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, November 13, 2025. I'm Supervisor Matt Dorsey, Chair of this committee, and

I'm joined today by Vice Chair of Lal Makhmoud and Supervisor Danny Sauter. Our always capable

clerk today is Ms. Monique Creighton, whom we thank for staffing us, and together we'd

like to express our gratitude to Eugene Labadia and the entire team at SFGovTV 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 myself, 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 in 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 send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall. Number one, Dr. Carlton B. Goodlit 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 on which you're commenting.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of December 2, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Will you please call the first item?

Yes, the first item is a hearing to consider that the issuance of a Type 69 special on-sale beer and wine theater liquor license to the Roxy Theater to do business as Roxy Theater, located at 3117 16th Street,

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

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I'd like to extend our welcome to Officer Brandon Erickson

from the San Francisco Police Department ABC Liaison Unit.

Officer Erickson, the floor is yours.

Good morning.

I'm Officer Erickson with the San Francisco Police Department Alcohol Liaison Unit.

You have before you a PCN report for the Roxy Theater as Roxy Theater.

They have applied for a Type 69 license,

and if approved, this would allow them to operate a special on-sale beer and wine theater at 3117 16th Street.

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

They are located in plot 413, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in census tract 0202.01, which is considered a high concentration area.

Mission Station has no opposition.

ALU recommendation approval with the following conditions condition one except as provided in

condition two below no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee

condition two 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 noise 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 not 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-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.

Petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control

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

as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Condition 4, 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.

Great. Thank you, Officer Harrison.

I know that the Roxy is a beloved theater in the heart of the Mission District,

and I think preserving community movie theaters that were once neighborhood cultural anchors

is an incredibly important civic priority here in San Francisco.

I'm more than happy to support this, and I know that Supervisor Fielder,

who represents this district, is supporting this as well.

Madam Clerk, are there any representatives of the applicant present?

No.

Okay.

Well, seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments then,

why don't we open this 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 comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And seeing no one 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 the type 69 special on-sale beer and wine theater liquor license to the

applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity. May we have a roll call on that motion?

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

inform the resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. Member Sauter?

Member Sauter, aye. Feisture Mahmood? Feisture Mahmood, aye. Chair Dorsey?

Aye. Chair Dorsey, aye. I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, would you please call the next item?

Yes, item number two is an ordinance amending the police code to increase the fine for misdemeanor convictions for sideshow offenses from a maximum of $500 to a maximum of $1,000.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Sauter, and I will just say before I hand it off to him that vehicle sideshows are extremely dangerous events that have disrupted neighborhoods, including many that I represent.

They've also damaged our city's infrastructure and put residents and first responders at risk.

So I really appreciate Supervisor Sauter's leadership on this issue and look forward to the discussion we will have today.

When would that? Supervisor Sauter, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Dorsey. And I will speak briefly to the legislation.

I also want to mention that the police department is here for any questions as well.

I think this is really focused and modest legislation.

I think we've all been frustrated and concerned with the growing trend in the recent years of both vehicle sideshows

and some of the dirt bike activity that we've seen spread throughout our city

and has really put a lot of people into harm's way.

This has gotten more and more aggressive and dangerous, leaving the roadways at times up onto the sidewalks and through our parks.

and I think this again is modest response to really make clear that this sort of behavior

is not welcome or supported in San Francisco. This legislation increases the fine to adopt

the state maximum going from a current rate of $500 to $1,000 now and I think it's important

to note this is a discretionary maximum. It is not a mandatory fixed sum. The judges will have

discretion to impose or not, and at what fee. And this just brings us in line with other

Bay Area jurisdictions, including Oakland, Alameda, Fresno, San Jose. I think that as a city,

we should not be doing anything that makes us a target or signals that we support this sort of

behavior. So bringing us in line with other jurisdictions feels like a very reasonable

thing to do here and that's why I would ask for your support.

Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Sauter, for introducing this ordinance. You know, as I said,

these have been prevalent in the district I represent, so I will state again how much I

appreciate your leadership on this. I don't see anybody else with questions or comments,

So, Madam Clerk, may we invite up public comment on item number two?

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.

Yep.

Excuse me.

Good morning.

My name is Yoel Haile.

I'm the director of the Criminal Law and Immigration Project at the ACLA of Northern California.

Yesterday, we submitted a letter in opposition to this ordinance,

along with 20 other organizations that serve thousands of San Franciscans.

While we agree that sideshows can be disruptive and dangerous,

increased fines in the cities that have raised them

has not meaningfully reduced the frequency of sideshows

or the number of spectators who watch them.

While Oakland increased its fines in 2023,

In 2024, the Oakland Police Department Special Operations Division stated that sideshow incidents had actually increased.

In 2025, OPD has seized more than 170 vehicles connected to sideshow activity in Oakland.

This aligns with well-established research that higher fines do not deter behavior that is social, impulsive, or collective.

Instead, financial penalties of this scale form most heavily on low-income residents,

deepening cycles of poverty and punishment rather than improving public safety.

Second, this ordinance would also likely sweep in people who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For example, in Stockton, where the fine is $1,000 and jail time is authorized,

an innocent bystander is still facing legal and professional harms more than a year later with his vehicle still impounded.

This proposed ordinance risks replicating those harms in the city.

Most importantly, rather than escalating ineffective punishments,

San Francisco should focus on environmental and community-based prevention strategies.

Oakland's Department of Transportation has begun installing bollards,

still place, and curb extensions to disrupt intersections most commonly used for sideshows,

and nearby residents have already reported decrease in activity.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote now on this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public speakers on this item?

That completes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

And I certainly want to recognize that this is not our only response to sideshows, and this is one response.

we've had enforcement increased enforcement from SFPD and you know I

think we also have had infrastructure changes with MTA and DPW working on that

at hotspots and so I think we need all of the above and for that reason I would

ask that or I would make a motion that we send this item to the full board with

recommendation Thank You Supervisor Sauter madam clerk may we have a roll

Call on that motion. Yes, and on this the motion to forward knit this ordinance the full board with the positive recommendation

Member solder member solder I fight for Mahmoud

Fisher Mahmoud I chair Dorsey I chair Dorsey. I have three eyes. Thank you, madam clerk the motion passes

Thank you supervisor solder

Madam clerk, we may maybe you call item number three. Yes item number three is a resolution urging the San Francisco Police Department to develop and implement a

comprehensive enforcement and intervention plan to address drug use or suspected drug activity,

especially within 250 feet of parks, playgrounds, and schools, including issuing citations,

conducting assessments, and removing individuals for processing or detoxification services.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. This resolution was introduced by Supervisor Stephen Sherrill,

and I'd like to welcome him to this morning's Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee

meeting. We're also joined by representatives of the San Francisco Police Department,

the Recreation and Parks Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the Department of Public Health.

And with that, Supervisor Cheryl, the floor is yours.

Well, Chair Dorsey, thank you, and I appreciate you, Vice Chair Mahmood,

Supervisor Sauter, for inviting me here today.

Today's hearing is about taking action to restore safety and accountability in our public spaces.

Parks, schools, playgrounds, these are meant to be safe spaces for children and families and, frankly, not open-air drug markets.

But across San Francisco, that's what too many of our residents are seeing.

A few weeks ago, I introduced a resolution calling on our police department to develop and implement a comprehensive response plan to address this drug use and suspected drug trafficking within 250 feet of parks, playgrounds, and schools.

And the purpose of this is straightforward, to ensure that these sensitive areas are protected and that illegal drug activity near children, especially near children, is met with a clear, consistent, and immediate response.

In my district, we've seen the consequences of an action, just like I know in so many other districts.

A couple of years ago, a baby at Moscone Park in the marina accidentally ingested fentanyl after contacting the drug residue on the ground.

Now, thank God that baby was saved with Narcan.

But no parent should ever have to experience that kind of fear in what should be one of the safest places in the city, playgrounds.

And when families can't take their kids to the park, when teachers have to walk students past open drug use, we feel that we've lost control.

And so this hearing is about fixing that.

And I want to thank the San Francisco Police Department, Deputy Chief Liu.

Thank you for being here today.

We're going to hear from them on enforcement strategy and data.

From the Recreation and Parks Department, thank you all for being here today about ranger response.

And also from the Sheriff's Office and Department of Public Health, thank you all for being here

about some of these actually fairly exciting upcoming solutions that will allow police officers

to remove individuals from sensitive areas and process them safely and perhaps most importantly, efficiently.

You know, quite frankly, this discussion isn't about slogans, it's about results.

San Franciscans, I believe, deserve to expect and should expect their city to enforce the law, protect children, and maintain order.

And so that's what we're here to deliver.

One of the biggest challenges to what may seem like a simple thing to say, let's protect these spaces.

One of the biggest challenges is that it is not just that simple.

We have a lot of operational barriers.

we have to support our city departments in addressing those barriers but first

and this is really what this hearing is about is what are those barriers how can

we bring light on some of those challenges and how can we as a city as a

board of supervisors support our departments and our civil servants who

work hard to keep us safe each and every day so I really want to thank you all

for coming today for really be being part of the solutions and and I look

forward to having this conversation. So we're going to begin with SFPD, and unsurprisingly,

they're already up at the mic. Deputy Chief Derek Liu, Commander Scott Biggs, I believe,

is also here, and Captain James Ahern, and I'll turn it over to you to begin your presentation,

but thank you for being here today. You're welcome, sir. So good morning, supervisors.

I'll start off on a personal note. I just want to say that as a kid growing up in the city,

I spent a lot of time chasing my next basketball game, going from playground to playground to the next gym, chasing the next game.

And so I appreciate you highlighting this issue.

