Good morning.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the May 21st, 2026 regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee.

I'm Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Mahmood.

This morning committee clerk is Monique Creighton, and thanks to Eugene Labadia of SFGov TV for staffing 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 sign up to speak on your right.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to me, the government audit and oversight committee clerk at M O N IQ E.

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

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

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodly, place Room 244 San Francisco, California 94102.

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

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

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of June 2nd, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Will you please call item number one?

Yes, item number one is an ordinance approving amended surveillance technology policies for the Department of Public Works use of unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, and the Department of Public Works use of illegal dumping camera system with automatic license plate reader technology and cameras and making required findings in support of said approvals.

Thank you.

Today we have Esther Lee, Ramsey Alvarez, and John Jones here to present on item number one.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Cheryl.

Uh Vice Chair Mahmood.

I am Esther Lee, Government Affairs Liaison with the San Francisco Public Works.

I am joined here today with Ramses Alvarez, Public Works Manager of Community Engagement, and John Jones, Public Works Manager of IT infrastructure operations and security at Public Works.

In accordance with Administrative Code 19B, we are here today to present the department's surveillance technology policy amendments to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Policy amendments that will enhance the department's efforts to combat illegal dumping.

San Francisco Public Works has two surveillance technology policies for amendment today, a drone use policy, and an automated license plate reader usage policy, the latter of which we aim to rename the illegal dumping camera system policy, among other amendments.

So Public Works drone policy was adopted with Board of Supervisors' approval in 2021.

For the drone policy, the amendments we seek Board of Supervisors' approval will expand the authorized use to identify illegal dumping refuse and for public education and promotion of public works operations.

Drones have been used in the past for inspection of difficult to reach locations, hillsides or tall sides of public assets.

The photo in this slide deck is from 2019.

It's of a drone use on the hillside of Filbert Street.

Drones have been used the following year to assess the O'Shaughnessy Boulevard Rock Sighting for assessment prior to a hillside slope improvement project.

More recently, drones have been used by our engineering team for hillside inspection on Montgomery Street.

The approval of the amendments will provide more tools to public works to identify and clean illegal dumping locations, something that we are very eager to utilize.

And so Public Works also has a policy for automated license plate reader use.

The proposed amendments remove the outdated name that included a defunct vendor.

And it clarifies the business justification for a comprehensive illegal dumping camera system to capture licensed plates of vehicles involved in suspected illegal dumping activities as evidence for enforcement.

The public works illegal dumping camera system consists of a two-camera system at each location, a video camera with pan-tilt zoom capabilities, and an automated license plate reader with a capability to capture license plates of vehicles.

Video footage will capture evidence of illegal activities, and the ALPR will capture the license plate of vehicles used by violators.

The policy allowed the department to continue this policy allows the department to continue working for this purpose, and we intend to utilize this technology to catch violators in the act and cite them for their illegal activities.

For both the illegal dumping camera system and the drone policy, we are requesting approval to allow the department to use clips and footages for public education and promotion of our operations.

We are requesting this authorization because educating and working with the public are core values at public works.

Partnerships with the public, community groups, contractors, uh sister department agencies, and volunteers are essential to the department's success keeping the city clean.

And if I may speak on behalf of my public works team members in this room, we want violators who dump garbage in San Francisco, or violators who come to San Francisco to dump their garbage on our streets to know that with this technology, we will catch you, we will fine you, and we will publicly shame you with safeguards, of course.

So photos of the dumping activity here in this slide, you can see was provided by a resident on uh Ramsey's Alvarez's team, the community engagement team, as an example of drivers who intentionally leave garbage on city streets.

With the amendments to our license plate reader policy, the illegal dumping camera system, video coverage coupled with license plate clips, provide the evidence to lawfully cite um vehicle owners.

The proposed locations for illegal dumping cameras have been identified by our Bureau of Street Environmental Services data for service orders where we're packer trucks, like the big trucks have been dispatched.

Those are the ones that pick large larger items from illegal dumping hotspots and from the work of our community engagement team.

With regard to data security, San Francisco Public Works follows city and county of San Francisco citywide policies and guidelines.

Access to data is limited to specific employees.

Data retention policies are exactly the way city and county of San Francisco policies are 30 days for raw data.

Umly video clips and images will be retained for authorized use in this policy, which is related to illegal dumping.

Uh, for data sharing, sharing of data with external parties is prohibited.

Clips for authorized uses may be shared with city departments on a case by case basis to pursue criminal charges for illegal dumping only.

When it comes to storage options, we have options that we like to keep keep open.

Data may be stored in a department.

Sorry, our department local storage drive, data may be stored in a vendor-managed storage system, or data may be stored in a software as a service system.

The same data retention, 30-day raw data retention applies to vendors.

So, um, just before I finish the presentation, I just want to thank uh Supervisor Shimon Walton and his office for working with public works over the years, focusing on deterrence to illegal dumping, uh, working with our team to add some muscle to help us identify and cite violators.

Uh, we're very grateful for his support of this ordinance and the ill and the illegal dumping camera systems focus on combating illegal dumping citywide.

So Ramses and John are here to answer any questions from the committee members that you may have.

Thank you.

Um, thank you very much.

Um, first of all, this is great, appreciate all your hard work on this.

Quick question for you.

Um, fines for people that we catch.

I'm assuming that the uh the fines are issued relatively automatically, but what are the fines?

Are they escalated and then what are the uh accountability measures if somebody doesn't pay?

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Randis Alvarez, uh community engagement manager for public works.

The fine for something that is caught on camera would be automatic maximum fine, which is currently a thousand dollars.

Great.

Uh and is like a second offense, third offense, fourth offense an escalator, or just a thousand bucks?

