start with the pledge of allegiance. if you are able to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. please stay in the union. you know, we say in the union. yeah someday. someday. have a art. talk like it. not tonight. may i begin with roll? president elias, please. sergeant. commissioner clay. commissioner walker. present. commissioner benedicto. present. commissioner yanez is excused. commissioner yee here. vice president carter obersten present. and president elias,

you have a quorum with us tonight. also, is executive director of dpa, paul henderson and chief scott from the san francisco police commission. line item one. weekly officer recognition certificate. presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties. officer anthony watson starred number two four, eight, one of southern station. good evening. police commission. ladies and gentlemen. in the audience, i am luke martin. i'm the captain of southern station, and i have the privilege tonight to recognize this fine officer standing next to me. this is officer anthony watson. so i understand you probably get a lot of specific incidents that that kind of really showcase an outstanding officer. i'm more focused on, on the person next to me. so just a

little background on officer watson. officer watson's a native bay area resident, grew up and down the peninsula, graduated high school down there, made his way up to san francisco, graduated sf state with a criminology degree. shortly after joined the police department where he's been with us for the past nine years. actually a little over nine years, in that time frame, he served, a few different assignments. he's worked the streets out in the tenderloin district. park district, taraval district, and now he's been with us at southern station for the last five, six years or longer. yeah. so he's been, one of our veterans at southern station, officer watson by choice. because he has a pretty good amount of seniority, now chooses to work the most difficult shift at one of the busiest stations in the city. so he works on the midnights and is just been an outstanding officer, i get these

requests from time to time to come up with an officer of the month, officer of the week or something like that, and it's always a challenge. but officer watson has made it real easy. this time. as soon as i got requested to come up with one, that was the first name that popped into my head and, just just made my life easy here. officer watson just does outstanding work on a regular basis, so it's really hard to kind of pick one out of the pile. he just dives into everything without fear, his his dedication, his work ethic, is just, you know, bar none. i mea, he's he's he's excellent. he is a quiet leader, just always leading by example. he's essentially having, like, having a an extra sergeant on that

watch, most of the, the other officers on his watch pretty much look to him. so, that being said, he's actually in the number one spot for the next sergeant promotion, so it kind of matches, on top of that, he's also a field training officer. and outside of the department, he's he's another outstanding, example for people, behind us in the back row there. we have his family, his father is here with him, his wife and his two beautiful little children are back there, you know, he's just. yeah just an outstanding person. i've had the privilege now as as a lieutenant to work for officer watson and now as his captain. so i'm the lucky one, having having officers like him at a station, it just makes my life easier. i know i can sleep better at night and all of you should sleep better at night. having officer watson out there on our streets. so with that, i'd like to present him with the san francisco police department.

recognizes officer anthony watson, star number two, four eight, one of southern station. the officer of the week. in recognition of your dedication and professionalism demonstrated through outstanding community policing practices and inspiring greatness by exemplifying the ideals of police officers as guardians of our community. such an example of dedication is worthy of the highest esteem by the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police department. officer watson, welcome. i want to give you a few an opportunity to have a few moments. if you'd like to say anything, or wait till the end. it's up to you. man of little words. like i said, quie, leader, chief. thank you, president elias. so, first of all, captain martin, thank you for nominating officer watson,

because you know, the consistency of people that are just good at what they do, they're quiet. they're not looking for attention, but they're consistent. consistent, hard work, consistent in doing the right thing for the right reasons and not raising your hand saying, look at me, look at me, but just want to come in and do a good job. and, you know, oftentimes people like that don't get any recognition. you know, it's the medal of valor. it's, you know, some some great incident that that causes a commendation to be made. but we it's really, really gratifying that your captain recognized just hey, i'm just going to recognize one of my hardest workers, you know, not for some special event or special occasion, but just because he is one of my hardest workers and he does it the right way. so i think that says a whole lot about you and about your captain for nominating you. and congratulations to you and your beautiful family back there. so thank you for your work. thank you, officer watson. i want to

thank you. and, for not only the work that you do, but there's two things. one, i think it speaks volumes that the reason that you are nominated is not only because of the outstanding work you do as a police officer, but more importantly, what a great colleague you are. and i think that people often overlook how important it is to have collegiality and to just have a really nice coworker and get along with a coworker. and it does make your job way easier and more enjoyable. to those who work around you. so thank you again for all that you do. i'd also like to extend a huge thank you to your family, because i'm sure working nights and maybe weekends, is very onerous and taxing, especially with childre. and solo parenting is probably at its prime because you have decided to dedicate yourself to this city and keeping it safe. so i want to not only congratulate you, but also extend a huge thank you to your

family and your partner for picking up the slack while you are able to come to work and focus on your job. so thank you to the family and to the partner and to the kids who i'm sure there's lots of events that you miss because of your work schedule. so thank you. commissioner walker, thank you, president elias. ditto. what the president said. congratulations. and thank you, officer watson, especially for working the overnights, it not only, probably makes you sleep. it also gives the public a lot of comfort, you know, and we hear from the public on a regular basis of how important it is to have folks like you, taking care of our city at night. so thank you very much. and the family and the young girls back there, you got to be proud of your pap. we have snacks. you can come up. snacks up here. we do. thank you for bringing the family. and

thank you for supporting him, too. thank you. thank you, commissioner benedicto. thank you very much. president elias. congratulations again, officer watson. and thank you, captain martin, for recognizing, like the chief said, i think we do see so much focus on really extraordinary achievements and rightfully so. but it's so nice to get that that recognition. and also it sounds like as president elias said, you really have the respect and the admiration of your peers, and that that while this award is coming from the commission, it's really recognizing that respect you have from your peers, which really is some of the highest recognition you could get. and yes, thank you to your family for coming, because the award is really to you and your family because in their way, they also make a sacrifice and serve the city, and are integral to allowing you to do that. so congratulations to you and your family for receiving this award. great commissioner yee, thank you very much. their president, cindy elias, first of all, i want to thank, the captain luke mart, for putting forward a

great officers, officer watson, thank you for all you have done nine years. boy, it went by pretty fast. i know, but also, i want to thank the family. you know, because they and day out, you know, they're also there behind you and supporting you. and, i wish you continued success and stay safe. thank you very much. chief. family, come on up and get your picture take. if you would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please come to the podium. how are we going outside? there is no public comment regarding line item one. next item please. line

item two general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter, jurisdiction or jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or personnel under police commission. rules of order. during public comment, neither police or dpa personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and dpa personnel should refrain. however from entering into any debates or discussions with speakers during public comment. if you would like to make public comment, you have two minutes. thank you very much, sergeant, the i'm going to be the same broken record all the time here. we need an

elected police chief talking to the public directly, do you miss foot patrols? you don't miss foot patrols because i'm 80 and i remember them. you don't remember them because you never damn saw them. you know, i've been living on valencia, which is a busy corridor for nine years. i've never seen a cop on foot. so i went on a bicycle once on the sidewalk. i asked him to get in the bicycle and he told me to mind my own business. anyway if you want foot patrols, if you want police kiosks, commands, which we had under feinstein and she manned them. and on the bart stops in chinatown 24 hours a day, we manage it. then if you want that, you're going to have to elect a police chief who has that as a plank in their platform. i thought of, maybe putting it, them on the ballot separately, put the foot patrols actually in the charter. but if you get a chief, a chief of police who guarantees that, then you've pretty much done that. anyway, the idea is in mind, folks. brilliant as i am. the idea is michael hennessy, who

was sheriff of this town for 32 years. he said a long time ago, in 2000. daly tried to combine the police, and the sheriff's department. that was a wahoo days. while he was sleeping on his floor with no furniture. the. but if you want elect a police chief. the hennessy idea, get a strong police chief. get one that'll stick by their planks, and you won't be celebrating somebody being here eight years. i mean, congratulations, chief, but i'd rather see 32 years. i think we are allowed to have some fun. so we need fun. despite the fact that, as you know, children are under attack. so. which is at the end of the day, why my mission is still on.

i know it sounds a extravagant to say that i've been ordered to change the course of humanity with the precedent set in san francisco incidents, sorry to say that again, the fun is about so now you are watching, right? you. so you're going to pass the word after this recording here from now on, because i know that the police department, sfpd here can't do much against the way more ugly machines that we have. spooky so i'm launching a procedure here. any time you eat the fruits like a banana, you know, you can keep the peel of the banana. it could be an orange, anything organic. and you keep it in a bag you carry with you. and anytime you see a waymo passing, you gently deposit the peel on the windshield. nobody likes this.

vehicles here, so don't worry about the police. they know first hand here so they won't do anything against it because it's not called vandalism. just say we have enough of that. you belong to the zoo. so it's like, no offense to the monkeys, but. it's that clear. 20s i'll tell you more next time. maybe about the city and barry sanders. we're going to develop this. is this clear? you pass the word here. you just do it. anytime you see a waymo and zoo x two is going to be next. but you see zoo they say zoo. so it's belong to the zoo. good evening. i have three concerns that i'd like to

address. i had called as a victim, and i'd like to discuss that. i also would like to discuss the device that they use for communication accents. access, but i'd like to start at the beginning. i've had many, people have the same experience as me, many deaf people i know. i'm not alone, i've. i've tried to come here before. i haven't been able to get interpreters. this is the first time i called 911, and it really was not an issue that i need to get into right now. but i'd like to talk about what happened with the 911 call itself. they couldn't hear me. obviously i i'm deaf, it took about between 10 and 20 minutes before an officer arrived, and it was very strange because. because i can't speak

or hear, even though i'm the one who placed the call, the officer went to the offender and spoke to the offender. and when i said, hello, i'm the victim. they're like, hold on a second. and i tried to explain, but they completely cut me off. and at that point i felt doubly victimized. i was the one who called. and again, being ignored makes me a victim twice over. i tried to write notes and the officer refused to, accept it. he just sort of erased it and said, no, i can't use this. i did not feel safe in this situation. the officer spoke to the offender while completely ignoring me. and again, i know i'm not alone in this experience and this is not right. the other

thing i'd like to discuss is the device access. i had heard on the news a while ago that san francisco had gotten a large amount of grant money to purchase devices and train their officers on how to use them, which was awesome. but i've worked with three different officers in three different situations, from three different precincts, and none of them knew how to use these devices. and the when they pull an interpreter up on the device, the officer would be talking into the phone. the interpreter is signing, but i can't see the phone. and then the officer would turn the phone to me and by that time the message had been already interpreted. and when i asked them if they had been trained on how to do this, they said, no, never. and i feel like the police department is

kind of scamming the federal government and getting all of this money and equipment when they're not actually training anybody to use them. so i think this is a real serious defect with the access, it's terrible. and again, i know i'm not alone. i've spoken with other deaf people. they're afraid to come and voice their concerns. but anyway, i did call 911. an officer came. i tried to explain the situation, but he went to the offender instead of me. the next day i went to the office and they said, no, you don't need to be here. you need to go to this other place. so i went to this other place, and that place said, no, you don't need to be here. you need to go to another place yet. so i feel like it's just been passed the buck and that they're avoiding me. and i want to feel safe in

this city. but to be honest, i don't think the police are supposed to protect us. sir, can i ask you, to speak with dpa? they have an investigator here tonight, and actually go in depth with your concerns and speak with them, because not only do they take complaints, but they also, well, not in public. i can't this is a private matter, right? right. no, no, not speak with them about it right now but get their contact information so you can contact them either tomorrow or at a more convenient time for you. yes, i can do that. okay. and we have facilities for deaf and hard of hearing already. yeah. can the investigators stand up and identify yourself to this gentleman and get the contact information outside, please? thank you. thank you very much. i have a handout.

