>> i pledge allegiance to the flag 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. >> president hirsch would like to take call? >> yes, thank you. phones off please. vice president taylor is excused. [roll call] president hirsch, you have a quorum, also with us are chief scott and director henderson

from the department of police accountability. >> thank you. good evening. happy new year to everybody. i want illike to congratulate the mayor on starting her first day of her first full term. we have a full calendar, so there will be two minutes for public comment. with that, we are ready to go. >> all right. administratively, line item 2c and closed session 9b has been removed from the calendar or for the agenda. line item 1, to ask of minutes, action for the meetings of december 4 and 11, 2019. >> 2c, the youth commission requested that we put their comments over by a month because they were not prepared, is that right? >> yes, they didn't meet due to the holidays. >> okay. all right. >> one or two? >> 2c and closed session. >> and 9b. >> thank you. >> okay. first item again, please? >> adoption of minutes for

december 4 and 11 >> so moved. >> second. >> any public comment on our adoption of the minutes? seeing none, it is closed. can we have all in favor? >> aye >> any opposition? all right. it passes unanimously. >> line item 2, reports to the commission, discussion. 2a, chief's report, weekly crime trends, provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco. significant incidents, chief's report will be limited to a brief description of the significant incidents. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the incidents the chief describes for a future commission meeting. major events, provide a summary of planned activities and events occurring since the previous meeting including a summary of new new year's eve. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. presentation of the first and

second quarter 2019 firearm discharge review board, findings and recommendations and officer involved shooting summaries. >> thank you. good evening and happy new year. >> good evening president hirsch and commissioners, executive director henderson and happy new year's to everyone. i'll start my report with crime trends. starting off with our overall crimes which is down 4% as of december 31 of 2019. our total property crimes down 4% and that includes motor vehicle theft, larceny, auto burglaries. we continue to have fewer incidents in all categories with the exception of motor vehicle theft which increased by 1%. our burglaries are down 14%. all auto burglaries down 2% compared to year to date 2018 and down 18% when compared to 2017. so we will continue with our strategies and continue to try to drive those crimes down.

our total violent crimes were down 6% for year to date, december 31. specifically homicides, there were a total of 41 homicides in 2019 compared to 46 at year's end 2018. that represents an 11% decrease over last year. it's also the lowest recorded number of homicides in our city since 1961 which we are really happy with the progress on our homicide. 28 of our cases were cleared as 27 cleared by arrests and one by exceptional clearance. our overall homicide rate reported to the uniform crime reporting was 71 percent for 2019. our gun violence was down by 1% over 2018. there were 115 shooting incidents resulting in 138 gun violence victims over the course of last year. there have been 28 fatal shooting victims and 114

non-fatal shooting victims. as you look at our five-year trend, we continue to make progress. and that's a testament to the hard work of the men and women of the san francisco police department and our partnership with the community. so i know there's been some news articles about that. i want to point out between the work of the police department and the partnership and collaboration of community groups and other city entities, we have been able to i think really do a good job, and hopefully we can continue to drive these numbers of homicide victims down in 2020. we did have one homicide over this past week which occurred on january 5 at 3:50 in the morning near larken in the tenderloin district. our victim was a 32-year-old female who was standing on the corner when a suspect approached

her, shot her, and she unfortunately succumbed to her injuries after being transported to the hospital. that investigation is still open. if anyone knows any information that would help shed light on this, the reasons for it or who was involved, please call us a 575-444 at our tip line. we had two shooting incidents that caused injuries to two people. one on new year's eve, which was rather uneventful other than this shooting incident. that incident the victim was talking with an unknown female at a gas station. she told her boyfriend who was nearby and he returned and shot the victim one time in the leg before fleeing. so we are looking for that person. and hopefully we can bring that case to a resolution. other than that, new year's eve, although a business night with a lot of people, it was

uneventful. a lot of people came into the city and had a great time. we are happy to report no major incidents outside of those shootings that night. other major events over the past week, we had multiple sideshows across city. for those of you not familiar with that, what that entails is you usually have a group of individuals in cars that usually commit various unsafe driving stunts on public streets. how they usually happen is there's usually a lot of spectators in the area when these shows happen. they'll block off traffic between motorists and spectators and they'll do donuts and stunts in the streets. usually these things are filmed and put on social media. they are extremely dangerous, very disruptive to public safety

and to the flow of traffic. so we had a number of those on january 5. our officers responded in numbers along with the california highway patrol. they released six reported slide shows. the first was at mission and persia at approximately 4 p.m. then there was one, actually the first one was at 2:00 p.m. at evans and hunter's point boulevard. then 24th and bryant then mission and persia then st. charles then st. bruno and then fitzgerald. and the message to the public is these events are extremely dangerous. they are oftentimes glamorized by what is seen on movies. and some of them have resulted in fatalities. so we urge the public not to participate in. if you see a slide show developing or happening, please call us so we can respond and put an end to it.

and again, they are extremely dangerous and disruptive to our city. so our operations team is working on strategies and collaborating with california highway patrol and other cities where these shows happen including some of our neighboring cities, san jose and oakland, to see if we can come up with collaborative strategies because often time they go from city to city. they get on social media and broadcast where they are going and land in another city after the previous city enforces. so we plan to continue working to prevent these events from happening in our city. so that's it. if the in addition commission has any questions for this portion. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you very much. with reference to the homicides being the lowest since 1961, that's amazing. and i think a lot of that reflects the hard work that this police department has done with the community who is more cooperative with the police in these homicides, but more

importantly, you see people rush to the stage for press conferences to talk about this, to take credit for it. i heard some folks claiming responsibility for lowering the rate. the reality is the credit and kudos go to the men and women of the san francisco police department, the midnight shift, the swing shift and day watch wear those uniforms, the gang task forces that are out there talking to people making sure there's no recurrence. contrary to popular belief, they have great relationships with the community. they are solving these cases, and they are making sure there's no retribution. so all the credit in my opinion, 90 percent of it belongs to those men and women in this department who worked on christmas eve, on christmas day, new year's eve, new year's day. so i want to thank them for their hard work and time away from their family and their time throughout the year to prevent these cases. that's where it goes. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner dejesus.

>> to answer your question, i did forget one thing to talk about vision zero but i'll wait until after your question. >> [off mic] >> it is. correct. usually by the time we get there, people scatter and disappear. and that's why their tactics are really important in terms of how we address these issues. it's hard to catch people. we have to get through the pedestrian traffic to get to the people doing these stunts and oftentimes, i've seen this happen in previous occasions where i've worked these events, the tactics sometimes are by the people doing the slide shows where they block the pass of police cars and block police cars in and that type of thing so they are difficult to police.

luckily we didn't have any injuries associated but to answer your question, we didn't cite anybody. they scattered and moved on and went to the next location. >> [off mic] just wanted to ask you about that. i know -- i didn't want there to be a ton of police -- >> i don't have the specific numbers but i don't believe that to be the case, commissioner. and i'll report if it's okay, i'll report back on that in the next session. i don't think that that's accurate in terms of crime.

not through the roof. i believe in some areas, depending on the categories, it's down. some areas are down. so i can follow up if the commission wishes, in the next meeting, specifically for crime. >> i was going to follow up on commissioner dejesus' point. is that the fox news? yeah. so, oh, no, no, let's not give credit or any credence to things that are going over propaganda information from out of town. we have this moment now where there's certain political forces and parties who decided that san francisco is the place where they want to -- i don't know how to say this nicely, but make an example of, but in doing so, they have been dishonest, devious and maybe trying to shift attention away from other

problems nationally. so i really hope that people in san francisco aren't paying attention to that, because it's garbage. >> thank you. anything else you have? >> yes, sir. i do want to report on our vision zero numbers for the end of the year. so we ended up with 29 vision zero traffic fatalities and that was up from 23 to previous years so we have a lot of work to do there. i know this commission has had a great interest in vision zero. our breakdown of the 29 are as follows: 18 of the fatalities involved individuals who were working, one was cycling, two involved passengers in motor vehicles, one involved a motorcycle and seven involved drivers and some were single car collisions, others were multiple car collisions or at least two cars. the bottom line is we have a lot of work to do.

we've presented to the commission on our vision zero focus and our strategies to hopefully have a better year next year. we have been going down constantly for the last three, four years and this year was what i hope is an aberration. we are going to work hard to make sure that our officers are out there. we have a vision zero task force, we doubled the size of that. so there's a lot of strategies that we have in place to hopefully address these issues, and the bottom line, it starts with us as san franciscans and people that live, visit and work in our city is slow down, follow the rules, and that is the first piece of it. but if those things don't happen, education and enforcement have to happen. and we are doing both, educating and enforcing. we will continue to do that, and hopefully we'll make headway this year on reducing this number. the goal is zero. that's why it is called vision

zero. so we have a lot of work to do. >> i've seen statistics that the city put out or it's been in the press about the number of vehicles in the city. are we able to track the number of vehicles every day on the streets, particularly ride share, ride hail vehicles? because i suspect there's a correlation there somehow. >> i believe nca has some ways to predict or to extrapolate how many vehicles are on our street. and i don't have those numbers. but i know that they do. and i will follow up and see if i can get my hands on those numbers for the next report. i believe that they do. because we have traffic cameras and that type of thing in the city that help with that. but it is a very congested city. and that causes its own set of problems. people get impatient and road rage and the whole thing that adds to that problem. >> right. it might be helpful for us to think about this and even address to the extent we can, if we have a better feel for

whether that's driving some of the problem. >> yes, sir. >> anything else, chief? >> that's it for my report. >> commissioner? >> no worries. a follow-up for me, it's great that we have the numbers from 2019. maybe in february or march we can actually get a report. i would like to see what those 41 homicides, which communities they were in. and the same thing with the fatalities for vision zero. i wanted to echo commissioner mazzucco's point about the job that the department is doing. i got an opportunityd to to spend time at a help sf sites and saw a cadet receive an award, so to see the cadets engaging with the community speaks to the future of the department so i was excited to see that. i would love to see that maybe in march. >> thank you. we'll have that ready. >> thank you, chief. okay, next item, please. >> the firearm discharge board.

review board. >> good evening. >> good evening. >> president hirsch, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson. my name is greg, i'm a deputy chief of administration, and i'm here to report the firearm discharge review board report to the commission.