And in that vein, I just want to say SFPD absolutely recognizes the community's frustration about open-air drug use near parks, playgrounds, and schools.

and as far as the goal for today this presentation will outline what we're

seeing what we're doing and the limits on the progress within the current law

our current pathways and our staffing all right this slide is basically a

visualization of the geographic scope of this resolution it focuses on drug use

within 250 feet of parks, playgrounds, and schools.

The map shows every park, playground, and school in San Francisco with a 250-foot buffer.

Nearly every neighborhood falls within or near these safety zones, as you can see on the map.

It's fairly all-encompassing.

It really underscores that exposure is citywide and the limitations in our response given competing demands.

It's definitely challenging from a resource perspective from police and our other partners

to cover all this ground, and it really highlights the need for us to work together collaboratively

to be able to affect this.

Next slide.

Okay, so drug use and paraphernalia near schools are a genuine safety and quality of life issue

affecting families, educators, and children citywide.

We'll show you some of the stats, but most cases involve simple possession

or use under several health and safety codes to include 11350, 11377, 11550, 11364,

whereas sales offenses are a little bit more rare.

The sections I just went over really go speak to simple possession of narcotics

and being under the influence in public.

as well as possession of paraphernalia.

So those are misdemeanor offenses.

A lot of these calls compete with higher priority incidents,

and many don't meet arrest thresholds.

So really it comes down to officers' observations

on whether they can actually make an arrest based on what folks possess

and how they can make a particular arrest or case

that is prosecutable by the DA's office.

We also compete with a priority or a triage mechanism in which calls for service are triaged based on the seriousness of the crime,

whether it's in progress, whether there's violence involved.

And so it's always a calculus of what's going on at that moment in time when these calls go out.

And the last thing I'll touch on is we do rely on, I would say, the front end within the Rec and Park system, which would be our partners who are the park rangers.

And they do have the ability to issue citations under park code.

so that is helpful to us because that's just another way to increase the footprint working

with Rec and Park which we do quite often all over the city okay so this slide shows calls for

service from January 2024 through September 2025 as you can see SFPD received about 17,400

narcotics complaints related to vehicles and 31,300 suspicious person calls for

service near parks and schools so this is over a 21 month period that equates

nearly 49,000 calls it reflects strong community reporting and the time burden

of nonviolent but resource intensive calls

All right, so this slide shows the incidents that are occurring

within 250 feet of parks and schools.

The incident data shows that by far possession

of paraphernalia is our top category with over 1,100 cases.

Followed by meth possession and then possession for sales.

The pattern is pretty consistent.

activity is mostly personal use or simple possession, not organized distribution.

All right, next slide.

Oh, sorry, go back one.

Perfect.

Okay, and then, so this is the actual arrests.

So what you can see here is the arrests really mirror the incident data.

Yet again, paraphernalia leads.

Arrests make up a small share of the total encounters.

So, as I stated before, of those 49,000 calls, about 6% or a little over 1,000 calls here, sorry, over 2,883 arrests resulted from those calls.

So it's about a 6% arrest rate.

It's likely a little bit higher.

What we didn't account for was warrant arrests, but we wanted to be specific about either sales or possession of narcotics.

but a lot of these incidents or contacts do resolve by way of warrant arrest as well.

Okay.

Slide seven.

I'll speak a little bit to the life cycle of a call for service

just to let you know what the typical officer faces when they arrive at one of these runs.

This could come about based off of a 911 call, a non-emergency call,

or what we call an on-view.

So an officer just driving down the street would observe something and they would take action

So each call that's received is prioritized by DEM

Upon dispatch that unit responds based on the assigned priority again just to highlight the fact that

It just depends on what's going on in the district at that moment in time

If there are other higher priority calls that could involve violence or something that's in progress somewhere

even a property crime, they would be diverted there first and it may push down the response

time to this type of call.

Once an officer arrives on scene, they would then make an assessment.

And based on this assessment, again, it may come down to observations of did they witness

someone ingesting narcotics at that moment in time?

Are they holding paraphernalia?

Things of that nature.

And based on that, an officer would then make a decision on whether they would issue a warning,

perhaps write a citation, or if the fact dictated a custodial arrest, then they would do that as well.

If it resulted in a custodial arrest, then the officer would transport that particular individual

and then go through the booking process either at the station or down at county jail.

After the casualty arrest, the officer would then engage in handling the evidence.

So that might look like seizure of narcotics and then the related booking of that evidence.

The officer would then move into a phase of reporting and reviewing.

so writing an incident report, tagging body-worn camera footage, supervisor review of that report,

any stop data entry, and any use of force data entries if that was appropriate.

Then any follow-up would be necessary, so any narcotics investigation based on whatever information was developed at that time,

and then any lab analysis that would be required in order to prove up that case for prosecution.

And then finally, the officers would be either the officer themselves

or a follow-up investigator would then be responsible for a case packet to be submitted

or the creation of a case packet to be submitted to the DA's office,

and that would be the case for any misdemeanors and felonies,

and that would be presented for a charging decision.

So this really kind of highlights what the entire life cycle is for when there's an arrest made

or even a citation that's written on the scene.

All right.

So as I previously stated, most drug-related cases are misdemeanors,

which limits custodial arrests unless there's a continuing offense or clear safety risk.

This is in line with our department general orders, as well as state law, to cite and release.

So there are some, the majority of misdemeanor crimes, really, results in a cite and release at the scene.

So it's a little bit of, it may be contrary to a lot of people's beliefs where, you know, we're not arresting anyone,

but when we do cite and release, it's considered an arrest,

and sometimes we don't have an option to take that person into custody.

Each call, as you can see from that lifecycle slide, is very resource intensive.

Officers spend time on reports, evidence booking, BWC uploads, supervisor review, and transport or medical clearance.

as odd as it may sound there really is we have to meet that burden of probable cause for any

arrest so in a in a way just as it would be for a homicide case it's kind of the same into

individualized responsibility to come up with evidence and probable cause in order to prove

up why we are making an arrest and how we're going to present that to the DA's office these

These administrative and staffing constraints reduce patrol capacity and slow response to

new calls.

So a lot of times officers have to make that decision and it's a calculus of how do I manage

my time, are there more serious calls that are out there, and that would be a decision

factor in if someone gets arrested, if someone gets cited, or if someone simply is admonished.

Operations often lead to no-shows and bench warrants producing little deterrent value

and perpetuating the same cycle of behavior.

And then staffing shortages compound the issue and high visibility enforcement is difficult

to sustain outside focused operations like DMACC.

I'll just talk a little bit about the DMACC model because it's been very successful for

us.

For those of you that don't know, the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center brings together

SFPD, other agencies such as the sheriff, DA, Department of Public Health,

Department of Emergency Management, and other city, state, and federal assets

together to target open-air drug markets in the Tenderloin and Soma.

Since mid-2023, DMACC operations have resulted in more than 7,000 arrests

and over 155 kilos of fentanyl seized, along with large volumes of methamphetamine.

and like I said before there's there's an additional for almost 4,000 warrants

arrests associated with DMACC as well the model succeeds because it is

concentrated coordinated and sequenced I will say that applying the same intensity

to every park and school perimeter wouldn't be sustainable giving staffing

limitations and partner capacity

So just looking ahead, our progress really depends on the coordination amongst our partners

between SFPD, Sheriff, DA, DPH, Rec and Park in order to affect this resolution.

We do have a shared mission to protect public spaces and restore community confidence.

I think one thing worthy of mention is that there is a promising next step in this new

sobering center that's been talked about and advertised it offers a sobering center pathway

that's led by the sheriff's sheriff's office and dph the center would allow officers a faster and

low administrative option to move into individuals off the street and more quickly so in other words

it gives us a option to i think that if you talk to officers that do this work all the time they

often ask, we don't have somewhere to bring people, and easily. I think that the life cycle

model kind of showed the intensive need for resources when you have to create an individualized

prosecution for each specific case. In the case of a sobering center, there's relatively low

overhead cost to administratively for the cops if there's built-in speed and

we could quickly transport people and it would be based on being able to quickly

get back out on the street so bottom line is is that SFPD fully supports this

effort and we believe it would improve enforcement efficiency and treatment

access and I'll just close with the fact that SFPD is committed to improving

public safety and working closely with the Board of Supervisors, City partners,

and community members to address the persistent challenges around our schools

and parks. Great, thank you W. Chief Lou. At the very end there you said SFPD is

committed to public safety. I think all four of us sitting here would very loudly

agree with that and commend you and your officers for what's been a very

uphill battle over the last several years.

So I just first and foremost want to thank you for being here, but really thank the officers

who are on the streets every day.

I think I should say this publicly, we support them, and we support the work that you do

each and every day keeping us safe.

So thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I'd like to ask a couple questions, if that's okay.

You talked about the threshold for arrest.

I thought that was very interesting.

You went a little bit deeper and said clear safety risk was a term you used.

Do you mind kind of providing a little more, I don't know if it's definition or color around what a clear safety risk is?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a little, it's clearly subjective.

You know, I think that when an officer gets to a scene, they have to make the assessment of, can I cite this person?

If I feel like they are, let's just say, under the influence, you know, are they a danger to themselves?

Are they a danger to others?

and it's based on factors in their training experience.

So I would say that someone that's able to care for themselves, follow instructions,

they would most likely be cited and released under that interpretation of our cite and release policy.

Okay, thank you.

I think I have some follow-ups about interagency coordination,

but I might wait until the end on those after the other agencies talk.

So I know it takes a lot of time to process these.

Do you mind talking briefly about the tools or the technology that are currently used to document these citations or arrests?

And maybe just talk about the process.

Like when an officer does this, they have to fill out X form on X technology.

Like how does that look?