It's a thousand dollars each time.

We are exploring increasing that.

It is something that we'd like to pursue in the future.

Okay, interesting.

What happens if someone doesn't pay?

Ultimately, the fine is sent to it.

If it was uh an occurrence that we caught on camera, we would tie the illegal dumping to whomever is the registered license owner.

We would send them the fine if they ignore it.

Ultimately, if the property is in San Francisco, we would start a process that ends in a lien on that property.

So one way or the other, when they need to pay their property tax, they're going to pay that fine.

But what if they don't live in San Francisco?

That's one of the uh pinch points for us right now.

What are our legal options?

As of right now, I'd have to get back to you on that.

I don't know.

That's that's a question for the city attorney.

Do we have a sense at this point of how many people are coming from outside the city to dump versus city residents?

Uh I mean, we don't have any hard statistical data, but from an operational standpoint, I can tell you most of them are dumping from San Francisco addresses that have license plates, but we do get the occasional out of town.

Yeah.

All right, well, look, this is great.

Uh great job.

Um the thing that I would ask is going forward, as we see the results come in.

Um I think we'd all like to be kept in the loop if actually we're seeing a lot of out-of-towners and if we need to adjust as needed.

Um, I think we should try to just try to be proactive, but this is awesome.

It's a great step forward.

Thank you, colleagues.

Do you have any questions?

Okay.

I see.

When it comes to out-of-towners who don't live in San Francisco and the citations don't hold, uh, one of the reasons why we are asking for an authorized use that includes public education and promotion and um authorization for our community, I'm sorry, our communication staff to have access to the the clips of um illegal violators, illegal dumping the violators is because we do plan to put this on our website and on social media, and um it's a polite to say it's public education, but to us, we plan to shame these people for coming into San Francisco and dumping their trash in onto our streets.

Great.

Well, in case shaming doesn't work, please keep us abreast of uh any changes we may need to make and fight for with other jurisdictions.

Thank you all very much.

Um, colleagues, questions.

Nope.

Seeing no questions from colleagues.

Madam Clerk, can we take 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.

Seeing no speakers, public comment is now closed.

Um I'd like to move uh this item to the full board with positive recommendation.

Uh Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Yes, I'm on the motion to forward this witness to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Faiser Mahmood.

Fisher Mood, aye, Chair Cheryl.

I chair Cheryl, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Uh Madam Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is a hearing on the vicious and dangerous dog unit, inquiring about the plan to hire a hearing officer, restart hearing proceedings, address the existing case backlog, and improve proceedings through dog behavioral course requirements.

Thank you.

Um I called for this hearing um because there are really two issues at hand.

First, we've had a substantial increase um in the number of dog bites citywide over the past year, and second, we have not had a vicious and dangerous dog hearing, which is the process to to adjudicate dangerous bites since July of 2025.

Um, and and look, without these hearings, there are real costs, both human and canine.

My office has heard from dog owners on both sides of these hearings who who really rely on them for justice.

We've heard from dog owners whose dogs were deemed vicious after one incident, who've gone through year-long processes to train their dogs, and without these hearings, they can't get their dogs off the list, meaning their dogs are still unnecessarily subject to really harsh penalties.

And then, you know, we've also obviously heard from dog owners whose dogs were tragically killed by vicious dogs, and that pain's just continuing as we wait for justice there.

So, you know, that's not to mention the the dog's bites on humans.

Um look, there's a real cost to not having these hearings.

It's a big deal.

We need to get these hearings back.

Um so I just want to thank the many departments, the dog advocates, the dog owners, and more who are in this hearing room to work towards this solution.

Um at the end of the day, this is about making sure that dog owners are acting responsibly.

This is about owners.

Um, and I want to thank especially Sally Stevens and Dave Emanuel from SF Dog, um, who really brought this issue to my attention.

Um, and um I think before, well, let's let's call our first presenter.

Um, I want to ask Director Paul Henderson from the uh Department of Police Accountability here to start us off.

Thank you.

Um before you start, uh Supervisor McMood.

Uh I just want to thank you, uh Chair Cheryl for calling and hosting this hearing.

Uh I'm a co-sponsor of this hearing because of how much I hear from my residents about incidents with dogs, especially in the tenderloin.

According to Captain Sullivan at Tenderloin Station in the last few months of 2025, over a quarter of all reported dog bite incidents took place in the tenderloin.

The tenderloin is a neighborhood of families and a neighborhood of children.

And dog behavior is one of the most common concerns I hear from parents at the tenderloin community school.

Uh and one of my first months in office, I visited uh a parent teacher group with the tenderloin community school, and parents came up to me with photos of either themselves or their children having been bitten.

Uh, it was something that we also raised to the mayor when the families came and visited as well.

And it is something that I know as a result of the community's outreach, the city has already started to act.

I want to commend uh Captain Matt Sullivan uh in Tenderloin Station, who started an unofficial group of officers known as the Paw Patrol to lead on dog safety issues in the tenderloin.

I want to thank him and SFPD for their focus on this issue.

With that context, we need to work with compassion for dogs and their owners who are often in difficult life situations.

But the city also needs to lead with competency and justice to ensure that dogs that pose a serious threat to the community face the proper penalties in a timely manner.

That is why I was dismayed to hear about the long lapse in the vicious and dangerous dogs with no hearing since June 2025 and some gaps in coverage before then.

We wouldn't let our civil or criminal courts go dark for nearly a year.

We wouldn't stand by and leave other victims and defendants in an indefinite limbo.

My hope is that from this hearing we hear from the Department of Police Accountability exactly what has caused these hearings to shut down, and we get a commitment from the relevant departments to ensure that this element of our city's justice system is repaired and those involved get the justice that they deserve.