this report will have four incidents, ois16001, 006, 18004 and officer-involved discharge 001-18. the first incident ois16001, occurred on april 7, 2016 at approximately 9:57 hours in the morning. officers responded to the 400 block of shotwell street regarding a 911 call from a homeless outreach team member of a man with a knife. officers arrived on scene and encountered a male with a large knife. officers gave the subject numerous verbal commands to drop the knife but he failed to comply and extended range impact weapon was deployed by one of the officers, four rounds struck the subject but were ineffective. the subject began to advance

toward one of the officers. both officers initially retreated and in an effort to gain time and distance, the subject charged with the knife in hand. in response to the immediate threat of being injured or killed, both officers fired at the subject to stop the threat. the subject was struck and transported to san francisco general hospital. the subject was later pronounced deceased. the recommendation to the chief of police was that the use of a firearms in this incident was in policy, and chief scott concurred. in addition to this incident, a recommendation to the chief of police regarding the use of the extended range impact weapon was found not in policy regarding 15106. in essence, the officer at the initial contact, the officer did not create time, distance or repour with the person in crisis. department bulletin 15155, the

situation was static, the subject was seated and there was no one else in the immediate proximity and no immediate threat posed when the officer swiftly closed in. department bulletin 15234, the officer did not obtain a briefing from any reporting party or officer prior to advancing to an armed subject. an officer advanced without a formal plan. the officer didn't have cover. the officer point of aim was not in zone 2 which is at the waist or below. the officer fired rounds at zone 1, which is above the waist. the officer did not provide a verbal challenge. department bulletin 15515234 were in effect at the time of the incident but since that time they have

incorporated into the general order. for these recommendations, the e.i.w. was not in policy, chief scott concurred. my clicker didn't work there. i needed to switch the slides. all right. officer involved shooting 17006. 2017 at approximately 0021 hours in the early morning, two officers assigned to uniform assigned to the castro street halloween festivities were approached by a community member advising them a parked vehicle in the area was being burglarized. the community member directed the officers and pointed out the vehicle he believed was being burglarized. as the officers approached the vehicle, the person inside the car closed the rear passenger door. the officers approached and attempted to make contact with the suspect who was sitting in

the backseat of the vehicle. the officers announced themselves and gave the suspect numerous verbal commands to show his hands and get out of the vehicle. the suspect did not comply after multiple orders. without any warning, the suspect moved from the front seat -- to the front seat and unexpectedly got out of the vehicle and started firing at the officers. one of the officers was struck by the gunfire. the suspect then turned toward the second officer and pursued the officer on foot as he continued to fire at the officer. fearing for his life, the officer retreated to get cover and returned fire to stop the threat. the suspect was struck and taken into custody. the injured officer and suspect were transported to san francisco general and treated for the injuries. the recommendation to the chief of police regarding 17006 was it was in policy and chief scott concurred.

the next, 18004 occurred on friday, may 11, 2018 at 0059 hours in the morning. a field training officer and recruit officer assigned to northern station observed a possible auto burglary in progress near gary boulevard. the officer got out of the vehicle in an attempt to detain the suspects. one suspect was detained. a second suspect ran from the scene and the recruit officer pursued him on foot. the recruit officer chased the suspect to the area of websters where the suspect got into a parked car. the recruit officer gave the suspect numerous verbal orders to get out of the vehicle and show his hands. the suspect refused to comply and the recruit officer believed the suspect was reaching for a weapon as the suspect reached towards the floor board. while attempting to flee, the suspect vehicle collided with a parked civilian vehicle and sfpd

vehicle. believing the suspect was going to use a weapon against another officer, the recruit officer fired two rounds at the suspect as he fled in the vehicle. the suspect was not hit by the gunfire. the suspect continued to flee the scene and was pursued by more sfpd units to an area where he was taken into custody. the recommendation of the chief was the use of the firearm was not in policy and that general order 5.01 section e moving vehicle an officer shall not discharge a firearm at the operator of a moving vehicle unless the operator or occupant poses an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the public or officer by means other than a firearm. sorry, other than the vehicle. in this case, chief scott concurred with the

recommendation. in addition, this recommendation to the chief was the camera use was not in policy and that general order 10.11, the member didn't activate the body camera at any point during this incident, and chief scott concurred with this recommendation. the last incident is the officer-involved discharge, 001-18 on wednesday, march 28, 2018 at approximately 12:15 hours in the afternoon a sergeant was on duty, the sergeant was at a desk dismantling his weapon when the sergeant accidentally discharged a round. there were no injuries. the recommendation to the chief of police was that the use of firearms was not in policy and that the general order 5.1 section 6g1a handling a firearms

an officer shall handle a firearm in acore dance with firearm -- accordance with firearm training. chief scott concurred. the following is the open officer-involved shooting and discharge investigations from 17-001 to the most current. i'm sorry, to 00-19. so these are all open investigations and have indicated where they are still active and administrative investigations relating to each of those cases. some are just administrative investigation because the criminal investigation has been concluded. >> okay. thank you, deputy chief. i have a question for you. the two cases that you said were not in policy. do we know whether discipline then followed? >> yes, discipline did follow.

>> okay. commissioner elias. >> thank you. my one request is -- thank you for presenting on this. the one thing that i am going to ask that next time these are presented in the description summaries that i think the time accounting should also be included. i think it's important to sort of see how long the incident takes. [off mic] it's crucial in when we look at these scenarios and descriptions you give because most of the time or oftentimes, these incidents happen within seconds. so i think that's an important piece of information that should be included in these reports to give us a better idea. because i was very confused on the 2016 report, because everything that led up to the use of lethal force is considered not in policy, but then the use of lethal force is in policy.

so i think it would be very interesting or informative to see the timing, especially on this incident. >> okay. >> commissioner dejesus. >> question on the same one. the timing is also important. but on the first one that you read. so the first one you read, the second part of it, the use of the eriw was not in policy. [off mic] gasping the knife -- officer discharged -- [off mic] all those reasons are also

reasons for the shooting. i guess i'm confused. when they are using less thee that will weapon, they didn't apply the policy but so if we are not creating time and distance, we are charging the person and using a lethal weapon, that's not the ground to be limited or whatever, it's just in policy. it's so confusing. anyone reading this, if they didn't comply with our policy for creating time and space. you have a representative of the commission that sits on these fire discharge review boards, but we don't have a vote. so this is an internal process by the police department, and you report to us, and sometimes it gives the impression that we went along with this or agreed with this or we found this to be

in policy. so this is a department decision. and i don't understand the less lethal weapon is not a policy but the lethal weapon itself is in policy. >> so for the commission, we had to be very limited on comments, because this case is also a d.p.a. case that will probably land in front of this commission. so d.p.a. and director henderson and i have met and conferred on this case, so we have to be limited in our comments. >> i was going to say the same thing, because d.p.a. is in those things too but if there are open investigations in some of these cases, which is the case. >> [off mic] bringing it to us as a decision made by the police department. they looked at their own shooting. which over and over again,

shouldn't be investigating their own shootings. but you are investigating your own shootings. just policy violations for the same shooting -- [off mic] even disciplined [off mic] training or something -- with some kind of exception. it's just not -- do all these other things and that's out of policy, but it's in policy. so to the extent that the discharge review board, i would expect if it applies to one it would apply to the other. if i had a vote i would have said it was out of policy just by looking at these factors. so how do we talk about this, then? >> i'll speak to -- in a larger sense, to your concern and

question, commissioner. oftentimes what led up to -- we have to look at -- there's case law that talks about the tactics and whether that caused the shooting, right? and maybe that's what you are referring to. but when we view what led up to and an officer-involved shooting, you have to look at that in the context of the whole picture and oftentimes the actual life-threatening activity that caused the lethal force to be used is independent of the tactics that the things that happened before then. of course, there's case law that says if the tactics are so egregious that it caused the lethal force to occur, that's another story. but that's -- >> the tactics then without -- [off mic] >> right. that's actually correct.

it doesn't prevent this presentation and/or that process from taking place, even if there are pending charges, but that is exactly the issue that you are bringing up and exactly the chief's point is that in those circumstances and these include those exact circumstances, it's a problem to address it or give input on it, because -- >> we have an opportunity to really talk about it. >> correct. and i would say that the issue is exactly that. what's the process for the f.d.r.b. when and if there are charges that are pending related to it, how can we do the presentation if and when -- exactly. so you get a piece of it. >> [off mic] it will be presented at a later time when it can be -- this is something i think the public needs to

understand is this is an internal decision. some tactics that were used and why it's okay for one and not for the other. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. so remind me, maybe the commission can remind me, isn't the procedure or the policy -- no, the procedure for the firearm discharge review board under -- isn't it being revised into a serious incident review board that's going to be more to addressing some of the commission's concerns? sorry, i just -- who was working on that? >> there's a draft that's been provided to d.p.a. and we are going to sit down and go over that draft and go through the finer points that commissioner hirsch has asked to be a part of that discussion as well.

so we do have a draft for the serious incident review board. we've provided that to d.p.a. just recently we provided that to d.p.a. just recently. so we are well underway. and hopefully we will have something with commissioners' involvement with this in the very near future on that. >> okay. great. i remember we discussed that a while ago, and it's -- i would like to see -- it would be nice if we could take a look at it as a commission in the near future and just to address some of these concerns. that's it. >> there's still going to be the issue of whether the commission can get involved in the decision, because if we sit in judgment of the discipline cases, we really can't be sitting on the firearm review board or serious incident review board and making decisions there

also, when we are about to become a judge, possibly, in the discipline case. and i have the same questions that the two other commissioners did with this particular matter where if behavior was wrong leading up to the ultimate shooting, how do we find the shooting was in compliance? and i don't really know the process, i don't know the thinking that went into that and how it happened, but it raises the same question in my mind, which means three of us have the same questions that probably a lot of the public has. >> can i follow up on that point? >> yeah. >> because these are o.i.s.s and if it does end upcoming to us, then in that case, does our decision become public so at least in these cases, the public can understand the process that -- >> yeah. >> right. so i think it's obviously -- maybe there is a discussion about the timing of when we review cases that are still

under consideration for charging, whether we are putting that out basically before we've had a chance to hear the case and -- because it's probably not going to look great for anybody if the department is saying, okay, we cleared it, it's in policy and then it comes to the commission and it's released because it's an o.i.s. and it comes out the commission found this out of policy. i think it -- i'm thinking out loud that it's maybe until after it goes through the commission if it's under review. but i don't know. >> if i could -- a couple things have to happen for that to occur, commissioner hamasaki? so first thing is in the department's review through the firearm discharge review board, that's one process. d.p.a. also is reviewing the same case. so in this case there's no disagreement between the department and d.p.a. on the lethal force.

