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.

But we have to be very careful.

Also to not obstruct the federal government's job and to recognize that federal authority can be exercised lawfully within our city limits.

The police department and other law enforcement agencies have a legal and charter responsibility to protect public safety.

Sometimes that may look to an uninformed uh observer as though this is something that's being we're assisting um federal actions.

That is not the case.

And in fact, having been in the city attorney's office through some very difficult relationships with Republican administrations in years past, admittedly, not anything like what we're seeing today.

One thing that we have to be aware of is many of the actions that the Federal Government is taking today are intended to be provocative.

They are intended to get local governments to step on the wrong side of the law and to make an example of uh progressive cities that want to do right by their immigrant communities and vulnerable populations.

The biggest favor that we could do to Stephen Miller and Donald Trump is to do something that gets San Francisco on the wrong side of the U.S.

Justice Department.

Um I really have appreciated throughout the years the guidance of the City Attorney's Office making sure that we are doing this right.

The other thing that I really want to elevate as an imperative is what I touched on a moment ago, and that is right now our immigrant communities are feeling extraordinary pressure, unlike anything that we have ever seen.

Um this is personal to me because I'm married to an immigrant as well.

Um this is part of what my life experience is right now.

It is a worrisome time.

And if ever there was a time that the city and county of San Francisco needs to speak with one voice, um I want to make sure that we're doing that here.

Um there is in this resolution a factual dispute.

Um we have proposed some I think there is some proposed language, but as a courtesy to the leadership of my colleague, I want to make sure that Supervisor Chan is on board with it.

And if I don't get um time, you know, if I if I don't get that, what I will do is probably continue this if my colleagues agree to the next meeting.

But because I think this is an important teachable moment, I really appreciate the chief of police and the district attorney and the sheriff being here so that we can walk through and just to help educate people at while the focus is on this, again, with an eye toward making sure that our every immigrant in San Francisco is aware that to the extent possible under the Constitution and the law, we're gonna uphold sanctuary, and we're gonna speak with one voice as a city.

So seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments, um, I would like to, I think, uh invite up, I'm not sure as Chief Lou, I'm not sure what order we would like to go in, but I would like to invite up Chief Lou to address the uh the factual representation in the resolution.

All right, thank you.

Good morning, supervisors, and thank you for this opportunity to um address this, address this draft resolution.

Um I think you said it best.

Um I think there's I won't speak for them that but there's clear alignment among certainly the uh public safety team behind me with regard to these matters.

So um I just want to start by saying that it's incredibly important to me and the department that um, you know, A, that there is an understanding with the community of where we stand um with regard to these issues, uh, as well as a factual representation of what happened at SFO.

And I think it's also vitally important that the community understands our position uh uh in these uh uh matters as it relates to immigration as well as what actually happened over at SFO.

Um so I'll start really quickly with a few overarching points that I wanted to make.

Um really I wanted to come from uh straight from the the horse's mouth, so to speak, uh, as the chief of police to reiterate the fact that the San Francisco Police Department fully supports and is committed to San Francisco's immigrant communities.

Um, my grandparents were immigrants.

I had to speak Cantonese to them uh in order for us to communicate.

So you know, we'll always support uh our immigrant communities.

You already stated San Francisco Sanctuary city laws uh are longstanding and a core part of of what we do, but specifically as relates to the San Francisco uh police department.

It certainly directs how we serve the public.

Uh we we don't participate in federal civil immigration enforcement.

Um city resources are not, or our resources are not used to support these activities.

Um, and our services are provided regardless of immigration status.

These policies are rooted in public safety.

We want the community to trust us.

We want the community to report crime to us, and this is integral to public safety here.

Second point, I want to reiterate.

So I think it's important to understand that we are faced with challenging optics that you spoke a little bit about.

We're on the razor's edge, and we tried to do the best that we can, guided by our policies and the ideals that we've just discussed.

Our role in those situations are strictly limited to public safety.

And with that, I'll move on to the SFO incident that occurred at around 10 o'clock on March 22nd.

And I will just reiterate because I think that there is some misunderstanding or misperception here.

To be clear, there was no prior coordination.

There was no prior communication from ICE to us, or vice versa, period.

So I'll walk you through it.

That night, around 10 o'clock, SFPD received a 911 call from a concerned party reporting a female who was crying at SF Terminal 3, and they were requesting a well-being check of this person.

That initiated our response.

During that response, more information started coming in.

Some of it involved two males in a dispute with a female.

So officers responded with that information in mind.

They interpreted that situation based on that information.

They responded, and the first officers that arrived on scene noted that there was a large crowd and immediately asked for more officers.

So that created another response.

But it was that evolution of 911 call, the content of that call, and then what officers observed when they got there that got more officers to that scene.

And it was not because of some prior coordination.

Shortly thereafter, supervisors and a lieutenant arrived on scene.

What they observed were two plainclothes individuals that were later identified as ICE agents, as well as some number of uniformed customs and border protection officers.

To be clear, their off their uniforms are very much like ours.

Blue with a patch.

From that point forward, after the lieutenant verbally advised those those officers or ICE agents that we would not be participating.