thank you. good evening. police commission, police chief and others. the last several days. my name is chris klein. the last several days, i've been asking churches, corporations, major league baseball, the nfl, friends, family, associates, as well as others to give sfpd the strength and courage to move forward with arresting london breed and melissa bryant. sfpd has enough evidence to secure an indictment, and it is their main function to provide a safe and secure environment. bryant stole technology and equipment from the defense intelligence agency, colluded with breed to deploy surveillance and cointelpro not only on every citizen and visitors to san francisco, but to other cities, counties, states, and countries. it is the most egregious conduct ever that includes embezzlement from the city, massive fraud and murder,

now i'm asking this commission to move forward in contacting david lazar and bill scott to move forward with the evidence. they use vets and tech to have an office in the war memorial building to impact veterans and non-veterans swords to plowshares arts commission and every visitor to the green room in a negative manner that resulted in pain and suffering. by weaponizing public health and safety systems to overtake all systems within the city and county of san francisco, we need to do the right thing. san francisco and for san francisco for california, the united states, and the rest of the world. and we have evidence right here that they're doctoring the evidence. we have one report that says public request is going up. the other one's saying that crime is going down. please do your job. bill, scott and david lazar. thank yo. firstly, i want to say you have

no idea how great it is to be back. my name is j connor b ortega and while i'm co-president of iconic d3, i also want to take this time to recognize and thank the officer who is being recognized for the great work he has done and will continue to do. as always, i want to thank our men and women of the san francisco police department who keep us safe in our neighborhoods, especially at night time. i also want to commend our officers for ensuring that an event that happened this past weekend and prevented it from becoming just like last year, was 70 k in muni damages and unneeded chaos. i also want to take this time to congratulate the commissioner walker's reappointment. now that common sense has prevailed, we can now get back to work for the people and fulfilling our non-negotiable demand that this commission comply with the proposition that was passed this recent election. i look forward

to seeing this commission fix the violating orders and allowing our police department to do the job. we expect. thank you. that is. oh, sorry, miss brown. good evening. i'm here concerning my son, aubrey, who was murdered august 14th, 2006. to this day, his case is unsolved as a cold case. i'm still looking for, ways to solve the unsolved homicides, ways to

pay tipsters to come forth. i thank mr. carter for even implementing it. and i'm just hoping that something will come forth concerning our children. i bring all the other homicide victims that were here that been cases that are not solved. we stand for each other's mother and fathers. all of these cases are not solved. i come here because i stand over my son who was murdered, looking at him in the casket. to this day, i still hurt. i know you see me every week. every week when i come here, every wednesday. this is what the perpetrators left me

with a lifeless body of my beautiful 17 year old boy. i wouldn't wish this to hit anybody's home. even the perpetrators that murdered my child. and i know most of you have children. tell them you love them every day. you don't know. once you step out, you get step and get hit by a car. grief is grief. i'm still looking for justice for my child, and i will continue to come and speak for my son. i'm still asking for justice. please. if you have any information regarding an investigation, please contact the anonymous tip line at (415) 575-4444. and that

concludes public comment. next item. line item three. consent. calendar. police commission. report of disciplinary actions. second quarter 2024 san francisco police foundation grant to blue and blue debriefing training valued at $1,180 san francisco police foundation grant to the mothers, fathers and families impacted by homicide march valued at $5,480.40, san francisco police foundation grant to sfpd's national night out event valued at $20,000, $20,000, $2,000 per district station san francisco police foundation grant to neighborhood safety team uniforms valued at $494.44. san

francisco police credit union sfpd icu donation to the law enforcement torch run for special olympics, hosted by the san francisco police department, valued at $350, sfpd 1420. i'm sorry, sfpd 1421 and sb 16 monthly report june 30th, 2024, dpa 1421 and sb 16 monthly report july 3rd, 2024. pursuant to the request of the police commission, the department provides this monthly update on the status of public records act requests and received related relating to senate bill 1421. police officers release of records. this report is a cumulative record of all requests and the production of documents since sb 1421 became effective on january first, 2019, and is calculated on a month over month comparison.

action. can i get a motion to receive and file? motion to receive. file second. and we will take public comment regarding line item three. there is no public comment. commissioner clay, how do you vote on line item three? yes, commissioner. walker. yes commissioner. benedicto. yes. commissioner yanez. excuse. commissioner. yes. vice president. carter. overstone. yes. president elias. yes. president. elias. motion passes. line item four. adoption of minutes. second. sorry yeah. i just had a comment for line item three. i just wanted to point out the report in there is on the 1421. we've just been getting a lot of requests and information about it. i just

didn't want it lost on folks, to look at these reports because dpa's released 51,208 pages of information. so far. there's a comparison i think would be great if we had some similars apples to apples, orange to orange kind of things for these reports. if there's a way that maybe the department in their reporting could shift some of their stuff, or just to include the summation so that we can see the comparison with the same documents, i think that would be helpful. just a suggestion, sergeant. line item four adoption of minutes for the meetings of june 5th and june 12th, 2020. for action, i get a motion to accept. motion to receive and file. i get a second. thank you. but i'll vote a motion to adopt the minutes. that's the one we got. i'll second the fifth and 12th.

public comment regarding line item four. there is no public comment. line item five. chief's report weekly crime trends. i don't think we get a vote on. did we do the vote on on item four? i apologize, so there's no public comment regarding line item for kevin was distracted, but the vote commissioner clay, how do you vote, sir? i vote ye. commissioner walker. yes, commissioner. so commissioner clay, we still need a vote for whether your motion to accept or reject the minutes for both. sir this has come up before we actually have to vote on all of them, even when we missed the meeting. you can choose to vote yes because you've reviewed or

was it before you were appointed? oh, then he wasn't appointed yet. so he. oh no, he still has to vote in the. yeah. have you, have you read the minutes. yeah. if you read and agree with the minutes you can also vote. no. you might not have to do that. just a reminder there's a public memo for those of you who were here, so the recusal process is you must vote for the matter. that's before you or ask your colleagues to recuse yourself, otherwise, you need to have a conflict. so you can ask your colleagues if you could. that requires a motion as well, right? correct. okay. there's a current motion on the floor at this point, i will make a motion to recuse both commissioners walker and commissioner clay for the june 5th meeting, which they were both not present. you won't have a you won't have a won't be able to pass this motion. oh, i can't i can i vote if i wasn't unless you're asking to be recused. yeah. you i'll vote reviewed the minutes. can you still vote. correct. if you reviewed the minutes then you may vote.

sorry. what is the question, city attorney, i think it has to be a request by the, i guess one of the commissioners to be excused or recuse from voting is that right? so those who are making the motion should not be the ones making the motion or asking or should be asking their colleagues to recuse themselves so someone other than them should be making the motion. so can i can i just offer i don't know if there needs to be a recusal here since, you know, as long as you review the minutes, you can vote on it. you can vote yes or no, but i don't see it. i don't see a conflict that requires recusal here. so i think we can just vote on the motion as as presented. go ahead, sergeant, and proceed. i'll withdraw my motion and leave the original one on the floor. so the motion on the table is to accept the adoption of the minutes from june 5th and june 12th. correct yes. so i will vote yes. commissioner clay's vote is yes, commissioner walker. yes. your vote is. yes, commissioner benedicto. yes.

commissioner yanez is excused. commissioner. yes vice president carter. yes. president. elias. yes. so the motion passes to accept the minutes for june 5th and june 12th. line item five. chief's report. weekly crime trends and public safety concerns provide an overview of offenses, incidents or events occurring in san francisco. having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities. the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meetin. thank you, sergeant reynolds, good evening again, president elias. vice president carter and executive director henderson and the commission and the public, starting off with crime trends for this week, we are still significantly down in part one. crime total, about 32% reduction in crime, it's about 9000 fewer

crimes than year to date last year, the breakdown is property crimes down by 34, which is a difference of about almost 9000 crimes. and violent crimes, down at 11, a difference of about a little over 300 crimes, no homicides to report for the week ending seven seven. but we did have a homicide this week that i'll talk about in a second, total in total, we are 39% down in homicides compared to 2023. and our overall, 12 of those were homicides from a firearm. we have 18 or 17 year to date, 18, including this week, compared to 28 this time last year. our shootings are also down significantly by almost 40. there are there were eight non-fatal shootings caused that caused eight injuries to victims this week. this week that i'm reporting on, an additional two

shootings that have occurred at the close of the reporting period, and that was monday morning in the early hours. so that will be included in next week's report, for the year to date, there's a total of 71 firearms resulting in 80 victims. and again, that's a significant decrease from this time last year as far as, firearm seizures. we are up slightly from last year, 622 compared to 536. however, our ghost gun seizures are down from last year 74 compared to 117, the homicide that i referred to that happened on monday, this was actually july 9th at 12:17 a.m. officers responded to the area of mission between 16th and 17th street and located a victim who had been shot and was declared deceased at the scene. multiple spent bullet casings of a variety of calibers were located, indicating that there were multiple types of guns used. second victim self

transported to the hospital with gunshot wounds sustained during this incident, and is in stable condition with non-life threatening injuries. in addition to the shooting, there were multiple cars in a collision as a result of the shooting, four cars in all, and an additional victim was located suffering from injuries sustained in the traffic collision, that victim is also in stable condition. non-life threatening injuries, this investigation is being investigated by the homicide unit. still under investigation. we had just a breakdown on the shootings. first one was on july 3rd at 750 in 1900. block of mission, two people were involved in a argument. and when they began shooting each other, striking the victim, the victim was transported in stable condition. that investigation is still underway. no suspects have been arrested. july 4th at the unit block of view street in the bayview district, at about 2:57 p.m. shooting occurred in which the victim was in an argument

and was shot multiple times by the subject. the victim was transported in critical condition, and the subject was located and arrested. in that particular case, july 5th, on the unit block of conkling in the bayview at around 5 p.m, the victim was sitting in their car when the suspect pulled up, pulled a gun, pointed at the victim, shot one time, and the victim was struck, transported to the hospital and in stable condition. no arrest on that case. july 5th at 8:35 p.m. at hyde and ellis, the victim sustained a gunshot wound while in the area of hyde and ellis and the tenderloin district. the victim was transported and is in stable condition. non-life threatening conditions. the officers did an investigation, located the suspect and arrested that suspect. july 5th at 9:49 p.m. on 25th and connecticut officers responded to the area. located the victim suffering from a gunshot wound. the victim was transported in critical but stable condition and at this time has been unable to provide

a statement. so that case is still under investigation, a couple of other cases. july 5th at 11:01 p.m, unit block of jones street and tenderloin. officers responded to a911 call stating that a victim had been shot in the area. the victim was seen fleeing from the location. multiple units attempted to locate the victim but were unable to. later a gunshot victim walked into a local hospital but did not provide any information as to how they sustained the injury. so it was not, although believed to be linked to this shooting, it has not been confirmed. so that investigation is still ongoing as well, july 5th at 11 p.m, the 41st avenue, 1200 block of 41st avenue in the taraval. the victim was sitting inside of a car, was shot once the witnesses advised that they heard one gunshot and saw three people running. running from the scene. the victim was transported non-life threatening injuries that is still under

investigation, a couple of arrests from previous shootings that resulted in homicides. on june 15th, we had a homicide, on the unit block of weiss street in the mission district. the victim, did not survive that shooting. the investigation identified the suspect that this incident. and on july 3rd, that suspect was located and arrested by sfpd investigators after a warrant had been issued. evidence was seized during the serving of a search warrant, and that suspect was booked and charges have been filed. and the second arrest on a previous homicide that occurred on april 13th at six sixth street in jessie in the tenderloin, that victim also did not survive. our investigators identified a suspect, and on july 1st, that suspect was taken into custody by officers at sixth and mission. the suspect was booked on multiple charges, including the homicide, and was in possession of a loaded firearm when, they were taken into custody. a couple of other

notable arrests we had a series of vandalisms to waymo, autonomous vehicles. i think it was 20 in all. there were 20 in all. on june 26th, waymo reported that at least 20 of their cars had their tires slashed, and they believe it was by the same person. and this was between june 24th and june 26th. that person was identified using photos provided by the company, and the subject was arrested, located and arrested in the 300 block of bryan by sfpd officers. so that case has been solved. the suspect was booked into custody on a felony charge, felony vandalism charges, the last notable arrest was an arrest on an estes robbery, this occurred on july 1st when the employee, an employee, attempted to stop a person attempting to flee from a store with multiple items without paying for those items. the subject punched the employee who fell to the ground and kicked the employee in the

head. that employee was transported in critical condition, and the subject was identified through surveillance videos that we were able to obtain, was located by investigators and taken into custody. that person was booked on multiple charges of assault, including, assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, and battery with great bodily injury. so good job by the investigators in that case, just a couple other things to report. we had a lot of events this past week, the past couple of weeks with 4th of july, which was very successful, the 4th of july holiday, i think we had one shooting and it was overall a very peaceful night, although there were a lot of fireworks all over the city, and that went on to the wee hours of the morning, also pride was successful. we had gotten intelligence that there may be protests that might disrupt it. other cities experienced that, but we did not. thankfully, very successful event, including the festival and our officers and the public had a good time at

those events. so that was successful. and then, this past week, saturday of this past weekend, the hill bomb event, which we deployed for went off. we were able to prevent the hill bomb on dolores street and in the park, but the skaters did skate down church street, i am very happy to report that there were no acts of vandalism except for one. we had one of our bands that was tagged with graffiti. there were no assaults on the public, nor officers, there were two injuries that occurred to skateboarders at about close to 7:00, they started skating down church street. street. we did not cite or arrest anybody for skating. and, a lot of public outreach on that. and overall, i think it was a huge success, particularly compared to some of what we've seen in past years. so i just want to thank our officers for their strength that they showed we were very well

deployed and we put a word out that, we would not tolerate the violence in the property damage that we've seen in the past. so apparently the public worked with us and the skaters, some of them even thanked us because we didn't arrest them for skating down the hill. but we wanted to make sure that mainly that that community was not, destroyed like it has been in past years. so that actually went off very well. and that is my report. commissioner walker, thank you, chief, i want to thank you, too, because i went to a, a public meeting that you called, in the mission to ahead of the hill bomb to bring people together to talk about, you know, what your plans were and to hear from folks. and i think it was really helpful. i think there was a lot of folks in the skateboarding community, who felt listened to. and, you know, maybe there is a way to do these things licensed in the future. so there are

people talking about it, but i really i think it was really helpful to bring the neighbors and the and the folks who are interested in organizing those kind of events together, i think it bodes well for the future. so thank you. i think it had a lot to do with how successful it was, too. so thank you. thank you, and thank you for being there. yeah. commissioner absolutely. commissioner benedicto, thank you, president elias, thank you, chief, for that report, i am also glad i know we were in communication with the hill bomb. went off without significant incident as we had last year, which we know resulted in about 100 arrests. were there any arrests that were conducted as a result? no, no. were there any reportable uses of force? none. okay i understood unrelated to the police presence, there were some injuries, those to those skating. and so they just received medical attention. there was no police involvement there, no police involvement, one person, maybe two, were transported. but those are all