Uh and I hand it off to Chair Cheryl, and thank you again for calling us here.

Uh Vice Chair McMoh, thank you for your co-sponsorship on this.

I know the tenderloin, if we look neighborhood by neighborhood, it is the neighborhood most effective, uh affected by this issue.

So I appreciate you being here.

Um Director Henderson from the Department of Police Accountability, thank you very much for being here this morning.

Really appreciate it.

Of course, thank you.

Uh so I have uh a statement here that I'll read, just summarizing.

You'd ask me some of these questions in advance, and I think this gives you the overview both of how we got here and what the current situation is.

So I'll just jump in from there.

So in 2018, uh following major issues uh of inconsistency identified in the civil grand jury report with uh vicious and dangerous dog adjudication process, uh the city requested that the Department of Police Accountability, DPA, uh, provide a hearing officer to assist.

Uh initial funding was allocated through interdepartmental work order with the police commission, SFPD, and the amount of a hundred thousand dollars, but with no written MOU or directives.

And while this funding allowed DPA to bill for some of the work performed, it did not include any of the additional staffing or projects related to the work.

Uh DPA fulfilled the responsibility in good faith, despite the understanding that this was not intended to be a permanent solution.

Over time, the obligation increasingly diverted staff from their core oversight functions as DPA staffing levels continued to decline due to budget cuts and attrition.

Sustaining this additional workload became increasingly difficult.

In 2023 and in 2024, DPA requested support for two positions for VDD, the program, an attorney to do the hearings, and a paralegal.

DPA, we did not receive these positions.

In 2025, DPA was directed to eliminate an attorney position, in addition to an investigator and a senior investigator, further reducing our capacity.

At that time, it became clear that continuing to support the hearings would significantly impair DPA's ability to fulfill its core oversight responsibilities.

So since 2020 21, uh DPA has experienced uh a 40% reduction in its staffing.

In the past year alone, uh, we've lost four positions: an attorney position, a senior investigator position, one vacant investigator position, uh, and a senior analyst.

So, due to the staffing reductions and limited resources, DPA made the difficult decision to discontinue its role with the hearings.

We provided four months' notice at that time to all of the relevant parties, on top of the previous notices throughout the earlier years indicating the disparities and the difficulties related to budget and funding.

Uh those notices went out to ADM, ACC, SFPD, the City Administrator's Office, and the Mayor's Budget Office, informing them that DPA would no longer be able to support uh VDD beginning at the new fiscal year.

Uh those notices and correspondences have already been provided to this committee.

Uh, there are questions about that.

Uh, but that's how we got here, and that's the work that had been done so far in terms of how DPA came to play a role in the project.

Um, great.

Director Henderson, I really appreciate you giving that context.

Um, I think the way that you summarize things very much aligns with you know what I hope to learn from this hearing.

What was the process before?

How did we get here?

And then really, how do we come with a long-term sustainable solution?

So I'm gonna have some questions for you, but I think there is a representative from the mayor's office here, Steven Betts, um, policy chief for public safety.

I'd like to just quickly call, I know there's some time constraints.

Um, I believe uh you might have some updates on current progress towards an immediate term, maybe not a long term, we'll take that later, but a mediate-term solution.

So just love to understand, and thank you for being here.

Uh thank you.

Good morning.

Uh Supervisor Cheryl, Supervisor Mammood, members of the public.

Uh my name is Stephen Betts.

I'm the uh chief of public safety for the mayor's office.

So I'm happy to announce that we do have a medium to long-term solution that will go live in July.

Uh, the as Director Henderson mentioned, that the kind of the what made this a difficult problem to solve is there's two kind of components.

There's the budget component, and then there's a conflict issue.

Um, when we get into the kind of how the dog hearings are run, there's kind of two large components.

There's the hearing officer who does the judicial, who makes the decisions, and then there is the kind of clerical work, the kind of court clerk work, who puts out the notices, who tracks the evidence, who calls the cases, that kind of thing.

So to try to solve this in a budget in a budget-efficient way, uh, where we've landed the plane is that the police department, their staff in their police commission unit, because they were trained already in publishing notices, putting out evidence, tracking kind of judicial or clerical work like this, they will assume the administrative role.

So these are employees that already exist and they will manage that aspect of the dog hearings.

We've separately we're in the process of hiring a person.

I can't sure who that person is yet, but we're hiring a person who will be able to serve as the hearing officer.

We think that person can hold several hearings a week, three or three or so a week.

Um and uh there is a fund that I think was mentioned in the earlier presentation about a hundred thousand dollars or so that this can be billed against.

So we'll save money on the clerical side by having existing employees do that, and then the hearing officer will be someone who can bill against it and will be able to kind of sus fiscally sustain that.

So this person may change over time, but I think that core model is is a way they go forward and it also solves the the uh conflict issue because where to put this hearing officer, I think has historically uh been an issue.

Director Henderson mentioned, I think a grand jury report.

You can't put that person in the police department, you can't put that person in ACC.

You can't put that so that's kind of where it at where it ended up at DPA, this resolves this issue.

So this took longer to solve than I had wanted it to.

We had a bunch of fits and starts with other solutions that did not pan out.

Um, but I think we are at a place now we can confidently say we have a solution and it will very shortly uh be in place.

Um thank you.

Um so that I'm clear, where uh like from a from a budget civil service, you know, where is this person going to sit like?

I'm gonna have that person sit in DPA so that the fund will go through them.

So there'll be a kind of a prop F bring back person uh on in DPA.

Got so DPA will get a new FTE or part-time employee or yeah, and in a in a budget neutral way in the sense they'll carry it, but there's a fund that they this person will bill against that will go through DPA.

Okay, great.