Yeah, I mean I talked a little bit about it during the life cycle where, I mean, it really is kind of every single arrest that you make.

Now, it doesn't really anything, any crime.

It requires a report.

It requires BWC.

It requires the gathering of evidence.

It requires looking for any witnesses, getting statements,

and all of those things need to be documented in order to put the best case forward,

establishing the probable cause.

But you also have to think about the prosecution.

So then once you get to prosecution stage, DA needs to feel like it's beyond a reasonable doubt standard at that point.

So there's a requirement or officers that are really asked to go beyond, find video, find anything that would get us to that next standard before it could be prosecuted.

So there's all of these things that go into an arrest that's just time-consuming.

That's just the way it is when you arrest someone and you want to further a prosecution.

And you're going to see a little bit of ignorance here.

So let's just call it public drug use if there's a citation issue that would be an arrest.

Whether or not we're removing someone from the scene,

is an officer's personal witnessing of the incident meet the threshold of making an arrest?

Yes.

I mean, it depends.

I would say it depends.

So, for example, 11-550, which is under the influence, you would typically, what most of those cases look like are an officer needs to observe a person ingesting from a pipe, and then they can go ahead and make that arrest.

Because it's a misdemeanor, we can't just take someone's word for it.

We have to actually see it or have some sort of something independently corroborate that.

Okay, and then when documenting those, you know, I've been informed that there are a lot of different forms to fill out.

There's obviously body cam footage.

Are there any of these processes that are duplicative and maybe could be just we wouldn't have to repeat steps while still having a very solid process, for lack of a better term?

Are there duplicative processes we could be looking at?

I mean, I think there's a lot of requirements that we are just mandated to, you know, we

talk about all the entries in a police report, but then there are, we have a stop data requirement

that's required by the state for everyone that we stop.

We have to enter demographic information, a whole slew of things for data that needs

to be entered separately.

So I don't know that there's – I'm sure there's a way to figure that out where it would be more efficient.

But, you know, it's something that we're just allowed to do.

I asked that more of, like, is it something the Board of Supervisors could look at or working with the police commission?

Because I'm well aware of how hard you all work to adhere to the rules and regulations that you need to.

So I don't want to say that.

Okay.

So can we talk about kind of frequent offenders, repeat offenders?

That tends to be, like, I've seen this guy over and over again.

I've seen this person over and over again, and I've heard from officers on the streets that they get frustrated.

Why should I deal with this guy another time when nothing will happen?

This is a waste. Let's focus elsewhere.

How do you see the current barriers to removing frequent offenders from these high-risk areas?

You know, the police department has the tools that we have.

When it comes to the drug user population, we are given, for the most part, we have misdemeanor crimes that are in our tool belt.

not necessarily because you know laws that turned into taking people into custody now we could talk

about stay away orders and things like that that would make things a little bit easier but even

those things aren't these permanent we can just take someone away I think when it comes to a

little bit more of the user population that's why we that's why we partner with Department of Public

health, fire, other places, because we're looking to solve these issues from multiple fronts.

Yeah. I mean, you know, I think one of the things about this issue and one of the graphs you showed

was, well, frankly, just the number of calls for service and arrests. It's a huge number.

And we're obviously short 500, 600 officers, so solving it tomorrow is impossible, obviously. But

you talked a little bit about stay-away orders. Maybe it won't help with everybody, but maybe some

of the most high-risk individuals.

Can you talk a little bit about stay-away orders

and some of the potential there,

or maybe other legal tools that we have

for the most impactful individuals?

Yeah, I think that, you know, again,

this is not my expertise.

I think it would probably be best served

and answered by the DA's office,

but when we do get those cases,

we will ask the DA's office for stay-away orders,

but it depends on what happens in court.

But if a stay-away order is granted,

it's a little bit easier for us

because they're a person who has a stay away order from a particular area.

Once they have that in place, we can arrest and make a custodial arrest based on the virtue that they're just there.

So it makes things a lot easier.

It's not a full-on investigation.

It's a little bit more of a blanket type of a strategy.

And then I just have one last question.

The deflection center initiative, I think, is great.

It's targeted.

It's focused.

It addresses a need.

It's obviously we'd all like it to be 10 times bigger, but, you know, there are constraints.

Are there other looking at police operations, PD operations from an operational point of view?

If we think about this as a huge problem that we have to take bite-sized focus approaches,

are there any operational initiatives we could look at on the street to support the deflection center

or look at focusing on one individual area at a time

as opposed to the whole one and big legal changes?

Are there operational niches we could look at to address challenges?

That's an open question.

It's an open-ended question, so it's not an easy one.

I understand.

And you're asking directly related to the Sobering Center?

Well, I would say the Sobering Center is saying,

hey, we have an opportunity to open up 20, 30, 40 beds.

It's not going to solve everything, but it's a start.

Are there things on the operational side, whether it is identifying certain high-risk areas and going down a list one by one?

Is it saying, hey, we can't put 500 officers, but we can put five?

Are there – can we think about operational initiatives that would help addressing this issue in very focused, targeted ways?

yeah you know I think that as far as operationally we would look at the data and see which areas and

which places are most impacted in terms of calls for service we'd look at our you know if you're

talking specifically about schools or or playgrounds and whatnot we would look at data

from wreck and park the schools and kind of start there that's really the dmacc model which is to

define our terrain based on data based on observations scouting reports and the

such and then focus resource resources to those to those places and then you

know as far as tying that into sobering center we really feel like if we had a

tool such as sobering center we could create a situation where we could deal

with these things at a little bit more volume just because of the efficiencies

of it. And then also on that back end, there's a little bit of a more of a long-term solution

where if we get folks into a position to take services, that would be extremely helpful

for us at the end of the day. Like I said, we're a little bit more of the short-term

solution, but I think that those two things can go hand in hand.

Excellent. Excellent. I think one other thing, if I may give some feedback from the community,

there was such an amount of gratitude after the February efforts at Jefferson Square Park.

And that was obviously a huge, huge operation.

And from what I've heard from others is that they felt seen, they felt heard,

they felt safer after that, and they were very appreciative of your efforts and others.

And even though that was huge, are there ways to do those in smaller ways and more bite-sized chunks?

And so I've heard a lot from the community about that.

So I just want to pass that feedback on.

And I think all of us would love to see.

more things like that. Great, sorry colleagues I've kind of hogged the mic

here. Questions? Yeah, actually I know we're gonna hear from other people but

there are a couple questions if I might. I'd like to just walk through the

cycle of a citation arrest and just make sure that my understanding is

correct. Every citation arrest would impose an obligation on the recipient, on

on the offender that they appear for a court date.

And then if there are no show for that court date,

a bench warrant would issue.

If that offender were then violating the law again,

and would it come up that there's a bench warrant

for this person?

So in other words, if someone has a warrant,

an outstanding warrant for their arrest,

if a police officer encountered them,

they would most likely get run out for a warrant check.

And if they came back with an outstanding warrant,

they would then be arrested and taken into custody for that particular warrant.

Okay, so it would be sort of a step in the direction of the first round,

assuming some of what we're going to be dealing with on this are multiple offenders.

Eventually, a lot of the folks would be subject to a custodial arrest

if they have bench warrants issues and court dates they're not showing up for.

The only caveat to that is once they get brought to sheriff's department, sheriff's officer or county jail on that warrant, typically on a failure to appear misdemeanor, what happens is within, I would say, hours, they are cited and released with a new court date.

That's generally the case.

So it is custodial and it is off the street for a bit of time, but it is not a long-term arrest or custody.

Okay.

I saw in the presentation that RPD park rangers are restricted to issuing citations just for violations of the park code.

Is there a legislative change that we could consider to authorize them to issue citations under the health and safety code?

I don't know if that's a state law or if that is a legislative fix that we could do.

Good morning.

This is Beverly from Brecken Park.

So in order to change the park code would come before the board of supervisors if you were to change anything within the park code elements.

So if that is something you want to work towards, I'm happy to work with the city attorney's office to understand that piece.

But I know the challenge for us is we're only limited to the park code in certain elements,

and that's where we really do depend on our park and our police officers to kind of work together hand in hand.

Okay. Yeah, mostly it's, I know that a lot of the issues that we as a city deal with, our hands are tied because of state law.

So I just, to the extent maybe we can tease that out, and this is maybe another conversation for the city attorney.

I was just wondering if it was a simple answer that no, under the state, you know, the legislature says that this can't happen.

We would have to consult the city attorney because there are some elements on the state level that do not necessarily comply with park code necessarily because I know we are working through other things with the mayor's office and trying to understand that.

So we're happy to come back to your office and Supervisor Cheryl's office to kind of find other avenues if that is the route supervisors would like to take.

And then I think just on that point, I don't know if there are among DMACC partners, are there any that are empowered to also issue citations?

I would assume deputy sheriffs, but I don't know if there are any other partners who could assist with enforcement.

Sheriff's office.

I believe probation may have peace officer status.

CHP also has peace officer status.

And do you know, I know that under some of the conversations we've had about Mayor

Lurie's rebuilding the ranks, we're looking to expand first level or first level officer

reserve officers, is that my understanding?

Would they be empowered as peace officers to issue citations?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

That's it from me.

Supervisor Cheryl, is there another, should we call up the next?

Great, well, thank you.

You're welcome, sir.

Thank you.

I'd love to call up David Murphy and Beverly Ng from the Recreation and Park Department.

Hi, supervisors.

Good morning.

Unfortunately, Chief Murphy was not able to attend due to a prior commitment,

so I'm here to help kind of provide a little bit more feedback.

I know when Supervisor Cheryl came to our department and other agencies

to kind of think creatively and figure out best ways forward what was possible.

