haven't done our job. because our mission is to protect the public. and that's what i'm asking this commission to do, is to sound the alarm that we have a problem at the coast. and it will help us in future discussions about a marine unit because it will create data around it. and not just data coming from the fire department. data coming from the youth commission about how many kids hang out on those cliffs. data from park and rec to what their visitors are at the park these days. data coming from every one of these departments. this resolution does not call on those departments to mandatoatoratorally participate. i'm not a guy of inaction. we talked about this for

two years. you can pick apart every sentence in this resolution, you really could. and chief gonzalez found one that says, hey, over the past two years, we've been responding to a steep increase. if you look at over the past 10 years, the past two years has probably been a steep increase because i guarantee 10 years ago we weren't doing it. so you could pick apart any sentence in this particular resolution. i'm willing to change that particular sentence, but i would rather just move on and get something done. i'm in g.s.d. mode, and i think this is part of getting stuff done. i'm hearing i have the votes on this commission, and i pleading to the mayor that she does this, and i'm willing to volunteer my time to do it because i think it will save lives. >> there is a motion on the table as the secretary had requested. i am not willing -- i am not in support, rather, of pushing this further out. it is just a call to do

something. >> all right. thank you very much commissioner verinesi. i'll move in the action of the flavor of the commission. again, i don't see a problem of waiting one more commission meeting for us, the commissioners, or this commission, to be able to check off with the mayor's office to clearly have them have some comprehensive in terms of this. i appreciate all of the hard work you've done, but this is the first time i'm looking at a resolution that is on paper with all of these further "resolved" and "whereas." there is a motion on the item. >> commissioner, before you do that, can i shed some light on that particular issue because i have been working on this resolution with then commission president cleveland, and there was notice to the mayor's

office several months ago. i want to say more than six months ago. i do -- yeah, they've been aware of it. and i don't think this is a big ask for them. the mayor could sign off and say, yeah, go do this, and we go do it. it is not a big ask. >> i appreciate it and i understand the communication that you have referred to. i'm just referring to the communication that i had yesterday in terms of the information and the comprehension of this resolution to the chief-of-staff. i'm basically, commissioners, trying to be careful, if you will. and basically in terms of our department, i want to make sure our department comprehends any resolution adopted by this commission. at this point, commissioner cleveland moves it. >> commissioner cleveland moves and it is seconded. >> vice president

covington? >> thank you. through the chair to commissioner cleveland, can you talk a little bit about your conversations with the mayor's office? >> they've been very tangential. not with the mayor personally. >> that's why i said the mayor's office. >> it is one of these things where she has a lot of things on her plate. and as commissioner verinesi said, it is a call to action. the mayor prioritizes things she will do every day. this is a priority for us, but we have to put it on her desk in order for her to consider it. i would like to see, if we're going to pass this resolution today, and i support doing so, that we do add the stats, that you mentioned, chief gonzalez, that we have the stats in there so we have a little metal on the bones of this resolution that really tells the story of what has been lost. >> okay.

>> and it's really a cule call to action. it is something that we, as a commission, said this is important. it is important to our city. it is important to our citizens. it is important to our visitors, and it is certainly important to our department members who have to respond to the emergencies on the cliffs and around their seacoast. so with the changes that we're going to make, i would support passing this today. i didn't think, as our president said, in due def deference to him. if we didn't think that the mayor's office was tipped off on this some time ago, then we wouldn't want to pass it today. but, in fact, that's not the case. >> okay. thank you. >> we're just asking the mayor's office to initiate a taskforce to look into

ways and means of reducing injuries and deaths along our coastline. >> okay. thank you, commissioner cleveland. in order to pass this today, we would have to make the stats an addendum because we have to vote on what is before us in writing. so that's not a hard thing to do. the stats go along with the resolution. but we cannot put them in the resolution after we've voted on the resolution. you see what i'm saying? >> sure. >> thank you. >> vice president covington, anymore comments? >> no, not at this time. >> chief hayes white. >> thank you. not to belabor any longer, i'm fully supportive of this. fully supportive. but i do feel compelled, just because -- in preparing for today's