and there is meet and confer on other issues that as director henderson said, is in investigation that may end up in front of this commission. but on the force itself there is no disagreement. there have been cases where there has been disagreement that d.p.a. brought charges on and that did end up before this commission. but in this case that was not the case. so at which time the commission if and when that case comes before the commission all those questions will be answered in full. it's just at this point as i pointed out earlier, it would be inappropriate to talk about it to the commission. >> director henderson. >> i just want to say, because i think a number of issues have been raised. there are a couple of points i wanted to make that i want to elevate the conversation pause it's more helpful if we elevate it to the bigger picture. i think it's important specifically with the cases presented because the d.p.a. was

in agreement about the findings of misuse in the cases we were talking about, but the bigger issue that was brought up is what do we do in these situations. and like i said, it's permissive because the b.d.o. isn't clear, and when we have talked in the past about changing and addressing that, but the bigger picture is the serious incident review board, which is i think the ultimate goal to address all the concerns that we have been talking about, at least from the work that we have been doing at the d.p.a. and we have been working on that since -- from 2016 through 2018. we did get the draft this week. one of the things i think might be helpful, and my chief, sarah hawkins is meeting with the chief's chief,. >> chief of staff. >> chief of staff. allon monday. one of the things we can do to address this exact concern so we

don't have in inconsistency in the future is put a thumb or fast track on that serious incident review process that could probably benefit from a focus right now, especially when it's something that covers a number of boxes in the d.o.j. work that we are doing. that would be my suggestion, because rather focus on the weeds of these specific cases that have raised the concerns that would have been addressed. i just wanted to say that if that's helpful for the conversation. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> i want to caution everybody. obviously we all are concerned about this report that we are reacting to. we have to keep in mind that there is a presentation that was given that's pretty much more thorough than what we received right now, where we are half in policy and half-knot in policy. so we are the commission that

will sit as a judge if charges come our way. we can't really comment about it now. so i would suggest maybe in the future that as commissioner hamasaki said, maybe a notation there is a pending case and maybe not bring that to us until there's been charges and then not bring it to us until we see the case as a disciplinary case. you see this, you see in policy, not in policy, and i can understand -- i'm speculating how they can get there. >> and we can answer but -- >> right. >> do you have anything else? >> just keep in mind this incident occurred in april of 2016, prior to the revision of general order 5.01 and that the investigation and findings were based on the old policy and the specific department bulletin that were in effect from 2015. so if you apply today's 5.01 to

this, it's really not going to make sense to you. >> i'm just replying, do not create time and distance, that was in place at this time otherwise how can you find it out of policy? >> right. but the department bulletins were specific to the time and distance but not necessarily the g.o. >> i think there was a bulletin in place for time and distance at the time of the shooting. it was in place right after mario wood it was in place. >> okay. thank you. >> next item, please. >> line item 2b, d.p.a. director's report. report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. d.p.a.'s report will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. >> good evening.

>> good evening. a summary of our cases. we are from 2019 now that we have started our new year, it was a total of 750 cases that were opened. that is up almost 100 cases. the total number of cases from last year was 660 cases. in terms of case ofs closed, we closed 652 cases versus 616 cases. right now, we have pending cases, 417 pending cases. in terms of cases sustained, that number also jumped up significantly so there were 86 cases that were sustained in 2019 versus 50 in 2018. in terms of number of cases that have gone beyond the nine months, internal review that we have, it's 26. this time last year in 2018, we

had 23. in terms of cases mediated, the mediation numbers have gone up significantly, and we have more than doubled the number of cases that went through mediation. this year we had 47 cases. last year we had 23 cases. at the last commission meeting, where we had an overview of 1421 information and the release of documents, we talked about the sexual assault category, and commissioner hamasaki asked us how many files in the category had been disclosed. we did a search of all the records that we released, and there were no disclosable records in that category, i just wanted to report that. typically my chief of staff would be giving this update, but she is not here. so you are getting it from me. but i have answers for you. and since our last commission meeting, we produced four more

files and great bodily injury category. we produced records to specific requests from the public defender's office for three of the officers in all those categories, and we have also followed up with all those records previously disclosed to a new omnibus request that we received. i mentioned that we doubled mediation work in terms of outreach, we have had a number of activities. we had a willie brown fellow for the past six months that reported back at city hall to talk about the work at d.p.a. that she participated in. also in december, we participated in the community engagement forum at the museum of the african dance. also in december, my staff as well as all the interns that have been here through the fall attended and participated in the youth panel discussion for my brothers and sisters keeper that

took place at linked in corporation downtown. and this is a new thing. i may actually move this to our quarrel check. as you -- quarterly check. as you remember, we finally got both our actual manual checks where we are going to all the stations to make sure all the information was available to the public at every station to have information about d.p.a., and since then we do the regular check-ins to make sure all the departments have the information and it's available for people to come in. and we are fully in compliance with that. some of the departments, now there are three locations and three departments that have run out of specific languages, both spanish and chinese, but we want to try to track that so we can see who is collecting the information and compare it against the complaints and information that we get. i may move that over into the

quarrelerly thing, but since it's something new, i've been giving you updates about the information that's available to the public through the actual stations. i don't have anything in closed session from today. in the audience today i had a number of staff with me as my director of policy marryian -- miriam and armstrong. >> next item. >> 2-d, 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 president's report, commissioners' reports. >> yes, one item, i think it was in october, i met with the chiefs and executive director of the coalition on homelessness,

jennifer, and i arranged for that meeting because i had talked to each of them separately and realized there was a lot of common ground as to the approach that we believe the city should take on 311 calls involving homelessness. and so she drafted a resolution that i requested, i modified it slightly. we all approved it, and it's on the agenda for next week for approval. and you'll see it really recommends that the city take steps to move initial responses to 311 calls from the police to non-police city employees, assuming that we can have them and we train them. but if there's no crime involved, if it's a call really about a homelessness generally, then we all hope the city one day will have an appropriate

response. so that will be on the calendar for next week. any other items? okay. >> ion item 2e, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings, action. >> is this related to the last? >> no. i am going to ask if we can agendize the racial and identity profiling report. i would like to agendize having sfpd respond to that report and the data in that report. i understand that this is an issue that is similarly tied to the 96a report, but i think that sfpd needs to be proactive in terms of finding the solution or an action plan on how it's going to address these numbers and this data, because it is alarming. there have been several articles out, and the data from this report is disturbing. so i want to know what sfpd is

going to do to address the situation. i don't think that we should be in a position where we are just going to wait for an academic institution to come in and tell us what these numbers mean. i really want the police department to take a more proactive approach. so i want to agendize that for a future meeting. >> okay. anything else? okay. next item. >> the commission meeting is scheduled for wednesday, januarl room 400. the public is now invited to comment on items 2a through 2e. >> public comment on anything we have discussed so far? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> line item 3, presentation from the department on the status of women on their report titled pathways to promotion, a gender analysis of the san francisco police department. discussion. >> good evening

>> good evening, president hirsch, commissioners, chief scott. i want to thank you for this valuable time. just a brief background on why we are here. shortly in the days after chief scott assumed office, we received a complaint from the p.o.a. that women were not included in the promotion of command staff. and so we agreed to address the employment complaint. and we agreed to take on a forward-looking gender analysis of female officers in sfpd to surface any obstacles or challenges that sworn women in the police force face. this report represents hundreds of dollars of work. with me to give the presentation is policy and project director elizabeth newman. she led this effort. and it's her final duty before she goes on parental leave for

the next few months. and i want to personally thank chief scott and assistant chief who gave us access to all the available data, very cooperative and supportive and the brave women of the women's action committee of the p.o.a., without whom we could not have completed this report. we hope this will be a blueprint for gender equitable police force. i will turn it over to ms. newman. >> thank you. good evening, president hirsch and commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to share some of our key findings and recommendations from the department on the status of women recently released gender analysis of the police department. as many of you are familiar, a lawsuit from 197 the charged the sfpd with discrimination against people of color and women and immigrants in hiring and promotion. it was settled in 1979 that established goals and required

deliberate efforts to recruit people of color and women. and it increased the representation of women in the ranks from 4% at the time of the lawsuit to 16% at the end of the consent decree in 1998. that same year, san francisco passed an ordinance to implement the u.n. principles of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. and this ordinance established gender analysis as a preventive tool to identify and address gender discrimination as something our department works to implement throughout the city. the focus of this study was based on concerns raised by sworn women about their advancement opportunities. so we really focused on information regarding the pathways to promotion. this is a snapshot, a point in time. we collected data in 2018. and then also the focus groups and interviews that we held provided more of a historical

context and a broader look at the experiences of women in the department. at the time that we collected the data, there was a workforce of about 2,300 with 345 being women, so 15. basically unchaininged since the consent decree 20 years ago ended. compared to other large law enforcement agencies in the state, san francisco is in about the middle, with l.a. having the greatest proportion of women at 19 percent and san jose having the lowest at 10 percent. representation of women clearly falls short of the half of the population that we make up. but even when we look at the labor force that's available, there's about 20 percent available in the region for sworn protective service, not specifically law enforcement officers, but those who might be capable, interested and skilled for these positions.

these numbers are concerning, not only because the sfpd strives to have a workforce that represents the population but because research shows that women are suit -- well-suited to police work. they are often better at the soft skills needed to deal with many of the situations that officers encounter in the streets. women officers are better at deescalation, better at responding to violence against women and have fewer citizen complaints and excessive force cases. the police department has a goal of 20 percent for women in each academy class, and they have targeted recruitment messages as you can see here and a women's boot camp to help female applicants get ready for the program. 20,000 applicants over six years, women made up just 17 percent and that number shrinks throughout the process as women have lower pass rates at men at nearly every step. the physical test has the largest disparity as you can

see. this continues in the academy where 73 percent of women successfully complete it compared to 81 percent of men. we also found the reasons for separations at the academy differed for men and women. of particular note, the emergency vehicles operations course was the reason that one-third of women failed the academy, compared to just 13 percent of men. however, one bright spot is that the women who make it through the hiring process in the academy and begin work as a police officer are more likely to successfully complete the yearlong field training or just the field training program and become permanent sworn members of the police department. while women make up 15 percent of the overall foreign workforce, we found that they are ambitious and rising through the ranks, making up 20% of sergeants, lieutenants and captains but sworn women felt that at the top, influential

decision making roles were inaccessible and that there could be only one token woman, and as one of the interviewed people put it, i long for the day women can vie for any position and not the one and only vacancy that's the retirement of another female. it creates an environment of the hunger games between female candidates. overall, one of the largest findings that we discovered was when we looked across the workforce, women were more likely to be assigned to administrative units than men. a quarter of sworn women work in administration compared to one in eight men. and men are twice as likely to work in specialized units than women. when we go by rank, this trend is even more pronounced. i want to note these are categories that our department developed based on information from sworn women and of what

these units are doing. they don't necessarily reflect the same categorization and organization of the sfpd. nonetheless, we believe this is a significant finding. as sworn women expressed, there's a double standard when it comes to administrative units. basically men are seen as good dads for taking a desk job, women are seen as taking the easy way out. and they also mention that when they did get into specialized units like one focus group participate put it, you are there as the buyer or the vice girl, never on the arrest team learning how to write search warrants so even as we go up the ranks and more and more officers are in administrative assignments, women still represent a disproportionate number. when we did look at promotions, there were 220 made between 2015 and 2017, and women comprised 2.