I think what was already mentioned by SFPD is our rangers are only limited to citations

in our park with the park code in mind.

We do try to also engage in other ways to kind of be preventive measures from fencing, lights, ambassadors, other ways.

But those are avenues that do require resources, and so that is a challenge for us.

We do look to Supervisor Cheryl's office in terms of this legislation.

If there's other carve-outs in a way to help our department and other departments, we more than welcome that piece.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks so much.

Supervisor Sherrill, I don't know if there is there any other, do we want to hear from

anybody else?

My only questions were actually related to exactly what you just asked about the Rangers,

so I was going to see if you had any questions.

No, I think that's it from me and seeing no one on the roster, should we invite a public

comment?

I just wanted to quickly ask if the Sheriff's Department and DPH might come up first to

to speak very briefly on the proposed deflection center.

I'm not sure I'm using the right term there,

but I think many of us are pretty excited about the potential

and would love to hear what you've been working on.

Good morning, Supervisors, and I can keep this as brief

as you want me to.

Sobering Center is in the works right now.

It is, as DC Liu described, an option, which is not a jail

which is not a hospital, but something right in between.

We have members of our community who are in the throes of addiction.

They are high or drunk under the influence out in the public spaces,

and the option of the sobering center is one in which officers, deputies, law enforcement out on the streets

can take the person into custody, transport them to the center, give them over to our custody and care,

and we provide a space for them to sober up, pictured as a drunk tank outside of a jail.

They are going to have direct access to clinical care providers who will offer up services, treatment plans.

They'll have access to care in a space and an environment which is nurturing.

This isn't holding cells. This isn't jail. This isn't a hospital bed.

this is recliner chairs, this is a space in which they are, the intention is to make sure

that they sober up before they're released out back into the community.

And during that time, there's a soft handoff that's involved where our release isn't going

to be opening a door, our release is going to be letting them know that they're out of

our custody as the Sheriff's Office and they have the option of remaining in place under

the continued care of the health providers.

Colleagues, questions on that?

Yeah, I just wanted to, I guess, I know that the, it's my understanding that I think this

was, there was a couple news stories about this and I don't know that all the details

are out there.

I think we still have time.

I know that I represent community members who want to make sure that they are heard

about how this is all going to work.

It is my understanding, and one of the things that makes me very supportive of this,

it's my understanding that this would be an involuntary hold until someone is cleared to sober up,

so that this isn't a kind of...

I think some of the reporting on it made it seem like this was going to be a voluntary option

like much of what we've done before.

this is, as I understand it, a more coercive approach

that would be a custodial detox and stabilization function

that would be under the oversight of the sheriff's department.

If somebody is not medically cleared and they try to leave, what happens?

If they're not medically cleared,

they wouldn't be allowed entry into the facility in the first place.

As I mentioned, it's a space between a jail and a hospital.

It is a compelled entry into the center, so we are taking them into custody and care.

They're under Health and Safety Code 11-550, Penal Code 647F, intoxication, under the influence in public spaces.

That gives us the authority to take them into custody.

Bringing them to this alternative site, though, is one in which we aren't impacting the correction system, the jail system.

We're not impacting the health care system.

The space is one in which we will process the individuals so that the officers or arresting bodies can immediately get back out into the streets to continue their duties out there.

it's a space in which we have a soft handoff so that taking them out of custody but continuing

their care is what the goal is to be to make sure that they find a pathway into other services

outside of the up to 23 hours that they're going to stay in this center i believe it's a game

changer just for the very reasons that you mentioned this is a compelled coercive situation

where we're taking people off the street that are in the throes of addiction.

We're taking people off the street that are under the influence,

the individuals that we haven't provided a solution for

outside of our targeting, drug sales, drug use,

other criminal behavior out in the street.

Would offenders be arrested for leaving the voluntary,

or would offenders be arrested if they tried to leave before being medically cleared to do so?

Before we release them from our custody, they're not allowed to leave, no.

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

See nobody else on the roster?

I don't know if Dr. Soren from DPH is here or – ah, okay.

Chris Tagate is here.

So one of the things I think is most interesting is the stabilization part,

the public health part of this deflection center.

Do you mind providing just a little more detail on what the public health services will be available on site for the individuals who will be taken to the center?

Yeah, absolutely.

So first, the services on site will be provided by a contracted provider who will be contracted by the sheriff's office.

So not unlike jail, there will be medical and social service staff on site to do medical triage and monitoring to make sure that folks are safe.

That's our first and foremost goal is to make sure we know folks will be at high risk for overdose and also have other complex medical conditions.

So that will be something that the contractor provider will do.

What we think is the opportunity here and what we don't see as much or we don't have the staffing to do in jail is that there will be a stronger peer engagement and case management component.

And I want to be clear that that part is not coercive, but is going to be assertive, that we will have folks in the site who are doing their best to engage with folks that are there to build motivation for change.

So that is really those supportive conversations.

I've been there.

There is hope.

There are options.

And so folks will be there to have those conversations.

And I think where the public health department's major role in this project will be is when somebody says yes, we want to be there to pull them into our behavioral health system so that we can really change the trajectory of that person's life.

So we're working in partnership with the sheriff's office to make sure that we have workflows for that.

We're going to be setting up transportation for folks so that when they do say yes, we will have processes for them to reach out to us, for us to reserve beds or services, and then to transport them directly.

Can you touch a little on that reserved beds part? I know one of the problems we've had throughout the entire system is that when someone says yes, we don't always have a bed available. This seems like for us an opportunity to ensure kind of ahead of time. How is the city thinking about making sure there is a bed available for an individual when they say yes?

Great question.

So concurrently to this project, obviously we know this is a really complex problem that we're dealing with substance use disorder in the city.

And so we are doing a ton of work in the Department of Public Health to open more beds.

So we've opened up hundreds more beds.

There's more in the pipeline.

And so we will be – there are lots of different opportunities, one from our restore site to, you know, our withdrawal management.

And so we'll be doing our best.

It doesn't mean that there won't sometimes be barriers there, but I think we're going to do everything we can to try to place somebody somewhere so that maybe if they're waiting a couple of days to qualify for residential treatment, there is a spot where they can go.

And that is also why people can stay there for 23 hours so that we, you know, I think in many cases we'll be saying, why don't you stay overnight so that we can start to secure that for you and then maybe take you to the next day.

And sorry to harp on this because I know how much you personally actually think about this stuff.

I do.

For years.

But are you thinking about a specific process where there's a regular flow of like here are the beds available that the deflection center will be aware of or assigning, you know, next step beds to the deflection center?

How are we thinking about that process to identify?

I know we have to add more beds.

Like, yes, great.

Yeah, absolutely.

So this is what we're designing right now.

Great.

And so I think it's going to, you know, and it really depends on the client's case.

Some folks are going to be housed, actually, who are using or have shelter already.

So maybe outpatient treatment.

It may not always be a bed.

Sure.

So what we want to do is make sure that the case managers and peers on site are doing

individual care plans, understanding what the problem is, what the need is.

Some folks may be taking Journey home.

We're not really sure.

And so we don't want to pre-prescribe where people are going to go.

We need to know what is it going to take for this person in this moment to be successful.

And so we'll be doing some work with our Office of Coordinated Care.

We'll be making sure that our treatment services are very aware of this center.

And then we'll be just doing everything we can in the moment to get the person to the right next spot.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Colleagues?

I just appreciate your work on this.

And it does really resonate with me in terms of peer support.

You know, this is something, just as somebody who's from the recovery community, part of the reason that it's important to me that San Francisco do everything we can to help people through incentives, sometimes coercion, to get into the arms of the recovery community is the recovery community will step up and help each other.

And I certainly have seen that in my own life.

I sometimes think that we have left our strongest ally on the sidelines, and that's the recovery community.

I think there's a lot of opportunity for that.

And then I also just really value, it probably can't be said enough, that there is no one-size-fits-all here.

And this is something that I think is, I have seen in the policy realm, but I've also seen just in recovery circles.

You know, everyone's journey is different.

And I was talking to a New York Times reporter about this who quoted a clinician who said, you know what they say, you've talked to one addict, you've talked to one addict.

But it really is, it resonated with me because the idea that this doesn't work or this does work, that just doesn't really play out in real life.

What works for some people may not for others.

So I think approaching it as what does somebody need?

What can people do to help get others to a better place?

That's exactly the approach that we need.

And that's really what the recovery tradition has been doing for 90-plus years.

So I am grateful that the city is really doing that.

Supervisor Cheryl.

You brought up a point there that brought up another question, if you don't mind.

This is more of an interagency question.

Deputy Chief Liu spoke about whether or not we can remove someone from the situation.

Is there, and this is maybe a broader question, I don't know if there's a member of DEM here as well, but is there an effort to coordinate when an officer is engaging with someone who's engaged, let's just say public drug use, not dealing, but use.

Is there an effort for if it does not meet the threshold of safety or risk where the officer is going to remove this individual from the scene, do we have coordinated pathways where that officer is calling a DEM outreach team or a street crisis response team or a public health team to say, hey, we're sitting with this person, we're not going to take them to jail or whatever, but clearly this is not the best place?

Do we have any processes like that in place today?

Yeah, I mean, I don't want to speak too much for my public safety colleagues, but I do

know they have a special dispatch process to the street crisis response team.

So for instance, I know I worked with you all around 822 Geary.

So if somebody was in psychiatric distress, was not 5150-able, but could use a safe place

off the street to de-escalate, they can special dispatch the street crisis response team to

come and then transport that individual to care. So I believe that that's in place for a variety

of situations. Yeah, I'm seeing the nods there. Thank you also. I just, you know, with the

restructuring of the street teams to have a more of a geographic focus that doesn't literally match

the police station geographies, but kind of close. It strikes me that we have an opportunity for

increased, for enhanced coordination, just as a factor of geographical proximity of the resources

on a regular basis, so that's why I asked the question.