meeting, i did send this proposed resolution last week to mayor breed's chief-of-staff. he was not aware of it, and he said he would check with staff. he got back to me yesterday and said that the staff has not heard anything about it. so i think that might be what president nicoshio is referencing. it's not my call. i'm totally supportive of it. i get your g.s.d. mode, getting stuff done. >> i know, i like that. >> i'm coming from the sidelines, and i think in the spirit of making sure there is an awareness of in room 200 -- which it sounds like there was, but there is a lot of stuff. i'm more on the side of no surprises. and i just want to -- this should pass with flying colors, but i think in deference to our mayor, and the chief-of-staff who just yesterday said he

knew nothing about it, i share the viewpoint of president verinesi. i'm happy to walk down and put this in front of her and say we want to get this passed. bis thibut this is obviously yor decision. >> thank you, chief hayes white. i support the reenforcement of the message i got from the mayor's office. indeed, commissioner cleveland and commissioner verinesi, you may have had a conversation with them at one point or another, but in terms of the resolution that is in front of us, with some of the comments that the vice president had made as well, i don't know if you want to put the suggestion of putting the dogs on a leash in here as well. what it does for me is it makes sure that the mayor's office is aware of

it, with the language on the resolution. and i just want to be sure. so, again, i'm asking you, commissioner verinesi and commissioner cleveland, to continue this item for one more commission meeting so you have an opportunity to clean this up. and that if we do want to be able to pass this resolution at the next commission meeting, i think this commission, in terms of what i'm hearing, in terms of the spirit, would be more willing to do that with a cleaner version. i, for one, am a little cautious in terms of -- i'm not going to say the speed of it because i know this is a badly needed resolution, but it is a big resolution, and i want to be very careful in terms of this fire commission, of process and protocol. again, if we're going to ask the mayor's office, or the mayor herself, to support it, i believe you want to be able to term

it, as i call it, a buy-in. commissioner verinesi, would you like to continue this item or would you be calling this motion? >> commissioner, i appreciate it. i'm not willing to add in any leash rules or anything like that. i think that is the purpose of this resolution. the purpose of this resolution is to determine what needs to happen, not to determine the -- to put a taskforce out there to determine what needs to happen. not to come up with rules, to list rules here about what needs to happen on this coast. i don't think this resolution should say anything about leashes. we know that any time you require a person to put their dog on a leash, it is going to cause thousands of people to come out of the woodwork. i'm not suggesting that we do that. it may be the right thing to do, but i would leave it up to the professionals who look at this issue to determine what those reasons are, and to have that public outreach before anything like that happens. for that matter, to close

it. i understand what you're saying, commissioner -- mr. president. i understand the concern here that the mayor's office and the chief-of-staff, i realize, was probably new at the time when we were discussing this with the mayor's office -- yeah, because it was months ago. what i don't understand, and maybe you all can educate me here a little bit, is to why this part is necessary. this resolution just calls -- just basically, as i mentioned, puts the red flag up and says, hey, madam mayor, this is an issue we need to address. if they don't like this resolution -- right -- this is just our voice as a commission saying this is important -- that's how i understand this resolution. i'm not interpreting it in any other way. maybe you all are interpreting it in a different way.

i'm just calling and saying, hey, madam mayor, this is an important issue the fire department is dealing with. it doesn't necessarily require the mayor's office to say, yes, this is an important issue before we pass it. we know it is important. the mayor's office -- i think we're talking too much about the mayor's office. because that's a decision they'll make. as commissioner cleveland eloquently put it, the mayor's office has so much to deal with. the chief-of-staff is probably being bombarded 100 times a day we really important issues from other departments throughout the city. he is going to determine -- or the mayor is going to determine, or somebody in that office is going to determine what is important, the level of importance, and how it needs to be addressed. and maybe they turn to the fire commission and says, no, this doesn't need to be addressed right now. and that's totally fine. but we've done our job. maybe the chief-of-staff says, yeah, this is important.