the injuries that we know of. and i don't believe there are any any others. okay. with respect to any of the events at 4th of july, were there any arrests made, there were arrests made. not for 4th of july festivities, but it was a busy night. so across the city, but not for any of the fireworks show went off, very peaceful, large crowds. weather was beautiful until right before when the fog rolled in. but always. but yeah, it was it was a it was a good night overall. i mean there was a lot of fireworks and that's another thing that we got to, you know, figure out what we're going to do about. but but with respect to the festivities that were that weren't arrests with respect to the festivities, were there any uses of force, i don't know of any uses of force with respect to the festivities. i can't say whether or not there were any use forces that night, but nothing with the festivities, the fireworks show and all. i know last year there were a number of dispersal orders and unlawful assemblies that to be made on the 4th of july. did that have to happen again this year? yeah. so this year we definitely were deployed

there. there, traditionally has been takeovers of streets in the mission. mission street particularly, and 24th street. so we deployed for that. we had, i think a really solid plan. and we were able to prevent anything from happening. people dispersed, i believe there might have been one dispersal order read, maybe two, but there was no violence associated with it, no use of force. we were able to disperse the crowd and, clear the streets. good to hear. thank you. chief. that's all, vice president carter. thank you, president elias. thank you, chief, for the report, chief, could you just talk a bit about staffing for the hill bomb event? how many officers roughly were deployed, we had six squads. which is, six teams, seven. about 50 officers. and the tactical unit as well, standing by. i'm sorry. can you say one more time the total number of officers? yeah, six

was would be about about 42 to 50 officers. and then the tactical unit was deployed as well. and how many. so the tactical unit i think that was about 16 officers i believe. okay. so 60 ish officers. yeah. somewhere around there. so quite a bit fewer than than last year. yes. okay and were those officers aside from the tactical unit, were those moved from the district stations or were they called in specially folks who would otherwise be off duty, called into duty? yeah, they were called in for this event. and of course, mission staff for that, stays some days off were canceled. so they were called in. but, outside of mission station where officers from other stations, called to assist. yes officers from other stations, officers from administrative units. so basically it was a mandated overtime event because we didn't have enough people in our regular deployment to cover that. so we and roughly, if you can say how many were taken from

other stations asked to, to help out, they weren't taken from other stations. we put out the overtime request. so the officers, most of them besides the tactical unit, came in, i see. so okay, so the folks from other stations wouldn't have been working necessarily. they were just. yeah great. and then just curious to get your thoughts on why this year went so much better than last year. what do you think contributed to that, well, a couple of things i first of all, the it was a whole lot less people than in years past. there was not a violent confrontation, in years past, there have been violent confrontations that did not happen this year. i think the communication helped, you know, the community meetings, the captain, meetings at the station leading up to that. we did a news conference on friday asking people not to come to take over that community. i think some people listened to it. you know, we tried to appeal to parents because in the past we've seen

small children out there, unattended and some of them with adults, but some of them unattended. so we didn't see all those things this year. it was a whole lot less people and no violence. so officers react to violence. you didn't have i believe there was one firework. let off during that whole event last year. fireworks basically from the start. so i think all those things made a difference. but i do think we approached it differently this year. and i think after last year, there was a lot of attention on it. and can you talk about the decision not to stop the hill bomb on church street? because to me, that struck me as a critical difference between this year and last year. i mean, it didn't move to church street last year, but in terms of allowing the hell bomb to happen, you know, unabated on a, on a, on a street. yeah. so we said even there the first press conference, you know, we're not against skateboarders and you

know, 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 skateboarders skating down the hill. you know, we decided not to make an arrest for those type of things or citation. we've never been against skateboarders. what we are against is the violence that has accompanied these, these events, either the property crime or violent crime against, you know, officers and people. so it was to a large degree self-regulated. i mean, the people, when they did get on church street, there was a point where i believe it was right before 7:00 that they had been out there for hours, and the decision was made to go ahead and let them skate down the hill. and it wasn't it was not a lot of people. there were a lot more spectators than there were skaters. but from what i'm told, some of the people actually thanked the officers for allowing that when they were said, hey, we're going to leave after we, you know, do our little thing down the hill. and that's basically what happened. they left. we didn't have to use squads of people to clear them

out. and by 9:00 the whole thing was over. and just last question on this. i mean, last year when this happened, we had this hearing room was full of people, many of them parents of children who were detained and arrested. and the narrative that we heard then was overwhelmingly and again, i wasn't there last year. i wasn't there this year. but the narrative that we heard from the public commenters was very much that they felt that the officers were instigating the events that led to physical confrontation between the skaters and onlookers and the police. do you did sfpd, change their tactics at all this year versus last year that you think contributed to let you know, no kind of physical confrontations? yes so i'll answer that, this way because there is pending litigation about last year. but what i will say, what i can

answer is our tactics really haven't changed. you know, we try to go to these things, these type of events. you know, one of the, the asks in the, in the public meeting was, you know, don't don't put on your safety equipment. well, we put on our safety equipment when officers are being attacked. a lot of times these events, if that doesn't happen, the helmets never go on. so that's always our posture in these type of events and i don't that has not changed. all right. thanks, chief. other topic i wanted to ask you about is the automatic license plate readers that have now been deployed, i think since the beginning of the year. something like that. i think it was february when, assistant chief lazar gave a presentation on that. i'm just curious if you have any general updates on how those how those are panning out for us, very well. so we have i think the number is somewhere around 120 now across. excuse me. across the city. we've made

some arrests. based on hits on those license plate readers detected wanted cars and wanted people. so, so far, so good. and i think as that coverage increases, it's i anticipate that that's going to even get better. so far we're very satisfied with how it's going because we have made some, some really good arrests. and you said there was 120 deployed, but my recollection is we have funding and will deploy 400. is that right? yes. that is. and when do you think that the full complement will be up and running? we're hoping by the end of the year for sure, you know, there there could be some things that need to work out in terms of, agreements with some of the utility, you know, companies. but we're hoping by the end of the year. so since what was it, february when we started? we've got 120 up. so somewhere around 120. so it's actually going pretty, pretty pretty well. and has the department issued any

bureau orders or any other directives related to the use of these alpr or retention of data? anything around that, training in terms of the use of the data from those, for instance, verifying if you get a hit on a plate or a car that's won in a crime, officers are trained to verify it. there's been a there was a training that was sent department wide on that, the alpr technology has been around for quite a while, so it's nothing new there. we also had to get the policy passed through the board of supervisors. and so that's been done. so that and training. yeah. the reason i ask about that is because i had a number of questions for assistant chief lazar about things like data retention and access to the data and using it not just for hits, but retroactively, and many of his answers were essentially that the department would issue a

policy later on to kind of nail those things down. so is that is that still on the horizon? is that still the plan or just the generalized 19 be guidelines? is that going to be the only policy? well, those things are actually addressed in 19 be data retention. no, i looked at it, but it's not comprehensive. i mean, there still seems to be some open questions. and assistant chief lazar acknowledged that i think when he spoke to us in february that, you know, the 19 be policy doesn't necessarily cover things in comprehensive detail, like like, for example, you know, if there can can we use retained data to conduct a retroactive investigation? in other words, there's no hit, right? someone's just suspected of committing a crime. we find that person's license plate. can we go back and say, where is that person been for the last seven months? is that something that we can do or that we're currently doing? if the data is still there? yes.

and i think that's perfectly, makes sense to do that. for instance, let's say there's a homicide that occurred last week and we get a license plate and then we go back. and because that would be within that retention period, and we go back and say with that car was at this corner on that date, i mean, that's solid evidence that we should be able to obtain. so yes, for that type of thing, yes, we would be able to go back. but there is a window, per the policy that was passed by the board of supervisors, where we get rid of that data. so within that period, yeah, we can go back and if something comes up like a murder or some crime that we put a car with the location. yes, we could do that. and just my last question on this, especially once we get all 400 cameras up and running, and the city is pretty well covered with cameras and our retention policies. pretty generous. is

there any concerns around the fourth amendment? and, you know, if so, like, what are we doing to safeguard that? you know, if you can track someone's movements throughout the city retroactively going back several months or in some cases, years, seems to me like that would be potentially implicate people's fourth amendment rights. do we have any policy in place to address that? so if it's an investigation with a criminal investigation, because that's the only way we would be looking for a car or a license plate using this technology. i don't believe there is a fourth amendment issue with saying, hey, this red car with this license plate was used in this crime. let's check our cameras and see if it was in the area on this date or that date. i mean, that's how that would be used without a warrant. if it's without a warrant, to be clear, you're saying yes. without a warrant. so if you're asking if we're just randomly tracking

vehicles, no we're not. but if it's a criminal investigation, for a specific car specific investigation. yeah, that data is. and that data is available just like it would be if we were to put out a call for third parties who might have data, you know, ring, ring data, doorbell data, whatever. hey, we had a crime on this block, but this isn't third party data. no, this is not third party data. but what i'm saying is, i don't i to me, there's not a fourth amendment issue there. if you're investigating a criminal case and you have a data within, you have data within that retention period that's available and you're tying it to a crime. i don't see a fourth amendment issue there. okay thanks. that's everything for me. thank you. commissioner yee. thank you very much. chair. president. elias, i just want to take a look at the data of the crimes dropping, i guess it's from 30% down to 32, you know, for the year to date, is there any thoughts on the

reason for the drop? and, just want to see your perspective on that. so the property crime drop is really driving the majority of our reduction in crime. as you know, the numbers that i just read off about a 9000 crime, fewer than this time last year. difference, so that's what's driving in. and what's driving that are is larceny both car break ins and larceny in general is down significantly. car break ins, is now at 54% fewer crimes than it was last year. so we were just over 10,000 this year, almost 11,000 somewhere around that neighborhood. and we're about at 5000 car break ins this year. so that's driving a lot of the crime, which, and my thoughts on that in terms of the work, i mean, we're really focused, we believe on the right people, some of those people have been caught and apprehended and are

facing criminal consequences for that. and i think that's driving a lot of the reductions. so the crews that are hitting or have been hitting, a lot of them have been arrested. thank you very much, chief. i also want to talk about the june 30th pride parade and the activities that happened that day, i know you was in the parade as well, quite a few. commissioner deborah walker and kevin benedicta. so, it was great to see the people out there. great day. so i think the people felt pretty safe out there. and i saw a great crowd, i want to thank, your team and making sure that safety was the number one factor out there. and that relates also to bomb hill. i know dolores park is a busy, busy park. i think it's one of the busiest park in san francisco, maybe even past golden gate park, because on dolores, so many people go and travel there and enjoy the, i

guess, the, i guess the warmth and the sunlight there. and, you know, so i had a chance to just drive by there and i saw and i asked one of the parking control officers, i says, how's it going? he says, it's quiet. and i says, thank you very much. and i also want to thank the, chief and your team on the planning, because it's not that you just put the officers out there and then, you know, things go away. it's planning, and you outreach to the community, telling them nobody has come forward and tha, you know, if you do, it's illegal activity. so. and then there, i guess, the young generation has their way of resolving that. so it was beautiful to have the beautiful day there. this totally enjoyed it. so thank you very much, chief, that's all i have. thank you. commissioner clay. thank

you, madam chair. madam president. chief, i'm just, commissioner yee asked the question i was interested in. and that relates to the issue of the property crimes going down or the larceny theft. and that's all based. basically, you're seeing break ins and cars and the groups that are committing those offenses. yes. and some of those people have been taken off the street. and so that's the accountability as it relates to that. yes, we yes. and also, i didn't say this a minute ago, but our retail organized retail theft efforts with the blitz operations and the blitz for the public, where the officers are working with the retailers and they're in the stores when a theft occurs, organized retail or not organized officers are there and they're making those arrests on the spot. so we've we've made upwards of over 400 of those arrests this year. and we've gotten some people, arrested who are very prolific retail theft. okay. and so those

those certain, businesses who have always can you see them getting continually broken into and theft there there's been a reduction. and as it relates to them, yes. okay. yes. and so the other thing in terms of the violent crime issue, in terms, i see the robberies are down and the assaults are out up. so is there a switch in terms of the robberies being classified as assault because it isn't complete, or what's the difference in terms of that, in terms of those violent crimes? yeah, the robberies are down, you know, the trends last year we had a lot of high end watch robberies, and that was trending for a while. we did get a crew in custody, for those robberies and including recovering rolex watches and that type of high end jewelry from from members of that crew, we started to see things go down from that point. i mean, there's a lot of other crews out there, but that one, that particular crew, we believe

was very active not only in the city of san francisco, but in the bay area, we've done a lot of search warrants on robbery crews and people associated with them. so again, i think, you know, when people are prolific and we, we get the right people in the custody, we start seeing, you know, things go down. it's our belief that, you know, we only know what we know, but we think that those those folks have been involved in more robberies than, than what we filed on them. and we know that a lot of these folks that we have arrested are, like i said, in the bay area, they they're robbing all around the bay area. so intelligence has gotten better. yes. and so in terms of the assaults, what are you what's happening there in terms of the increase there? a lot of our assaults in terms of its basically spur of the moment type of violence. and particularly you see, the ones that i think were really good at

in terms of assessing are the group related violence and, working. like if we have a shooting in oakland or some other, you know, city across the bay with san francisco ties, we do a really good job of communicating with those departments. and trying to stop the retaliatory shootings. so i think that strategy has paid off for us also for those those types of assaults. the gun assaults, our gun violence reduction strategy. particularly in southeast, the southeast area of the city, we've been at that for about three, almost four years now. the services that for the people that we believe are active, we have the community violence reduction unit that actually make contact with people. they try to get them, you know, into these, these meetings to try to get some services to them, before they either shot, shoot or get shot. that's been effective. and that's where we're seeing our biggest reduction in assaults. a lot of the street type of