Yeah, no, great question and something we are piloting and working more towards

and I think have increased our coordination and support of individuals in distress.

Great. Thank you.

Before we go to public comment, Chair Dorsey,

there were a couple updates that I just wanted to read out loud here.

I just want to thank a few members of the community for weighing in

and a variety of colleagues, not only here but elsewhere,

to update some language, just to clarify a few things.

On the first page, line six, we added the term and youth centers to parks, playgrounds, schools, and youth centers,

focusing on the safety of children.

I specifically want to thank Rudy Corpus of United Playas for highlighting this critical need.

on the second page, line three, again, we added and youth centers, so whereas parks, playgrounds,

schools, and youth centers are essential public spaces. At the bottom of page two, lines 24 and 25,

we added the Department of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Health, such that it reads,

Resolve, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, or just the San Francisco Police Department,

Department of Emergency Management, and the Department of Public Health. We just want to acknowledge that this is an interagency effort.

And then on page three, I think all of us acknowledge that the priority here is not prison.

It's not jail.

It's recovery.

It's treatment.

So there was in addition, I want to thank some colleagues for weighing in on this.

Starting on line four, to evaluate individuals' health and needs in removing individuals from the vicinity for processing.

Then here's a new part.

And prioritizing intervention by referring and connecting individuals engaged in unlawful drug activity,

crisis stabilization, detoxification, or treatment services as appropriate.

And then finally on line 9 we just added some clarification around the city's technology policies

So for the resolve the Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco urges the SFPD to adopt technology tools

And here's the new part pursuant to our city's technology policies including but not limited to chapter 19 B and 22 J

Thank you

Thank You Supervisor Cheryl and

Seeing no one on the roster with further questions

I do want to just express my appreciation to everybody who presented today and to all the departments represented for their work on this,

including departments that are part of DMACC that aren't represented today, but I know they're doing great work on this.

Thank you, Supervisor Cheryl, for your leadership and colleagues, Vice Chair Mahmoud and Supervisor Cheryl.

And with that, Madam Clerk, may we open this 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.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Andra Esquivel-Garcia.

I'm the director for the San Francisco Youth Commission.

Apologies that our commissioners cannot be here this morning.

The San Francisco Youth Commission voted to positively recommend this resolution to the

board and the mayor.

The Youth Commission has also recognized the importance of prioritizing public safety in

areas near parks, schools, and playgrounds.

We also acknowledge that there has been several concerns regarding the implementation of the

the proposed resolution, especially regarding the role of SFPD, potential over-policing,

and the impact that can have on older youth.

The Youth Commission put together considerations for the proposed resolution implementation.

So a few of the questions were, how are the officers being trained to engage with youth,

especially those experiencing substance use challenges?

Could this increase police presence, push drug activity into other neighborhoods, and

what measures will there be to prevent this displacement?

How can the plan include long-term sustainability and avoid being a temporary solution?

How will the police department ensure youth-centered approaches are incorporated near public spaces?

And how will the city and SFPD conduct outreach to ensure youth and families are informed about any new policies and resources available?

The Youth Commission also urges

the SFPD and other departments to submit new standards and collaborate closely with youth-focused

organizations and the state during plan development and implementation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Alondra.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Alex Ludlum.

I didn't plan to speak, but I very much appreciate this effort.

I want to point out that it feels like a parody of an incompetent and apathetic police department.

The topic is, hey, let's stop allowing fentanyl use in parks.

And the subject of this hearing today is, gee, that's really difficult for us to do.

the public is not aware that police are not attempting to stop this.

Were this to be publicized, which I'm sure it isn't, that would be news.

So we have four earnest legislators up here who are eager to make your job easier.

the public in the places affected perceive no effort because no effort goes into it.

It's too difficult.

If you try, there will be no consequences.

These comments are not welcome.

It's been many long years.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Natalie Ortiz.

I wasn't planning on speaking on this matter, but after hearing even that previous comment,

I think there is an opportunity here to work more collaboratively with HSH as well as beds open up for shelter.

I currently work at a family shelter where we have been having success with many different families,

with many different backgrounds and barriers that they're going through, including addiction.

And we have been successful in the case management there to bring people in and exit them into more stable situations in housing.

And I think that more resources need to go into that case management piece.

Currently, HSH is rebuilding its case management curriculum, and I'm part of that team to support and give input as a subject expert.

And I would just like to, like, maybe the police is not the answer.

Just the police is not the answer, and we know that.

More policing does not really mean more safety.

But collaboration with community, organizations that are really working with people out there in the streets, and better care coordination, individual case planning, and being able to be trained in all those things appropriately, and again, collaboration with organizations that are really out there working in the streets is much needed.

I will be commenting on the next matter as well.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public speakers?

That concludes public comment for this item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Thanks again to Supervisor Cheryl.

And now I would like to recognize Vice Chair Mockwood

who will make the motion.

Make a motion to accept the amendments as read

into the record by Supervisor Cheryl and then move the resolution

out to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as presented

by Supervisor Cheryl and for the items the full board with a positive recommendation

Member solder member solder I vice chairman mood

Vice chairman would I share Dorsey I sure Dorsey I have three eyes

Thank You madam clerk the motion passes. Thanks again Supervisor Cheryl and vice-chair Mahmoud

Madam clerk

May we call the next item?

Yes, item number four is an ordinance amending the public works code in accordance with the California Senate Bill 276 to authorize the enforcement and vending permit requirements through warnings, infractions, misdemeanors, and fines up to $1,000 for vending certain types of merchandise that are common targets of retail theft on city property without a permit.

amending the port code to conform with those amendments, making additional conforming amendments consistent with Senate Bill 276,

accepting the recommendations and findings of the Public Works Director pertaining to such targeted merchandise,

and adopting such findings in affirming the Planning Department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This ordinance was introduced by the Mayor's office, and we are joined today by Diana Ponce de Leon from the Office of Workforce and Economic Development.

and Alejandro Del Calvo from the Public Works Department

to give a presentation.

We also have Commander Scott Biggs

from the San Francisco Police Department

available for any relevant questions.

And with that, welcome to our presenters.

Thank you, good morning, Supervisors, Chair Dorsey,

Vice Chair Mahmood, and Supervisor Stoddard.

I will be presenting in the theme

with interdepartmental coordination and adding new tools.

I will be presenting along with Alejandro Del Calvo

from Public Works on this interdepartmental effort.

as well as a very close partner of ours,

the community here that is present today.

And for their benefit, in advance,

I thank you for your patience.

I will be interpreting these slides in Spanish

for their benefit today.

And so we can begin with slide number one.

So I'm here to provide an overview on the ordinance

that we'll be amending

in the San Francisco Public Works Code.

Article 5.9, which regulates the permit regulations

for vendors here in San Francisco.

And this is to enable enhanced enforcement for vending

of targeted merchandise on city property without a permit.

So it specifically will apply to people vending

without a permit, very specific merchandise.

Entonces hoy estoy aquí para presentar

sobre la ordenanza que se va a introducir

modificando el código de articulo cinco punto nueve

los reglamentos el que regular los reglamentos de permisos para vendedores

aquí en el área en la ciudad de san francisco

um

me switch

este es para permitir una aplicación reforzada contra la venta de mercancía

específica en propiedad de la ciudad seems sin permiso

next slide

I'll provide a brief overview of the bill's history and background.

So state law SB 946, the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act in 2018,

decriminalized street vending in California

and removed police department's authority to enforce vending permit requirements

apart from criminal activity.

It passed that on to local authorities for enforcement,

which in this case was passed on here in San Francisco to the Department of Public Works.

Unintentionally, this state bill combined with COVID and other factors created conditions that led to increased sales of stolen goods, such as fencing and unsafe sidewalk conditions in some San Francisco neighborhoods.

So there were concerns around health, safety, welfare that were raised by communities across the city, including in the mission by vendors themselves that wanted to be part of the permitted vending in the Tenderloin and Chinatown.

As some of interventions that the city tried specifically in areas of high volume, such as the Mission,

we implemented vending restrictions on Mission Street between Cesar Chavez to 14th, which stand today.

And we created, as part of that, to allow permitted vending,

we allowed three blocks that are highly controlled as a pilot model to ensure permitted vending for some vendors.

and again this is, I want to highlight, this is a multi-departmental effort.

Entonces voy a hablar un poco sobre la historia, el contexto de este proyecto, de esta ley.

La ley anterior es SB 946 que permitió la ley, la venta de ambulantes seguras aquí en San Francisco,

bueno en el estado de California, eliminó la autoridad policiaca para aplicar sanciones excepto en casos criminales.

So, this, without intention, created insecure conditions in the street,

as well as the communities, as well as the vendors with permits.

So, we heard comments from many communities in Chinatown, in the Mission,

and the vendors that wanted more secure conditions.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Next slide, up beyond three.

Okay.

So what is California State Bill 276?

So the purpose is to authorize San Francisco to address the self-stolen and other goods on city property without a permit

and to allow police to enforce certain violations.

It also helps to promote permitted vending to allow for people that want to sell with a permit

and sell their goods in healthier street conditions.

The legislative sponsors and partners have been Senator Weiner.

He introduced the bill.

this has been a two-year process and with the sponsorship in this case of Mayor

Lurie the bill and ordinance was also highly supported as an intervention by

street the Mission Street vendors Association so this has led to creating

to the ability to create a list of commonly stolen goods or targeted

merchandise for retail theft. So vendors who sell merchandise that is commonly targeted for retail

theft will now receive a written warning for their first violation, and then it will escalate

with an intervention of the police being able for the police department to intervene.