this is in the top 10. this is a big deal. someone just died out at the cliff last week. our members are being put in the line of duty every week. they don't know that because they don't get the text messages we get, right? they don't see this every day like we do. they come to the really bad stuff because they feel that's their responsibility. it is our responsibility, and it is my responsibility as the fire commissioner, to go to the not so bad stuff, like the fires that didn't kill anybody. i do that. i go to the fire just to see what the members are doing to experience it, so if there is an issue that needs to be brought up to the city and county of franchise, the mayor's office, we report. we are reporting to the mayor there is a problem with the coast. if we don't want to report to the mayor there is a problem at the coast today, and you want to wait another week to do that, i'm not for it. i don't want to delay it. the mayor's office is going to decide what is a

priority. it is our job to do this. let's do our job. >> thank you very much, commissioner verinesi. again, in terms of your dialogue, being an animal of protocol and with respect to the mayor's office, we got their attention now basically in terms of the chief-of-staff. i, no for one, am cautious and careful in terms of what we produce out of this commission as a resolution. i don't see why delaying it two weeks would harm any of the intention of this resolution. the public, i hope, doesn't get me wrong in terms of my intention. i fully support the intention and the spirit of the resolution, the importance of the resolution, but if we go into a vote, i will vote no on this resolution. madam secretary, could you please call for the vote. [roll call]

>> the motion passes. >> madam secretary, could you please continue the agenda. >> item 6, commissioner report, report on commission activity since last meeting on february 27th, 2019. >> i see commissioner hardiman's name up here. >> thank you, mr. president. nothing earth-shattering. i did attend -- i don't know if the chief mentioned she was there the other night for the new president of the board of supervisors, norman yee. and the chief was out there and we were celebrating -- i live in

that district, as the chief is out in that neighborhood, too. we honored the -- and commissioner cleveland was there and we honored the new president of the boardment and i was able to talk to him a little about our budget, and supervisor safai talked a little about it. so that was very good. so they both know how i personally and how this commission feels. we wan don't want to reduce our budget, and we'll have to talk with them about that. it is not our call. it's theirs. so we'll see -- and the mayor's. chief rivera, i wasn't going to mention this because there was were nothing to do, but i have my 96-year-old's father's brother, commander duke, a

commander graduate just died, too. i know how it feels. i lost my last uncle. my condolences. 96 is a nice life, but when your mother dies, she is never too old. my mom died a couple of years ago at 92. losing a mom is the worst thing that can happen to a person, i think. that's the one who brought us in this world. so my condolences to you, chief. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner verinesi? >> yes. i spent a number of hours with distress pier support unit, and thank you, chief, for putting that together. they had invited the san francisco police department, who has a very robust pier support unit. and i am in awe of what they are doing. they have over 300 pier support members that they

rely on, and they have also a pier support kind of cert team that is 40 deep. 10 of which are on call at any one time. that when there is an incident, they go down the list and they call the 10 and they respond and they are paid over time to respond. typically they have three or four of these members that show up to any particular incident at any one time. i know we've leaned on those guys for certain incidents as well. if you think about what that does is, that takes the pressure off of the pier support unit itself. there are five or six members in that unit. it takes the pressure off of them. they're not flipping, like we're flipping in our unit. we're not losing people because the pressure is off them. and they have a deep, shall i say, pool of people that are responding that are taking the load and spreading the load of

each of those incidents across the 40 members that are actually responding to the incident. they have got, i want to say 10 -- 10 different people from different religions that respond. it's deep. their pier support unit is really deep and something to be in awe of. but i think that ours could be better. so what i'm doing is finding stuff that other departments are doing and looking to make yours better. i want you to know i had that meeting. we have set some goals in trying to get our peer support unit to be better. and i am pushing those guys to make recommendations to this chief that is -- to focus more on the organization itself and what it should look like in the spirit of our resolution that we passed back in october. so i'm hoping in the next

five or six months that we'll have something really good to present to the chief. i guess at the time it will be chief nicholson, on what we think a state-of-the-art unit will look like. we started but we hadn't done much work up to that point. but i'm pleased to say we're putting some structure to it. >> thank you very much. vice president covington. >> thank you, mr. president. i would just like to say that last friday was a wonderful day. it was international women's day. and the sisterhood turned out in full force. the women members of the franchissan francisco fire department took up one half of the staircase here at city hall, and on the other side of the staircase was just full of

members from the police department, the sheriff's department, and i'm missing somebody. anyway, it was wonderful to see so many uniformed members of these departments and the civilian staff members of the department as well. it was just quite a beautiful sight. i understand that there are some pictures floating around the internet, so if anyone wants to see them, that would be great. and then just linking with what it is that commissioner verinesi was just talking about in terms of the stress unit, i was very happy to meet a new member of the stress unit. our first woman member of the stress unit. she is at station 17, i believe.