assaults, the disputes and all that. a lot of that is associated with the drug market, particularly in the tenderloin and soma. so we see that quite often. and so, depending on how that ebbs and flows, we'll see increases and decreases. and it really tracks with where we're where we're seeing the dealers and the users, because that's where a lot of that happens. thank you chief. thank you. all right sergeant, if you would like to make public comment regarding the chief's report, please come to the podium. i should have left, but it's okay, yes, i think, being more precise about who does what will help you see. yeah. because at some point you have to call a cat a cat. you have to be precise. otherwise you are not out of the woods. i think the city is pretty safe looks, you know, despite the, you know, the way

it's pushed at us, it's unsafe and everything. no, i mean, remember, you keep responsibility on critical thinking. that's all you get. safety. that's the way it works. what i want is to say. i think that's it, chief. look, you know, that's it. your data. you only know what's really going o. your data are just blah, blah, blah, right? okay. have a good night. tell me i'm lying. this. that guy sounds like biden. you know, i mean, really, the thing about the hill bomb is i've got a master's in special education. don't frown on me, judge. i'm a happy person. be happy. that's just my plan. the hill bomb. i work with adolescent kids. i got a master's in special ed. work with them since 1965. don't plan a confrontation with them. plan

a damn party with them. you know, we've got some of the best athletes in the world are floating on waves. they're there. they're running or swimming, and, we seem to be able to run a party for that, treat the hill bomb as a party, chief, when i left that meeting the other night, i thought it was a fabulous community meeting. i got the priest to extend your time. did you like that? holy mother church said she didn't mind if you stayed another 20 minutes, but. yeah. did you meet with those people afterwards? did did you, one thing. let me get out. if i got a 32nd. one thing i want to get out. i hate to, you know me. i hate to say something bad about somebody, but the worst party pooper in this town is raphael mandelman. what they did was they pulled permits for that event, and they went through the office of economic and workforce development months before, and they pulled events and permits and this and that, and it all went to raphael mandelman desk. and he said, right next to you

at that meeting, all you know, i'm with the community and all that, that was the man that caused the friction. he did the same damn thing in the castro to halloween in the castro. rock on folks, rock on. good evening again. i forgot to say, this is july, july, august, august 14th of next month will be the day that my son was murdered on grove and baker from a semiautomatic gun, 30 rounds of bullets. i am looking again to have a media coverage for unsolved homicides this year. i thank those that have been coming out every year for my for my, visual for unsolved homicides and for my son's case.

i talked with dean preston. he said that last year that he would get a street named after my son. i went to the, board of supervisors last tuesday, and he said he was supposed to send out a resolution to make, to ask the board to, put a sign up saying that a street sign on grove and baker saying arbery, abacus awa. i'm still looking for that. he did promise that to me. so i just say that when people promise mothers and fathers like myself, things concerning their children, we want them to abide by them, you know? so i'm looking forward to that. and if and if that happens that i wanted to invite everyone to come for the unveiling and just think about a, a rudy corpus, he

has his street named after him, united players. but minds is not saying united players minds is saying arbery abacus. my son who was murdered an innocent young boy went to school. i had to walk across the stage and receive his diploma. thank you, chief, for that police report. i just had to clarify if i heard it correctly. you said 20 waymo cars had their tires slashed. i'm not sure if you could answer that now, but i can ask you later. but i just wanted to clarify that to make sure i heard that correctly. thank you sergeant. i need to make a an announcement regarding the agenda. the following items have been taken off calendar and will be recalled at a later time. item 1103 .01. item 1305

.03 and item 17 oh 10.11. line item six dpa director's report report on recent dpa activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. director henderson. thank you. good evening, so since our timer. oh first of all, i thought you were about to take it off the calendar when she jumped in there. i tried to take your. i tried to take your line off, director henderson, but apparently the city attorney wouldn't let me. but, first of all, our investigation unit has opened up 73 new cases and closed 85 cases since the last

commission meeting. and i'm going to tell you the significance of those numbers, because we have reduced our case for the cases that have investigations that have gone past 270 days for the fourth consecutive month. and as of this week, we don't have a drum roll. so i'll just tell you leading up to this, we have one case, that has, investigation past the 270 days. that is not tolling, in case you're not writing it that down, this is the lowest, that we've ever had in the history of the agency since i've been there. so it's a lot of hard work. i just want to thank the investigators for the hard work, prioritizing and closing these cases, there's always a number of reasons why those cases get to that, but we've never had the numbers this low, and that's reflective of the work that we're doing. so that is a big deal, we're also,

our audit team, is continuing to work on the, department's stop data process. that is ongoing. our goal is to complete the field work testing on the audit by july. we're also preparing a peer review coordination by the association of local government auditors, that peer review is scheduled to take place at the end of july, and we will let the commission know if the peer review impacts any of our audit timelines that i've previously reported, in terms of outreach, we've been at a number of city events all over the city in the past few months. various civic events that have included, the opportunities for all kick off that is the program for the summer that includes the hbcu unit, hbcu students, that's in coordination with the hrc and doctor cheryl davis, they also participated in the alice lgbtq pride breakfast during pride. pride week and pride month here

in the city, as well as the san francisco bar association breakfast associated with pride, and they were also there for the sfpd hill bomb town hall. participated in that as well, so i just want to thank, carolyn wysinger, who organized a lot of these events that are engagement events that take place in the public, our policy, conduct, our policy team, we had the entire team. it's jermaine jones, conduct a review of sfpd's draft, dgo 6.10 on missing person, that that dgo has received a lot of local and national media over the past six months. so we conducted a thorough review to address it, the goal with us is to ensure compliance with both state laws and standardization of practices, and we will continue in that work, we have nothing that is in closed session this evening, but i want to recognize

the folks that are here in the hearing room with us today from dpa that include senior investigator steve ball, our chief of the legal team, the glorious deanna rosenstein, and our director of policy, jermaine jones, is here as well, if folks have information or need to get in contact with dpa, the website is sfgov .org forward slash dpa. the phone number is (415) 241-7711. and that concludes my remarks. great great time, commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias, congratulations on getting those those reduction numbers. i wanted to ask i think this might end up going more to the chief and director henderson about, i know there's been a concerted effort, chief, to, deal with the cases to reduce the caseload that are pending for chief's hearings, and so i wanted to hear if there's any progress. you wanted to report on that front, yes. there is a lot of those cases are moving.

and moving have been completed. what i mean by moving. so the deputy chiefs and commanders, we added the commanders recently to this rotation on these cases. so, we're willing whittling it down. can we get numbers to see? yeah, you can. i don't have them off the top. i think report has 125 sustained and pending with the chief. and so those yeah i'll get numbers i mean okay maybe the next chief report. we can talk about it. yeah i meant to ask. okay. that's all. thank you. we have number. i have numbers too, if that's helpful. i just wanted to focus on ours. no, absolutely. this week, next week, i'll be back with everybody else's. thank you. sergeant, if you would like to make public comment regarding line item six, please come to the podium. there's no public comment. line item seven commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a

future commission meeting. commission presidents report commissioners reports, commission announcements, and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. president thank you very much. president elias, a number of items for my report. i'll keep it quick since i know we have a long agenda today, i did want to note, i know we discussed it in chief support, that i am pleased that the hill bomb this year did not result in arrests, in use of force or any reportable use of force or injury other than those that were caused by skateboarding injuries. and it sounds like there were significant steps that were taken this year or that there were some steps taken this year. i wasn't able to attend that community meeting, but as i understand, it was well received. i think that, we want to see this maintained for future years. this is an event that happens at least once a year. i think the next step is to see how the community engagement can be improved. i

know there was some feedback that the meeting was the community meeting was successful. it was quite late. i think it was just less than a week before the scheduled and canceled event was supposed to be held. so i think maybe earlier engagement, to see in the future. and i think the next step is to see a version of this event that is, that is not just not doesn't lead to arrest, but is sanctioned in ways. so i hope that we can have continued collaboration with the community, and with the department to have a version of this event that that is sanctioned. as chief noted, i was at the sf pride parade with the public safety contingent. we had a really good turnout, great weather for once. and so that was that was very nice to see, earlier today i was at dpa, where i was a speaker at their summer speaker series, speaking to the dpa interns, who we all met, a few months ago when their internships started, and really want to repeat what we said then, that they're a tremendous group of committed and bright and fantastic individuals. it

was wonderful to spend an afternoon with them. you know, i said it as a joke, but it is true that the getting to speak to them is a highlight of my summer. it's always great to see that energy, that enthusiasm. i know they typically work on a presentation for the end of the summer, so i know i speak for a number of commissioners. i can't wait to see what their presentation will hold this year. i do want to provide a special recognition to netta thompson for continuing to build and organize a tremendous intern program at dpa, as well as well as natalie garcia, who the public service aide who coordinated the logistics of the summer speaker series as well. as director henderson said, i had my quarterly meeting as the commission's audit liaison with steve flaherty, the dba's audit team, where he also provided me an update on the stop data audit. i know the commission is very interested in watching that audit continue to go forward, and in the field, work is in progress. hopefully we'll get an update when we return from recess. something that i mentioned to mr. flaherty that i'll repeat to director henderson here is, you know,

there's strong commission interest and attention on the stop data audit. and if there's anything that the commission can do to assist, if there are roadblocks that the commission can help move out of the way, please, please let us know, because i think we all want to make sure that our stop data is effective. and there's a commitment to that here. and, i know we have a number of dgs today that are in response to prop e. i'll have comments on those that i'll reserve for when those come up on the agenda. and that concludes my report. commissioner walker. thank you, president elias, again, i want to applaud the department. i, i was, walking to the hardware store the other day when one of the people who came last year after the hill bomb, stopped me on the street and reminded me that it was coming up. and i called the department and the supervisor's office and the response, you know, the community meeting was really helpful. and i think that, it's

really a good idea to get it ahead of these type events, i agree that these these are parties, and we should be supporting them, but there's also a real need for them to be coordinated. the volunteers, just like the pride and the dike march, which never got permits in the entire time it is happening, but there were volunteers that were trained. and so we had those conversations that were really productive. i think getting the people thinking about it and some of the nonprofits in our community who do public events are working with some of the folks in that community. so hopefully we i mean, we've got some great hills here. and quite frankly, if i was a skateboarder, i would be going down them to legally. but, and also, as i've been, now now that you got good knees, that's why i'm not doing it now with bad knees. i've got, i've got two good knees. yeah, check the

hips. maybe next year. yeah, i also in the last month have, have,■ been meeting again around the patrol specials and also, so the private camera universe, sort of an infrastructure, and folks have been meeting with the chief as well, i think that we are preparing, you know, another follow up event at the commission here so we can look at how we can hopefully start up, a pilot program in that, you know, we've been just talking about it with the private sector about better management of security, essentially is what it is. so, i'm really looking forward to that. the pride, the pride event was just really well organized. it's always a pleasure to have so many people come and celebrate our community. so i want to thank the officers. i know that there was a lot posted along the parade route, and it really does

help. people really appreciated it. so thank you for that. appreciate it. thank you. thank you, commissioner yee, thank you very much, president, eliza, i'll just be brief, we had a town hall meeting in chinatown, we invited the chief district attorney and the mayor, talk about the fares and i guess this where we are in, crime. and, it was great to hear our community, asking the questions, you know, how are we doing? and great to hear the chief reporting that crime is down. it's safer than the years before. we hope to continue that and also open up the dialogs, we had, tried something new, which is called, instant translation in chinese. so we're working on that, and hopefully we can continue to do that. so as you know, translation, there's a gap in time. so we want to, i guess, lose the precious time that, the

chief, the mayor and the district attorney does come down to our community. so, as a residents and the shop owners as, they feel a lot more safer out there. hopefully we continue that. and, thank you, chief, for coming out. thank you, sergeant, if you would like to make public comment regarding line item seven, please come to the podiu. there is no public comment. line item eight. first of all, please accept my apologies for the agenda incorrectly identifying your organization, line item eight is a presentation by sf next initiative on their proposal for slits, a movable facility providing services to communities. hello. welcome. hi, good evening, commissioners. just one second. i'm going to let commissioner benedicto, give you an amazing introduction before you start, to give people

background, then i have to change my remarks, become repetitive. no problem at all. just a little bit of a very quick, background late. was it last year? at this point, last year, the san francisco chronicle hosted a summit called sf next. it was the culmination of a year long initiative that the chronicle had done on innovative solutions to, issues confronting san francisco. and it was a conference held at the exploratorium. and this conference and commissioner walker and i both attended this conference, and it included a number, i think, over 10 or 15 different proposals on various topics, including a new university in downtown, including, cash back rewards program for local businesses. for those who use clipper cards, all kinds of innovative ideas, some very big and some very small that were related to sort of that next chapter of san francisco. and there were a number that focused on public safety, and one in particular that was a very excellent

presentation was conducted by, riley mclaughlin. i hope i didn't totally butcher your name. it was perfect. i've been practicing, and this presentation, seemed to be at the intersection of a lot of things we've been discussing on the commission about community policing, about ways to have responses that include law enforcement as well as public health, and connecting people to services and ways to really project, presence in the community in a way that is non-confrontational. and it was in some ways very similar to some broad ideas we've been discussing on the commission. and so i reached out, to see if they wanted to deliver this. the same presentation to the commission, which they're going to do a version of. now, i think it's an innovative and interesting proposal. i think in some ways seems even more timely now that you're seeing some momentum, as well as now that you're seeing some of the restaurants, not have used these spaces in the same way. so i think there's a vacancy in these