Once again, this is going to be a real close coordination effort with the Department of Public

Works and the police department, as well as others. So the list of targeted merchandise excludes

foods that are prepared on site. So this is very much

retail items. Pre-packaged foods sold together with

on-site prepared are also not considered. However, stand-alone pre-packaged foods

such as sodas, things like that will be included. And we will have the list

further on in the slide.

Vendors who have a valid vending permit and are selling these goods are still allowed to do

so as long as they follow the rules and regulations of providing

proof of payment, etc.

And the list will, the targeted list will need to be submitted annually and renewed

at the board, by the Board of Supervisors with fresh data.

Entonces ahora voy a repasar el propósito de esta ley.

Es de autorizar a San Francisco para poder regular la venta de bienes robados sin permiso,

Permitiendo la intervención policiaca.

Y también queremos promover al mismo tiempo aquellos que quieren vender y hacer sus ventas con permiso.

Los patrocinadores de esta ley fueron el senador Wiener con el apoyo del alcalde Lurie, los vendedores y la comunidad.

Entonces, esto va a crear una lista de mercancía y artículos comúnmente robados

and create castigos and infracciones

for those who are selling these things without permission.

So the first infraction will be an written statement.

After that, the police will be able to intervene

and put other crimes, which we will be going to review in a moment.

Next slide.

This is your piece.

And now I have Alejandro who's going to go over the next two slides and I'll stop in between every slide to translate. Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

So this amendment, it defines targeted merchandise, referring to merchandise that has commonly been targeted for retail theft.

Our permit process remains the same.

Vendors must demonstrate proof of ownership in a lawful manner, for example, receipts and proof of purchase.

Vendor identification stays the same, only requiring the name, phone number, and mailing addresses of the permit applicant.

To safeguard civil rights and due process, this prohibits inquiring or collecting information regarding immigration, citizenship, place of birth, criminal history, fingerprints, or background checks as part of permit application process.

Also, it maintains the limited cost of vending permit for low-income applicants.

The enforcement will outline the consequences for vending targeted merchandise without a permit.

And as Deanna said, there will be annual reporting to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

and relevant committees of the California legislature related to enforcement activities of SB 276.

Entonces, los cambios que se van a hacer en la ordenanza local van a ser,

se va a definir la lista de artículos comúnmente robados.

Este también este los va a va a este.

Sorry, I lost my place.

También va a detallar los permisos,

lo que se necesita la prueba de propiedad legal,

identificar base, se va a necesitar identificación básica,

sin embargo, para adquirir los permisos para poder vender.

Sin embargo, lo que sí se va a proteger,

este son los derechos civiles de las personas,

la cual no se les va a pedir ninguna información sobre su estado de inmigración, ni dónde nacieron, etc.

Entonces, el permiso para adquirir, poder vender con autorización va a ser el mismo.

También se van a limitar los costos del permiso para las personas de bajos ingresos.

También se va a definir cuáles van a ser las penas para aquellos que no siguen la ley.

and that they are selling without permission.

And they will require you to report annually to the city's office.

So this list of targeted merchandise has been compiled by the San Francisco Police Department's Crime Analysis Unit.

It includes food and beverages, clothing and accessories, cosmetics and skin care, personal hygiene and toiletries, household cleaning and paper products, electronics and batteries, medicine, vitamins and tobacco products, bags, backpacks and suitcases, currency and cards, household goods and decor, tools, hardware and automotive parts.

The list of stolen goods that has been developed will include food and drinks, clothes, clothes, cosmetics, personal hygiene, cleaning, electronics, medicine, tobacco, bags, articles,

herramientas de automotriz.

Esta lista fue desarrollada, bueno, se destacó con datos del Departamento de Policía y fue

informada por esos datos también.

In the next slide, I will go over the enforcement additions that will be added to the code.

so it outlines

under the first violation so it outlines

how it escalates

so for the first violation a written warning

will have to still be provided

by the Department of Public Works

once this written warning

is provided it should include the

name, the date, and the time of

the occurrence. For the second

and third violations and any subsequent

violation the police department will be able to

engage with the individual as

documented if it happens within

18 months and that's when it can escalate to an infraction after the first

violation the fourth and beyond what Kevin go from infractions to the

misdemeanors which misdemeanors are punishable could you know lead up to six

months in jail or fine not to exceed a thousand dollars

entonces en la próxima voy a repasar un poco el castigo y las consecuencias que se van a añadir

al código entonces la primera va a ser una infracción una advertencia escrita es la primera

vez que una persona se encuentra vendiendo sin permiso las cosas los artículos en la lista

después de eso y esa se va a otorgar para el departamento de corn por el departamento de

obras públicas se va a otorgar después de eso si es también para persona la cual se le pido

pidió identificación, sigue violando la ley.

En la segunda y la tercera se le puede dar una infracción

si es que esto sucede durante los 18 meses de la primera violación.

En la cuarta y las siguientes violaciones,

si siguen haciendo lo mismo,

entonces la infracción se puede convertir en delito menor,

lo cual puede llevar una multa de hasta mil dólares

or a prison of up to six months.

That would be the maximum.

Of course, these violations all must occur

within a period of 18 months.

All right.

The next slide, I will go over the extent

of the community engagement and outreach

between the city and departments and the mayor's office.

So leading up to this point,

we've been very closely working with the local community,

with the Mission Street vendors,

to develop and improve the existing vendor process

and add clarification and provide access and education to the programs.

From January 24 to June 25, we've actually conducted three street surveys in the mission,

both of storefronts that speak to the conditions and the improvement

or non-improvement of conditions on the street based on our interventions that we're deploying.

We attend routine meetings with community stakeholders as well as the vendors themselves.

They hold monthly meetings that we regularly attend to update on any changes.

The vendors themselves organize to support this intervention at the state.

Over the last two years, they attended over six times to lobby at the state level and provide testimony in Sacramento for support of this bill.

Since then, since the introduction of this bill, we've also held the very public Small Business Commission meeting where we provided information.

Since it's been approved, we've also held formal workshops with the different communities that have raised this as a concern.

entonces este en el próximo quiero platican un poco sobre lo que se ha

hecho en el alcance y coordinación con el público y la ciudad entonces hemos

creado diferentes intervenciones para mejorar el proceso de permisos para

vendedores en las en la misión en desde enero del 20 24 hasta junio del 20 25

We conducted three surveys in the area of the mission with the stores and the businesses

to ask them information about their experiences on the public area and what they thought.

and we were implementing the different programs,

which is what they perceived.

We also attended many community groups

with the vendors, as well as other organizations.

During the last two years,

the vendors have worked together with the city,

have traveled to Sacramento

and supported this legislation.

All right, final slide.

Thank you all for your patience.

So here in this slide, I just wanted to highlight some of the common questions, some of the

highlights and input that community gave.

So we did present what this bill was meant to do, how we were going to apply it to the local ordinance.

We even spoke to retailers where things are stolen, and they provided input on the list.

Most of the list items were very close to the data that the police department had.

And so some of the things that they asked were, does this include homemade products?

The answer is no. It does not include homemade products.

Will permitted vendors be able to sell these items on the list?

The answer is yes.

As long as they have a permit and they're able to show proof of purchase,

they will be able to do that.

And what information or outreach will be conducted to community and vendors?

So we've done several press releases on this.

We have developed brochures in multiple languages.

and we will continue to conduct outreach in terms of how can people formally apply to become vendors.

And then another question that was raised is how will PD and DPW coordinate?

So as of now, they've actually now started exploring a database so that they can share information.

so as an additional thing DPW will still request so the other question was

around identification how would this be provided DPW can request it right on the

first but also PD will be present to also request identification for the first

warning will information be collected by the city and shared with people outside

the city so personal information will be protected no information about

about immigration status will be collected

during the permit process.

There was an urgency from sense of community

that's impacted by fencing and the self-stolen goods

creating unsafe conditions.

So there was this urgency that we heard

from community members that they wanted

this to be applied quickly.

And let me see other, the legislation does expire in 2031.

So we will have to, if this is a tool that is working,

but we'll have to go back and renew it at the state level.

Okay, finalmente, voy a repasar unas de las preguntas comunes

que se hizo durante los talleres o que recibimos.

Entonces, recibimos información sobre cuáles algunos de las cosas

que han sido comúnmente robadas en las tiendas,

y esta es una de las listas que provieron.

Muchas ya las teníamos por parte de los datos del Departamento de Policía.

This one of the

He's done several news reports.

We're going to develop this information that will be spread in several languages.

And we're also going to continue to look at how the vendors can apply to the process that is currently in the city.

This is going to be handled with coordination with the Department of Public Works and the Department of Police.

The Department of Police will be developed a system of data that will be able to share in terms of identification of those people who are committing crimes.

between departments.

The Department of Public Works will be able to ask the identification of people who are in violation of this law,

but also the Department of Police, who is there, will be able to ask it at the moment.

Information is not going to be shared outside of the city system,

and no information

de immigration

se va a compartir

en ningún instante y no es algo que

nosotros tampoco registramos.

Entonces,

finalmente, la comunidad

dio,

bueno, pidió mucha urgencia

en cuanto que se aplicara

esta ley lo más pronto posible,

ya que las condiciones en la calle

son muy inseguras.

And with that I'll conclude.

Okay, that's the last slide, and thank you.

Now we will take questions.

Great.

Thank you so much.

I want to thank both our presenters for being here to discuss this legislation to address

illegal vending in the public realm.

Thanks as well to Commander Big for making himself available for questions.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think I necessarily have questions at this time, but I want to add to that appreciation.