yes, and i'm sorry, her name just left my mind. >> dawn rosalez. >> dawn rosalez, and people are very, very excited she is on board and a member of the stress unit. so thank you. >> thank you very much, vice president covington. in terms of myself, we have asked the commissioners to cooperate and support the budget process. and i know that each one of the commissioners have stepped up to take a supervisor in terms of advocacy. again, olivia stanlin and director corso will provide any information for that. madam secretary, do you have that list of the assignment that the commissions have taken at this particular time. i have a list but i'm not sure this is correct. >> i did not bring this with me. >> i believe vice president covington took

an assignment of supervisor walton and supervisor brown. >> indeed. >> supervisor aliviso, i believe he took supervisor haney and supervisor stefani, and there was one more that you took. do you recollect, supervisor? >> um... >> we can come back. >> at least those two. i'll help in any way i can. >> i have from commissioner hardiman, supervisor peskin and supervisor safai. >> yes. >> and from commissioner cleveland, i believe you were going to take supervisor ronen and help me with supervisor yee? >> correct. >> in terms of myself, i am taking supervisor yee and supervisor fewer. did i miss anybody in terms of supervisors at this point, if you can recollect that? >> i believe supervisor mar, whom you've already met with. >> so we have them all

covered. that the commissioners are advocating for our budget. again, if there are any materials that you need, director corso will give you that. in terms of our budget, we're standing fast with that. there are requests that we are making, our lobbyist, ol livolivia, is setting up all of the lobbyists. i think the recommendation was a monday/friday. with that, madam secretary, could you please move on. >> item 7, agenda for next and future fire commission meetings. >> again, help me, madam secretary, but i believe we have commissioner cleveland's resolution in terms of looking at the pockets opossibilities of fire reserve members being -- i'm going to use the phrase "consideration," additional consideration in terms of the academy. i also have, through chief

rivera, a training discussion from d.p.w. charles garris will be coming -- >> that is confirmed. >> is upon the request of the vice president. in terms of more information on the training site. so we will have d.p.w. come with that. madam, secretary, are there any other items, besides our regular business for the next commission meeting? >> not set at the moment. >> at some point, if you could have some discussion with our city attorney about an education on some of the charter concepts that he was talking about. i know that we have to do that in open session, but i think that if he gives us an educational piece or at least a briefing update on that, the commissioners can be abreast on it. only because there has been a period of time. anything else, madam

secretary? >> not for next week, no. or the next meeting. >> any public comment in terms of fire commission future agenda meetings and items? any move from the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 8, correspondence received. e-mails in support of edna, the cat. >> any discussion in terms of the commission on the correspondence received? having seeing none, that item is moved. >> did you call public comment? >> public comment on that item of correspondence? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary. >> item 9, ad journment. >> out of respect for you, chief rivera, and your mom, thank you so much. chief hayes white, donald

wilson, to member jack boden, and to member david lavelle, we respectfully adjourn this meeting. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> moved and seconded. this meeting is adjourned.

>> good evening. i'm like to welcome everyone to the meeting and turn off your electronic deef electronic devices and please stand nor pledge of aleth -- for the pledge of allegiance. good evening, president her -- hirsh i'd like to take roll call.

[roll call] filling in is sarah hawkins. commissioner, have you a quorum. >> commissioner: thank you. good evening everyone this is the march 6, 2019 san francisco police commission meeting. we have a reasonable agenda so we will allow three minutes for public comment. with that we're ready to start. >> line one, adoption of the minutes for the meetings of february 6th, 13th and 20th action. >> commissioner: can i have a motion to adopt. >> so moved. >> second. >> commissioner: any comment? hearing none all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? >> clerk: the motion passes unanimously. line two, a chief's report for

and a brief description of the significant incident. commission discussion will be limited to determine whether to calendar the incident the chief describes for a future committee meeting and planned events or planned activities and events since the previous meeting. include brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion the chief describes will be limited to determine of the future meeting and a response of a burglary in the good orchard bakery. and the expansion of the internship program. update on the protocol for addressing encamped vehicles during inclement weather. and presentation of the budget report and resolution 13-26 and

adopted may 7, 2014 and enforcement of ride share program violations. update regarding the fourth quarter 2018 compliance with administrative code chapter 96a. i'd like to add there's a vision zero report provided prior to the beginning of the meeting and it's on the public binder on the table. >> we're ready for the report. >> good evening. on behalf of chief scott on the east coast attending a law enforcement seminar. i'm begin my presentation with the weekly stats rate.