14 percent of women were promoted compared to 9 percent of men. so we do see that womener being promoted at greater rates than men in the departments. however each round of promotions results in new assignments and comparing the light purple bars as we saw before, women were twice as likely to go into administrative units than men and less likely to go into patrol or specialized assignments. and when we compare these same officer assignments in 2018, we see that actually the number of women in administrative units increased while men representation increased in specialized assignments. we saw the same pattern across rank as well. and women really see this as a risk of promotion that they might end up behind a desk. one woman said the problem is that you are taking a chance when you take this test. that you can end up behind a

desk. so if you are a female and on patrol and you like it, it's a gamble. i do also want to mention that this assignment disparity means that women are underrepresented in plain clothes and rifle firearms training. and it likely contributes to the underrepresentation of women in awards and accommodation. out of more than 7,000, over a three-year period, women received 726 or 10% of awards and accommodations. no women received the highest levels with the gold or silver medal for valor and just two women received the bronze medal of valor. the only award that had a large proportion of women was the crisis intervention awards. some women did feel they were less valued award or even seen as girl awards. when we looked by race and

ethnicity and gender, we found that white men received a slightly higher proportion of awards compared to their numbers in the workforce. commendations not only recognize good work but makes them visible to leadership and are often considered as particle of secondary criteria in decisions for promotions. women shared that there appeared to be a lack of consistency in the awards process and that award-worthy police work aligned with more masculine and physical acts rather than actions to prevent or deescalate serious situations. one woman said some guys with two years have stocks of commendations and i got written up for one and they returned it. they said they don't like the wording, and it's gone, no commendation. they have to navigate a balance between doing well and doing too much. research finds they have to approve themselves but also they

are viewed as a threat if they go above and beyond, a threat to men in the department. this means that oftentimes they keep achievements to themselves. women in the sfpd also sought for feedback and opportunities for support of their career development. basically, the performance evaluations or reviews were not seen as occurring regularly and viewed as a missed opportunity to account for the successes they had and to provide guidance to help them get to where they wanted to go. so in addition to addressing the disparities in assignments and hiring process and training, which are part of our recommendations, we also recommend creating opportunities for formal and informal mentorship and support, particularly for those younger officers who really need to get some guidance from women who have been there. it helps to mitigate feelings of

isolation and other social barriers they might face. also a lack of the fair and consistent performance evaluations just in general, can lead to greater reliance on gender stereotypes when women are up for consideration. so the issues around bias and evaluations are concerns for us. we also heard from women that as their needs and bodies change throughout their life with pregnancy to breast-feeding to menopause, it needs to be easier for them to access equipment that is properly fitting for them. that was not always the case. lastly i want to mention we do really appreciate the efforts that have been made in recent years to create more of a culture of equity and inclusion. however when we looked at d.e.o. complaints for both men and women, racial discrimination was the number one reason they were filing a complaint and

discipline, we also found there seems to be some disparities by race, so that culture of equity and inclusion needs to be not only around gender but also around race, sexual orientation and gender identity. i want to just close and really commend chief scott for his cooperation, collaboration on this study and assistant chief mosier, they worked closely with us to myoprovide the data. they provided documents and clarified our questions. i want to thank the p.o.a. women's action committee and sworn women who shared their experiences, issues and suggestions with us to help inform this study. as you all probably have known, it's a very steep learning curve to understand the police department and the functions here. so i'm really pleased that we were able to be supported through this by the department and the members of it. and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you for your report.

i have a question for you, chief. there are nine recommendations here. i'm wondering now what happens with them? >> we've, between myself, assistant chief moser and our staff, we've gone through this report from top to bottom. some of the recommendations, there's already a lot of progress that we have made on some of the recommendations. and we had an opportunity to discuss with the department on some of the issues that we don't totally agree with but nonetheless moving forward, i think we have good strategies in place to address most if not all of the issues that were raised. there are a number of things that were already in the works when this report was being researched and drafted. to give you an example of one of the things, i know the portion

about the assignments of promotion of women, and i know it was raised in our discussions. and one of the things that we have been doing for the last three years is we give officers when they have been selected for promotions, we give them an opportunity for a wish list. and if that wish list meets the needs of the departments, oftentimes, individuals work the assignment they asked for. and that has its own set of benefits including you are working with satisfaction in your job, working with people's family situation and all. we can't always accommodate it, but oftentimes we have been able to accommodate it. so these are the type of things that are nuances that speak to some of the issues in the report. the other thing is on the back end in terms of what opportunities exist to get

people ready for opportunities, our department is really stressing special development in the time i've been here. we've given many the opportunities to develop professionally, so there are a lot of things we are doing to try to give everyone the opportunity to be all they can be in this department. but to your question, some of these recommendations are well on their way, others that we haven't started on, some will be. there's only a few that i think we disagreed on. but for the most part, the work is being done. >> commissioner hamasaki. thank you. >> what are the ones you disagree on? >> well -- >> i mean -- >> yeah. >> one of the -- this is not a recommendation, but this was a point that we discussed. so i know in the presentation

the statistics about the available labor market. so the department uses the information provided by our department of human resources, city department of human resources on the available labor market. i know in the report and what was presented here, that was 20 percent, d.h.r. figure is 15 percent, which we have met. prior to that discussion, and how this came up and the reason i bring this up, with the women's committee, we actually set a goal for 20 percent hiring goal. and in consultation with members of d.h.r., they thought that goal was unrealistic based on the available labor market. so their advice was it's okay to be ambitious, but you don't want to set yourself up for failure. so that's one point that if the recommendation is 20 percent or even to get the population of

female officers up equal to that of the city, we are told that that's not realistic, that labor market is actually 15, and we are 15 percent. we are going to do all we can to recruit women as the report called out, i think we've done a good job of that. but overall, we agree with most of what was recommended. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> okay. thank you. first of all, i would like to thank director and ms. newman? >> yes. thank you. >> excellent presentation. this report is thorough, comprehensive and it's a beautiful report. paul is getting jealous over there because he's been working on his drafts this year. >> i did notice all the good

pictures. >> it's very accessible and easy to get that information from it. i think the chief touched on this, but the issue of assignments and where people end up and administration versus patrol. and i might have missed this, but was there anything in your data about their preference? meaning just to clarify, if people are requesting administration, we have a notoriously long list for our airport division, which is the source of consternation for many of us, but if people are requesting administration, and the administration numbers are high, that means one thing, but if they are requesting patrol and the administration numbers are high, that means something different. >> yeah. just to speak to, one, we do know that there are many women who prefer to be in an administrative assignment

because it does allow for more of a scheduling consistency that they can then accommodate family care giving or other needs they might have. so we don't think that necessarily there's only women being assigned based on stereotypes or bias. there's often choice in that and preference. as it relates to the wish list that chief scott instituted, when we held focus groups, senior members, sworn women, were very -- they were just shocked that that was something that was happening now, because it was so different, and they were really pleased to see that. i can tell you that out of 20 sergeants who were offered the wish list, so to speak, female sergeants, 18 of them requested patrol or investigative assignments. we don't know where those 18 people ended up. that wasn't part of our data collection to find out those

specifics, but we do know that is what they ex pressed a preference for and two expressed a preference for administrative. that gives some indication, but it's not a representative sample or any clear indication of what was actually on it. >> okay. i mean, it sounds like the chief and department are making efforts. it sounds like maybe there's some historical issues that are being undone or changed and progress is being made. that's good. in reviewing your recommendations, and as they apply or as -- i guess i was wondering what we as a commission, is there anything that's directed towards us that you feel is a priority coming out of this report? >> certainly i think we, across the board, feel like there's a lot of changes that are

underway, and there are a lot of additional actions that could be taken. i would like to highlight that the police commission provides commendations and looking at who is receiving those and the process for that is something that you have some power over. and so if women are less likely to be in patrol, and i will also say, we did hear from some women who were assigned to stations that they thought that they were also more likely to be in non-street -- i'm not sure the terminology, but they weren't necessarily on the beat to be on the streets, even if they were at a station. we couldn't capture that. i know that's something the department is working to look at is where people are actually -- what jobs they are actually doing at different locations, different units. but if women are not having those opportunities to be in the situations that might call for

some exemplary active duty, they are not going to have the opportunity to then be recognized for it. so that kind of feeds into the chain reaction. but in terms of looking at your own process, how names are forwarded to you, how people are determined to be worthy of a commendation, 10% of all commendations in three years went to women. so that is a pretty striking that was across the board sort of with all categories of awards and commendations except for the crisis intervention. >> so was that a conclusion that always, but in instances where -- i'm sorry, women are being assigned to patrol, perhaps they are not going to the stations where things are quite as interesting. >> that's a perception that some

sworn women shared with us. >> okay. >> we do have an appendix of the report, there is a full -- it's actually within the report. there's a full breakdown of demographics by station. so that is, yeah. >> i'll pass it along now. but thank you. a really excellent report and presentation. >> thank you. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i wanted to focus on commendations for a moment. did the department indicate to you they make the recommendations for the awards? we sign off on them, but we don't make the recommendations. were you able to talk to the captains who actually sit and decide on these commendations and medals? >> we did review the process for each of them, the policy for how a commendation is provided.

and we did hear from one person who has participated in those before. i do think that there are lots of opportunities to try to deidentify or otherwise eliminate any preference towards an individual who might have a personal relationship or might have a name that's been out there a number of times and might be seen as someone who is worthy for some commendation. my understanding is that if you do -- you know someone, you don't vote on them, if you are, like, their employer. but i do think there's still so much movement around within the police department that there's a real opportunity for social networks and personal

relationships to inform what may be ultimately someone's -- >> look at the actual awards themselves? they are public. we have these hearings and they read out all these statements. and my limited knowledge, most of them are all related to some type of violence, gun or knife-related. and that's the gold and silver. and if you run into a fire building those are bronze. that's what i see. and so maybe one of the recommendations is we start to change the focus a little bit on what gold and silver really means and it doesn't always have to include gunfire or however you want to say it. i don't want to say the wrong word. were you able to analyze that and see that it had a lot of -- >> we didn't review all the writeups. we just looked at what is the award for. so for example if they are a threat to the officer's life and they responded in a heroic

manner type of thing. so we do understand those differences but we didn't read up why people were offered and who got those types of awards. >> all right, well, the commission knows. i'm also -- it's interesting on the workforce by rank and gender for the assistant chief, at least for the years that you did this, it was 100 percent male c.s.i., 100 percent male, assistant inspectors, 100 parent male and i think this foes up to 2017, is that right? >> may 2018 was for specifically the workforce demographic. >> from what i read from some of your reviews is a lot of the women you request these type of training, at least to go to different schools, the assistant inspector, the gun range, turned out or denied that access for professional development, at least from what i can tell from

your report. is that accurate? >> what i would say is that the impression -- again, this is qualitative data that says that some women felt they were in units that discouraged training and discouraged them from pursuing training or that they didn't know about training. and other women said that they were at units where it was very much encouraged and they were very supported in that. so it didn't appear to be consistent across. >> okay. that's good. i have two more questions. you talked about the anecdotal where women only get promoted when there's a vacancy. then you show on the next graph you show that women were promoted more than men. when you talk about the distribution of assignments you show more females. i think if i read that right. somewhere along the line you said more females got promoted, right? so that would seem contradictory that they had to wait for a vacancy. or am i getting it confused?