Our officers stood by to provide public safety.

And part of providing public safety was de-escalation and sometimes de-escalation with our mirror presence is what works.

So just to go over it again, SAPD did not participate in or assist with the enforcement action.

We did not detain, handcuff, or physically restrain any individual.

And on top of that, it took nearly 30 minutes for this action to resolve.

So as you could tell from the video, temperatures were certainly rising, and they were only getting worse over that long time span for that particular incident to resolve.

And then the last piece that I'll touch on is there's, I think, video that was concerning to a lot of people where the detained person was finally put on this wheelchair type apparatus and escorted away.

There seemed to be a number of uniformed officers that escorted those ICE agents away.

I want to make it clear, those were not SFPD officers.

Those are CPP officers.

In closing, I just wanted to personally clarify the Department's actions and ensure that our role is accurately reflected in this resolution.

And that I want and I also wanted to affirm the SAPD's commitment to San Francisco Sanctuary City Laws and to maintain the trust of our immigrant communities is paramount.

Thank you.

Uh questions.

Thank you, Chief.

And I'd like to now invite up uh District Attorney Jenkins.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

Uh I am here for one reason, and it's not to disagree with the premise of this resolution as it relates to federal immigration enforcement in the city and county of San Francisco.

Um I stand with our city in rejecting the way that this Federal administration has been operating when it comes to immigration enforcement.

But I am here in large part because I believe that this resolution is overbroad in a sense and in a way that I believe is subject to destroy the trust that our respective agencies have in the city and county of San Francisco with not only our immigrant communities, but with those that support our immigrant communities right now.

And what I mean when I say that it is overbroad, rather than simply focusing on what is being done by this Federal Administration, at the end of this resolution, it seeks, it includes language that seeks to have our three respective agencies reaffirm our commitment to Sanctuary City as though that is something that is in question right now.

I must point out that not only have I been vocal about my disagreement with the way that this administration has been conducting itself, that I was in opposition to this administration sending immigration and customs enforcement here to San Francisco, but that I was the first prosecutor in this nation to publicly say that I would prosecute ICE for any violations of law should they uh violate the law here in San Francisco.

In my view, there is no question that my office remains committed to our sanctuary city policies as they stand.

The police department, the sheriff, they've been clear over the course of the past year that they too stand by and with our immigrant communities, that they are here to protect them and that they will abide by Sanctuary City.

And so to all of those who not only drafted this resolution but sponsored it, I find it problematic that we are being caught up in this because it's quite frankly, I think um politically convenient to do so.

And at this moment in time when our immigrant communities need nothing more than to be able to trust that we in law enforcement here locally will protect them, that they can trust us that if something happens, we will respond not to penalize, but to protect, that they can report crime to the police department and to the sheriff's department, that they can come into a courtroom and testify and cooperate with the criminal justice process and not be fearful of us turning them over to the federal government.

This resolution seeks to call that into question, in my view.

There is language, and I'll be more blunt than our chief.

There is language in this resolution that mischaracterizes what took place at SFO.

Period.

Nobody stopped to ask from this board what clearly happened, to have an understanding of the truth.

This resolution adopts a false statement that suggests that the police department acted in a way that assisted ICE's efforts that night, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I just saw a news story the other night, which broadcast a publicly available dispatch audio where the senior officer on staff at that scene dispatch to those officers that were present that you are not to assist.

We are not to assist.

Let me be clear.

So to have language included, that is one, false, but two leads the public to mistrust our police department is inappropriate and unfair.

And it does not further the good of the city and county of San Francisco.

It does not further the best interests of the immigrant communities here.

And rather than doing things that are politically performative and politically convenient, we need to stop ourselves and ask the right questions first.

We need to not publicly represent that we work together, but then when it's politically convenient, do things that undermine one another.

That cannot continue to happen in this city.

And I thought that this board was different.

And so that is my issue, and that is why I am here today.

I have no problem saying where we stand, where my office stands on Sanctuary City, but I don't need a board resolution to demand that I do that.

I don't need a board resolution to call into question in front of this entire city that somehow in this moment of time they shouldn't be sure that I stand by Sanctuary City.

Because as I've said more than any other elected official in San Francisco, I was on national news making it clear where I stood and where my office stood.

And that's what is problematic.

Ask the questions first and remember who you are upset at because it is not us.

When I think of the tenuous position our police department is in, try to understand.

Try to empathize with a police department full of people like myself who are the children of immigrants because I am the child of an immigrant.

Our police chief is the grandchild of immigrants.

Almost every officer at that scene that night is somehow connected to an immigrant story.

I guarantee it.

Who are caught in the middle of something none of us asked for, which is a destructive federal administration that wants to do the things that it's doing.

And their job is to make sure that this doesn't get out of hand with our citizens, with our residents, to make sure that they are safe from the harm of this administration.

Because we all know that any of those incidents should regular average everyday people escalate things, become violent, become, to act in a way that leads those agents to get violent back.

We have seen two lives lost in Minneapolis.

We know what they are capable of.

Their job is to make sure it doesn't get to that point.