And and just so I understand the fund, and I apologize here, is that money is that uh one-time money, is that coming from the general fund?

Like how do we continue?

I believe that money is in the general fund.

I believe that money sits in the health department's budget, and we can work order it over to the health department is where the money sits, but is general fund money that goes to the health department.

Got it.

So this isn't a one-time short-term thing that's gonna run out of cash in a couple of years.

Something that I believe comes up every year.

Okay.

This obviously took longer than everybody wanted, and you acknowledge that and I appreciate it.

Um it sounds like one person, great.

Um, I'm probably not supposed to say hit by a bus protocol.

Yeah.

But um, what are we thinking about to make sure that if one person reasonably decides to retire or whatever, how what have we learned from the past several months uh that we would take going forward to make it easier to fill this role if the person decides to move on to greener pastures?

Two things.

One one thing we learned is obviously we need to be four forward thinking about when there's a big change like this.

This is a big systemic change.

So, you know, there was this process that sat there.

What I think will make this different than the past is if someone does this person decides to leave, we have the core system already set up so we can hire someone new to to do it.

It is not who's gonna do the admin part, how does the money work?

How does you know that that whole issue, where is it going to sit?

Those are all solved.

Now it'd be just a personnel hiring.

So we'll work with this person if he or she decides to leave, or when he or she decides to leave, we'll have a succession plan and be able to plug someone new in who has that.

There's also the ability to have interim kind of ad hoc hearing officers with people who already exist in the city.

We have done that on a very short-term basis with a couple cases, or I think one or two cases.

Um, but there's there's an emergency valve as well in that sense.

Thank you.

Um, Vice Chair Mahmood, any questions for Mr.

Betts before.

Okay, great.

Thank you for being here.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um Director Henderson, do you mean mind if I asked you a couple questions following up?

Um, so I um first of all, just thank you.

I think you outlined it really well.

Thank you.

I'm really curious.

You know, you clearly took on responsibility without funding, kind of without infrastructure.

It sounds like they were you raised flags, and maybe those flags weren't seen or answered or whatever.

But going forward, now that you it seems like are you, it seems like you're relative well, assuming that you are relatively comfortable with this near-term solution.

How do we avoid the longer term gaps in this from uh an administrative point of view?

How do we really lock in that on paper?

It sounds like there wasn't anything written on paper, no MOU.

How do we lock this in to make sure like this is the plan going forward?

We have a plan, we're gonna stick to the plan.

Two things.

So one, uh, the there was a lot that got put on paper.

So in my in our memos that were presented to the audience involved at the table, there's a whole list of all the things that DPA did in resolving and addressing the concerns that had been raised in the civil grand jury.

I just want to acknowledge that those concerns were resolved already.

The issue now is moving forward.

How are those things going to get baked into what gets rolled out and presented moving forward to make sure that those same things take place?

But that is probably uh a question that is better directed with the mayor's office because it won't be DPA doing that or in control of all of those things.

They're holding, or what they're saying now is that they're going to hold that position in DPA, but it won't be managed by DPA.

I presume the fixes will be baked into the operations, but it won't be us uh per se.

We are just the holder to avoid the conflicts from the grand jury's indication.

Um so who is this new hearings officer going to report to, I guess.

Again, that is probably a question.

That's fair question for somebody else.

Yeah.

That uh I'm not sure what the intention was there.

Okay, but typically that person kind of just floats.

When DPA was managing that, we trained uh any number of people, almost all of my legal staff was trained in the position in addition to me.

And just for clarity purposes, I was the hearing officer before it came to DPA in the first place in Alameda for these cases.

So I I was.

Oh, how about that?

So I had done the training, done the hearing officer role, and also participated in the hearing officer training stuff for San Francisco as well.

What is that that training look like for the VDD hearing officer?

Is there a certification?

Is there specific dog behavioral training?

There's a lot of information in ACC is here, and they are probably better they can lead you through the actual.

You would just be getting my summaries of it, which was on dog behaviors and understanding uh how to evaluate the legal terms associated with the severity of behavior that escalates, and that is they can articulate it much better than I can as to what the training is and what that looks like for the folks that are trained to do the hearing officer stuff.

Great.

So it sounds like um DPA's role in the future going forward is more on administrative on paper.

And when you say administrative, can you just clarify what the is that just like a line on a piece of financial correct?

I think they're they were looking, as it was explained to me, they're looking for a place to hold uh space for the positions that's not in conflict either with ACC and or with the police department.

That said, we have been willing to and eager to participate in whatever role we can play to help with training, to share resources, all of the things, the manual that we created in response to the civil grand jury so that folks could follow and understand what the roles are.

All of that has already been provided, and I think a lot of those documents we presented as well.

Excellent.

Thank you, Director Henderson.

I really appreciate you being here, Vice Chair McMood.

Any other questions?

Great.

Um, thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'd love to move to our next presenter, Officer Greg Sutherland, who works as a dog court hearing investigating officer.

Um, Officer Sutherland, thank you very much for being here uh today.

Really appreciate it.

My pleasure.

Good morning.

I'm Officer Greg Sullivan, San Francisco Police Department's Vicious Dangerous Dog Officer.

I'm the one who investigates all of the uh aggressive dog incidents, reviews the bite reports, uh coordinates with animal care and control.

Um regarding the dogs.

Uh I will make recommendations uh on the disposition of whether I should think the dog should be considered vicious and or dangerous to the hearing officer at the hearings, not beforehand.

Um myself and I've got two gentlemen that helped me out right now who are retired police officers, they're 960s.

Um they keep my head above water with the uh caseload.

Um they help me prepare my cases uh for the hearings.

The um my unit or my myself and my two officers, my two assistants uh were housed out of general work.