>> the piece around the vacancy was at the command staff level, the highest levels where they felt like there could only be one and you had to wait until that person retired in order for another woman to have a chance. >> interesting. so like a quota. okay. and the last thing is you did direct something directly to this commission where you said at the very end, you talked about the most of the people complained of discrimination within the department and discrimination when it comes to discipline in the department. i'm assuming that meant from discipline within the department itself and discipline -- i want to ask, discipline from this commission? >> i will say that our data did look at discipline across the board, different types, and what we looked at was kind of the severity and who was getting more severe or less severe in cases where there had been a finding.

and so what we ultimately found is that there, particularly for black women, they were less likely to get milder forms of discipline and they had a larger proportion were suspended than other racial and ethnic groups. >> and that's something we as a commission should look at and maybe do our own, some type of internal review and see whether we see a discrepancy in the statistics, because that's really something that is significant and important. so thank you. >> thank you. that last point, when did that data go through? what period of time? >> again, these were all 2015 through 2017. >> okay. there's a point i want to make. crisis intervention to this commission, i think we've made it clear, is absolutely critical to us. that is not a class b award by any means. that is the future of policing in the united states. that term didn't exist seven

years ago i think. so anybody in the public or the department who thinks that that might not be as important is severely mistaken. okay. >> thank you very much for your report. it's good to see that on the promotion level, women are being promoted. and one of my concerns is what are we doing about recruiting. i spoke at the second-to-last academy class that graduated. one woman in the class, she was class president, she won half the awards. it was just one woman the entire class. what are we doing about recruiting more women to bring to the department? because the c. i.t. awards, by the way, are more important to me, because those are lives that are saved, and that's really important to this commission. and i am just curious, what can we do about recruiting? because this department has had a great history of women, deputy chief schmitt, chief fong,

there's a lot of folks that have made it through the ranks in this department. we have one of our lieutenants in the audience right now who has been in the department a long time and has done a lot of great things. the question is what do we do to get more female officers in the departments? >> well, i think going back to the issue of having women visible in the department, i know that there have been a number of campaigns to show diverse faces and show how diverse this department is and show what the women who serve in the san francisco police department are doing. and i think that's one piece of it. i also think broadly the public section of policing has to change in some ways, and having more women visible on the street as officers can help that. i was most impressed and really surprised when we held focus groups, and there were 45 women who spoke with us through those focus groups that they most of the time were from san francisco, and they wanted to

give back. they wanted to give back to their city. so i really think there's an opportunity for the community to see police officers on the street, to see women on those jobs. and i think having the public start to change the perception, because it is still a male-dominated profession. we know these are barriers for many different types of jobs for women when you think about construction and others that just really have a male-dominated view in the public. so that's one piece of it. there are folks who have had members of their family be police officers and they might know it's a long process, and you don't hear anything for a while and all of that. but others, if you are just applying because you are interested, then that might be another way to think about really maintaining and

supporting the women who are applying for the police department. and one last thing is helping to get those who do apply and who are in the academy through, that's a big area where there could be improvement, as i mentioned, one area where we saw some big discrepancy, and the physical test, obviously, officers need to have physicality level that's sufficient and that's a bigger issue the military looked at as well as they thought about integrating combat roles but what is actually required to do the job and how can women be prepared to perform in those. so beyond the boot camp, is there a homeworkout plan or something that is less intimidating. there are issues around stereotypes, threat activation, if you think about men and womeg math tests, if you tell them ahead of time that boys tend to

be better at math, then the girls performance drops. so those kinds of things. [please stand by] -

... talking to her and they were great representation to the department. we need more of that. >> commissioner brookter: thank you again for the presentation. i want to see if we can have there a report that comes biannually. you brought it to the forefront and it needs to stay at the forefront. all of sudden, we don't talk about it another two years. if we're looking at the culture of the department and where we're headed, we need to ensure we're having this discussion and having it often, especially as it pertains to recruitment and i think we need to be cognizant of that. >> i don't know what the department on the status of women can do. i don't know how often you do these reports. >> i can tell you that i returned from maternity leave

with my first child and this was on my plate. it did take us a significant amount of time, considering a lot of the data at the time was hand-count, or just to understand what we're looking at. i think now that the police department and the chief has really built up a lot of the data systems. they can do a lot of monitoring of their own. if you're asking for the same numbers again. and we would love to work in partnership with them. you know, how do we continue to improve them and what are the other recommendations that might be in place? >> great, thank you. thank you, director. and thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> okay. next item. >> public comment on line item 3. >> public comment on line item 3. any public comment on what we've just discussed? public comment? yeah, come on up to the mic, please.

>> good evening, commission, chief scott, mr. henderson. my name is wendy and i'm an attorney for the p.o.a. and i was involved also with this report, gathering the information for the report coming up with the questions, et cetera. the work that the department on the status of women did on this report is nothing short of extraordinary. and i just wanted to -- from the inside -- point out that the commitment to putting together an accurate set of numbers, an accurate analysis and then providing an understanding to both the commission and to you as well as of course to the police department and the public, was top of mind. the effort that was put in was

beyond anything that the p.o.a. and the women's action committee had even dared to hope for. and so i just want to thank them, again, for all of the work they did. and especially to point out that elizabeth newman is a rock star. so thank you for allowing me that opportunity. >> thank you. and thank you for your participation and cooperation. it's not every day that the p.o.a. is complimented by another department in the city, but we do appreciate that. next. >> item 4. discussion and possible action to issue department bulletin 19-125, new requirements when members interrogate or question youth 17 years old or younger. modifying department general order 7.01, juvenile policies and procedure, discussion and possible action. >> good evening.

>> good evening, president hi h hirsch, members of the public. i'm assistant chief of staff here to present to you tonight on department bulletin 19-125. regarding the new requirements when members interrogate or question youth 17 years old or unger. as you've had an opportunity to review the new bulletin. there is three things that i would like to focus on tonight. number one, i'd like to, first of all, direct your attention to our january 2nd letter that the department sent to the commission regarding our meeting and confirming discussions with the d.p.a. regarding this. and i'd like to talk about several compromises to language that is included in the d.b. that is in front of you.

second, i would like to talk about a training plan moving forward. and third, i would like to also talk about communications that we had with the d.p.a. in that january 2nd meeting really designed to improve communications and make sure we're on the same page and transparent moving forward. with that, i'd like to bring your attention to the january 2nd letter that the department sent to the commission and specifically to the chart that was included. i will put it on the overhead for viewing. first, there were six actual recommendations that the d.p.a. had brought forward and we discussed in length at that meeting and came to compromise on which is included in the draft d.b. that is in front of you. i will go over each one of

those. the first recommendation was to include the words "and until" in the second paragraph under the procedure section of 96c. that paragraph we did come to the compromise to include that language. paragraph 2 now reads officers may not interrogate or obtain a miranda waiver or engage in unnecessary conversation with detained youth unless and until the following two conditions are met and those conditions are outlined in the department bulletin. recommendation 2, recommended the changing of the privacy language provided by counsel to the extent feasible. member shall ensure the youth are able to meet and talk with legal counsel and youth are provided with a right to privacy when talking to legal counsel.

we did come to a compromise on that after discussion with the d.p.a. the language was changed to members shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that youth are able to talk or meet with legal counsel in private and that has been updated in the draft language that you have in front of new the d.b. point number 3 was the suggestion to include the l.e.p. requirements for d.g.o.5.20 in the body of the d.b. although we did not include specifically that language in the body of the d.b., we did come to the compromise that would be specifically addressed in training on this d.b. and that will be included in subsequent -- all trainings regarding the implementation of this department bulletin.

point 4 was recommended requirement to record the memoranda admonition and interrogation. this particular recommendation as well was agreed that we would include this in training in the actual application of the d.b. and also the requirements to touch on the requirements that already are in place in 7.01. and in 1011 body cameras which already cover the necessary recording of such an admonition. that will be covered in subsequent trainings. point number 5 was recommended including video conference to the contact in the public defenders hotline section. the department and the d.p.a. came to the compromise of including the language that is

in the draft bulletin if available by video conference, as video conference capability is not currently always available. so if it is available, that has been included in the d.b. and that's in the draft language. and finally, was the recommendations to require members to document the attorney's name, date and time of consultation, and name and the contact responsible of adult person or waiver of presence of an adult and any attempts to reach a responsible adult. we came to the compromise to include language in the department bulletin that references the relevant d.g.o. section, 7.01, which you will see on page 2 of your d.b. that talks about documenting that required notification. so it references back to 7.01

which requires documentation of that information. so we have included that as well. we did come to a consensus and agreement and a compromise on those -- the six points that were an issue. and those are reflected in the draft of the department bulletin that you have in front of you. next i'd like to talk briefly about training and the training plan that the department has moving forward. our first step in training our members regarding this d.b. will be roll call training for all members. that is going out to all stations, all units to be read at all watches and trained on the department bulletin and the requirements. our second step is develop a checklist. so officers will be able to have a checklist when they're out in the field to really just look at a glance at the important sections of the bulletin, so they'll know what the keep steps

i have to take. we've agreed to create a checklist and we want to develop a frequently asked questions section for officers. because we do anticipate, with laws and bulletins such as these, often times it there are questions from the field, because we can't anticipate every single question. we want to address frequently asked questions, get the answers to officers and keep up with that. we plan to do that. this will be incorporated in basic training for all academy classes. and will also be included in legal policy updates for the continuing professional training, so a.o. classes as well. we want to make sure we're hitting all the fronts, so everyone is getting trained on this, not only in the front end, but the back end, through training at the academy and at a.o. continual professional training.