And yeah, it's hard.

Nobody wants to see what appears to be agents being protected, but that's not what they are doing.

They are protecting the people from the harm of those agents.

They are making sure that no lives in our city are lost the way that they were in Minneapolis.

And it is your job as members of the board to help explain that to people, not to make the situation worse, not to sow distrust.

And I've seen, right, Supervisor Mahmood, you're one of the co-sponsors of this.

And that our job is to help them do their jobs correctly.

Help explain to people what their obligation is under the city charter.

And that their intent is pure.

They don't want to be involved in this either.

And so I ask very plainly that you guys craft a resolution and amend it to focus on what it needs to be focused on, which is what ICE is doing.

Let us do our jobs of making sure that people continue to trust us.

We don't need you guys to tell us to do that.

And to make sure that whatever factual assertions are present are truthful and accurate, because that's what the people of San Francisco deserve.

Thank you, District Attorney Jenkins and Sheriff Miyamoto would like to step up.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Good morning, everyone.

I want to emphasize that our presentation here this morning is one in which we're showing the same solidarity that we show in public safety hand in hand with all of our government leaders when it comes to keeping the city safe.

The ICE issue and civil immigration enforcement as conducted currently by this federal administration has presented challenges for all of us, as clearly defined by my colleagues.

I want to bring up two points here.

One, we still remain committed to sanctuary city policy.

I have a specific interest because in sections 12H and I of the Sanctuary City policy, it is very clear that the only time that we have the possibility of working with ICE in immigration enforcement is when a set of circumstances come up when somebody has a criminal history, charges, uh adjudication of those charges that pose a significant risk to public safety and to the community because of their serious and violent felony record.

That's the only time that we're allowed to speak to or contact ICE and notify them and work with them on removing an individual from our community that poses this kind of threat and risk.

It is something that falls to me as the sheriff, uh and something that's very difficult to communicate to our community at times when it appears that we are uh working with ICE.

So I appreciate that we have this forum to discuss sanctuary city policy and our role here as law enforcement leaders in that.

Uh Chief Liu mentioned the challenge, not just at the airport.

There's a larger challenge because we have incidents involving ICE civil immigration enforcement that affect our communities.

They are out there, they are doing their thing, not coordinating with us, and it is important to make sure that the public is aware of our role.

And we can put out our policies, we can tell everybody here in public forums, but it's really what the public's perception of our role is communicated by leaders such as you in your respective districts.

So I would ask uh for two things today.

Um, that we look to the language of this resolution, and as you heard from all of us, uh regardless of our positions, we still are in full support of something that messages to the community who we are and our commitment to sanctuary city policy.

This is an opportunity with this resolution to uh tweak the language in a way that shows that we have a continued commitment to sanctuary city policy, that we uphold San Francisco values just as everybody else does, uh, and that we actually hold them higher because we are responsible for public safety.

So our commitment to the sanctuary policy, our commitment to the community and making sure that all members of the community feel safe in what we do is very important.

And the words that we use and the language and rhetoric that is used to show that commitment should apply to all of us, including public safety, and there should be no confusion as to whether or not we are committed to this.

Uh so I ask that you uh work with us in making sure that the language is clear, that the message is clear, and that subsequent to just this resolution alone, that we're still out in the community together, all of us speaking to and reassuring all members of the community that we don't work with ICE, that we do not coordinate with them on civil immigration enforcement, and that we are not a part of the larger issue that we're here for them, not against them.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Sheriff Miyamoto.

So I have before us, there is language to amend the resolution that we have from the San Francisco Police Department.

I will confess I I feel like we are really close and really united.

I appreciate that Supervisor Chan has communicated to me that you know do what I think is best.

This is one of those issues where I think it's more important that we get this right than get it done quickly.

And I I'm gonna I intend to make a motion um just to continue this to the April 23rd, just as an out of an abundance of caution and as a courtesy to all my colleagues, um Supervisor Chan and the co-sponsors as well.

For the sake of transparency, I will say that the the one proposed amendment was to strike the language which reads um in the San Francisco later San Francisco Police Department officers arrived and formed a barrier around the ICE agents without requesting to see proper documentation.

Um the SFPD proposed replacing that with and later San Francisco Police Department officers responded to a 911 call for service, made contact with the involved parties, and confirmed the individuals were ICE agents.

So I would be inclined to support that, but because of some other parts of this, unless unless colleagues feel feel differently.

What I'm hearing from a lot of people is there's some minor different disagreements, um, but we're close anyway, and I actually think it's more important that we have be unified and speak with one strong voice on this.

Vice Chair Mockwood.

Thank you, Chair Dorsey.

Um wanted to thank the district attorney and the chief and the sheriff for being here today and sharing your comments as well.

Um I want to acknowledge that I agree with everything that was said.

Um and actually uh during when this event happened, Chief Lou and I talked uh within days of the incident, and you walked me through everything you walked through today.

And uh appreciated your your overview that agents uh your officers did identify those agents at the time, and it was uh in result of the conversation that we had that you and I have been consulting on a separate ordinance to actually put into the admin code um certifying your existing executive directives, which uh administer police to uh whenever feasible and when safe to do so on calls of service to identify agents.