crimes are down 21% and homicides, aggravated assaults, rapes and human trafficking. we have a total of five homicides for 2019. this is a decrease over 2018. there was one homicide in february. of the five, four have been cleared so for. gun violence. we're down 38% over 2018. there have been two fatal shoot and 14 with injuries. property crimes are down 19%. they include burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny including auto burglaries. burglaries are down 18% and auto burglaries down 23%. hot -- homicides this week.

shooting updates, none to report this week. traffic cases we did experience two fatal traffic collisions this week. the first at manzel and visitation and there was a head-on collision. one vehicle traveled the wrong direction and collided with the second vehicle. the driver of vehicle one was pronounced deceased at the scene. the second fatality occurred at 225 woodside. the vehicle struck a pedestrian causing serious trauma. the pedestrian was transported to the opt with critical injuries and succumbed to the injuries and the driver stayed on scene and is cooperating. we have events planned this week one at the misconi center the annual rsa security technology conference. they're expecting over 40,000 attendees. we will also have the sunday

streets on sunday on 26th and a dabose. there'll be peace parks at the hurts playground including barbecue activities an health fair and we'll collaborate with the city park and rec with that event. that concludes my portion of the presentation. i will now call upon commander mcec ern and they'll provide an update on sfpd's response to the burglary at good orchard bakery january 19th and the subsequent investigation and arrest. >> good evening.

director and chief of staff and acting chief. thank you. as you know i'm here to present the time line for the orchard bakery and our relatively slow response to the crime. at happen at 119 at 100 hours and the owner was robbed by two subjects. a call was received at approximately 1228 hours and interpretations services were used by dem at which time the call was classified as a b priority. initial node notification and broadcast was made to police at 1237 hours. due to active impending calls there were no available units at that time at 1410 and 1405 hours they were advised of multiple pending calls. there continued to be no

available units at those times. at 1620 hours an available unit was dispatched however, it was pre cemented -- pre cemented preempted to a higher priority call and made contact with the victim. we have three priority calls, a, b and c. calls are classified as a, life-threatening emergency, weapon used, known parties involved and the location. a b priority which this was classified, would be there is potential for harm to life, potential for harm to property, location of the incident, when the incident occurred, suspect may be in the area and there may be a description of the suspect. and then our lowest priority call which is a c priority call. there's no present or potential danger to life or property. suspect is no longer in the area and the crime scene is protected

and description of the suspect may be known. as protocol dm broadcast the rating runs several times offer the course of the four hours and the sergeant did acknowledge it twice over that time period. i met with the higher ups to discuss the incident and others around pending runs and we came up with an agreement to review procedures and improve performance. i meet yet and the prior week with all the field bureau captains and advised sergeants and if they're not available,

lieutenants have to triage waiting assignment. it's not uncommon to have waiting assignments and there's 3300 calls a day distributed throughout the stations. i want to close with this shouldn't have happened. we have to do better. chief scott said the four-hour delay was too long no matter what the priority was classified. we're all in agreement we met with media and discussed the issue and the chief continues to messed we can do better and working with the partnership at dem to improve our response. now we'll have more on fallup -- follow-up investigation. >> commissioner: i have a quick question. on the day of the incident there

was additional staffing there was a march. >> the women's march was held that day. >> my concern was were we fully staffed enough to cover our district stations while taking officers from stations and sending them to the march? did we have enough officers? the following weekend we have the march for life and we look at city wide staffing and only think what we think the station can give for an event and supplement that with overtime. both were large events and required a large police presence. >> you take officers -- >> four from ingle side station. >> and we had an incident with an assault victim. >> commissioner: maybe next time we can have more officers in

overtime. i know there's a concern on overtime but when you hear the calls for service were hanging for that period of time, the public expects better. if there's no cars available and i hear there's a priority they have to go to, again, every call's very important to the public when they do call the police. so i just wish we would next time have more staffing available because that's more important. it's important to have all these things staffed but to have something like this happen is detrimental to us and we need to have more officers on the street on these days. >> we absolutely agree. >> commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner: before we get to the investigation i'm the one who asked for the hearing and there's things i want to ask and i it doesn't matter what it's classified, an elderly person was beaten and i guess i need clarity on this. when you say the sergeant

acknowledged this call was waiting at least two times but one of the ways you're going to try to fix this is when the sergeant instead of a lieutenant waiting for a sar guest -- sergeant to assign are you saying only they can send someone out the lieutenants can't help? >> anybody can make the decision to send a unit. absent a sergeant doing the actual triaging, a lieutenant has to step up and do it. i'm not following the logic. wouldn't they step up it to either the sergeant was on top of it and didn't have a car?