lastly, like to talk about agreements that came out from the meeting with d.p.a. that i referenced on january 2nd that speak towards moving forward with clear communication. what the department and d.p.a. had agreed to was in future development of department bulletins that affected general order such as this, we've agreed to use a matrix or a chart, if you will, similar to -- or excuse me, not similar to, but exactly like the one that is presented to you in the january 2nd letter. that agreement was made that instead of redlining the document, all recommendations would be tracked. the responses to those recommendations dated would all be tracked and those would be discussed on a monthly basis at the sparks meetings. so we can continue to have open

communication and everything is documented, transparent. so there is no mystery as to where recommendations are and what the results of those recommendations are. so that was the agreement moving forward. so with that, i'd like to open it up to any questions you might have. >> well, before we get there, i'd like to skip order and call on director henderson so the d.p.a. can chime in because you played an active role. >> thank you so much. this is really great. i'm excited about the policy. i just wanted to articulate a little bit, because there had been back and forth with this process going forward and getting this policy to this point, and call it a consensus, the agreement, compromise, whatever, the points you made were really important and the modifications made were really

important and were both substantial and important. they were a big deal. and i think we have a better policy because of it, but i wanted to, one, just mention because some of them can be here now, but to thank some of the folks that worked in getting us to this place along with the department and with d.p.a. bar association, the public defenders office and the youth commission that all put a lot of input into all of this. and my comments tonight are echoing comments that those agencies and individuals have made to and through our office as well. and that we are looking forward to three things. one, the directives, like these being tide to the training -- tied to the training. that is an important thing that shouldn't be lost on all of us. that is some of the things that have been raised in d.o. j.

we're tying them directly to what the training potential is to make sure they're understood and can be effective for the officers. and then, two, you know, it highlights again the importance of 701 and, obviously, we're going to be working on that in the near future. but then, three, the use of this grid, i think, is another important step out of this that is not a small thing that will diminish conflicts, surprises and challenges that are unnecessary because of this situation. so i'm happy to support and move forward with the policy. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: when i started reading this, i was getting confused. we have 7.01 and then a

department bulletin. the way i understand it, 7.01 is the process, the working group, and some of the things you guys have asked for to be deferred to the working group to continue the work on the general order. and this bulletin is a necessity because the state law and the city law is in play and so this will help the officers. do i understand that correctly? >> correct. >> commissioner dejesus: i had a couple of questions. who is on the working group from the commission? i don't know who is representing that. i'm curious. >> i'm not sure -- >> 7.01? >> yes. >> so that hasn't begun to my knowledge. i know that mr. -- commissioner brookter and i were assigned to it, but nothing actually happened. >> the idea was as part of that

working group -- i can tell you generally the working group, it's going to be the commission, the community, engagement, s.r.o. team, special victims unit, the d.p.a., public defenders office, attorney of the juvenile unit, the managing attorney of the juvenile unit and the d.a. office, and then two representatives, youth representatives, from schools. the youth were on break for winter break. now that they're back, the plan is to move forward now that we can get them scheduled. >> commissioner dejesus: that's important to me. because one of the criticisms, we had a lot of department bulletins and general orders and they're floating out there separately. that's good to hear and there was a lot of deferment to the group, so i wondered what was going on. i appreciate that. when i did look at this -- and thank you to the d.p.a., they

gave us the law and things to read -- when you look at number 2 on the january 2nd chart, i mean, the law does allow the juvenile to speak to his counsel. and to ensure that they're able to speak to counsel. i'm just a little confused when it says all reasonable steps to ensure they can have privacy when they speak to counsel. me, it's a no-brainer they would have privacy to speak to counsel. i don't know why the language is in here. i wanted to clarity on that. >> sure. >> do you want to answer? i can answer. >> i think there are circumstances and we came up with several circumstances where there may be a situation that there are exigent circumstances and it's not possible. something is happening in a park. something is happening in an area where you need to get information and things unfold in a way that it just isn't

possible, i think, is the hypothetical we were discussing and how can we have the specifics for public safety to be addressed. >> commissioner dejesus: if you have a counsel there, when he speaks to his counsel, wherever he is, if he had the opportunity to call and bring forth counsel, i would imagine you're not in exigent circumstances. he shall have privacy -- if you already got the counsel there it seems you're in a more secure area. so i don't know why you have to have reasonable steps to ensure privacy when you speak to counsel. >> i can kind of speak to that. what we wanted to do as executive director henderson described, we can't anticipate every single situation. there is going to be times when we want to forward a youth -- afford the youth a right to

speak to their counsel, but we don't want to also infringe unnecessarily upon the youth to give them the privacy. what i'm saying is like, maybe saying put a youth in the back of a police car to give them privacy. we don't want to make the situation worse than it has to be. we want to give him as much privacy as possible within the means available. i think that director henderson mentioned in the middle of a park or a field or a football field, someplace you would encounter, you want to give them as much privacy as possible with maintaining safety for everybody. that's why we settled on the language that we did. >> commissioner dejesus: it's now making sense to me. i'm sorry. you know what i'm saying. in the middle of the park, i can't imagine you're going to hold someone until the counsel office.

are you talking about on the telephone? >> yep. >> on the telephone. i don't know. why -- you wouldn't listen in on the phone call? right? so why wouldn't he have the privacy. >> if i could reiterate what the executive director and chief said, it's the balance. you know two prongs of -- the two prong test is custody and interrogation. let's say we have a situation where you're out in the field, you need to question the youth, and you might be able, if they agree to talk after speaking to counsel might be able to clear things up without having to transport them to a police station or facility. there are times we have to do that. as the example was discussed among the agencies in that meeting, sometimes you cause more harm than good if all you

have is a police car for privacy. we have to think through this. we want to give the youth the right, not cause trauma on the back end. we've had situations where the department has intended to do the right things and caused trauma on the back end because we didn't think through that. there are those situations out there where that is applicable and that's why the language is there. i've been in the situation. as everybody in uniform in that meeting and we wanted to the flexibility not to cause the trauma on the back end. >> are you saying this should go without saying because this is the law? >> well, look at the law. the law says he a right to consult with legal counsel, telephone, video, which must occur before waiver of miranda, but also this is a privacy element. and i'm just trying to -- i'm trying to envision how it's going to work. >> to me, this is a good

reminder to officers who are not lawyers. don't forget you have to take every reasonable step to make sure this conversation is private. i'm not sure -- if you're saying let's take this out, i don't know what you're thinking. >> commissioner dejesus: no, i think that's weak language. i don't know why we don't ensure they have privacy. you're not going to sit there with the camera on. i guess i just think it weakens what the law says they're entitled to as privacy. but that's my two cents. i don't know. i just want to throw that out there. i don't know why it's not disturbing to anybody else. >> so i think -- >> and i think -- >> john, john, you have to -- >> i'm already on the board. >> your behind mazzucco and her. >> unless and until you that is

the law, it is confusing because those words mean two different things. one is a time frame and one is a condition. i lived with my parents until i was 17. i can't give you my report unless my supervisor signs off on it. it's a redundancy and i'm not sure why it's in there. >> i believe that was included because that is specifically what the law said. >> it's kind of archaic. >> commissioner mazzucco: i want to thank both parties for putting this together. and it seems like you said compromise, it sounds like people changed, take a line from a new movie. i think this is exceptional and good worth on both your parts for putting this together. at this point i move to adopt. >> before we get there, i'd like to have -- >> i think we have to get a chance to have discussion.

>> so i don't -- i'm trying to follow what folks are saying, but you know, as an attorney that represents people, there is just not circumstances under which we can have those discussions without privacy. and so saying that the weasel words, take all reasonable steps, is useless as written. because that doesn't say anything. that goes to the problem that we're always struggling with here, which is that we can't make -- we can't ask our -- i mean we can and we have to, but asking officers in the field to interpret the law and to determine what are enough reasonable steps. you know, is backing up five feet enough reasonable effort to

try to give somebody privacy? is giving the opportunity have the consultation in the police car? is that enough? and so i don't understand the basis, the field thing. you know, we don't have that many fields in san francisco. i mean we have soccer fields. we have parks. we have golden gate park. but to me, as an attorney, i just -- that language as it's drafted is -- and i -- let me join in commissioner mazzucco's comments that i appreciate. i know everybody put a lot of effort into this and the d.p.a. put together a 40-page argument for the last meeting. that was pulled at the last minute. but i'm glad that we came this

far. this is the one point where i don't -- i'm not comfortable with it as written. i don't see any need to use all of the -- all reasonable steps, because if we're talking about the consulting with your attorney, you know, which is pretty sacred to use as attorneys, our relationship with our clients, i just wound put qualifications, weasel words, or anything that would cause somebody who doesn't know the law or the right, to have privileged attorney-client communications. i don't know how we can do that and expect the rights to be properly enforced for -- for the juveniles under these circumstances. so i would not vote for it with

this language. >> let me ask the department and the d.p.a., if it read members shall ensure the youth are able to talk, would you have objection and if so, what is it? >> i think -- >> can you repeat the language? >> i'm striking take all reasonable steps and just, member shall ensure that youth are able to talk or meet with legal counsel in private. >> i think that gets us to the same place. if the commission's intent -- what that means is, any circumstance, when the youth are detained, that means they're in custody. so if the circumstance dictates -- if the intent of that is where the officers are out of ear shot or in a private room, basically what that means in all cases we're going to be

transporting juveniles to where that is available, or far away from them so we can't hear what is being said. if a person is in custody, we have responsibility to maintain control or it gets us in other issues. >> but you can just put off the interrogation, can't you? >> i think you're all thinking in terms of this person has been arrested. and i think what is being lost here is that this law applies also to custodial detentions if we intend to interrogate. there are times where we do not want to transport people to a police station, or youth to a police station. it's not in the best interest of anybody. but this takes away that option. >> the way it reads now is all reasonable steps have to be taken. you have to do everything you can to assure the privacy anyway. if it comes down to it, putting the person in a police car may

be what you have to do and you're outside. that may create other issues, but that's the lesser of two evils is what i'm hearing. >> i think the juvenile may be scared. if the juvenile is scared and detained and you're giving them the phone to talk to an attorney, when they have an officer near them, i imagine a situation where they're not going to be as truthful, or there is apprehension on their part when they feel, you know, there isn't that privacy. so i would concur with the suggestion. >> i would offer just that -- i mean, this is new realm -- this law is new because it applies not only to arrest, and i know we think of things as this person is arrested, but there are many times where detentions are cleared up in the field and we don't have to transport. we don't have to move the youth

