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation as committee reports.

Member Dorsey.

Member Dorsey, aye.

Member Shirle?

Member Shirle, aye.

Chair Fielder.

Aye.

Chair Fielder, I have three ayes with Vice Sheriff Sauter excused.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, is there any other business before us today?

No, that concludes our meeting agenda.

See no other business, we are adjourned.