I think this is something that by its nature takes a lot of coordination.

I know there's been a lot of different departments working on this, and you've been thoughtful

and you've been really careful with this legislation.

I want to appreciate the Mission Street Vendors Association for all their work, to hear all

of the time that you've spent traveling to Sacramento shaping this legislation, making

sure it works for San Francisco.

It says a lot about you. Thank you for all your work on this. I think we share a commitment that we've got to find that balance of the vibrancy that the permitted street vendors add, but not letting it get out of hand to where it hurts permitted street vendors or where it hurts adjacent small businesses.

And so I think this work gets us closer to that balance, and I'll be supporting this.

And I also recognize that it's an ongoing effort and that this is, particularly these items that are on the list,

can be updated from time to time to make sure that this stays responsive to the needs of the moment.

Thank you, Supervisor Sonner.

I'd like to just add to that that I thank the Mayor's Office for authoring this legislation.

to implement the state legislation.

And I especially want to express gratitude

to State Senator Scott Wiener,

who represented our city ably and well.

And I know this is an issue that's been challenging

in the state legislature.

You know, I will acknowledge that there are many business

owners in neighborhoods I represent,

and there are no small number of employees and residents

who do wish that state law could afford more tools

to halt illegal vending more broadly.

This may not be what everybody wants,

but I think this is better than the alternative,

and I'm definitely happy to support and co-sponsor this.

Seeing no one else on the roster, Madam Clerk,

may we now invite up public comment on item number four.

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.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Edward Seale.

I represent the Chinatown Burgers United Associations.

And we are running a lot of small business right in Chinatown.

And right now, the illegal vendor is real part of our business

because it's all over on the street and in the daytime.

And they don't need to pay the rent.

They don't need to pay all the tax on it and all the employees on it.

And now they're selling all the items, the same kind of item.

or maybe they're stealing from the grocery store,

like the vegetables, carrots, cooking oils, all kinds of food, okay?

Or the fashion store, they may be stealing from the fashion store.

They're selling the socks, clothes, everything, okay?

And right now, it's really a challenge for the police to find out,

are they stealing items or are they not stealing items?

I believe that we have really strong, and the rule, you know,

like saying is all those items right on the street, okay, is they selling on illegally,

that means it cannot be selling right there. Okay, it's protective of all our taxpayers,

all of us, because we find out some of that like selling the raw fish, crabs, all kinds of the food.

I believe it's really affecting our health on it. So I believe that the city have to look in this

part, okay, for protecting all the small businesses, all the residents, they should be stopped.

all these illegal vendors. I believe that would be more help. Here today, I'm not only representing

the Chinatown, I also represent the Sunset District. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Supervisors. I'm Boris Delapine, the Port of San Francisco's Government Affairs

Manager. This ordinance amends the port code to align it with SB 276. The port fully supports

this legislation and any measures that strengthen our ability to address unpermitted vending as

supervisors Dorsey and Souter know. Unpermitted vending along the waterfront has been a persistent

challenge since the pandemic and further complicated by SB 946, which decriminalized

sidewalk vending. At the port, our primary concerns are unpermitted vending, food safety violations,

and counterfeit merchandise sales around the ballpark.

Unlike other areas of the city,

we typically do not encounter the resale of stolen goods on port property.

We've been working effectively with Department of Public Works

and the Vendor Enforcement Task Force,

conducting 4 to 14 operations monthly.

While we recognize there's always more to be done,

we appreciate your continued focus and leadership on this issue.

Thank you.

El resumen en español.

This ordinance changes the Port of San Francisco code to align it with the Senate Bill 266.

The Port supports this legislation and any measure that will strengthen our capacity to

address the not authorized sale.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

I'll be translating.

So we'll allow an additional two minutes for your interpretation.

Thank you.

Paso hacia calles más seguras, dignas, y protege a quienes trabajan con esfuerzo real.

Gracias.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Manuel Soltero.

I am the Vice President of Mission Street Vendor Association, and I am here because this is a legislation moving towards better safe streets, and it's important that we support it.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hola, buenos días, supervisores.

Mi nombre es María Gladys Maywa.

Soy miembro de la Asociación de Vendedores, de la Asociación de Vendedores Ambulantes de la Misión.

I'm supporting this law, SB 276, because this law will allow to many vendors to work in a way organized, in a way legal way.

I believe and think that San Francisco cannot continue tolerating the sale of doubtful mercantiles that proceed in the street.

Y estoy de acuerdo. Por esta razón, esta ley SB-276. Gracias.

Hello, Supervisor. My name is Maria Gladys Maygua, and I am a member of the Mission Street Render Association,

and I am here to support SB 276 because we cannot continue to tolerate the conditions pretty much in the street

that are making it unsafe when people are selling items that they're not supposed to be selling,

and we need to be more organized.

This law will help us be more organized in street vending and create a safer environment.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Ana Hernandez.

I am a member of Mission Street Renderer Associations, and I support SB 276.

I support SB 276 because it will protect the street renders, legitimate street renders,

and enforce safety, public safety, to recover our streets and have better streets.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Berta Martinez y represento a la Misión Street Bender.

Yo apoyo la SB276 por el bienestar de nuestra comunidad.

Con esta ley todos ganamos vecinos, vendedores y negocios.

Muchas gracias.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Berta Martinez, and I support SB 276

because this is for the well-being of our community.

This law, we will all be winners, our neighbors, the businesses, and the street vendors.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

that we work in a honest way.

Hello, my name is Maria Vazquez,

and I am part of the Mission Street Vendor Association.

I support SB 276 because it will help our streets be safe,

and it will support all the vendors that are working honestly.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Buenos dias, señores supervisores.

Mi nombre es Cesar Oyagata.

Soy miembro de los vendedores de la misión.

Mi apoyo total es porque la ciudad nos ha ayudado para que seamos más organizados,

con permisos al día, y de tal manera estamos aportando en los taxes.

and all that makes us continue working in the street with all the security.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Cesar and I am part of Mission Street Vendor Association

and I support this legislation because the city has supported us

with permits and vending in the proper way.

And I think...

to be more organized and the city has helped us with different workshops and

collaborated with us to be more organized as street vendors.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Santo Martinez, and I'm part of

Mission Street Vendor Association and I support SB 276 because it will help us

with the safety in our community and the respect for the the rules for all

street vendors. Thank you. Next speaker please.

Good afternoon. My name is Gladys Andino. I support SB 276. It benefits both

to vendedores, como vecinos y pequeños negocios.

Apoyo a la SB276 porque diferencia al vendedor honesto del que aprovecha de lo ilegal.

Sin la SB276 San Francisco, seguirá lleno de ventas ilegítimos sin control.

Hello, my name is Gladys Sandino, and I am part of Mission Street Vendor Association.

I support SB 276 because it will benefit street vendors and neighbors and small businesses.

I support it because it will make San Francisco, without 276, San Francisco will continue to be full of illegitimate vending without control.

to 7.6 will make a difference

for vendors who are trying to do it honestly.

And I guess I'll aprovechar the lorica.

It will make a difference between the vendor

that's vending honestly

and the ones trying to take advantage

and sell illegally.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Maria Alvarado y soy vendedora de la de la misión y apoyo la SB 276 San Francisco, 276 San Francisco avanza hacia un comercio más justo y un fin a las ventas ilegítimas.

Maria Alvarado, Alvarado, perdón.

My name is Maria Alvarado.

I'm part of the Mission Street Vendor Association,

and I support SB276 because it will help us advance in our vending,

that it's more just and maybe come to an end with the illegal vending.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Buenos días, señores. Mi nombre es Javier Molina. Soy vendedor de miembro de la asociación Vendedores de la Misión de Comida.

Y cuando las calles están ordenadas, los clientes siempre es cómodos. Y eso trae la vuelta y actividad económica del orgullo de nuestro barrio.

Hello, my name is Francisco Javier and I'm part of the Mission Street Render Association.

When the streets are organized, the clients feel safe and comfortable.

will bring back activities that will support our economic and be more proud of our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Muy buenos días, señores supervisores.

Soy secretario de la Asociación de Vendedores de la Misión Street Vendor.

and I want to express my gratitude in the name of the association.

I want to express our gratitude as a public security committee for their time and for

listening.

With respect, thank you for considering our opinions in favor of this law.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Juan Mendoza, and I support SB276.

I am the secretary of the Mission Street Vendor Association, and I thank you, committee, for hearing our voices and our input.

We are here in support of this legislation.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hola, buenos días. Soy Juana Pérez Vadillo. Yo apoyo la ley SB 276. Es necesaria para las ventas ilegítimas que están dañando nuestros barrios. Gracias.

Hello, my name is Ana Perez Padillo, and I support SB 276 because it is needed for us to be vending legally,

because the illegal vending is currently damaging our neighborhoods.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Idalia Lopez and I'm a member of the Association of Vendedors of the Mission Estris.

We are suppliers, authorized, we pay our taxes, we comply with the permission and we take our

permission daily.

We are committed to selling legally and making our area a place of a comfortable, family

and clients.

SB276, I support you.

Hello, my name is Idalia Lopez and I am a member of the Mission Street Render Association

and I support SB 276.

We are street vendors.

We pay all our fees.

We comply with all the procedures and we have our permits every single day with us.

we understand that selling legally will make our whole community and our zone more family-friendly

and client-friendly.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Milagros López. I am a member of the

Asociation of Vendedores Ambulants of the Ambitant. It is important to support this

law because it will bring more order to the streets of San Francisco. I also add to

that to be able to support this law to recover all the clean streets of the

area of the Ambitant, as it was before, where there could be a lot of tourism and

and without fear of being able to walk freely,

to recover the order in the base stairs,

from César Chávez to the 14th,

for the good of the children who come from school,

for the good of the most vulnerable people,

which are the people of third grade,

and for the good of all transseúnte that is there,

including us, the vendors.