from one location to another. and we'd like to retain that option. >> right, but you've got a law that says you have to let them get in touch with a lawyer. you're stuck with that. so the question is, is there ever a circumstance where the police should overhear the conversation? i think the answer is no. >> we're not trying to overhear. >> it puts you in the position. and then you hear a statement and then all of a sudden, you're a witness to a statement that has been -- he was trying to give to his attorney that should be privileged. and then you're violating attorney client privilege please at that point. it's not workable in practice. >> i understand we can't foresee every circumstance, but the word ensure means to make sure, to safeguard. that's really the message you want to give to the patrol offic officer. when you say make every reasonable effort, that's just

leaving it open to wide interpretation that you can drive a semi through. i would prefer what commissioner hirsch says to ensure they have the privacy. >> i think this also speaks to how we train, too. we can't account for every single encounter in a policy. and i think it really talks to how we train. and i think to the chief's point, we certainly didn't want to make an absolute where an officer feels that now they have to take, maybe in the case of a detention -- i think an arrest is a different story -- but because they have to ensure that, they want to make sure they're following the policy and then, therefore, they may cause more trauma as the chief mentioned by taking a youth and saying, hey, i've got to put you in the back of a police car, or transport you somewhere where i can make sure you have this conversation, where we may not

have to. we wouldn't have to do that to the youth. and i think it speaks to how we train. >> i'm going to make a motion to adopt commissioner hirsch's proposal -- proposed language to strike shall take all -- take all reasonable -- [inaudible] -- so it reads -- >> to ensure? >> shall ensure. >> is there a second to the amendment? all right. we have to have a public comment on that, right? so any public comment just now on the amendment only? >> we don't have a motion and a second. let's do the whole thing. is there a motion to adopt this entire -- >> i want to clarify the public command is on the item. -- public comment is on the item. >> let's get a whole motion. it's a motion to adopt this entire document with the amendment. so is that your motion?

and is there a second? okay, so now, is there any discussion on that by the commission before we take public comment? so we'll have public comment on the motion. adopting 19-125. i guess we're more entrenched in this than the public is. public comment is closed. all in favor. all opposed? carries unanimously. i get the problems. you'll just have to figure out. i have another question, but i'll deal with that elsewhere. there is provisions in here that are difficult to actually work in the field when they arise. >> and again, i sincerely thank you to d.p.a. and the department, because i know there was a lot of back-and-forth -- not back and forth, but discussion and debate. the fact that it only came down to one item is credit to all of the work that you put in. a i think when you get to the

working group, you can revisit this language and see if there is something else you need to do. i'm just saying, there may be something else. i think the privacy is a pivotal issue. >> i want to tell you, thank you very much. it is extremely helpful and helps us streamline, especially when we have to go through 40 pages of letters and things of that. >> that was created by the chief's office. >> thank you. >> can i also -- >> thank a couple of people. phillip from your staff, who was very helpful in this process. and very -- had very good insight. and director henderson has mentioned sandra. i want to thank you all. >> thank you. next line item. >> line item 5, discussion and

possible action to adopt revised order 5.15, enforcement of immigration laws. discussion and possible action. >> i turn this over to commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: let me get ready. and now you can come at me. so i want to remind everybody, i took notes here, i want to remind everybody this came up in the end of 2017 i believe we started a working group. this came up regarding community concerns on the immigration policy of san francisco. and there was pending litigation that we were also addressing. so we put together a working group. i want to thank commissioner haney because he's our expert resident. there was large working group. we had the department, we had the peg groups, we had the

p.o.a., we had many immigration community representatives. and we also work closely with the city attorney's office and this language was vetted by the city attorney office. where it's been in the meet and confer process and now it's back. it's pretty much intact. so that is also, i want to thank actually the p.o.a. for that. and they were present. so they helped us get through this. i think it's pretty self-explanatory, but basically, the department has to require -- has to comply with the immigration law in san francisco. as well as with state and federal law. so we were trying to find that balance. if you look at detention, you know, members shall not stop, question or detain an individual because of their national origin, foreign appearance, or english proficiency. they can't request at a traffic stop or in the regular scope of

duties. they can't request individuals to produce any documents for their immigration status. it's basically those type of things. what we did do, though, we went through there and this agreement does not bar any partnership with any federal partners. and that is what is important. all it really requires is if the feds -- if there is any partnership with the federal officials, it really -- the department has to run it up the chain of command. it has to have the chain of command, the chief may have to participate in that to make sure we're not violating policy. it tells you when you have to contact your supervisor or when you have to contact the assistant chief. it also talks about emergency response. that was one of the things that the department and the p.o.a. were concerned about. it does not prohibit emergency

response whatsoever with any federal authority. with the extent that it's 1025 code 3 for backup, any officer safety, this does not prohibit any of that. it's really focused on when you're participating in -- it really asks our department not to participate in immigration raids and enforcement of civil warrants and enforcement of detention. and it gives them guidance, if it's a warrant, they have to go through the process of the sheriff's warrant bureau to check and make sure it's a criminal warrant. it does allow that. and they have to document who they contacted and things like that in the report. and what is more -- i think what is more important, the chief has to report no later than january of each year, he has to give us a report of compliance with this particular g.g.o. so -- >> it's comprehensive and well written.

i want to thank you and commissioner haney. >> he was the star of the show. >> i wanted to thank you, commissioner, for your work with that, too. but also just to point out issues that d.p.a. contributed and part of this, which the two point and the process were the one prohibiting officers from threatening members of the public with deportation. >> that was a good one. alerting immigration authorities to contact information, release information, arrest information and using it as threats. those were things added which the d.p.a. was very helpful with the community. but it's straightforward and self-explanatory and covers a lot of area. >> yes, that's the other thing i wanted to add just to point out that came from the d.p.a., the limiting and reports regarding criminal investigation when it

does involve the federal immigration authority. i want to thank publicly samra who worked tirelessly on the issue, but the suggested edits, but the working group members from the yanzs advancing justice. making this document exist as it stands now. if they find themselves, in that situation, they have to contact a supervisor. >> commissioner hamasaki: just a follow-up on everyone's kind words. when i saw this on the agenda, i did reach out to individuals in the immigration community.

and what i heard back was essentially thanks to commission hinge and commissioner dejesus and i think people are comfortable with this and with that, i move to adopt. >> i second. >> any further comments by commissioners before we take public comment? okay, public comment on this particular motion to adopt the general order, 5.15? seeing none, public comment is closed. all in favor? anyone opposed? okay. passes unanimously. i also thank both of you. i will see building in a couple of weeks. next item. >> line item 6. general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on the agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the

commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners. neither police nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. they should refrain from entering into debates or discussions with speakers during public comments >> okay, general public comment. ms. brown? >> ms. brown? >> general comment. i know you're here for this. >> oh, god, okay. i'm here to talk about my son. and i'd like to use the overhead, please. my son was murdered august 14,

2006. i just recently got a call from his inspector, jeff splaine, and i think that was around christmas. and he called me and said that he will be no longer my inspector any more. and now i don't know who i have. he gave me names, but i'm assuming if i have a new inspector and you're leaving, then you will provide me, or my new inspectors would call me. so i was kind of disappointed, because i wish he would have waited after christmas. you know, but now i'm still in limbo who my inspectors are now. and i'd like to know because i'd like to meet them. so they'll know who i am vice

versa. now i don't have anyone. i would like that to happen, like, soon. and again, i bring these names because i like my new inspectors, when they get to know who are the persons involved in my son's murder. thomas hannibal, paris moffat, andrew, jason thompson, thomas anthony carter and marcus carter. one is deceased. i bring the names of the other homicide victims, too. i'd like to know who my investigators are, please. >> thank you. chief, is there a protocol for that so we can get a name to her? >> i'll have somebody from the homicide unit follow up, ms.

brown. i'll verify that and have them call you. >> please, thank you. >> any other public comment? okay, public comment is closed. next item. i want to add the anonymous tip-line is (415) 575-4444 if you have any information that can help. next item. >> public comment on all matters pertaining to 9 below, closed session, including public comment on item 8, whether to hold item 9 in closed session. >> any public comment about us going into closed session. public comment is closed. >> item 8, vote on whether to hold closed session and whether to assert the attorney-client privilege with regards to item 9a san francisco administrative code section 67.10. >> is there a motion to go into closed session and to retain

attorney-client privilege? >> motion, second. >> okay, all in favor? opposed? okay, we're going into closed session. >> we are back in open session. vote to elect any discussion on item 9 held in closed session, san francisco administration code. >> is there a motion not to disclose? >> so moved. >> all in favor? aye. opposed? carries unanimously. >> line item 11, adjournment. >> is there a motion. >> all in favor? >> aye. opposed? adjourned. thank you.

shop and dine on the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within neighborhood. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant. where will you shop and dine in the 49? san francisco owes the charm to

the unique character of the neighborhood comer hall district. each corridor has its own personality. our neighborhoods are the engine of the city. >> you are putting money and support back to the community you live in and you are helping small businesses grow. >> it is more environmentally friendly. >> shopping local is very important. i have had relationships with my local growers for 30 years. by shopping here and supporting us locally, you are also supporting the growers of the flowers, they are fresh and they have a price point that is not imported. it is really good for everybody. >> shopping locally is crucial.

without that support, small business can't survive, and if we lose small business, that diversity goes away, and, you know, it would be a shame to see that become a thing of the past. >> it is important to dine and shop locally. it allows us to maintain traditions. it makes the neighborhood. >> i think san francisco should shop local as much as they can. the retail marketplace is changes. we are trying to have people on the floor who can talk to you and help you with products you are interested in buying, and help you with exploration to try things you have never had before. >> the fish business, you think

it is a piece of fish and fisherman. there are a lot of people working in the fish business, between wholesalers and fishermen and bait and tackle. at the retail end, we about a lot of people and it is good for everybody. >> shopping and dining locally is so important to the community because it brings a tighter fabric to the community and allows the business owners to thrive in the community. we see more small businesses going away. we need to shop locally to keep the small business alive in san francisco. >> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and

legitimize small businesses is a legitimize small businesses is a >> her administration has been so welcoming, so open can so accessible and on the ball and i am proud to call you my mayor. everybody, london breed. [applause]. >> thank you. first of all, thank you also much for being here. let's give brian and the q. foundation another hand. [applause] rhys isabel brought brian and other service providers who serve people living with h.i.v. in san francisco and wanted to make sure that i knew what people needed because i didn't want to spend another dollar without clearly understanding where the deficiencies were, and it all went back to housing.