And the reason for these ordinances and including this resolution is that when there is public incidents that happen that might alter public perception, it is important for the board and for us as a city to re-clarify and re-clarify and double down on that intent.

And that is the purpose, I think, of the original purpose of this resolution was to continue to rebuild that trust to ensure that residents, uh, immigrants, refugees, uh, and across San Francisco know that we're continuing to uh reaffirm Sanctuary City.

Um, and that is the intent.

We will have to uh we have done several resolutions at the board around Sanctuary City over the last year and years past because people get confused when they see things happen, and it is our responsibility as a board to reaffirm that um as is necessary.

Um I agree that based on the conversation Chief Lou and I had uh weeks ago, that uh this item, uh this last component in the warehouse clause is mischaracterizing the events, and so that is why I'm supportive of that amendment happening and have appreciated uh Chief your your partnership and consultation on this uh issue for the last several weeks and appreciate um all the public safety officials for being here as well.

So thank you.

I'll be in favor of the chair's decision on how to um get to resolution here.

Great.

So thank you, Vice Chair Mockmood.

Um Supervisor Wong.

I'm supportive of the amendments brought up by FPD.

I'll leave it at that.

Great.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Um Madam Clerk, why don't we invite up public comment?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item shall it am now on the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Tom Yankowski, and I'm uh member of an affinity group.

Uh that's uh a bunch of uh committed neighbors that are working to uh in our Norway Valley and Glen Park area to protect our immigrant community.

Um we certainly applaud your efforts to reaffirm uh San Francisco's uh city sanctuary movement or you know law, but we feel like a stronger statement is needed and a detailed citywide uh operational plan needs to be put into effect to counter ICE and any kind of possible military deployment.

Um we have written a letter that we've submitted to um Mayor Lurie, a three-page letter, which I'll leave with the clerk um, uh and also to um Supervisor Bandleman, who are is our district representative, um outlining our suggestions, and just to summarize, we have four major suggestions that follow the lead of others that have taken um a stand on this issue.

Um, the mayor of Denver signed an executive order uh requiring law enforcement to intervene when intervene whenever ICE agents utilize force that could result in harm um or any kind of serious serious injury.

Um in addition, they must provide life-saving aid to any individuals harmed by ICE.

Um, and reflecting what you were said about Minneapolis, we don't want that to happen here.

Um also now required to document ICE activity using their body cams.

Number two, um, the Los Angeles Unified School District recently voted unanimously to cease doing business with any vendor that materially supplies or enables ICE mass detention, surveillance, or racial profiling operations.

Thank you for your comments.

And I we support um supervisors Mahmood and Chen's uh legislation to elect um SFPD to confirm the credentials of any ICE agent.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers?

That concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now.

Oh, we have one more.

Floor is yours.

That's right.

Hi, my name is Pete Cronowitz.

I'm a San Francisco-based singer songwriter.

I founded a small music collective of social justice artists.

Um also on the board of a uh music industry organization called uh music declares emergency.

Um I also work with a broad number of organizations locally, and uh I applaud the sheriff's office, the police department, the district attorney, the board, and the mayor, and the work that we're doing.

I think we're a team.

I really do.

I think we're we're not in opposition.

And I believe that we'd still, like Tom Menkowski said, we need to do a little bit more.

I think the proposition is a start, but it you know, you need we need to have a full plan with potential funding to support the grassroots organizations that are doing the work to defend people who are you know, like on the street to rapid response.

I mean, we learned a lot from Minnesota and Minneapolis, and we should take that learning and deploy it now in this moment where we can prepare, because the best way to discourage ICE from coming here with military force is to know that they're gonna be met with resistance, and I know San Francisco is prepared.

We saw tens of thousands of people come out that the No Kings march.

And that's just the start.

There are neighborhoods being organized now to respond to ICE.

So I would just encourage you to put additional pieces in place that is not just words.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do you have any additional speakers on this item?

Hi, I'm Jerry Garber, and I'm um a citizen, and I just want to say that I think you need to communicate more effectively with the public about what you're doing, because we're not hearing it, and we're feeling really insecure, and as a result, we are working so hard as a neighborhood to stand up for our immigrant community, to do monitoring of our immigrant community, to watch schools, to watch senior places, to go to the park and rec center where nannies are.

We are just not feeling this support.

We understand it in writing, but we do not feel that it's coming from our government.

So please just work on communicating more effectively with the public about what you want to do.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Vice Chair Mockmood.

Just want to thank again the people who came out for public comment for reaffirming and the support for the original intent of the resolution as well.

I think again the last comment, I think, really emphasizes the importance of the work we do as a board in issuing the original intent of this resolution, which is to clarify and be transparent about what the policies are that we have in place that SFPD is already doing to make sure that we are keeping people safe and not collaborating with ICE.

And when these incidents happen, it is our role as a government to do the best we can to make that information transparent, to make that rebuild that trust as we can.

And again, I appreciate uh Chief Liu, District Attorney, and the sheriff for being here for continuing their commitment to Sanctuary City.