Um it's an investigative unit in the San Francisco Police Department, and um we're the ones that handle everything out of there.

Uh the investigations generally include um the incident reports, uh victim victim and witness uh interviews.

Uh we we contact and interview the victims and witnesses, um, review the bite history.

Uh I have access to uh San Francisco Animal Care and Controls uh Chameleon Database.

Um for lack of a better term, it's basically a way to uh every animal that every dog should be re most animals should be registered in uh San Francisco.

Uh they're registered with SFACC, and um, it's kind of like a for lack of a better phrase, it's a police record for the dogs.

Um your dog bites, it goes into it gets entered into their system, and I access that.

Uh we go over everything that is involved in your basic investigation, uh photos, witnesses, uh, video, all the stuff.

We add that and then we add that into our caseload or into the case.

Um cases uh let's see, we adhere to the health code um for the hearings and uh the registration, the obedience of behavioral training, the containment of muzzling conditions, and other restrictions authorized by law.

We uh also I deal with that with the dog owners as well.

Um my role in the hearing is that I prepare re uh myself and my uh two compatriots prepare the investigative file that's presented to the hearing officer uh or to the legal clerk.

Uh and then that is reviewed by the hearing officer.

Um during the hearing, we present the evidence and we offer our record, I offer my recommendation.

Um I also coordinate with the witnesses and uh I maintain the records for any audio recordings once the hearing is concluded.

Um other agencies uh roles, the ACC provides animal uh behavior assessment, custody records and input on the public safety risk, and the hearing officer obviously presides over the hearings uh and issues their determinations.

Um currently uh as of last year I had 1,027 bytes forwarded to my office, uh, of which um we took action on a number of those cases so far this year.

Uh we've had 445 bites reported to me as of this morning, and I have 66 cases ready for um a hearing, and my me and my team are working on approximately 15 cases at this time right now.

Sorry, can you can you uh go back there?

I want to make sure I understand you you have 66 cases ready for hearing out of let's call it a thousand bites that have happened since July of 2025.

Correct.

Like vaguely, a thousand.

Yes, and you and you said you're working on 15 new cases right now.

That's like you're preparing them to get in the hearing queue.

Um prior to July of 2025, how many, how would that kind of 66 and 15 number have have differentiated?

Our caseload was starting to go up.

I started uh basically keeping records of how many bites I had I received in my uh email by uh there's just a few different ways I received caseloads.

But um the for in the first uh 20, let's see, 2024, there was about I started in July, there was about almost 500 bites reported to me.

And we started and uh we were presenting anywhere between one and three cases per week uh for hearing, and we would hear one to three cases per week, and um over the course of 2025 our caseloads started going up.

Um, you know, one to three cases per week, two, two to three cases per week.

Um it's also based on trying to find persons, so some of our persons are unhoused, and so I have to go out there and try and find and give the uh packet, which um the legal clerk would excellently put together for us, and I'd go out and try and find this person.

Sometimes I was successful, sometimes I wasn't.

Sometimes they'd show up to the hearing, sometimes they wouldn't.

So, since July of 2025, without a hearings officer, where do the cases go?

What's happening?

I have quite literally on my desk, I have a file holder, and it's got 66 cases all sitting there waiting to be turned in.

Um do you have a sense of how long it's gonna take us to dig out of this hole?

Um you know what?

When this happened last time, uh we stopped hearing cases in June, we got back into hearing cases in November.

Sorry, when was that last time?

Uh it was 2024, 2025.

We started, we stopped hearing cases for a brief period of time.

There was another fiscal argument.

Yeah.

Um we ended up doing two hearings a week until we kind of caught up.

Um we were probably about maybe half half the distance.

Okay.

So we've got almost double the caseload.

It took us a little while to get back up to up to running speed, but we got there.

Great.

Thanks.

Um sorry, I realize I've interrupted your presentation here.

It's quite alright.

No, by all means.

Keep going, please.

Oh, actually, that's all I had that's what I've got.

Uh well, I I have another question for you.

Um I'm curious how uh how did you get into this?

What was your your you have a dog background, dog owner?

Uh I somewhat fell into this job, um, to be honest with you.

I was patrol at mission station, and uh, the previous dog bite officer, um, our kids went to school together.

So he was out, I was giving him some grief about the job one day, and he said, Well, I'm getting out of the job.

Do you want it?

I said, I don't know, do I?

And he said, tell the chief no.

So he'd already put my name in with the chief.

Uh I got the job.

Um, when I I received the job, I went to uh investigative course.

Um I learned the trait of an investigation or the follow-up of building cases other than just the patrol, taking the report, submitting the report.

Um I went on to investigative course, and since I work with general work, it is a conglomerate of sergeants who investigate the general crimes in San Francisco, and I've got probably about 10 or 15 sergeants who also investigate that I can bounce ideas off of.

When I have a problem, I go right to them, and they've been able to help me out and mentor me uh throughout the process when I need it.

Did you receive any dog-specific training?

No.

Um the thing is is that well, I have dogs all my life.

Um, no, I have not gone to any like dog behaviorist courses.

Um I feel that personally I'm the one that I'm I'm gathering all the information and I'm putting the case together.

And based on a dog's bite history, the way it behaves, um, based on like there's uh animal care and control to test this better than I can.

There's a um a bite rule of like six or six or seven different ways a dog can bite and how bad a bite can be, all refer back to that.

But at the end of the end of the day, I look at the case, I re I put it all together and I submit it to the hearing officer, and when the hearing officer asked my opinion, based on everything that I've looked at and the conditions where the dog is and and how the bite occurred, I make I give my opinion.

My opinion is just my opinion of whether the dog should be considered vicious or dangerous, or absolute worst case scenario, euthanized uh humanely.