i need clarity? >> the sergeant that acknowledge the run twice is the same sergeant and a very conscientious sergeant that acknowledged the hanging run. again, it was a busy day in the district. >> they knew it was a person who didn't speak english so they talk about an injury or a broken hand or -- >> that's what a was told you but they're not here? >> commissioner: there was an injury? >> they used an interpretation service and the interpretation service didn't get that information -- didn't put it out. >> commissioner: so they didn't know there was an injury. >> correct.

>> commissioner: what's going to be different next time we're busy and you take any units from a particular district and get a b, a robbery with a "b," injury/no injury. how will a lieutenant assist in this process if this occurs again? >> generally speaking, sergeants run the street. they supervise officers on patrol and they're duty to acknowledge the pending run. as part of that duty they should be triaging the run. a person like this should take priority over a non-injured or we didn't know at the time he was injured but a non-victim kind of b priority like maybe a

traffic collision which is classified as a b priority. >> when they call in they say there's a robbery. they didn't understand there was an injury. are they trained to ask if anyone was injured at the scene through the interpreter? >> that's d.e.m. and i'm told they are, yes. >> commissioner: you're told or you know? >> do i know. what happened was they used the service and later personnel reviewed the conversation between the service provider and the victim. the service did not reveal all the information the victim had told that person. >> commissioner: are we going to talk to the service to all information is given to the d.e.m. people. >> that was discussed in my

meeting with d.e.m. >> commissioner: who will ensure the interpretation services gets the memo and understanding the training we need for the department? who's in charge of making sure that happens? the initial call comes from d.e.m. and we're working together to remedy it. >> commissioner: but right now we know there's a problem between the interpretations services does not provide all the information to our dispatch. who's in charge of contacting them to let them know what we expect going forward? i hope they did. that's what i was hoping. we need to find out more information. there's something missing here. it didn't get transmitted and we've had this before in other situations. working closely with d.e.m. and the interpretation services to

clear it up and do a better job in the future is -- it shouldn't have taken four hours. >> commissioner: i'd like to follow-up with other question if the same thing happened today with the exact same circumstances and everything else was going on today, how would you expect it to be handled today? >> a b priority it take 11 minutes max. >> commissioner: i'm asking how it gets handled with this service. what would be the way to address this now that didn't happen back in january? >> it would be speculation but i would assume we would again prioritize the calls. they'd look into the cad call itself and see there's a little more to this robbery and dispatch a unit off maybe a 7a assignment.

>> commissioner mazzucco. >> how many unit did we have for ingleside that day. >> i don't have that number with me. i can get back to you. >> >> commissioner: maybe we need three units. >> there were multiple units working that day. >> commissioner: i want to follow-up if i may, this is an anomaly. this has never happened on the commission and i want to congratulate you for coming forward and saying we made a mistake and it's a an anomaly and i am concerned of taking a significant part of coverage out and making sure we're fully staff when we have an event like the march we had that had resources and i know there's a tug of war between overtime and moving people around.

when people dial 9-1-1 they expect the police to show up. i think we should provide the overtime if necessary. i want to thank you for being candid and the chief and everybody. it's greatly appreciated but i want to be clear, this is the first time this happened since being on the commission and upset about it but the reality is, we came forward and admit mistakes and make things better. we're not the once doing the translating. that's the dispatch which is not affiliated with the police department. we need to work with them better. thank you. >> chief. >> just to clarify something that maddux mentioned when the sergeants are tied up in days like this sergeants start handling run to try to clear the boards. what we're asking the lieutenant to do is step in the role and evaluate what the officers are doing and what calls are on and if need be, take them off a lower priority call and assign them to these

b priority runs that may need an expedited response. that's what we're asking to do for the lieutenant to step out of their role when they know there's a lot going on and it's a busy day. that's the difference and constantly evaluating the calls for service waiting against those the officers are currently on and yank them off the lower-priority calls. >> that was into the the case in january, is that right? >> it's something that's done but now we're pressing the lieutenant to play that role when we know we're busy. >> commissioner: one more clarification, the way i'm understanding what you say, there's a printout of what is determined of the a, b and c call but you're saying you're also asking the captains and lieutenants to dig deeper and not look at the one-liner but go knee cad to get more -- into the cad to get more of a description. is that across all locations?