Um and we as a board are here to continue to be that bridge between the public and the government to give you the confidence as a public that uh we have the best interests of every San Franciscan in mind.

Um and I know that was the original intent of Supervisor Chan's resolution as well.

And again, thank you, Chair Dorsey, for bringing this to committee and for helping us get to uh getting all the facts right as well.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mahmood.

I will just say that when this um this resolution came up as chair of this committee, there was a way that we we might have done this that was sort of just behind the scenes, seeing if we could get to something.

But I actually, in many ways, I felt it was important.

Let's let's get this scheduled as quickly as possible and have uh a discussion to use this as a teachable moment because I think there were some facts in dispute.

Um as I mentioned, you know, much of my formative experience on this um law and on these issues was in the city attorney's office.

I remember back in 2008, 2009, 2010, um the juvenile probation department had some issues where it was found to be in violation of federal law on sanctuary, the things that it was doing unbeknownst to then Mayor Newsom and then City Attorney Dennis Herrera, um, it turned out to be a really big uh problem.

And then U.S.

Attorney Joe Russinello convened a criminal grand jury um possibly to prosecute city employees um who were just doing what they thought was right.

Um it it's so important to get this right.

And that wasn't that wasn't just a Republican administration.

Joe Russinello was a Bush appointee, but this was going on in in the Obama administration under Attorney General Eric Holder.

So, you know, that's if that's what's happening, you know, set many years ago, we can imagine what would happen in this administration where many of these things are designed to be provocative.

It's just it is something where I feel like we should be doing everything we can to speak with one voice, reassure our immigrant communities, but also to the one of the public commenters' points.

We have to do a better job of communicating the nuances of something that is ju is very nuanced.

Um we have the ability to not cooperate, but we have to be very cautious about doing anything that uh that is uh obstructionist or legally problematic.

So um at this time, I would like seeing no one else on the roster, I would like to make a motion to continue this item um to the April 23rd meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee.

And again, I want to do that as a courtesy to my colleagues because I think it's important.

I think we are really close on this.

Whatever our disputes may be on some of the facts, I think it's important that we speak with one unified voice for our immigrant communities.

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

Yes, and then the motion to continue this item to the April 23rd meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Shir Mahmood?

Vice from Mahmood, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

I.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And my appreciation again to everybody who participated and especially members of the public.

Madam Clerk, may we now call item number one on this agenda.

Yes.

Item number one is a hearing to consider that the person a person, premise-to-premise transfer of a type 21, off-sale general beer, wine, and distilled liquor license, spirit distilled spirits liquor license to Taza Diamore Inc.

Doing business as Taza Diamore Cafe, located at 700 Fourth Street in District 6 will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um, I'd like to welcome Officer Brandon Erickson from the San Francisco Police Department's liaison unit to the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, or ABC.

Uh thank you, Officer Erickson.

Uh, this is a business that's in my district at the city's only Caltrain station, which is located uh close to Mission Bay.

I'm glad to support it.

It's a great fit for the location and should be a real convenience for many people in that in that area.

Um I don't know if there are represent representatives of the applicant present, but after the um the officer presents, usually we like to give the applicants the ability.

You don't have to, but just the ability to come up and say some things.

So Officer Erickson, the floor is yours.

Thank you, and uh good morning, supervisors.

You have before you a PCN report for Taza de Amore Inc.

as Taza de Amor Cafe.

They have applied for a type 21 license, and if disapproved, this would allow them them to operate in off-sale general at 700 Fourth Street.

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

They are located in plot two eighty eight, which is considered a low crime area.

They are in census tract 607.03, which is considered a high concentration area.

Southern Station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation, approval with the following conditions.

Condition one, petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons on any property adjacent to the licensed premise as depicted on the ABC Forum 257.

Number two, the petitioners shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control as depicted on ABC Forum 257.

Number three, sales and service of alcoholic beverages may be permitted only between the hours of 11 a.m.

and 7 p.m.

each day of the week.

Number four, there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages.

Number five, any graffiti painted or marked upon the premise or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours of being applied.

Number six, no beer, wine, and distilled spirits shall be sold in bottles or containers of less than 100 milliliter milliliters, which is 3.4 ounces.

Number 7, beer or malt beverage products, regardless of size, shall only be sold in prepackaged multi-unit quantities.

Number eight, no wine shall be sold with an alcohol content greater than 15% by volume.

And lastly, number nine, peace officers as listed in section 830.1 of the California Penal Code and the director and other persons employed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the Administration and Enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act and hereby authorized to visit and inspect the proposed premises as outlined in red on the ABC Forum 257 at any time the undersigned is exercising the privileges authorized by the license on such premise.

Okay.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

Um I don't know if there are any representatives from the applicant present.

There's no obligation to speak, and I have no questions, but I always want to make give you the opportunity to make a pitch if you'd like and express my appreciation for uh operating a business in my district.

Thank you.

Uh we're located inside the Caltrans Station, they've been there 23 years, and now we're expanding to the spot next door.

The gentleman was there for 50 years.

He passed away during COVID.