And that's very extremely rare that I've ever offered that opinion.

Um I don't, you know, if I got sent to some dog training classes, I'd happily accept them.

Yeah.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Um uh vice chair McMood.

Any questions?

Um, yeah.

Thank you again for being here and appreciate the presentation.

Um, um data.

Um of the dogs that you often see get to these hearings, how many of them are repeat offenders?

Um the same dog coming.

Approximately 20, 30 percent, okay.

So um, yeah, 20% probably.

Because it's like there's no um do you see any changes that should be made to account for that?

Clearly, I mean the process isn't working to get them off.

You know, uh it's my opinion is that the dogs are offered uh or the hearing officer orders the dog to do more training.

Um sometimes that's fiscally available to the person, sometimes it's not financially available to person, sometimes it's not.

Um, but at the end of the day, uh, you know, dogs are a product of their environment and and the person they're with, and sometimes it's not exactly an ideal position they're in, and uh we make do with what we got.

So um and then another question from the metrics perspective, um, is it so you're saying this was paused before in 2024?

Um did you see an increase in the number of reported incidents, trying to determine the correlation between having hearings in place and the incident still happening uh uh implying whether hearings are an effective mode of accountability in this context as well.

In the times that we've had the gap in service of hearings now and before, did you see any difference in the number of reported crime incidents in this context?

I've seen an increase in dog bites reported to me uh over the last couple years, um, but I don't think that's any reflection on the fact that we're having hearings or not having hearings.

Um, it's my opinion, and it's only my it's my kind of theory on this is that during COVID a lot of uh persons in the city got a dog, and because of the nature of COVID, and we were confined.

Some of those dogs didn't weren't weren't able to socialize properly.

And so I've I think personally that we've seen an increase of dog bites because we've seen more dogs uh go home and be isolated, and therefore, you know, sometimes their aggression comes out.

Understood.

Um thank you for service.

My pleasure.

Um, Officer Sutherland, thank you.

I have no further questions for you, but I just want to say I appreciate you being here um and taking this on.

And I did hear you say that if doggy courses were available, you'd take them.

So yeah, I'll throw that out to the audience, I guess.

Um, uh Sally Stevens um is thank you.

Thank you.

Um Sally Stevens is here with us today from SF Dog.

Um I I'd love to call you up to um say a few words uh for us.

Um, but also before you say that, San Francisco Dog Owners uh group um SF dog.

There we go.

Um thank you for being here.

Thank you for highlighting this.

Thank you for bringing this up to our attention and for your continued advocacy.

Uh so please, Sally.

Thank you very much.

Uh my name is Sally Stevens, and I'm the chair of the San Francisco Dog Owners Group.

SF dog advocates for responsible dog ownership and off-wish recreational opportunities for dogs that are under control.

We've supported the vicious and dangerous dog hearing process since its inception.

Two police officers, Sergeant Bill Herndon and Officer John Denny basically created the vicious and dangerous dog process.

The model they created emphasized looking for solutions tailored to specific incidents rather than a one-size-fits-all punishment, which is the norm in most communities.

People came from all over to study how San Francisco dealt with bites, and our dog court process became a model for how cities can deal with problem dogs.

As chairs of as chairs of SF dog, I'm often contacted by people about dog bites.

Some don't want to get a dog or a neighbor in trouble.

Others were terrified their dog would be euthanized.

I always encourage people to report bites because the dog court process in San Francisco was fair.

The investigative officer would look at what happened and what might have caused or contributed to the incident.

The hearing officer's decisions could range from requiring the owner to complete a dog training class, requiring the dog to be muzzled in public, or even fixing a broken fence so a dog can't get loose.

I reassured owners that only in the most extreme rare cases would euthanasia be warranted.

I told people they could trust the system.

Dog court worked well for a decade or so.

Then Sergeant Herden Herndon retired, and after going through several hearing officers and amid some confusion as to which department should control the process, the city decided to make the hearing officer an independent contractor.

In 2014, I was on the committee that interviewed all the candidates for that first contractor job, and two years later when the position renewed.

The city administrator accepted our recommendations both times.

The hearing officer really does have to understand dog behavior to make fair decisions.

Motions run high during hearings, and it's important that the hearing officer keep up to date with the latest research into dog behavior and best practices to sift through the emotion and find the core of what happened and what needs to be done to keep it from happening again.

Requiring continuing education for the hearing officer can help ensure the community can fully trust the process and trust their decisions.

I urge the board and the mayor to commit to sufficient dedicated funding and staffing for the vicious and dangerous dog investigative unit and hearing officer.

A functioning hearing process protects both public safety and animal welfare.

It can resolve serious situations before they escalate further.

The goal is a fair outcome for everyone involved owners, victims, neighbors, and the dogs themselves.

SF Dog fully supports Supervisor Sherrill's efforts to responsibly restart the vicious and dangerous dog hearing process and restore this important public service.

We know that vicious and dangerous dog process works and works well.

Let's give it the support it needs to do the job.

Thank you for giving me the chance to say this.

Sally, thank you.

I really appreciate it.

Um you really helped inform this whole process, and I would say yes to what you just said.

Um, Vice Chair McMood, excuse me.

Uh any questions for Sally or anything like that?

Great.

Um, I'd love to ask Virginia Donahue, the executive director of animal care and control.

Um, do you mind if we ask you a few questions about animal care and controls role in this hearing process?

Thank you.

Um Vice Chairman, I know you had a few questions, but I'm happy to start off unless you'd prefer to.

Great.

Um, so um, I want to just go back in history a little bit.

Can was the VDD hearing process created, and what role did ACC have in that?

Several years ago, as a fine answer.

The hearing process started in the 90s.