spaces for these slits that maybe wasn't the case a year or two ago. and so i'm really looking forward to this presentation as the beginning of a conversation that hopefully, chief, we can have on how we can turn this proposal into something that can be, operationalized, and, and deployed. so take it away. i think we're done. i think our topic, okay. so. well thank you, first of all, for making time in your agenda. i'm richard korea, you've met sasha riley mclaughlin. i positive question, who am i and what am i doing here? i'm a retired san francisco police commander, after retirement, i was an adjunct professor at university of san francisco and chair of the university's, institute of criminal justice leadership. i and i skipped one of my lines. and, commissioner, you threw me off here. but we have two short presentations tonight, and they are rather short. mine will be a higher overview, and you're going to get some granularity from sorsha, and some photos of,

of what our project looks like anyway. but i'm here tonight as part of a team that includes several experienced and engaged san francisco, neighborhood leaders. they're here in the audience tonight. derek owyang and lori brooke. lilly, who's a member also, but wasn't able to make it tonight, these are all leaders, and it was a fascinating time that i was able to spend with them, where over a course of months under the auspices of the chronicle and the sf next project, we entertained a wide range of things on answering the question about big ideas to solve san francisco's problems, i our project ended up being a neighborhood policing project, pilots for public safety. okay, so san francisco, the san francisco police department is growing where you're hiring, your budgets are stressed, but there's still an opportunity to

advance ideas that make for a better future of san francisco. so we're not suggesting this is a ready to go. let's put it in and let's do it. but let's start planning for tomorrow, especially when neighborhood leaders are going to be doing a significant amount of the work. why are we here? okay, our goal tonight is to one is that we hope by the end of this presentation tonight, the chief will identify a department member whose experience we can leverage to collaborate with and tailor this program and figure out a best path forward for one day implementing it. and second, we'd like to ask the commission to invite us back in six months to tell you all how we're doing, with this project and with working with the department. but tonight, for my part, i'm going to share a philosophical and sort of a doctrinal high overview. boy, that sounds boring, the high overview. here we go. what's a park? what's a

bullet? it's a staffed resource. it's a parklet. that's staffed, resourced and placed. and moved as determined by a group that you'll come to know as the peace partners. collaborative pieces are akin to japanese kobans, which i'm sure you're all familiar with. there are 6300, kobans across japan. the difference with the peace lit is that it's movable. i everything in this program will start with the police, with the peace partners collaborative, which is a policy body of neighbors, merchants, police, community based organizations and service providers who identify public safety concerns and resources needed to improve conditions in a particular area or a particular neighborhood, and to reduce suffering in those areas. we know certain things to be

true, that it's that the public and the police share the same responsibility for public safety and that it's the absence of crime that matters, not the police and government's actions that occur after a crime occurs. we're very much our program is very much in line with this latter concept that, prevention and lowering crime and reducing suffering. we also know that, as people avoid distressed areas and neighborhoods disorder and undesirable behaviors increase and crime and suffering follows. we also know and we've known for decades that if you activate an area with people adhering to more commonly accepted norms, they act as natural guardians of communities and neighborhoods. you'll have a safer, sustainable, and more successful neighborhood if it's an activated neighborhood where people feel safe going. and

commerce is robust, we also know that assigning police to a particular area promotes a sense of safety and reduces disorder. so why pistolets did i say it? i jump parklet piece, let's say foul it up sometimes. but why? let's gives neighborhood stakeholders a direct involvement in safety in their community. i a role in developing public safety policy and how public safety resources are used. it honors the tradition that that a public with significant responsibilities for safety must have some control over problem solving responses and slits, creating trust, building partnerships order safe neighborhoods with less suffering service providers and guardians where they are needed, and dynamic and responsive to community needs. i now sorsha is

going to give you some a little more granular detail, and i can tell you that on the way up in the elevator, a fellow asked me, was it my first time here? and i said, no. it was my 40th time addressing this commission. previously, a successful evening at the commission would be defined by none of you asking a question tonight. i have just the opposite feeling. i hope that you have lots of questions for sorsha and the rest of our team. that's here tonight. anyway. sasha, thanks, sergeant. are able to put up their slides. do we know? yes. we pause the clock to sergeant, please.

click for you. oh, i can do it. okay. yeah. thank you. okay. thank you. richard. thank you, members of the commission. so to get into a little more detail about the piece, let's. so each piece let. oh, sorry. each piece lit will be managed by a collective body called the peace partner collaborative. and members of this body will include the respective police captain of the district, the community police advisory board that already meets with that precinct, as well as merchants from the neighborhood residents and community based organizations and providers. and together, their main objective is to best craft their piece that reflects their community's needs, wants, and more

importantly, how they would like to see those needs being met, and they're going to do this by strategizing the resources of both sfpd and the community based organization that is staffing the slits, as well. so we have a little bit of a standard template here of what a slit could look like where there are two service providers and two officers, service providers can i mean, take any specialization that the collaborative believes is most needed. so this could be housing, navigation, this could be food access, substance use, etc. and the two officers can play a more secondary role of support to the providers or be a bit more active in walking the community. depending on how the collaborative would prefer to see them utilized. and the

really unique thing about the slits is that because they are going to be individually overseen by separate collaboratives, each neighborhoods piece can look different from one another. since san francisco neighborhoods look different from one another. so here we have a bit of an example where the collaborative may be in the tenderloin district would want to be more services heavy and have a few more providers in their slit, whereas they might want the officers to act as more of a secondary role or step in if something is getting a little beyond the specialization of the providers. whereas another district like chinatown or north beach might decide that they are not, as services, heavy in needs, but they would prefer to have more officers and they will be there to walk the blocks and deter any crime like retail theft. anything immediately

happening in the area, and then and the idea is that these collaboratives will be meeting on a monthly basis, and we are hoping that this plan will not only help to build a more sustainable, cooperative relationship between our community based organizations and our police force. but we're also hoping that this design, particularly will help address the public's feeling of helplessness when they are seeing someone in need in their community. and this is a little visualization of what a parklet could look like. it's a very open area. anybody walking down the street can approach an officer, approach a provider, ask questions, and it's just supposed to be a mobile resource for our communities. thank you.

commissioner benedicto, thank you so much for that presentation, you know, the commissioner walker and i had the benefit of having heard a version of it before, but it was it was still very helpful. thank you all for your work, i know, i know, continuing to work on it beyond the scope of sf. next was not what you're asked to do. so i want to thank you all for continuing to work to work on this project after the fact, so the idea would be to have one piece lit for each of the, each of the districts. is that right? that is our initial plan. yes. obviously, if we were to reach some sort of pilot, we might start with just two prime districts, but we would hope to see them kind of sprawl around the city. yes. in your sort of imagining are the providers from other city agencies like d.p.h or the providers from, nonprofits or other non-governmental organizations that might be providing services in the area or a mix of both? yeah. for our team, we were

thinking primarily with nonprofits that service the communities themselves. so rather than having one very large nonprofit take on, you know, multiple locations of slits, it would be, you know, that regional community nonprofit in their community, slit serving there and really just kind of building that integration. sorry could i add that, it would also be driven by the collaboratives view of what resources are needed in a particular area. so you know, that that would set who's going to be there or what entity. i imagine that would extend to things like language, language access to. so maybe in the chinatown piece lit, you want to make sure that you have chinatown focused organizations and chinese speaking providers as well. absolutely. that's the goal. we don't want to create a situation where the slits feel like there are barriers to approaching the slit. the whole idea is to really kind of create this central point for the

neighborhood where needs can be met, faces can be recognized, and then it can move around as needed. if any, like criminal activity migrates, if any. you know services are needed. a few blocks down we can come meet you. where you're at is the idea i. that was my next question about the mobility of it, because on one hand you mentioned sort of having a be a predictable, almost like extension of, of a station where people could know, oh, i saw something going there. i know that the piece lit is always on this particular corner. so would it be mobile insofar as it's going someplace and then coming back to the same place, or is it moving within neighborhoods? and if so, how often would you envision that that sort of movement that would be up to the collaborative and depending on how its presence is affecting the behavior in the neighborhoods, if there is no displacement, then there would not really be a need to move it. if there is displacement, then we would hopefully the collaborative would want to kind of trace track that and follow

that around, but ideally for like a templated, we would think maybe once a month, just kind of popping up in different areas of the same neighborhood to engage different merchants, engage different residents, you know, just keep it, keep it circulating. i imagine that one issue that will have to be confronted is an issue of staffing and resources. as we often hear at this commission. do you think that a version of this model could work where i'm thinking about commissioner walker and i did a ride along the tenderloin a number of weeks ago, and the department supports, public works in some of their vendor work. could you envision a version of this working where the pilot is in place? the providers are there for whatever duration, and maybe the officers aren't there. like i imagine a problem would be finding two officers to devote an entire shift to being at a

piece that could it. could it be something where different officers will combine? there will be some time where there might be an officer, there might be different officers throughout a shift, or sometimes it might just be providers, like where where the officer side of that is contingent on staffing or do you feel like it's something where you would need an officer there at all times to remain effective? i would say that a major goal of this project is to have both the presence of police and providers, realistically, both of, these responders work with very similar populations. right. so we our goal would love to see more cooperation and less tension between these two so that we can serve those mutual populations more effectively, more and with more coordination. i will say, though, that this model doesn't necessarily require like fully sworn officers. if there are, you know, auxiliary officers or other categories, that should definitely, be just as

applicable. yeah, there might be a good use of our retired officers that have agreed to come back and serve as community ambassadors since what they have is radio access, which is a big a big piece of what could be a perfect implementation. absolutely. yeah. the real plus that's interesting. i didn't see a path forward on the movable piece list. i thought parklet, i got a good education from folks here that it being dynamic and being able to redeploy it not as not as a substation, which departments often resist, but as a place that goes to where the problems are to help solve them, which i became a convert on the issue of what drives where this, piece that's going to go. that was you we argued a long time about that. we argued about a lot of things. wonderful. i'd ask chief, i know that, the retired commander asked if there's some of the department you could assign to liaise with

them on next steps on this. is that something that we could we could do to further the conversation? yes for now, if you just work through, through our office and we will probably put operations on this either community engagement, but work through our office, i'd like to learn more about it. i mean, definitely, the concept is good cost deployment needs, those type of things or issues that definitely we would have to work through. chief, we're very sensitive to, you know, your staffing issues. and we've talked about this. we come expecting to do the heavy lifting and look for, you know, guidance and the expertise of whoever you connect us up with about what is workable down the line, but there are many things we have to work out still. thank you. great. those are all my questions for now. thank you. commissioner yee. thank you very much, mr. president, cindy elias, when i saw this last month, i was i mean, i was

ecstatic, i was excited, and i said, what happened to them? you know, this is what i've been looking for in chinatown. you know, they took away the command over there, and that's politically football over there. so i've been talking to chief how we can do it. maybe at the substation. but this is an excellent idea. i mean, this is this. i don't want to say solve our problems in san francisco, but it's a start in the right direction. i mean, community outreach is. i guarantee you they'll support it because we've been looking for it. actually, we you know, we went to the chief and put an all point bulletin out for that bond. so it's under the freeway somewher. so hopefully we can bypass that and do this. i'm very supportive of this. i thank you very much, commander herrera and your team, i'll be happy to reach out. i mean, well, not my team, and

team. not your team. yeah. these are teams, actually. so as this comes forward, i'll be supporting of this. i'll be, looking for ways to maybe bring it out to our community in chinatown and other other, you know, districts that do need it or wants it. i guarantee you it's been asked. and here it is. you guys just brought it to us, and we'll reach out to you right after this meeting. i mean, this very much item. thank you very much, laura. hi, everyone. i'm laura brooke, i'm president of the cal hall association, also a co-founder of rescue sf. i just want to add another angle that this brings. and that is the residents involvement. i mean, we were talking about the police and the community based organizations, but it's the residents that live in the communities that often don't know where to turn when they see somebody in distress or they see, graffiti or theft or whatever. and i think it would make the residents feel so much better about their neighborhoods. and it can also

become fun, you know, if these if you have donuts out in the, i was gonna call it a koban. the p slit. you know, you create a place for people that want to go and want to convene and want to support one another. so i wanted to add that. can i comment as well, commissioner, you made kind of in a joking sense, the notion that this could solve all our problems. i think we would all agree that this certainly isn't that. but i do think that's a right concept to apply pretty seriously at a different scale, which is simply the street that a piece of shit is on. we would all expect that this can solve that street's problems, and if it can't do that, then we would argue pretty much nothing can. so if we think about that at the bare minimum, showing up on a street block and engaging the local representatives and stakeholders and figuring out what works there, then think of these as kind of micro experiments in learning what that can be. and of course we would want that to scale, but if we just at least hold it to the to the minimum

goal of improving safety on one block, then it's just about learning from many different iterations of that and then scaling over time. and i think that really is a nice way to get to that. that ultimate goal. commissioner thank you, madam president, and thank you for this bold and interesting concept. i guess the question i ask is, so have you have there been other areas in the country who have tried this idea of this type of community, sort of restorative justice piece lit in their neighborhoods that you've modeled this after? is there someone else or is this something you originated as it relates to the concept of your thoughts? well, the model came after the kobe cobain's that are in japan, and we had two of them here, and i think i know where the koban is. i just returned from japan, so pardon me, i just returned from japan. so. okay, so the koban that for a variety of reasons didn't wasn't sustainable. and it was 24 years ago, i think the last one was removed. so we took that and