And um so now uh we're taking over the lease next door.

We're expanding, and we're gonna be selling what he sold, beer and wine and liquor for only the like 90 percent of the people will be taking the train.

Glass of wine, you know, or champagne or something like that, you know, maybe going to the games, uh, but a high demand is they want it back again.

So we'll be selling doing that along with uh Go Hill Pizza.

We partnered with them.

Mitchell's ice cream, we'll be selling Mitchell's ice cream.

So um the expansion is gonna be um connected to my cafe, so we'll be expanding.

We signed a nice big lease and everything, so yeah.

So we're pretty excited about it.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

Okay, seeing no one on the roster with uh questions or comments.

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

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

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, it appears we have no public comment for this item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And at this time, I would like to move that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general public premises beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to the applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

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

Yes, I'm on the motion directing the clerk to prepare a resolution and forward that resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong, Member Wong, I, Victor Mahmood, Victor Mahmood, I.

Victor Mahmood, I, Chair Dorsey.

I chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations to the applicant.

Madam Clerk, can we please call the next item?

Item number two.

Yes, item number two is a hearing to consider that the person to person premises premise transfer of type of a type 48 on sale general public premises, beer or wine, a distilled spirits liquor license to 77 assets.

LLC doing businesses, BARC 77, located at 77 Cambon Drive in District 7 will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and we welcome back Officer Ericsson to the lectern.

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

You have before you a PCN report for 77 assets LLC as BARC 77.

They have applied for a type 48 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate in on sale general public premise at 77 Cambod Drive.

There is one letter of protest, zero letters of support.

They are located in plot 999, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in census track 332.03, which is considered a low concentration area.

Terra Val Station has no opposition.

AOU 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 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 one 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 three, petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons on any property adjacent to the licensed premise as depicted on ABC Forum 257.

And lastly, condition four, 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 Forum 257.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

Uh this business is located in District 7, and it's my understanding that this liquor license transfer has the support of our colleague Supervisor Melgar.

Uh I'm glad to support this small business in the uh Park Merced neighborhood.

Um I don't know if there are any representatives of the applicant present.

I think we do have the same thing.

I don't think that we have any questions for you, and there's no requirement that you speak, but we always like to give people an opportunity to say a few words.

The floor is yours.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Virgo McAlaney.

I'm the owner and uh we're looking to open a sports bar.

Um designed to be a controlled and respectful environment for the dolls.

We'll take the process very seriously, and uh upon approval uh we'll be keeping up with all the ABC's uh restrictions and whatnot.

This my uh uh GM and uh Yes I'm I'm here on behalf of Kayla Johnson.

I'm tasked with actually putting together everything and structuring it.

I've been in the bar industry for over 19 years.

Um I've been at that there's an aggressive there's a grocery store adjacent.

I want to get to know the people in the community before Fergal and Ms.

Johnson committed to this endeavor.

Um I've been there purchasing groceries for people, um, greeting them, getting to know the community.

And there are some shortfalls.

Um what I see is there's nothing in the community that other than Stonestown that people can go to.

And they close at a certain time.

Um the time that I actually took a look at the premises, that was back over 2019, pre-COVID.

It's changed.

It's a lot of uh lot more people that are there that are uh Section 8 and uh things like this, but that doesn't mean that they're not entitled to some type of entertainment.

Um I've always found it best your security company that you hire for the evenings that you have.

Um I've always took the extra steps with any establishment that I was affiliated with as far as management to have security not just police the door, but actually police the surrounding area where customers park at because there are a lot of things that go on that are CD and parking lots.

And um these kids nowadays, I've seen I've got friends that own like Fizzy's bar and over on Gary, and they have college night, and they showed me a stack of IDs about like this, and looking at them, you cannot tell that they're a phony ID.

So I told Fergal, I told Ms.

Johnson, you guys need to invest in a really good ID scanner, and it cost them like four thousand bucks to do that.

So they will have an ID scanner, and I told my suggestion to them, not tell, but collect the IDs and actually confiscate them at the door, but also take them to the Terravel station and turn these IDs in because these kids are getting these fake IDs from somewhere, and they look incredibly good.

But um I think the bar would be good for the community, and uh if the people have somewhere to go with an activity, then they're not buying alcohol from the local store or whatever they got in the refrigerator, drinking in a parking lot.

And in the evenings, especially, you would have some type of some form of security there, so their activity wouldn't go unchecked.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thanks so much.

Really appreciate it.

Good morning, Chair and members of the panel.

My name is Jacqueline, and I'm here to represent the Park Merced Shopping Center.

I've been on site for the past 15 years there.

And I am in support of the proposed bar located at 77 Cambon Drive.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

Yes.

Will will we have a section where you can speak during public comment?

The um chair will be calling that show.

Oh no, I work there.

I'm representing them for the property manager.

Well, how about the how about my apologies and I did this?

We're about to go to public comment anyway.

So I'm what I'm gonna do just procedurally is this was the outright.

We wanted the invite the applicant to speak.

Oh, yeah.

And what I'm gonna do now is to ask the the chair to invite up public comment and speaking.