Thank you.

Wait, wait, wait, is it written there?

No.

Hello, my name is Milagros Lopez, and I am here in support of SB 276, and I am a member of the Mission Street Vendor Association.

I am supporting this because I believe it will bring more safety and order from Cesar Chavez to 14th Street for the families, the children, and seniors that walk these streets.

And I'm here to support.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Buenos dias, señores supervisores.

Mi nombre es Wilber.

Pertenezco a la Asociación de Vendedores de la Misión.

Estoy apoyando esta ley porque es el progreso

y la unidad de nuestra comunidad.

Y será una ordenanza justa

para todos los vendedores ambulantes.

My name is Wilber and I am part of the Mission Street Vendor Association and I am here in support of SB 276 because it will support...

I am in support of this because it's progress and unity in our community, and this legislation

is just for all vendors, street vendors, that keep it.

I'm sure that SB276 will support with safety to the consumer that will feel safe.

Thank you so much, committee, for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Buenos dias, señores supervisores.

My name is Elsa Claudio Nieves, and I'm a vendor and member of the Association of Vendedores

of the Mission Street.

We are authorized vendors, we pay our taxes, we comply with the procedure and we take our

permission daily.

We are committed to selling legally and make our area a place for the family and our clients.

Hello, my name is Elsa Claudio.

I'm part of the Mission Street Vendor Association,

and I am here to support because we pay our fees,

and we think that we participate in the process and all the fees,

and we have our permits, and we are committed to continue to sell and vend legally.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Tito Ledesma, and this is SB276 is a tool that clears up the difference

between those that are vending legally and not vending legally that are maybe selling

things that are questionable.

This will help us maintain a more just environment for everyone.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

I will actually be the SB 276 that will bring us very good benefits and more than all,

participate in the local economy.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Justa Garcia.

I'm from the Mission Street Render Association, and I support SB 276 because it will benefit

us and help us participate in the local economy.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hola, buenos días.

Mi nombre es Antonia.

Soy miembro de la Asociación de Vendedores Ambulantes de la Mission Street con esta

Ley SB 276. Construiremos un futuro más justo y ordenado para todos los vendedores. Gracias.

My name is Antonia. I'm part of the Mission Street vendor, and this law will help us build

a future that is more just and organized for all vendors.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Buenos días.

Good morning, my name is Franco Gonzalez and I support SB 276 because it will help us have

safer streets for our families and protect the street vendors that are currently working

hard and honestly.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Buenos dias, señores supervisores.

Mi nombre es Maria Guevara, so miembra de la asociacion de vendedores ambulantes de

la misión.

With this law, we will build a better future and order for all customers.

Guevara.

Guevara.

Okay.

Good morning.

My name is Maria Guevara, and I am here in support of SB 276.

I'm also part of the Mission Street Render Association, and this law will help us with

a more safe and just future and keep us organized as all the street vendors organized.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Ana Nunez and I'm part of Mission Street Vendors Association and I

support this legislation.

Thank you.

to support, and I support it, but it doesn't just need any more

support. We need this law. We need it now to protect and

work for the street vending. Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Rodrigo Lopez. I'm the president of the Mission and Street

Vendors Association, and we're here to support SB

276. With this law, we build a fair and

safe future for all the vendors here in San Francisco, especially on Mission Street.

We kindly ask the Public Safety Committee to please consider

this law. We hope you can approve it and support

it. We want to say thank you to the Public Safety Committee

for your time. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Alma Castellanos, and I am the Director of

Operations at GLECHA, a San Francisco small business nonprofit. I support it personally,

and we support it as an organization because of the many reasons that the Street Vendor Association

has been up here telling you guys. Just in the time that we have been supporting this

legislation, we also, our organization personally went to Sacramento also in support of the

legislation. The many reasons, like I said, that everybody up here has been saying, but just if you

take a walk down in the Mission and you see the BART plazas, I mean, these reasons, you don't even

need to say them. You can see it. So we strongly urge the support of SB 276. Thank you. Thank you

for your comments. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Joshua Jacobo, and I serve

as the Director of Justice and Reentry at Nuestra Causa, an agency in the Mission District

that organizes street vendors and also works with incarcerated and formerly incarcerated

individuals.

We work to help those forgotten and overlooked obtain power and take control of their futures.

Nuestra Causa and Mission Street vendors have a common goal, dignity, opportunity, and fairness

for those who sell to survive.

We were proud to support the leadership and the many protections included in SB 276.

we recognize that the intent behind the law was to bring order and safety to our streets and not punishment.

Still, we must be mindful that intent and impact can differ.

Without equitable implementation, this ordinance could unintentionally increase entry to the criminal justice system

for those already living in struggle.

Individuals who may face citations, fines, and even criminal exposure for trying to survive.

Avoiding this with proactive organizing as we do, we feel is vital.

Additionally, while the city has reported meeting its outreach obligations, the reality is that the events listed did not ever reach the unpermitted vendors, informal resellers, and system-impacted sellers who have not been truly engaged by the city.

Nuestra Casa works with this population week over week, and we know that there is a major gap to close.

Our ask today is simple.

ensure the most marginalized are supported and resourced, not criminalized,

and that we as a city work with trusted organizations who can reach and support those on the margins.

That's how we ensure this law fulfills its spirit,

uplifting everyone and leaving behind no one.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello.

Good morning, supervisors, or good afternoon.

It's 12.06 now.

My name is Natalie Ortiz, and I am the Director of Strategic Initiatives of Nuestra Causa.

I serve as the Director here, and we have been working with the Mission Street vendors since before their inception and continue to.

We stand with the Mission Street vendors in supporting clear rules and a fair vending system.

Their leadership helps shape important protections within SB 276, and that effort deserves recognition.

As we move into implementation, our shared responsibility is to ensure those protections reach everyone.

At this moment, the city's outreach and support have since 2023 only truly touched those already permitted and already inside formal pathways.

Informal sellers, including people with language, literacy, or reentry barriers, have not yet been meaningfully included in the past years since 2023 ban.

We also would like to note that this ordinance gives the Director of Public Works broad authority to update the restricted items list quarterly without public input or accountability measures.

We believe adding a transparent community-informed process here would strengthen trust and prevent unintended harm.

Our recommendation is straightforward.

Continue improving the implementation structure by investing in community partners who already have the trust and relationships needed to reach those still outside the system.

And ensure that we add accountability and transparency measures to crucial decision points.

If we do that, this ordinance can be applied in a way that honors the spirit in which is created supporting safe, orderly streets while uplifting those who historically have been left out.

I have 17 seconds left, and I'd just like to add that, you know, when I think of the illegal street vendor, I am envisioning a time when I walk 24th Street almost every day, and I take the 49 quite a bit.

But I would just like to say that I imagine a man, and I remember a man selling me a sandwich he may have stole from Safeway.

And it's a sad day in San Francisco when people have to steal sandwiches to survive in San Francisco.

So we just need resources, resources, resources. Thank you.

Thank you, Natalie. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Leila Ovando, and I serve as the Director of Food

Access and Equity at Nuestra Causa. Our organization works closely with families

who survive through street vending, both permitted and unpermitted. We've seen firsthand that the

Mission Street vendors have fought for fairness and dignity and pathways that prevent harm.

Their support for SB276 comes from wanting a safer, cleaner, and more sustainable vendoring environment.

At the same time, many community members who sell goods to keep their families afloat have not been reached by the city's current outreach structure.

And these are residents facing language barriers, documentation barriers, or system involvement.

And they deserve the same pathways and protections as everyone else.

We believe in implementation can be strengthened by resourcing organizations who already have trust on the ground.

We currently provide weekly resource support, field outreach, and vendor triage.

And sharing programs are uplifted as a community-driven solution who help people step into compliance instead of falling into the criminal justice system.

If we center these needs of the most vulnerable, we can ensure that the ordinance becomes a tool of equity and opportunity rather than another point of entry into the criminal justice system, and that is the outcome we all want.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Karina.

I'm a community organizer with Nuestra Calza.

While organizing with NC, I've had the chance to attend meetings, listen to vendors, and learn from both permitted and unpermitted sellers.

What I've heard again and again is that people want the same basic things, safety, fairness, and the chance to work with dignity.

I want to uplift the Mission Street vendors who helped shape this law.

Their leadership and commitment to improving conditions for everyone is real, and it's been inspiring to learn from them.

As SB276 moves forward, we all want to make sure its benefits reach every vendor, including those who are still navigating barriers or don't fully understand the new process yet.

Many people selling out of necessity still have questions about how this law affects them or how they can access support.

Organizations like ours can help bridge that gap by listening, by showing up, and by connecting people to real resources.

All we're asking is that the city continue working with trusted community partners so outreach and support

reach those who need it most.

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing.

Streets that are safe, dignified, and supportive of people trying to provide for their families.

With strong community partnerships, I believe we can make that vision real.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public commenters for this item?

That concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And I'd like to express my gratitude to everybody who came out to support this item.

And I'd like to make a motion to send this item to the full Board of Supervisors with our positive recommendation.

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

Yes, and on the motion to forward this ordinance to the Board of Supervisors with the positive recommendation.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Member Sauter, aye.

Vice Chair Mahmood, Vice Chair Mahmood aye. Chair Dorsey aye. Chair Dorsey aye. I have three ayes. Thank you Madam Clerk. The measure passes.

Madam Clerk are there any more items before us on the agenda today? That concludes our meeting agenda. Thank you all for your participation. Today's meeting is now adjourned.

Thank you.