Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee Meeting – April 9, 2026
Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee Meeting – April 9, 2026
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met on Thursday, April 9, 2026, at 9:15 AM (presumed) to consider four agenda items: a resolution condemning ICE actions and reaffirming sanctuary city policies, two liquor license transfers (for Taza Diamore Cafe and BARC 77), and an ordinance on mandatory spay/neuter of dogs. The meeting included testimony from law enforcement officials, applicants, and members of the public.
Item 4: Resolution Condemning ICE Action and Reaffirming Sanctuary City Policies
- Discussion: Chair Matt Dorsey introduced the resolution (sponsored by Supervisor Connie Chan, who was absent) responding to a reported ICE incident at San Francisco International Airport on March 22, 2026. Dorsey emphasized the need to speak with one voice while avoiding unlawful obstruction of federal authority. He noted a factual dispute in the resolution regarding SFPD’s role.
- SFPD Chief Derek Liu testified that SFPD fully supports sanctuary city policies and did not coordinate with ICE. He explained that officers responded to a 911 call for a well-being check at Terminal 3 around 10 PM, observed a crowd, and later identified plainclothes ICE agents and uniformed CBP officers. SFPD did not assist, detain, or handcuff anyone; the lieutenant verbally advised ICE that SFPD would not participate. Uniformed officers seen escorting the detained person were CBP, not SFPD.
- District Attorney Brooke Jenkins expressed support for the resolution’s premise but objected to language mischaracterizing SFPD’s actions as assisting ICE. She stated she was the first prosecutor nationally to promise prosecution of ICE for any law violations in San Francisco. She urged the board to focus on ICE’s conduct and not undermine public trust in local law enforcement.
- Sheriff Miyamoto reaffirmed commitment to sanctuary city policies and noted that under Section 12H/I, his office may only notify ICE for individuals with serious violent felony records. He requested language tweaks to clarify law enforcement’s commitment.
- Public Comments: Two speakers (Tom Yankowski and Pete Cronowitz) supported stronger operational plans against ICE, citing examples from Denver and Los Angeles. Jerry Garber urged better communication. All supported the resolution’s intent but called for more action.
- Outcome: Chair Dorsey made a motion to continue the item to the April 23, 2026, committee meeting to allow further refinement of language, including an amendment to replace the disputed phrase with accurate wording. The motion passed 3–0 (Wong, Mahmood, Dorsey aye).
Item 1: Liquor License Transfer for Taza Diamore Cafe (700 Fourth Street)
- Discussion: Officer Brandon Erickson from SFPD’s ABC liaison unit presented a PCN report for a Type 21 off-sale license. There were zero letters of protest or support. The location is in a low-crime area (plot 288) but a high-concentration area (census tract 607.03). AOU recommended approval with nine conditions, including hours limited to 11 AM–7 PM, no exterior alcohol advertising, and no single-serving containers under 3.4 oz. The applicant (spokesperson) said they have operated a cafe at the Caltrain station for 23 years and are expanding next door to serve beer, wine, and liquor primarily for train passengers, along with Mitchell’s Ice Cream and Go Hill Pizza.
- Public Comment: None.
- Outcome: Chair Dorsey moved to direct the clerk to prepare a resolution finding that the license serves public convenience or necessity. The motion passed 3–0.
Item 2: Liquor License Transfer for BARC 77 (77 Cambon Drive)
- Discussion: Officer Erickson presented a PCN report for a Type 48 on-sale license. There was one letter of protest and zero letters of support. The location is in a high-crime area (plot 999) but a low-concentration area (census tract 332.03). AOU recommended approval with four conditions, including noise control and litter maintenance. The applicant’s representative described plans for a sports bar with security measures, ID scanners, and community engagement. A property manager expressed support, noting the area lacks a gathering place. Opposing public speakers (Patrick Kelly, Rebecca Shannon) cited past noise and crime issues from previous bar operations and demanded enforceable security.
- Public Comment: Two speakers in support, two in opposition. Supporters cited community need and the owner’s investment. Opponents pointed to ongoing noise, partying, and lack of security enforcement.
- Outcome: Chair Dorsey moved to direct the clerk to prepare a resolution finding that the license serves public convenience or necessity, expressing confidence that the proprietor will address neighborhood concerns. The motion passed 3–0.