No problem.

Thanks.

My apologies for that.

Sorry about the may we open this item up to public comment.

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

All speakers will have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh, public comment is now open.

My apologies for the for the hiccup.

Now you're the floor is yours.

Thank you.

No problem.

Let me continue.

So I want to address the primary concern that has been raised are whether this area is already saturated with alcohol serving establishments.

The short answer is it is not.

There are many businesses there with alcohol licenses.

However, they function in a different manner.

They're five primarily food businesses.

So the bar would be a place for people to gather as a place to congregate and have a place to get together and hang out.

Whereas the restaurants only have a limited capacity to where they can have people stay and a means for people to be.

Focus is food, not alcohol, and they don't have a full liquor license, so they wouldn't be serving a full bar at the restaurants.

Beyond that, this project brings positive benefit.

It activates the space, increases foot traffic, provides jobs, and contributes to a safer environment for people to gather, whereas they wouldn't be drinking in the parking lot, which is what we're seeing now.

So it wouldn't be an overconcentration, and it would bring a place for people in the community to gather in a safer environment.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

Uh thank you for the opportunity.

My name is Patrick Kelly.

I've been living in Park Merced since 2007.

I have a strong opposition to granting this license for the mere fact that previous owners are of this of this bar.

There was no security weekends, like Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

Probably could not get to sleep till like three o'clock in the morning.

Recently, people the managers of this site have been putting up signs as regards no trespassing hanging out, nothing is enforced.

People are hanging coming out at night, like 10 o'clock at the night, they're drinking till two, three in the morning.

The recent the past donors, I talked to them of the bar and asked them why they were doing security as regards people because people were gathering in the parking lot, partying, drinking, and then going to the bar.

I asked them and they said that's none of my business, none of my concern.

As soon as the people leave the bar, that's nothing to do with me.

I have called the police numerous times.

I have the records of the police, other records.

Um late in the last year or so, just safety in the in this neighborhood has gotten so bad.

Even last Saturday morning, we had like a shooting in the park in the in the mall.

So I have serious concerns.

If the bar, I have no opposition to like new business, but I do want to make have a clear understanding that security will be provided and protecting our comfort of life because right now it is so bad.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

Um good morning or good afternoon, board.

Um, my name is Antonio.

Um I was born and raised in San Francisco.

I'm fortunate enough to own the laundromat in the shopping center.

So I've interacted with the community for the last 16 years.

I'm all for the uh approval for the gentleman to pursue his business and offer the community a way to unwind and have a social environment and to watch their favorite sports team, the warriors, diners, uh have a little karaoke night.

Just a social atmosphere which we have lost after COVID.

Um, unfortunately, a lot of locations like this have closed down because COVID has wiped out the economy a little bit, and they're making a substantial investment into the community.

And a lot of my customers, I interact, I'm very fortunate they come to my establishment, and they can't wait for the opening of this.

They missed it because there used to be a location that offered a service within 2019, but COVID unfortunately wiped it out.

Um the community is excited.

An opportunity on wind after a day of work, go out, not stay at home, be on TikTok to interact with people and have a safe environment to enjoy uh the beautiful San Francisco.

I appreciate the administration.

I love the new mayor, how they are cutting red tape to have more businesses open up.

This is the perfect opportunity.

I watch his um speeches, and I would like the board to approve this.

A lot of the community that I interact with there at my customers are can't wait to have this service.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Good morning.

Thank you for listening.

My name's Rebecca Shannon.

I am a uh have lived at Parc Marcel now for about 17 years.

So I've been experienced this community in all sorts of aspects.

And as the gentleman before us pointed out, this is a high crime area.

In fact, it's gotten worse.

And the citizens who live in the building adjacent to where this bar will be are very concerned about the noise and the crime that could occur uh if this establishment is opened.

We already have people who party in the parking lots at night.

We've called police, they have no security, and there's no way to stop that.

The police don't really respond.

So we are subjected to constant noise, partying, drug dealing, alcohol use.

That shouldn't be happening.

We are concerned that after this bar is closed, the partying will continue, and there is no guarantee that there will be security and a way to get these people out of the area.

Also, this bar has an open area where people can have alcohol drinks, possibly watch big screen TVs when there is a sporting event.

This can also create noise problems for the neighbors who live adjacent to this property.

So none of that has been addressed.

We would really, as uh people who live in the Parkerset area would really like that spoken to before this bar is allowed to open.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers for this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And seeing no further questions or comments and understanding that there are neighborhood concerns, but I do have confidence that the uh proprietor will be able to work those out and engage with the community.

I would like to move that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 48 on sale beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to this applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

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

Yes, and on the motion directing the clerk to pre prepare a resolution and forward item two to the board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Member Wong I, Vic Chair Mahmood, Victor Mood, I.

Chair Dorsey.

I Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations to the applicant.

And Madam Clerk, may we please call the next item, item number three.