sort of took the idea of a koban and changed it around. but are there slots anywhere else in the country? i'd like to say no, i don't think so, but what it's based on is a lot of doctrine about policing that it's been around for a long, long time about community involvement and public safety and about activating neighborhoods. if you activate a block, that's going to be a safer block. if you bring services and police to that block, maybe you can reduce suffering too. but so the answer is no. this is novel, if you hold our feet to the fire, this commission maybe will be a national spotlight for an innovative project. so there are a lot of moving parts, because obviously you have to decide what structure if you use a structure, if you do that, where do you put it in these large communities? san francisco, we got all these different neighborhoods and communities. you got to decide where you're going to go first, where are you going to go there? and the

people you have servicing the kiosk itself. how do they represent the communities in the area as it relates to how you can help them? because even though we have lots of people and we got these communities, everybody is different and so the question will be, how do you address that? i mean, you can go street to street, but that's a lot of street to cover. and if you have only one and where you decide to put it may be contention in terms of the community, well, why is it they're not with us? and then the question is who are providing the services as well as the officers that are involved. so i applaud your efforts and continue doing what you do and come back to us and bring us more information. but i think it's a real keen concept. and we're in san francisco. we're neighborhoods, so it works well for that. so thank you. well, if you ask us back in six months, hold our feet to the fire about moving this thing forward. we'll answer those sort of questions, with the help of the police department in terms of, you know, informing us what's doable. and, at the at the end of the day, though, the

piece, the collaborative will be have community connections to know what are the particular problems or issues on in particular neighborhoods. so we get down to the neighborhood level and maybe the block in a neighborhood, because neighborhoods are very different. they're microclimates, as you know, in this town. and so we begin to make an impact. one block at a time. i think we will have you back in six months, because i think this is, well, we should thank commissioner benedicto for having this agendized and bringing you here and, bringing awareness to this issue. so i'm sure he's going to be bringing it back in six months. and holding your feet to the fire with those donuts. yeah. we don't eat cops don't eat donuts anymore. thank you. okay thank you for coming. thank you, sergeant, so much. thank you. would like to make public comment regarding line item eight. please come to the podium. there is no public

comment. line item nine discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution urging the board of supervisors to retroactively authorize the police department to accept and expend an in-kind gift of 1800 units of naloxone valued at $81,300, through the naloxone distribution project in dp, which is funded by the substance abuse and mental health services administration and administered by the department of health care services. naloxone from this project will be used to help combat opioid overdose related deaths. discussion and possible action. hello. good evening. welcome good evening, president elias. vice president carter overstone, commissioners executive director henderson and chief scott. i'm kimmie wu, the

chief financial officer of the san francisco police department. item number nine is requesting to adopt a retroactive resolution authorizing the police department to accept and expend an in-kind gift of 1800 units of naloxone valued at 81,300. the naloxone distribution project is funded by the california substance abuse and mental health services administration, and administered by the department of health service to reduce opioid overdose deaths, which includes fentanyl, through the provision of the free naloxone to organizations and entities. sfpd has been receiving narcan kits from this project since 2019. this resolution is retroactive because we've already received the units of naloxone. the gift is provided by dhcs naloxone

distribution project and the state automatically sends out the units once the request has been reviewed and approved. great. seeing no questions on the dais, can i get a motion? i move to accept the retroactive gift to the department. i will, second sergeant. or is there any public comment regarding line item nine? seeing no public comment for the vote, commissioner clay. yes. yes, commissioner walker. just excused commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner yanez is excused. commissioner yee. no he stepped out as well. i'm here. i don't get to vice president carter overstone. yes. and president elias. yes. thank you, mr. elias. you have a vote that

passes to accept line item ten. discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution urging the board of supervisors to retroactively authorize the chief of police to accept and expend a great a grant in the amount of $72,275 from the california governor's office of emergency services for the paul coverdell forensic service improvement program to train and procure equipment for the criminology laboratory with the project period beginning april 1st, 2024 through june 30th, 2025. discussion and possible action. miss wu, we already have the item read into the record, so i think unless there's any questions, i'm going to ask for a motion, motion to adopt the resolution. second. is there any public comment regarding line

item ten? seeing no public comment, we'll move to vote. commissioner clay, how do you vote? yes, commissioner benedicto. yes. vice president carter obergesteln. yes. and president elias. yes. president. elias, you have a unanimous vote to pass the line item ten. line item 11. we are going to recall it. another time line. item 12 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 5.01 use of force policy and proper control of a person for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the effective bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action to implement implement prop, prop e, sf admin code section 96.1. commissioner

benedicto, thank you very much. president elias, we have a number of these. dgos up for tonight, so i'll speak generally about them on this item so we can move efficiently once we're through, as, people are aware, the voters of san francisco adopted proposition e in the election this year, you know, we've talked about this extensively among the commissioners. a number of current and former commissioners opposed its passage, but it passed, and it is the law in san francisco. and so at the time that it passed the, president elias asked me to begin working with the department. and the commission has been working very closely with chief scott and the department to revise, certain department general orders to be in compliance of prop e, the goal is to be fully compliant and implement the changes that are legally required by prop e in a way that is effective in a way that is, but in a way that also preserves important

safeguards and principles of transparency and accountability and fairness, and does not involve and minimizes backsliding in terms of sfpd's reform goals, of which it is significantly touted its progress in. that's been a commitment that everyone on this commission has shared a commitment to advance our reform goals and a commitment to public safety. so with respect to that, we've been working to provide these drafts. this is the first, vote we're going to have on some of these general orders. this is not the end of our discussion, regarding these, the commission takes its responsibility as the policy and oversight body of the department very seriously. and nothing in prop e changes our responsibility to oversee the department and changes our responsibility to ensure that there is transparency and accountability and fairness in this department, and that our policies and regulations reflect that. i think that the policies will be voting on tonight, strike that balance and do implement, prop e, making the required changes under the law

while maintaining, the safeguards and the guardrails that were able to be preserved. and i look forward to discussing and moving these forward, assuming these are adopted tonight, they're going to go to the san francisco police officers association for, meet and confer, the poa was one of the, strongest supporters of prop e, both in its messaging and in its campaign donation. so i'm hopeful that these changes will be well received and will proceed quickly, i have from here both, argued at times that the poa has been dragging its feet, but on some orders that we've passed. but i've also been here to applaud the poa when they've worked collaboratively with us, and we've gotten certain things through. meet and confer quickly. i am, going to appeal directly to the leadership of the poa and ask that we work collaboratively to move these general orders through quickly so that there is clarity, for officers and that there's no ambiguity and that these questions can be clearly

answered for officers, when the october 1st, 2024 date of which is one of the dates called out in proposition e, is, passes. so thank you very much. thank you, commissioner benedicto, for that broad overview. there's been a lot of misinformation as to what this process is and what it is not, we did work diligently with the chief to adhere to implementing the language of prop e into the existing and relevant dgos. this is not a opportunity to open pandora's box and address other issues within the dgos. this is strictly a process of us incorporating the statute or the required language from the proposition. so that's what we've done, director henderson, i just had a brief comment, a small one. this is i think we everybody has done a really good job of bringing this all together. and this is a complicated issue. there's not there was not a direct correlation with prop e and the dgo and the general order and

there's just one small omission that i'd like to raise, about the dgo as it reads, is silent about type three uses of force that result in complaints of pain, but not injury. and this is an evidence based comment because these are complaints that frequently come into dpa. i have a quick fix if it's helpful. well, we provided you the opportunity to give us these quick fixes before coming to commission so that we would have it and available for the public, dpa politely told us that they were too busy with other things. so, what are you asking now? that the small fix be that type three and type four? uses of force shall be documented on body worn camera or cad. that's it. that line, it should make sense. and it's consistent with everything else. it's so in the future we would just ask that it we be provided these ahead of

time so we can review them. the public has the opportunity to review them so that we don't make these on the fly type of requests. absolutely. yeah. i think that's already in there. but let me let me go to this. let me go to the section. is there a specific page you want that attitude, director henderson, page nine of 26. if you look at, type type three, which reportable and the second category. so this is not the, the document that's going to go to a meet and confer. if those requests are requested, the parties are going to get together again. and so if that's something you want to add, something that once you have the meet and confer, you make that decision. i think you get to make it. then i don't think we have to do this because they do have a right to have this notice prior to being here and doing it on the record. right. and so i

think that what happens is when it goes to meet and confer, if we add additional language after approving it, then it starts the clock. all over again. and given the timeline, i think it may make sense that we can. what we can do is add this to that section. i built in an extra meeting so that we can address any outstanding issues. next commission meeting so that we can get this voted on prior to us adjourning for the month of august, and that's why, again, we had built in time for feedback prior to today's meeting. can you repeat your so is the change at the bottom of type? is it basically you want that same language for type b, subsection one on that page there. is that correct? where'd he go? are you on page nine of the clean or of the red line? yeah. what because the page, page nine of 26 is the table. yes. he's got the map. yeah frustrated when we don't get it. i think if it's just adding that, i'm fine either way. elmo.

our confusion here is around, type three reportable force, so there's this example of when an officer uses oc spray, has no visible injury, but. okay, so but what do you want? what language do you want? and where. oh, yeah. i'm explaining that, so there's injury, but no, sorry. no visible injury, but complaints of discomfort, so you just hit that on page 21? okay there's an explanation under responsibility, which explains when an officer should document this force and then the exceptions point to type two force, where there is complaint of pain. i said you're looking

at page 21 bb1b1. exceptions. type two use of force only resulting in complaints of pain shall be reported to a supervisor and shall be documented on bwc or cad. and you would like that expanded to. well, it's more of a question. it's what happens in the example from the chart. if an officer uses oc spray and there is no visible injury but complaint of discomfort, the policy when i read it seems silent about whether that requires an incident report or, documentation through body cam. so just looking for clarification. so is the question is where do you want it put or is the question can you add the language that director henderson is asking us to add? which one is it? well, first it's a question because it fits clear to you or the chief. then maybe i'm just reading it incorrectly. yeah, but. so that's why. so, the language

from prop e requires an injury or complaint of pain to be reportable. so if it's discomfort. yeah. so i understand that it's reportable. i'm just trying to understand how it's reported. yeah. if it's not an injury i mean we're basically trying to stick to the language of prop. so if it's not an injury, it's reportable. but it can be reported on the bwc. if it's not an injury. okay, so then that would sort of fall into this exception here where it's type two use of force. but it would also be type three use of force. so i would suggest adding that for clarity, adding what type three to the exception. because what the chief just articulated is if there's an oc spray so that it would read type two and type three uses of force only, resulting in complaints of pain shall be reported to a supervisor and shall be

documented on bwc or cad. chief, is that okay with you? yes, fin. yeah. yeah. okay okay, thanks. well, we could have said it in a document. we could have had it prepared. okay okay. yes. no, it's not fair to us or the public. i think you're right. okay i mean, i'll wait to make a motion with the conclusion of commissioners comments in case there's commissioner clay. yes. thank you, madam president. so i just wanted to comment that and commend you and commissioner, benedetto and your efforts in getting this done. it's, you know, i've served on a number of boards and commissions through the course of my career. it's very difficult to bring people together. and you all did. i mean, you got the chief on board, his staff to engage with you, and you come up with a base document because the base document to finally make a determination and put it in the language, something we can vote on to make it permanent at terms of the general orders. so i want to commend you all for your for your effort, because it's not easy and you did the right

thing. and this, this document, a working document is very good to go forward with. and so we'll see. but obviously i want to thank you guys for doing that. thank you. i'm going to hope to assign you stuff soon. the newbie commissioner walker. thank you. yeah i wanted to also commend both of you to, president elias and commissioner benedicto and chief, for working on this. the people voted regardless of what people think about it. you know, it is important that we move this forward as quick as we can so that we can get to the business of, you know, making our streets safe and keeping keeping folks happy out there. or at least happier. so i really appreciate this work, that you all did together. so i think that some of the, some of the issues that i had questions about isn't on the it got pulled so we can talk about it and, and, bring it back

next week. i'm supportive of all of the dgos that were going to be voting on today. and i look forward to moving them forward. so thank you again. thank you. vice president carter. thank yo, president elias. and i have i have some questions for chief, just about the language of 5.01 and just trying to understand it for myself. but before that, i just i would just like to reiterate what commissioner benedicto said at the outset. i think, you know, regardless of what you think about the wisdom of property, it's the law of the land. and, you know, we're required to implement it, and we have a legal obligation to do that. and i certainly fully intend on, on carrying out that obligation. so, chief, i had a question for you about page 22 of the red line version. this is section nine. b, notb1c, so

page 22 and this is, this is the part that says when multiple officers use force in the same incident, all reportable uses of force shall be documented by a single reporting officer who's in the best position to provide an accurate and concise report. and i'm just curious to get your thoughts on how this is going to work in practice, because the language kind of presupposes that there will be one officer who witnessed every use of force that occurred, and it seems to me that there would be a lot of scenarios where that just wouldn't be the case, force was used by, let's say, five officers and there won't be any one officer who's witnessed all five uses. so what will happen in that case? yeah. so it doesn't assume that the reporting officer has witnessed all the uses of force. it'd be just like if you're taking a report with multiple witnesses,

the officers get the statement. they summarize the statement. witness number one said this. witness number two said this. it's the same concept except you're dealing with officers. so let's say you and i are in a use of force. i'm writing and you tell me whatever it is that you did and saw. i summarize that, and i write that in the report, which is backed up by the body worn camera and backed up by, you know, other evidence that so the picture of what happened is there it just does not require every officer to now write a statement. oh, okay. that's helpful. and then is that required by property, that provision property requires as much as we can do. this is to eliminate multiple officers having to be tied up with administrative paperwork. so that's one way to do that. and yeah. can you just explain how that will do that. because it's not immediately obvious to me at least because, you know, in the