Item 3: Ordinance on Mandatory Spay/Neuter of Dogs
- Discussion: Chair Dorsey proposed continuing the item for up to one year to allow a data-driven analysis with UC Davis. He announced an immediate expanded partnership between SF Animal Care & Control (ACC) and the SF SPCA, including: SPCA increasing transfers from ACC to at least 300 dogs/year; ACC and SPCA partnering with UC Davis to study shelter data; and quarterly progress meetings. Dorsey noted the goal is to reduce euthanasia. He also stated that the city administrator will report back in six months, potentially in a public hearing.
- Public Comments: Dr. Richard Vollier (professor emeritus, UC Davis) recommended mandatory microchipping instead of spay/neuter and noted that mandatory spay laws generally don’t work. Barbara Link Smith (American Kennel Club) offered to assist.
- Outcome: Chair Dorsey moved to continue the item to the call of the chair (up to one year). The motion passed 2–0 (Wong excused).
Key Outcomes
- Item 4: Continued to April 23, 2026, for language revisions. Motion passed 3–0.
- Item 1: Approved. Motion passed 3–0.
- Item 2: Approved. Motion passed 3–0.
- Item 3: Continued to the call of the chair for up to one year. Motion passed 2–0 (Supervisor Wong excused).
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, everyone. This meeting will come to order. I'd like to welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. For Thursday, April 9th, 2026, I'm Supervisor Matt Dorsey, Chair of this committee, and I'm joined today by my fellow committee members, Supervisor Alan Wong and uh Vice Chair Balal Machmud will be joining us momentarily. As always, we're grateful to our clerk, Ms. Monique Creighton, whom we thank for staffing us and keeping us on track today. As well, we're appreciative of the for the entire team at SFGov TV for facilitating and broadcasting today's meeting meeting. And we're that is especially true to true for our producer today, Ms. Kalina Mendoza. Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements? Yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electron electronic devices. Documents to include it to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email them to myself, the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee clerk at M O N I Q E. T-O-N at SFGOV dot or G. Or you may submit 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 in which you are commenting. Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisor's agenda of April 21st, 2026 unless otherwise stated. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I would now like to start today's meeting, and we're gonna take an item out of order. Item number four. Madam Clerk, would you please call item four? Yes, item number four is a resolution condemning immigration and customs enforcement ICE action, urging the United States Congress to fund the Transportation Security Agency and urging San Francisco law enforcement agencies to recommit to sanctuary city policies. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um before we start the discussion, I want to acknowledge Supervisor Connie Chan, who introduced this resolution but is unable to be with us this morning. I appreciate her leadership in bringing this forward. Um I also wanna thank uh police chief Derek Liu and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins for being here today. Um this resolution responds to a reported ICE incident at San Francisco International Airport. Um it raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the role of federal enforcement in our city. Um for this committee, the focus is on our local responsibilities. Uh we want to ensure that our police department, sheriff's department, and other city law enforcement agencies are acting consistent with our sanctuary city policies and uh due process for all ordinance. I also want to be clear that I'm approaching this with a focus on the law. Um there have has been some public confusion, honestly, across the political spectrum about what sanctuary is and isn't. Um, and I think at this moment in our country, it is incredibly important that San Francisco speak with one voice to our immigrant communities that are feeling um more vulnerable than ever. Um we are seeing provocative actions by the federal government that, unlike anything that we have seen before. Um I spent many years in the city attorney's office uh working on sanctuary-related issues, and I have some familiarity with them. Um sanctuary city policies are rooted in our 10th amendment rights as a local government to not do the job of the federal government. It's a separation of powers provision in the Constitution that enables local governments and state governments to not be commandeered by the federal government to do federal the federal government's job. Historically, one of the things that I think often gets lost in conversations around sanctuary city policies is that these actually originated with law enforcement itself. Um, back in the 1970s, oddly enough, it was um LAPD chief Darrell Gates who introduced a provision for LAPD, recognizing that it is not in the interests of law enforcement to have immigrant communities mistrust their law enforcement agencies. Um they implemented, I believe it was uh special order number 40 that was really a groundbreaking sanctuary city policy for LAPD several years later. It was um then Mayor Diane Feinstein who implemented it here, I believe, in 1989. We have been a sanctuary city. That means that we have the we have the ability, and we we I think have the moral responsibility to not do the federal government's job.
openpublica.com