Yes, item number three is an ordinance amending the health code to require that every dog in San Francisco with certain expect exceptions be spayed, neutered or chemically sterilized rather than requiring such procedures only for pet bulls to establish a process and fee for applying for an unaltered dog permit and a process for granting, denying, or revoking such permit with a hearing following a denial or revoc revocation to regulate the transfer, sale, and breeding of unaltered dogs and to establish penalties and conditions of impoundment for violations of the mandatory spay neuter or chemical sterilization requirements.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And uh before I address this item, I would like to make a motion, if I may, to excuse um Supervisor Wong who had an obligation.

Is that appropriate?

Yes.

And on the motion to excuse Supervisor Wong, I mean, excuse me, uh Member Wong.

Vice Chairman Mood.

Vice Chairman Mood I, Chair Dorsey?

I.

Chair Dorsey, I.

I have three I have two ayes with Member Wong excused.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh Supervisor Wong is excused.

So, colleagues, after much discussion with the City Administrator's Office and Animal Care and Control and Stakeholders who include the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or SPCA.

I plan to continue this item to the call of the Chair for a period of up to one year.

Um this is going to give us time to conduct a thorough analysis with the University of California at Davis, uh, one of the nation's preeminent veterinary schools and research uh institutions.

Um they have offered to uh work with us and they are pursuing the most responsible and effective approach to addressing overcrowding in the city's shelter system.

During that time and effective immediately, uh, the city and um San Francisco SPCA will be expanding their partnership in some important respects that I want to outline.

First, SFPCA or S SF SPCA will increase transfers from ACC's shelter to at least 300 dogs each year.

Um that will help uh go a long way toward relieving pressure on that shelter and move more dogs into home homes.

Second, uh SBCA has agreed to work with the ACC to partner with UC Davis and take a closer look at shelter data.

I think we are all on the same page in an agreement that what we're trying to accomplish here is to minimize animals being euthanized.

This is the the city of St.

Francis, and we don't take this lightly as our patron saint didn't either.

Um this is important that we better understand the trends that are driving um the the increases in intake that we're seeing.

Third, ACC and the SBCA will meet quarterly to track progress and to make sure that their work is moving forward.

Uh this effort is about making sure any policy decisions we make are grounded in data and set up to succeed.

I look forward to a res uh regular updates from staff as this work continues.

Um we all share the same goal here, and that's reducing the number of unwanted dogs in San Francisco and making sure that every animal that enters our shelter has a pay a path to a safe and loving home.

And as a new dog daddy in the last year myself, and now with two rescues, um, this is close to my heart.

We will also ask the city administrator's office to report back uh in six months with an update on progress made.

Um I am open as the chair of this committee to having that as a public hearing.

I think why don't we wait to see what the public interest is?

But I I think, as today demonstrated, sometimes it's good to have a discussion right out in public just to keep everybody apprised on the things that we are working on.

I want to express my gratitude to um the city administrator's office to ACC to SPCA and especially to the University of California at Davis for agreeing to partner with us to really dig in on the data so that we're all solving the right problem and making sure that we are all sharing the right data.

Um I will I will make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair, but until then, Madam Clerk, why don't we invite up public comment on this item?

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

All speakers will have two minutes.

Thank you, uh members of the committee.

Uh I'm Dr.

Richard Vollier, a professor emeritus from UC Davis.

I've retired about five years ago, so I was unaware of your new relationship with UCD and how that's going on.

There's strongly support that there's been an um emergence of shelter medicine.

I will tell you, mandatory spay laws generally don't work.

Um thing I would encourage you to consider, and this I have not heard any animal expert put forth, is that you use mandatory chipping of all intact dogs and cats too, if you for that matter.

Um if you have chipping, you can trace them with some sort of a two-year renewal so you have an accurate database.

It's not unusual for a veterinarian to get a dog, come in, get injured, you start doing emergency work, you don't know who it is, you check the chip, you look up the record, and the phone's been disconnected, and that person hadn't lived there for five years.

Okay, now what do you do with the dog?

What do you do with the bill?

What do you do?

It's just bad for business.

Accountability is a key thing here.

Um we all feel there are unwanted dogs, but I don't think mandatory spaying and neutering will solve the problem.

It may help.

But by and large, I represent uh Canaan dogs uh club of America.

That is Cana dogs that nobody's heard of, but they're a very rare dog goes back to the Bible.

We're trying to breed them to uh promote them within society.

This is the same dog that Moses, Jesus, um, Mohammed, and Abraham had if they were dog people.

I don't know if they were dog people.

It's not recorded in the Bible, but our dogs go back that far.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please uh Hi, Chair Dorsey and members of the committee.

Uh thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Uh Barbara Link Smith with the American Kennel Club.

Uh, thank you for your words and uh for promoting the thoughtful discussion on this issue because it's very complex.

And uh we at the American Kennel Club stand ready to work with you in any way possible to help promote animal welfare in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers for this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is closed.

And at this time, I would like to move that we call re continue this item to the call of the chair as I described earlier, and Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call on that motion.

Yes, and on the motion to continue item three to the call of the chair.

Faisha Ramude.

I chair Dorsey, I have two ayes with member Wong excused.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, do we have any more business to before us today?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes our meeting agenda.

Great.

Thank you, everyone, for participating.

The meeting is now adjourned.