>> all have been advised. >> how many lieutenants were at the station because typically there's more than one. >> there's one on duty per watch. i don't know if that was a case. i don't know what the staffing level and what the lieutenant was working that night. i don't have that detail. >> is the investigation concluded or ongoing? >> that's my queue. so i'm here to give you an update where we are with this investigation. as chief mentioned the incident happened january 19 and the investigative team had the case and was out looking for video.

we often times as a matter of fact, every weekday we have conversations on the phone at 11:00 with the investigators at the station and make determines whether a case stays at a station level or we take it at the bureau level. often at the bureau level we take other incident and we took this at robbery on the 23rd of february which would have been -- sorry, january, which would have been a few days after the incident occurred. once we took the case, we were out and had assistance from the personnel at ingle side station and looked for video in the area. we got video from businesses in

the area and we put out a crime bulletin where we identified we thought were two individuals that were the suspects and asked all officers to look at the bulletin to determine whether or not they could identify who the two individuals were. just a couple days later we then went to adult and juvenile prowe often work with and asked them whether or not they could identify who the individuals were because it appeared the individuals were younger age likely teenagers. we had assistance from a juvenile probation officer who identified one of the individuals. we were then able to follow-up and identify the second individual in the instance and confident based on the video and information we had obtained we had both individuals identified. we authored a search warrant february 3 and served it february 7th at a couple

residences and arrested two individuals. one is 16 and the second is 18 years old. both case now working their way through the judicial system in the city. >> i have one more question. when they did arrive, did they know there was a language issue or were there interpretive services. >> the officer that spoke the same language ended up -- >> did they have to wait and call? >> they had to wait a little bit longer. >> that's another thing. it's bad enough we didn't have a b call but when we send someone four hours later we didn't understand it needed interpretation services. >> correct. that was the first available unit. >> would that be remedied once they delve into the conversation with the d.e.m.

will that be remedied too they know they need an interpreter present or an officer to discuss that language? >> we did discuss that. >> >> how are we going to remedy that by opening it up and reading it and the lieutenant has to understand it's more serious and interpretive services was necessary. >> the cad did say there was a language barrier. >> commissioner: how long did the person have to wait? >> a nominal amount of time. minutes. >> commissioner: thanks. >> commissioner: next the protocol on responses during inclement weather.

>> good evening, commander i'm captain lazaro and have been asked to give an update on inclement weather and i'm here to talk about the healthy streets operation center and the collaborative effort. and the sfpd are all participating in working to get individuals off the street into shelter and working on encampment resolution and working with the individuals drug addicted. options for addressing illegal encampments and there's an e-mail to every police officer to reemphasize what we're doing in the importance of what our strategy is in term of getting

into shelter whether officers are assigned to a station or homeless effort, their goal is to go out and see an encampment whether it's wet weather and they're asked to make contact and they're adding extra shelter beds and placement because we've experienced a lot of rain this year and the wet weather protocol is in place. the officers go to an encampment. the first goal is to look at medical attention that needs to be provided to an individual. once they determine that medical attention may not be needed we lead with services. we're talking with individuals about have you had something to eat, do you know where to get a shower. are you interested in shelter. how can we help you, can we call

the team out, etcetera. then we resort to a couple different options. our first option is we'll say to an individual do you want shelter whether it's navigation center or any shelter available. and we'll cowl -- call back and they'll say i'm out on division and i'd like to know what's available and they'll say there's an nav center bed is available and take them to the nav center. the officer will say, okay i know you want to go to the center, i know it's raining. we're not going to enforce laws and if you want to go voluntarily we can help you pack up and they can take their tent with them and off to the nav center they go. that's first option.

the second is if an individual during wet weather or not during wet weather says they want to go to a shelter and one is not available which is rare these days we don't enforce laws because we can't provide a shelter we don't give a citation for illegal lodge. in the third instance if we say we have shelter for you and the individual says no, i'd rather not go, we'll issue a citation for illegal lodging and take the tent as evidence according to our protocol we'll still work hard to get teem -- people in services. i had a conversation with