example where that the one officer assigned to write did not is not a percipient witness to all of the other uses of force or just maybe witness part of it, but had a bad angle. each of those other officers is still going to have to make, as you said, some type of statement, i take it. maybe not a written statement or, yeah. so how will that exactly save time? you know, if officer a's writing, he didn't see officer b's use of force at all. so now he has to go talk to officer b and get a statement from him, which would be the same information that officer b would have memorialized in a report. so yeah, how will that save time? so the officer can take the information recorded however they want to record it and document it in the in the incident report, the officer who was giving that information is free to go back out in the field. and if there's questions you call them on the phone. hey,

let me make sure i got this right or whatever. whatever you need to do. but the idea behind this is to free officers up. so let's say there's a use of force and there's ten officers involved. five of them are witnesses. three of them may have done something like grabbed an arm, grabbed a leg or whatever. you can get that information. the reporting officer, write it down, just like they would with multiple witnesses. and the officers. the other officers are free to go out in the field, and if they need to come back in the station to verify something or to look at the report, they can always do that. but the concept is the officer in the best position can take that information and write that report. they do that now. that's what they do in big cases. and just last question on this. why would it take less time for in my to stick with my example officer b why officer a's reporting his own use of force and officer b's use of force? why would why would it take less time for officer b to tell officer a what she would have written in a written repor,

instead of writing the report herself? i'm this is like a very basic question about the nuts and bolts of what happens. i'm so i'm just trying to understand. yeah. so one reason and i can say this from experience, because i've done this many, many times in my career, but you're out in the field, you get the information, i get the information from you. let's say i write it on my, my notepad or whatever. however i want to record it. you go about your patrol duties and do what you need to do. i go back to the station and write the report. there's no need for you to come in and write a report or go to your car. wherever you're going to write your report, you're back out in the field. so yeah, that does save time. and i do have experience doing that because i've done it many, many times. it does save a lot of time. and i think that's the whole idea behind this is to be efficient but be accurate okay. that's that's very helpful. thank you. chief, i wanted to ask you about this other thing that you and i have been talking about offline for a while now, and i confess, i still don't totally understand it, so i do just want to walk through this

to make sure, that i do. so this is on page 21. this is section nine a, right. and this is just taking the language basically copy pasted from prop from prop e, right. so i think it's pretty uncontroversial that, the red line version. yes. uncontroversial, you know, property outlines, the two, the two, you know, circumstances where a written report is required, right? use of force resulted in physical injury. that's one, two officer remove firearm from from holster and pointed the firearm at a person. okay. those are the two times, written report is required. in all other instances. it goes on to say involving a reportable use of force. the officer shall satisfy these reporting requirements using bwc to the maximum extent possible. okay. so then you go down to the bottom of that same page, section b1, and it says any

reportable use of force shall be documented in detail in an incident report. so in writing, supplemental incident report or statement form. so the just like i'll just i have some follow ups, but i'll just stop right there. like why are those two provisions not in conflict? a says it outlines two very narrow circumstances where a written report is required. everything else bwc quote unquote to the, you know, maximum to the maximum extent possible. and then this section just says all reportable uses get a written report. so i'll just stop right there. why why isn't that intention so reportable being type two, type three and type four. because type one is are not reportable. the property and this dgo lays out if there's an injury there is a complaint of pain. it is reportable by bwc. if it's no

injury it's bwc. if it's injury written report. we just made the amendment as far as the type two and type three, if there's no injury other than firearms and to me, i think that's consistent because type two, type three, type four are reportable. if there's no injury bwc, we just make that change. anything else is a written report. if there's an injury, it's a written report. if a firearm is used to compel a person written report, if you unholster the weapon and point it at somebody, that's a reporting requirement. so i don't believe that's conflicting, particularly with the edit that was just made about type two, type three and type four. okay. so then what about type three where there's no injury. so the example i used last time was a less than lethal round is fired misses everybody. no injury right. so doesn't fall into the two categories outlined by prop e. but this says. but

this but but b one i guess would say it's reportable. is that right. by written report it falls under the firearm categor. so the firearm category is two requirements. and i'll just you just read it. right. right okay. but so let me just i know i remember the requirements for unholstering the firearm. but is firearm defined in 5.01 to include less than lethal a shotgun is a firearm period. the type of ammunition that's in the shotgun, whether it be less lethal projectiles or or something lethal. it's still a shotgun. it's still a firearm. so an air i w is a firearm. yes it is. it's a shotgun. so then let's take another type of type three force then. i think chemical weapons is a so let's say deployed a chemical weapon but didn't, didn't hit anyone, didn't affect anyone, just completely missed. so that

wouldn't be a fire that wouldn't fall into the firearm category. why would that be require written report. say that again. so take another type of another type of type three force. right. chemical weapons. right. that's type three. right okay. so let's say chemical weapons are deployed but no individual is injured by them. right so under b one under 9b1, you would tell me that requires a written report. but under nine a it doesn't fall into either of the two buckets. so what happens there. you deploy chemical weapons. nobody's injured. so if you deploy, if you're talking about like a tear gas launcher, that's that's fired into a resident on a you name the tactical incident that's not being fired at a person. if you if you aim and if you aim okay.

what about you're not firing tear gas. okay. what about you're not firing gas at a person. okay. but what about oc spray? oc spray has already been covered. if it causes an injury, it's reportable. if it it's reportable, period. if it causes an injury, it's a written report. if it doesn't cause an injury. yeah it's bwc reportable. and sorry. where is that covered about oc spray oc spray is in type two oc spray. so what what so what would be another chemical agent that you would fire at a person? we don't fire chemical agents at a perso, okay? you fire them when you're when you're when you're firing like but you're you're firing them with the intent that they that the agent not not that the round right. that firing a projectile at a person. uaw you're firing at a person. yeah.

a rifle, a pistol. you find a person if you're firing gas into a window, that's not firing at a person. sorry. why does it matter for firing at a person? i mean, commissioner, if you're saying that it shouldn't be reportable, i mean, i'm not saying that i don't. i don't have a problem with that, but. no, let me just finish the. this is and i just want to clarify why can i just answer your question, please? if you're saying that you don't want that to be reportable gas, i don't have a problem with that. however, prop e is clear about a firearm, shotgun, a rifle, a patrol pistol is a firearm where you're actually using that weapon. either firing at a person to stop them from doing what they're doing, or not. we don't fire gas at people. we don't. we fire it at structures. we. so you're saying the ground, the gas, the chemical agent would, would fall under into the firearm unholstering a firearm category of property? is that

what you're saying? i'm saying if that's what you want, i don't have a problem. no, no, no, i'm not asking. i don't i'm asking you for your interpretation. that's all. because i just want to make sure it's clear when we pass it. you know what the rules are. and i want to make sure that we're that. i do think i just will say that what his interpretation is sort of irrelevant. it's what's on the paper in front of us that that matters. because it's what that's what the officers are going to see. it's not going to be based on what the chief interprets. and if the officer is reading this policy, they need to. it's whatever's on this paper because that's what's going to be subject them to discipline, not what the chief. absolutely. i just want to make sure it's i think all the time we have discussions about what the words on the page mean, and i just want to make sure i understand, because i was reading provisions as potentially conflicting. and i obviously i don't think we would want to issue a policy with conflicting provisions. that's that that's all. last question, chief, about, reporting, well,

not reporting, but but oftentimes the department puts together reports, documents that analyze the department's own uses of force and, and, you know, cuts the data in various ways, sometimes breaks it down by for example, the race of the individual. that force was used against, now that so much now that some things that were used to require a written report will now only be captured on on body worn camera when we when the department puts together reports like that, will the department still include uses of force that are not memorialized in writing? yes. they are still captured and reported. so the use of force report, regardless, regardless of whether it's body worn camera or a written report, still has to be reported to a supervisor, still has to be put on the use of force log, and then that will be captured as far as the statistics go, great. those are all my questions. thank you. and

reviewed. right? yes. what is the mechanism of the department to flag these incidents? because before it would be a written report, you'd have a incident report number, and that's how it was tracked generated and logged. so what is the new maybe you can explain that very briefly. yeah so the log was still captured. the use of force if there if there's an incident report of course that's that's easier. but by the cat number or whatever the identifier is for that, that bwc would go in that log. so the supervisor can pull those records and review whatever they need to review to evaluate that use of force. commissioner yee, thank you very much, sir. president elias, thanks again, two commissioners for putting this forward. and the chief and this and then the staff. i'll be supporting this. detail as written if there's any additional changes, i think we

need to notify the public of it and come back to this. and that's where i stand. thank you very much, sir. we tried to avoid that question. things happen. so, yeah, we've made revisions in the past. so i would like to make a motion. i'd like to make a motion to we're not adopting. we're approving, department general order 5.01 for use with meet and confer with the effective bargaining units with the amendment that 5.0 109b1 exceptions be amended to read type two and type three uses of force, and i will, memorialize that in writing for commission staff as well, and so i will make that motion. i'd also like to take a moment, i think that was an important ambiguity, a potential ambiguity that vice president carter stone flagged, you know, i think it's important to note that while president elias and i had the benefit of working with the department closely on this, this is the first meeting that our fellow commissioners have been

able to comment on this. i think it's important that we talked about this before. it's important that we poke and prod to make sure that everything works. and i think that it sounds like we dealt with those edge cases. but but thank you, vice president carter stone, for raising that second. are you seconding? if you would like to make public comment regarding line item two, please come to the podium line item 12. what was your change on that? you said two line item 12. yeah. he said number 12. sorry there's no public comment. we'll go to a vote. commissioner clay, how do you vote? yes. that change. commissioner walker. yes. commissioner. benedicto. yes commissioner. yi. yes. vice president carter stone. yes. president elias. yes. and you have a unanimous vote to this as written, right? approve and move forward. line item 13 has been placed on another agenda line. item 14 discussion and possible

action to approve revised department general order 5.0 for arrest of private persons for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. the community engagement process does not apply where the commission is considering possible revisions to existing dgos to implement prop e, sf admin code, section nine six, i dot one. any comments questions? fellow commissioners, any other additions? director henderson of course, i move to approve the 5.04. i would love to, but apparently director henderson is on the board. so what other edits do you have now? no edits? well, we don't have time. oh, they had time. i know, that's why they declined, while we, we

just wanted to have a comment about the, the citations, and having the short form, we do think that we could shorten the form, but we think that having the form is actually helpful. those forms are used in every other almost every other department in the state. those citations, referencing the forms, go back to the 60s. and having that form asking folks to fill out that form does not are eliminating that form doesn't reduce paperwork delays. but the reason that i think the forms are relevant and that they would matter, is because some of those forms are more helpful than not specifically addressing race disparities. and who gets arrested from private citizens when they're asking folks to be arrested? having that record, i think, could be amended to address and include information that is more helpful to inform

officers as to whom the public is asking to be arrested, and eliminate ambiguity. i think this is one of those intransigent and subjective things that could be used to address race disparities and policing. specifically, what are you asking specifically? that we keep the forms that we keep the form, the arrest by private persons? what page? i think you're talking about the second page, number four, is that is that right, director henderson? i believe so, where it says if an arrest is made to obtain the signature of the arresting private person. yes. form or document? verbal affirmative. so you want to strike that verbal affirmative response? i mean, i think as i understand it, even if it's the verbal affirmative response, it's still noted in an incident report that a form 80 was completed. just not not a written one. yes. and again, this is a very narrow issue, chief, did you have. so i just want to make sure i understand director henderson's question or

request. are you talking? you're talking about number four, right? yeah. if an arrest is made to obtain the signature of the person of the arresting person, on the private person's arrest. sfpd form 80, also known as citizen's arrest or document the person's verbal affirmative response to make a private person's arrest on bwc. is they asked to do away with the or part, yes. that's correct, chief. so i the reason i disagree with that is again, you know, we're looking at trying to be more efficient on, on these types of incidents, one of the things that happens with these, with these forms is you get a book of them as evidence and all that. if it's documented on the bwc that the person wants to make the arrest, we're just trying to cut down on the paperwork where we can, and that's why the or is there. so i, i don't agree with that, that

change. i think if the information is captured, you have what you need for the prosecution. i don't know what the value of just having a form just to have a form would be. oh, i understand that, chief. the actual request is to continue to obtain a signature from the person asking for a citizen's arrest because it's your you have one citizen asking another to deprive them of liberty, since the 60s, we've been requiring these forms, and it's a pretty big departure to switch from asking a person to sign a document when they want an individual arrested to just saying it into a body cam. i've had a lot of cases of these citizen's arrest cases, and, you know, i'm in favor of getting rid of the incident report requirement. but, you know, removing a signature requirement is a bigger lift. and i think the argument is in the 60s, we didn't have this technology where you actually can see the person saying, yes, i want a

citizen's arrest. now we have this, this technology. so i mean, do we do we need a form because the evidence is there. it's on the it's on the bwc or are you going to house the form like that's since there's no written incident, where are you going to house the form. you could put a signature block on an incident report form. it's just about maintaining the signature of the person who wants the arrest, which would then require an incident report, which is what the bwc is replacing. they'll still need. well, no, it still has to be noted in an incident report that a private person arrests form had been documented by bwc. so i think we're still getting the documentation. i think a point you made, chief, is interesting about that. we didn't have the technology in some ways, looking at cameras straight and saying, i wish to arrest this person might actually be a more to the extent we're trying to make sure someone is making a definitive statement of this intent, to deprive someone of liberty, that might be just as strong, and the policy as written still allows for the it's an either or. it doesn't remove the form 80. if someone would prefer to fill out