Uh we don't have any employees who go all the way back to the beginning.

Uh, but ACC's part in the process has always been uh, you know, we are the source of the database.

We actually keep track of the dog bites.

We keep track of the dogs in the city.

Um, so we attend all the hearings.

Um, if we have personal knowledge of the dog, we will offer an opinion to the hearing officer.

Once the hearing officer makes a decision, we implement the decision.

For example, if the hearing officer deems a dog vicious and dangerous, there's a whole registration process for that dog.

Um, does ACC offer training in dog behavior for hearing officers or for um the investigators?

Uh we have provided uh dog behavior training to all of the hearing officers.

I can't remember if Greg has come.

He probably has and has forgotten that he was there.

He's nodding, he's nodding yes.

He's nodding, you were there.

He's nodding yes.

Yeah.

Um, because we have certified behaviorists on staff, and they've developed the training, and they, you know, also explain the bite scale that Greg was talking about based on Ian Dunbar's research.

So our team is very science oriented and presents all the latest science to the hearing officer, because dog training is an unregulated field.

There's a whole lot of myths in dog training.

And so our team does the best they can to communicate the current science to the professionals involved.

So do they get a certification after that?

Is there a certification for this training?

No, there's a certification to become a dog traver trainer.

There are several certifications, but again, it's an unregulated field.

So we employ people who've got certifications, and they summarize their knowledge and give it to the hearing officers and other people working in this.

The training is all oriented to becoming a professional dog trainer and implementing solutions for the dog.

It's it's it's a pretty detailed.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, is this training mandated for all hearing officers?

I know we don't have one right now, but uh we have given it.

I don't think it's mandated, but we've given it to every hearing officer and hearing officers generally want the training and the information.

Got it.

Would it be helpful if it was mandated in some form in the health code and I don't think it would matter?

I mean, we, you know, you got the right hearing officer, they want the information.

Okay.

Okay.

Um it you know, we've heard a lot from constituents in the media about these hearing processes.

We hear a lot of misconceptions.

Um do you see any common misconceptions about the hearing process or about dog bites in the city that you think are important uh to highlight?

Sure.

Um, in terms of in terms of dog bites, there is a and always has been, near as I can tell, a reporting problem.

It's really important that everybody involved in a bite reports the bite.

You know, that the the doctor, the veterinarian, the owner of the biting dog, the victim.

Uh it's really important to get this information on the record because I have all this data on how many bites are reported, but I I am very sure that's not all the bites that happen.

I you know, I don't know what the the delta is there, but I'm sure we don't know about all of them.

Um, if your dog bites somebody, you are legally obligated to give the victim your information that that's that's not an option.

Um we wish more people understood that.

Um, in terms of the process, I think people are very nervous that automatically their dogs will be euthanized, and that really does not happen very often.

It's it's not a terribly common outcome.

Do you mind quantifying not very often?

Uh even uh even a ballpark.

30%, 10%.

Oh, I would say it's well under 10%.

Yeah, okay.

That's a really good common misconception to poke up.

And I think that gets me to to my my last one.

You know, a lot of times some of the things I've heard are like, oh my god, we don't need to be putting down dogs.

This is the you know, let's not punish dogs here.

It sounds like this is just as much about owners, if not more so, than dogs necessarily.

Oh, it's very much about owners.

I mean, you are responsible for your dog.

Yeah.

Um most of the time it's a it's a lack of control on the person's part.

And it's probably also important to recognize, though, that if a dog does bite, it is impossible for an organization like ours to find a different home for that dog.

So this is a problem people really need to deal with proactively.

I'm sorry, when you say um, thank you.

When you say impossible, do you mean legally impossible or just like operationally?

That's just not something ACC is set up to do.

If we're adopting an animal who's bitten, we have to disclose that information.

And imagine you're going to a shelter to adopt a dog.

Got it.

Functionally impossible.

Yeah.

Nobody's going to adopt a biter, is what you're saying.

Very, very seldom.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Vice Chair McMood.

Um on that point about how do we uh address kind of the prevention component of it.

Um same question actually back to the other of the ass earlier.

Um repeat offenders.

Um, do you see changes that you should be making given apparently, 30% of the dogs that are going in the hearings are repeat offenders?

How do we make sure that that doesn't continue to happen?

I think that's why it's so important we have this process because during this period of time when we haven't had vicious and dangerous dog court, we get a repeat offender.

We know it's a problem, but the dog is legally the prop, you know, it's it's property.

I cannot take your property away from you unless I can say that it's uh it's a public safety emergency.

But the standards around that are super gray.

So I think the the vicious and dangerous hearing court is very important.

So then we have a hearing officer who can neutrally say, yes, this dog is a problem with the community, we've tried X or Y.

You know, no, it's time because we do have those dogs in the community.

Um last question, um, how do we a lot of this is treating the symptom?

How do we, from your perspective, fundamentally treat the problem?

I'm sorry.

A lot of this that we're talking about is treating the symptom.

The the dog is already a problem.

Um how, in your opinion, uh what is the role of animal care and control in preventing this from happening, or do you see a role to prevent this from happening in the first place?

I I wish I could wave a magic wand and prevent all dog bites.

Um I don't think we I don't think we can do that.

Um we certainly stress education, we certainly have information on our website.

Um I know there are lots of organizations in our community that offer dog training and offer support to dog owners.

Um more emphasis that on that uh of course would be great.

In in our budget times, I don't see our department expanding into that area at this time, but I agree it's super important.

Is there another department that should take on a collaborative responsibility on ownership of this problem?

Oh, no, I don't think so.

I mean, I think it I think it rests with us, but like every other department in the city, we're shrinking.

So it's tough.