a form 80 so that that's interesting. that's fair. i just wanted to put our position out. thank you. thanks i think judge clay was going to make a motion. i did i move that we approve five zero for second. i'll second. oh i would just like to note, as with all of the motions that we approved to go to be confirmed, i want to subject to our labor relations resolution. that is standing. sorry. we had one other question. slash recommendation, with respect to this is on the clean version page two. subsection five, the last sentence, for example, if a person alleges that an alien abducted them or that a neighbor implanted a chip in their body to control their thoughts, while that's an example of frivolous, allegations or unfounded, we

think that the better explanation for frivolous and unfounded can actually be found in code of civil procedure. 120 8.5 that's the definition that we use for frivolous and unfounded complaints. for example, for purposes of, 830 2.7 and 830 2.5, i think the language is less inflammatory and more concise. i think director henderson has the language. i guess i don't understand if someone was too busy to provide information on this, that we're entertaining this in front of this forum. now to redo what you all did and spent a lot of time on, that's what i don't understand. great question, director henderson, would you like to answer that? sure, well, we have been a little inundated these recommendations were on the grid, but the grid, it was

difficult to get the information back as quickly as it was requested from, the department is the short answer. i mean, i can give you the timeline and the dates and give you all of that, but i don't want to stand and make a whole lot of excuses for it. we the timeline was difficult for us to map to meet. yeah. i don't want to say anything. you're professionals. i start my day even as a judge, at 5:30 a.m. and go to work, and i don't eat lunch. so you guys are out there doing what you do. that's what professionals do. so you have to work later to do what you're supposed to do. you know, this is the public's come here. everybody's come here to do this. and here we are thinking about what you should have did. and people said they were too busy. that's what you do as professionals. so in this case, madam president, it's up to you. but i think in the future this shouldn't happen. it's not right. we try to avoid it and we harp on the department when they don't meet deadlines. so it's only fair. i think. and seconded, so the definition of

frivolous is totally, totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing or opposing or, or harassing or menacing another party. chief, are you. i'm not inclined, i well, i understand i saw that when we when we got it, i just, i believe the whole point of that is if it's a frivolous complaint, i mean, a frivolous assertion of a person want to make a citizen's arrest or private person's arrest, that the officers, don't have to then go through the whole process of doing the form and the things that we are now required to do. so, i mean, i hear the point, but i don't think that actually that's not i think it happens more than people might, might imagine with those types of. no,

no, the form is the form. i don't i'm not inclined, but i think we're we're moving on to her definition request to change the definition and the right the language is i don't i don't see the language as inflammatory. and believe it or not, those things do happen. they happen more. you happen more than people might think every day of that. but i think that there's a better way to explain frivolous that is more, appropriate, legally appropriate. right. i mean, i think we, i think we have frivolous and unfounded in there. that was the definition. obviously, officers will be trained and we can i think that can be addressed at that motion. and a second on the floor. thank you. do you like to make public comment regarding line item 14? please step to the podium. no public comment. we'll now take a vote regarding line item 14. commissioner clay, how do you vote? yes. commissioner walker. yes. commissioner. benedicto. yes commissioner. yi. yes. vice

president carter. auberson yes. vice. sorry. president elias. yes. and president elias, you have a unanimous vote. thank yo, president elias, i have a request, i apologize. late too. no, i would like to ask that just for clarity. and because these shows, we want them to go quickly. and i didn't mention our labor relations resolution for item 12 for 5.1, which is kind of the most important one that we call that item and have a vote on it with, where it's clear that the labor, our labor relations resolution is included in it. do we need do we need that deputy city attorney or can we make a for, out of abundance of caution because it was not included in the motion? that's what that's what i'm thinking. i know the resolution itself as it applies. yeah. can i just ask the city attorney the resolution in question applies globally. so why would we need to re invoke it every time we pass something? it's fully effective. right. if you want to avoid the fight i

would suggest that you do that because you've been doing it. my only concern is yeah we typically do it and i don't want the absence of us doing it. well, yeah. i mean, but if we were, if it was unnecessary before, sure. just asking. just asking questions. i think you're right. we love that two minutes. we appreciate those questions. at 830. so with the president's indulgence, can we recall item item 12 please. you don't have to take a vote. you can just let's do it. can we recall it for line item 12. we're going to take a vote regarding the passing with the amendment. yes. so the my motion for item 12 is to, approve 5.01 with the amendment to add type three at depay's request, and pursuant to the labor relations resolution 23 dash 32nd. okay, are there any that oppose motion passes. next item line item 15. discussion and possible action to approve revised general order

5.05 emergency response and pursuit driving for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. the community engagement process does not apply where the commission is considering possible policy revisions to existing dgos to implement prop e, sf admin code, section 96 i point one. commissioner benedicto, i just want to note that this was probably the hardest one that that president elias, myself, and the chief worked on the pursuit policy. it required the most changes in response to prop e, it was where there was the most disagreement before prop e passed. and i think that, you know, there were all kinds of discussions, for example, the lack of definition of violent misdemeanor, but i think that the policy as reflected expands the pursuit policy pursuant and compliant with prop e, but also includes provisions such as,

broader provisions for supervisory authority to call off chases, adding factors that officers should consider. and i think that it's an effective representation and implementation of prop. vice president carter overstone. sorry, i'm just pulling this up, but as i pull it up, i if i recall, i think it's the very last section of 505, that that talks about reporting outcomes. and i don't does. yeah. could i borrow that action? you can. thank you. commissioner. you're always so helpful. and it looks like we're not reporting the number of apprehensions. is that right on that? the 5.0508. that's correct. yes so that that language. you are right. that language is, straight from the

proposition and why wouldn't we include apprehensions? because we already report apprehensions to cal d.o.j. is that right? i mean, we have to collect the data. yes we do. we do. it's. i don't believe that's required by law. i mean, we took this language straight from property. i would i would like to amend this section to require the reporting of apprehensions and the reason that, that i would ask for that is that we had, we had a presentation on our pursuit policy and, the department gave us a presentation on, on all several data points, but omitted, apprehensions. and i think that that's kind of a critical piece, obviously, to understanding whether our pursuit policy is effective or not, we had we had data on crashes, on injuries, on on deaths, but we didn't have data on apprehensions. and i

think it was asked about at that at that meeting, i think, i think having that data point is, is in is critical. we can't understand whether our policy is working or not if we don't know, how many chases resulted in apprehensions. so the suggestion of best practices to. yeah. thanks. thanks. it was it comported with best practices to have that data point. so so chief on that last section it would be changed to add that it would read the number of pursuits resolved to death or injury. like we just can add that to the list. the number of apprehensions resulting from pursuits. would you be opposed to that if it. well, we're trying to stick to what was required by law. i mean, i think there's a lot of things that could be in this report, but the proposition states what's required by law, and that's what we were trying to stick to, i think, or at least from my perspective anyway, i think vice president carter robertson's point is that it could be something it would be asked

about at this annual report, regardless, every time. and so rather than save that process of it being what about apprehensions like it would be something that i think the commission would be interested in. so it's just making it and it wouldn't change any officer burden here, because we're just talking about the annual report from the department and that that's data that we already have, right? i mean, here's how i would suggest, and i know the commission can vote however you all choose to, but the commission can ask for that information at any time with these dgos, though, one of our goals going into this is let's follow the proposition. the commission can ask any time, you know, what the what the apprehension rate is. but i don't know that we want to start adding. i would suggest that we don't start adding stuff onto these dgos. it's not required per property, because there's, you know, there's that could go in many different directions. normally i would agree, i think, but because it's clear that property with respect to the

vehicle pursuit, doesn't the language in the proposition that was proposed doesn't conform to best practices, i think i'm open to adding that because this addition does conform to best practices and what's universally accepted and what is recommended. and as a department who is reform minded and aiming towards reform, and because this was overlooked when prop e was drafted and put forth, i think it's worth it to have it in there, commissioner clay, so i think best practices is good, but we got a proposition here, and i think we got to stick to that because otherwise you've got a varied we've had some motions outside those, those propositions. then you've got another problem. you really do. so i mean, we can ask for it. we can always because we have the power. said, okay, i want the stats on this. i think that's a better because i don't want to get tied up. i don't think we want to get tied up in some type of litigation because someone has said, we, we affected they voted for this proposition and

it passed. and you just did this. and they have the recordings of what we said. and they said you didn't follow it. you said you think it's best practice, but we as citizens said, this is what we want, but we can get it. we just this is the document. this is the governing document. i think we have to stick to it. i think as a matter of law, we got to stick to it. so but that's my point. we can decide how we want to do it today. but i don't suggest that that's added because it's not in the statute. and this follows the statute period. commissioner walker. wrong one, i tend to agree, i it may be something that we want to look at later. if we're not getting the data we need back from this, but i, i would actually in this reporting, probably either that or i would recommend continuing this until next week and reissuing it to the public so

that the public can know what we're voting on. i mean, that would be my either we vote as i. i'm not a thanks president elias. i'm not opposed to pushing it one week. if, commissioner walker wants to do that, i just did want to be clear. in response to commissioner clay's comment that adding this would not conflict with prop in any way, because prop certainly sets forth certain new standards we have to implement, but it doesn't preclude us from otherwise amending the vehicle pursuit policy. so i think if anything, this would be complementary to prop e, and it's information we are already collecting and reporting to california d.o.j. so it's not adding any additional work. we're already collecting it. the question is why? why not? because it's so critical that the report will just be nearly meaningless if we don't have it. i just think it has to be included in the

report, and there's no need to wait for a commissioner to request for it every year. so if we want to put it over one, one week. i'm not opposed, but i did want to be very clear for the record, that this would not conflict in any way with property. commissioner benedict, i agree, i think apprehensions are an important thing, and we're noted in the best practices. i definitely want to agree with with the vice president that i don't think adding this requirement would conflict with prop e for the very reason that we all agree that we could ask for it outside of this revision, and that would be, you know, it's not it's not a matter of formalities. you know, we certainly couldn't remove any of these things because that would be in conflict with prop e, because prop requires that the department report these things. but if we want it as a commission to say the department is required to report the color of every car and include that in the annual report, that would certainly be within our regulatory power to do so. and so i, i'm in favor of that amendment for best practices. if commissioner walker thinks she she would like some time to, to

consider that amendment and we want to wait the process and put this on the. sure. of course. yeah okay. public comment and i appreciate that chief. any final words because or. well i just would just reiterate the proposition says specifically what is to be reported and that's the whole point of this is to go beyond that. and the voters voted on specifically what they want to report. i mean, the commission can ask for whatever it wants to ask. i just think with these, with these dgos that they were five that were very specific. right. but it just puts us in a difficult position because the proposition didn't conform to best practices. and we're here as the regulatory body that, you know, that's our job is to find out what are the best practices in policing today and how do we create policies that go towards that? i mean, that's the whole reason doj came in. that's the whole reason we've turned this department into a reform minded department. so it puts us in a very difficult position. so we're trying the best we can. if nothing prevents the commission and i'll leave, i'll stop here. nothing prevents the commission from getting that information.

but the proposition says specifically what? yeah, needed to be reported. so, i mean, maybe that's the best of both worlds. i mean, we can ask whenever it needs to. yeah. commissioner yee, yeah. thank you very much, president elias, i agree with the chief and also debra walker making sure if you do changes, make sure the public has input on there, so that's the way, that's my position. okay. so i think that we have an amendment on the floor. we also have a request to kick this over till next week. so that's what we're going to do, commissioner clays or something else. yeah. i'd like the city attorney to give us an opinion as it relates to the language of prop e and how this would impose, if, in fact, would this be subject to your. i'm going to ask that commissioner carter, max carter, overstone provide the edit in writing so that i can take a look at it and then provide an opinion by next week. okay. great. sergeant. next item. do

you need public comment on the previous. no, because i think we're pulling it okay. line item 16 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 5.06 citation release for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. the community engagement process does not apply where the commission is considering policy revisions to existing dgos to implement prop e sf admin code, section 96.1. any of anything commissioner benedicto? no. if no one has anything, i will make a motion to approve general order 5.06. pursuant to our labor relations resolution. second. second. thank you. sergeant, any public comment? please step to the podium. no public comment regarding line

item 16. the vote on the motion. commissioner clay, how do you vote? yes commissioner walker? yes, commissioner. benedicto. yes, commissioner. yi. yes, vice president. carter. ulverstone. yes. president elias. yes. do you have a unanimous vote? president elias. line item 17 has been placed on another agenda, and we move to line item 18. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 20 below. closed session, including public comment on item 19. vote whether to hold item 20 in closed session. line 19 vote on whether to hold item 20 in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10 d action motion to hold item 19, in closed session. second. on the motion to go to

closed session. commissioner clay, how do you vote? yes. commissioner walker. yes commissioner. benedicto. yes. commissioner. yi. yes vice president. carter. overstone. yes. president. elias i stepped away. oh. swept away. unanimous vote. we go 21. the station. no separate line. item 21. we're back in. open session. open session. and we have with us. commissioner clay. commissioner carter oberstein, president elias. commissioner. walker. commissioner. benedicto. commissioner yee, chief. scott and the commission staff. so we're on in open session line item 21. vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 20 held in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.12 a action motion to not

disclose discussion on item 20. with the exception of non-privileged factual information related to item 20 a, that will be disclosed in the minutes. second, any opposed natural passes without objection. line item 22. adjournment. thank you.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]