Thank you for helping here as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um First of all, thank you all who uh have presented um Vice Chair Machmood.

I think I'm gonna open up for public comment.

Um clerk, can we open up for public comment?

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

All speakers will have two minutes.

Two minutes, okay.

All right, I'm ready.

Thank you to both you supervisors, you kind of know your stuff here.

I'm impressed by it.

I know it backwards and forwards.

And I want to start off with the the SFACC rep.

She deliberately uh misled and omitted some important info.

I'm gonna let you know right now.

She's come up here and said it's the law that the biting owner has to give their contact info, just like we're in a car accident or something, uh that contact info for legal purposes, ex uh and so forth.

Now, SFACC collects that information at times, and in my case they did.

And I asked them to disclose it.

They refused.

I took them to the uh Sunshine Ordinance uh task force several times, it's still pending there.

We have many hearings on it.

They say I need a subpoena.

So she came up here and gave you a false representation, how it really works with them.

How uh uh a victim like myself can get this information so they can take legal action against the people that bit them, the owner.

Okay, so that's really bad.

Secondly, let's uh be clear that uh the office, the hearing officer was a very experienced woman, but she left that department over there, the DPA, under some serious circumstances that were not discussed here.

So replacing her and putting her back under that office with a new person might encounter the same sorts of problems that were not discussed, but they're serious.

I wish I could go on more.

If there's any uh members of the media that would like uh me to inform further, so everybody can know the public, I'd be happy to do that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Um my name is Michelangelo Torres, and for identification purposes, even though I'm not speaking for them for them, excuse me, I'm the chair of the San Francisco Animal Commission.

And I just want to kind of reiterate or confirm what others have said before that this is an issue that uh many of the community members are asking about.

And uh I look forward to it seeing it resume sometime soon.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Great to see you again.

Um I actually had a pretty clean statement, but now I have a hodgepodge of notes that I um wrote on it.

So I'm sorry if it's gonna be all over the place.

Um, sorry, it's my dog, he knows that I'm nervous, service dog, so sit down, please.

It's okay.

I'm okay.

Um so um my name is Ati Soleimani.

This is Charlie, my service dog, and um obviously he's handling it better than I'm doing.

Um back in March of 2023, he was seriously injured and in an unprovoked attack inside of the enclosed Golden Gate dock park while he was with his walker.

Um, almost 10 walkers tried to separate the dogs, and um they had a hard time to do that.

His collar pretty much saved his life because it's a very spiked after the first attack that we had.

I got the collar spiked, so he couldn't kill him.

But then the whole right side of his mouth and all lips and all that was just torn out.

Um, so um I understand the purpose of this meeting is stuff right then, you know, me going the through the my case.

Otherwise, tell me about it.

It's emotional.

I can walk you through it.

Um the attack required an emergency surgery, which was pretty bad, obviously costly emotionally taxing of both of us.

And the um attack happened with the uh by an unneutered pit bull, which is illegal in San Francisco.

And um the friend of the owner actually gave his contact information to um the walkers.

He also said that his dog was a service dog, and um, um, but I texted the guy actually called him and I texted him.

Um, so this is a note that I'm just taking about the contact information.

Uh when I said that I need your contact information so we can follow up.

He said, Well, I'm not going to share that with you because your dog attacked mine.

And I said there are witnesses, there's you know, the legal process we can go through it.

Sorry, am I going over?

You are.

We're we're allocating two minutes per speaker for this item.

If you have it written down, we can accept the written.

Okay, I'll send you the thing also.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other speakers seeing that?

Nope.

Sorry, two minutes for everybody.

I guess I should let the clerk say that, but hey.

Um, thank you all for being here.

I really appreciate it.

With that, public comment is closed.

Um in all seriousness, thank all of you for being here.

Um, for the members of the public who gave public comment for um the civil servants who work incredibly hard.

Um, thank you all for for being here.

Um, I'm very grateful to the mayor's office for being here about the the solution that seems to be coming in the coming weeks.

It could be the coming days, that'd be great.

But um I think we understand.

Um, I think the biggest thing for us in understanding what happened in the past where basically the hearing officer didn't have a real home, um, didn't have a real home in terms of a budget line item and a funding source.

It seems like that has been solved.

Um obviously with the upcoming budget.

Uh, hope to kind of crystallize that a little bit better.

But um, you know, I think I feel comfortable speaking for the two of us sitting here that we really don't want to see this happen again.

Um, so for whomever is gonna take on the hearing officer role.

Um, thank you.

Uh I guess.

Um, please say yes.

Um, but thank you all for being here very much.

Um, and with that, um I move to file uh this hearing.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the role?

Yes, and on the motion to file this hearing.

Um, Vice Chairman Mood.

Vice Chairman Mood aye.

Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sherrill, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Uh, Madam Clerk, can you call item number three?

Or sorry, excuse me, items number three through.

Is it nine?

Yes.

Three through nine.

Yes.

Thank you.

Items three through nine are three ordinances and four resolutions authorizing and approving settlement of lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city.

Colleagues, do we have any questions?

Seeing no questions, uh, I'd like to move to send uh these to the full board with positive recommendation.

Mr.

Chair, would you like to call public comment for these items?

Yes, can you please call for public comment?

Thank you.

Yes.

Members of the public who would who wish to speak on items three through nine should line up now on the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Seeing no speakers, public comment is closed.

Uh Madam Clerk, I'd like to move to send this to the full board with positive recommendation.

Yes, and then the motion to forward items three through nine to the full board with positive with the positive recommendation.

Vice Chairman Mood.

Vice Chairman Mood, aye.

Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I have two ayes.

Motion passes.

Madam Clerk, do we have any more items?

That completes our meeting agenda.

Meeting is adjourned.