it all went back to the need for subsidies, the need to help keep people housed, and this is the first time in 12 years that we have allocated a million dollars to provide subsidies which will help -- [applause] -- which will help at least 120 individuals and i'm so grateful and excited for the providers who are here, the people who will work with us on this. the work that we are going to continue to do because we want to make sure that we are helping some of our most vulnerable populations. when you think about it, sadly people who are homeless, living with h.i.v., they are less likely to get services and treatment and stay healthy as much as they possibly need. they need stable housing. housing and health go hand in hand and it is why -- [applause]

-- it is why i am fighting so hard to build more housing in san francisco. yesterday we opened a 200 bed navigation center and the embarcadero. the days are running in together we just announced yesterday a new navigation center for transitional age youth. [applause] so the investment that we are making our good investments and part of the challenge is we need more housing. we need more housing. i grew up in san francisco, as many of you know and i have seen so many of my friends and family members, who i grew up with in public housing, a leave san francisco because in some instances, they couldn't get a unit even in public housing. they couldn't qualify for affordable housing, and we don't

have enough units. so part of my focus is to address homelessness and to address the challenges that exist, but to also think about roads that lead out of the shelters, roads that lead to affordable places that are safe for people to live, and that means that we have a lot of work to do. i know this is going off course, but i also want to thank you all for supporting proposition a this last ballot measure for $600 million for affordable housing. [applause] because we know we have a lot of work to do. there is nothing better than having a roof over your head and the support that you need and i can't -- i will say, if it weren't for my grandmother raising me and two of my brothers, i don't know what i would done.

it could easily have been a situation that could have been the difference between me being here as you mayor today or anything else. that is what i think about when making these decisions. when i look at the data, another major investment we made that i am really proud of is trans home s.f. we know that folks, brothers and sisters from our trans community are 17 more times more likely to experience homelessness than anyone else when you look at the data. which is why those investments are so important. so here in the city we know there is a lot of work to do, but i'm so grateful to this community and the work that you are all doing to be advocates to really push the city and what we spend our resources on in the right direction so they actually have an impact on people's lives i have said this to department heads and to folks who work for the city time and time again. don't waste a dollar on a

paperclip because that's the difference between being able to house someone or help someone and we don't have money to waste because people are counting on us to make the right investments that is exactly what i plan to do. i want to thank brian and the q. foundation. and thank you all for being here i am so looking forward to seeing this program have an impact so we can continue to make the right investments. thank you, again, and thank you for all the support and the work that so many of you have done for so many years. and finally, now i thank you have a great partner in the mayor's office who will continue to work to really put our money where our mouth is. let me just add one more thing, i talk a lot, i'm sorry. i have to say this one where thing because this is something i am also really proud of because so many people set the path to make this happen before

i was even thought of and the fact that this year's data on new h.i.v. infections in san francisco has dropped below 200 for the first time in our city's history. [applause] i am so, so excited about that and how we, as a community will truly get 20. i also want to say that those numbers are still relatively high for african-americans and latinos and that means its important it is important that we make deliberate investments, which we have, and those political -- particular communities to do a better job around outreach, around support, but ultimately, i keep going back to housing. we will continue to work with you on these things and we are grateful to have an amazing partner in the q. foundation and all of you. thank you for so much for having me here today. [applause]

>> thank you again. her administration has really turned the tide when it comes to housing in san francisco and we deeply, deeply appreciate all the support. next is -- is regina here? where is miss regina? come on up. next i am so proud to welcome regina allen. before i obtained the subsidy from the q. sub -- q. foundation , now i have a house. i live on folsom street. i have stabilized housing. there were times prior to me having stabilized housing that i couch served, looked for any temporary housing opportunities and with the hope that and -- i

was worried about being homeless as a senior and as a mother. let's see. it hasn't been easy living in san francisco with h.i.v. i was diagnosed in 2005, so i have been living with h.i.v. for 15 years and this is the first time i'm actually speaking publicly about my diagnosis. [applause] i did speak with my children and my family about it first and they said, do what you've got to do, mom. it is good. anyway, is so when i was homeless and i didn't have a place, i didn't think about my medication, i didn't think about -- life stresses were going on for me with children and everything else.

i have my notes. >> you are good. >> i was a nervous wreck. anyway... before i got my stabilized housing, you know, it was so stressful because i didn't want to share with my family members that i am, you know, if i don't get housed, i might die out here because they didn't understand what it means to be homeless and with h.i.v. i have always had a place. when i became homeless, it was very difficult. but now that i do have a place with these new luxury apartments , yes, i have a luxury apartment. i am on the sixth floor, baby, it's fine. it's beautiful it is beautiful. it is beautiful. it's so peaceful. i think i earned that working in the city forever and raising

children. i'm so thankful for brian and the q. foundation. it's so easy with your services. once you are online with the services it is automated. i don't have to worry about getting my rent paid on time. i have money to even have cable. [laughter] i had to lie to even get into a project recently. i had to lie and say that i made x amount of money. anyway, in the last couple of years, that is when i met brian. i never utilized services. i was a case manager. i realized i couldn't -- i could live here. i met brian and i fell in love with him and the whole staff. they are very beautiful. i want to thank london breed. i love london breed. [applause]

i know some of your family members. i am thankful for what you are doing for san francisco. since you have been mayor, just to see in these areas where they don't want people housed, and to see that you fight for us. thank you for that. [applause] i think the q. foundation, i think brian. brian is just awesome. this man is a bail buster. thank you, everyone. that is it. [applause] i can't believe it. i have never told people that. i have a client here of mind that you never knew and i didn't utilize services because i'm very private. i didn't want them to get a misunderstanding or judge me. anyways, thank you everyone. happy holidays.

miss breed, thank you so much. [applause] >> regina, we are going to miss you. she was my ambassador at monterrey when i would go down there. i would turn around and suddenly there is an entourage of people walking around with us. always making me feel welcome and at home. we know that you are out here in this luxury high-rise, at least you are a little bit closer to the office now. [laughter] >> thank you, regina. next, joe from the san francisco aids foundation has done remarkable things in transforming that organization. earlier i talked about mayor breed's administration and how open and accessible and effective they are, in the same thing under joe's leadership with the aids foundation. we're continuing to build closer and closer relationships and working together on solving all of our joint issues and it's

absolutely the d.n.a. that joe is creating in the organization. i welcome you to come up and speak. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. i want to echo everything that was said in terms of thinking the mayor for her continuous support around addressing the homelessness crisis and the housing and affordability crisis in our city, and i want to thank and congratulate brian in the q. foundation for this exciting announcement today. is the mayor suggested and said, we are at a pivotal moment in our fight to end the h.i.v. epidemic. last year we had fewer than 200 new cases of h.i.v. and over the last five years, we have seen a decrease by 50 1% in the number of new cases. what we also know as a number of new cases amongst people experiencing homelessness is on the rise. in 2,000 and for -- in 2015, there were 29. in 2018, there were 40. so what we know is that in order

for our safety to get 20, which is the ambitious goal we are all railing -- rallying behind, we must address the issue of housing and we much -- must address the issue of homelessness. and of the people who are on the streets each and every night were living with h.i.v., we know that just 33% of them are virally suppressed and that the best way to get them access to care and get them into consistent treatment is to make sure they have a safe place to rest their head each and every night. that is not a shelter, it is a home. so today -- [applause] so today's announcement is quite exciting and it will get us even further to this goal. would also want to acknowledge is it is not just people who are living on the streets that need the support. we are an amazing community and made amazing by the long-term survivors and the people who responded to the aids crisis in

the early 80s. right now there are over 16,000 individuals living with h.i.v. in san francisco, and 65% of them were over the age of 50. what we know is that these individuals are not saying that they are -- they're h.i.v. care needs are going unmet. they are experiencing housing insecurity and experiencing isolation. so again, housing is the solution. housing is the answer. by making sure that these survivors, survivors of the worst epidemic in modern time can survive this crisis of housing and stay in our city, the city that they made great, is something not only the aids foundation and q. foundation is committed to, but i mayor breed as well as supervisor mandelman are all committed to. i couldn't be prouder to be part of today's announcement and can't wait for their collaboration with the q. foundation and more of our partners in the room in ensuring everyone has access to affordable housing.

[applause] >> i can't even remember when i first met rafael nadal him in. it was before my hair was grey. [laughter] and he has always been such an incredibly grounded, honest, and natural communicator. of the many things i like about raphael is he has the ability to so easily put into words his values and how his policy positions connect with them and do it in a way that leads everybody else to that place. is like, this is why we believe in what we believe, and that is such an incredible skill that i always hope to aspire to, and so i'm so proud to welcome supervisor mandelman here today

and thank him for his leadership and getting out this $1 million with the mayor. [applause] >> that's ridiculous, i'm not nearly as eloquent as brian said i'm not eloquent at all. we all know san francisco has a homelessness crisis and we also all know that the best solution to homelessness is to prevent it from happening in the first place. so that is why this program is so critical and valuable and why i am so grateful to brian and the q. foundation for your relentless, tireless advocacy, but also for the h.i.v. aids provider network and others who make the rounds every year in city hall, along with the aids foundation and joe, to ensure that the hiv-aids communities not forgotten in our annual budget.

i think that we have gotten some significant wins in the last year. we are nowhere near where we need to be, but this is a really significant win. so thank you to all who made it happen. my aid and i are ready to go into another budget cycle and we look forward to working with you to make sure that no communities left behind, but particularly not to the hiv-aids community. thank you. [applause] >> there's a lot of credit to share. i'm so happy that we were able to invite some of the people who deserve our thanks, but there's also many others in the space of time and we don't always get a chance to thank everybody. one of the things i want to acknowledge is our partnership with the mayor's office of housing and community development. we got our first funding with them 15 years ago and they have

been an incredible partner. they are open, they listen to the community, they incorporate our feedback and it really is this incredible collaboration. they are also really good about getting contracts done, paying bills on time, so from leadership to envisioning, all the way down to administrative finesse, i am so thankful and proud to be a partner with the mayor's office of housing and community development. helen hale will be our new connection point with the h.i.v. subsidies program. everybody, please give them a round of applause for all of their years of service. [applause] i believe all of our speakers are done. awesome. everybody who has spoken has to

go to another event. you are allowed to go now. this is where we will just move into the part where we talk about some of the eligibility... >> growing up in san francisco has been way safer than growing up other places we we have that bubble, and it's still that bubble that it's okay to be whatever you want to. you can let your free flag fry he -- fly here. as an adult with autism, i'm here to challenge people's idea of what autism is. my journey is not everyone's journey because every autistic

child is different, but there's hope. my background has heavy roots in the bay area. i was born in san diego and adopted out to san francisco when i was about 17 years old. i bounced around a little bit here in high school, but i've always been here in the bay. we are an inclusive preschool, which means that we cater to emp. we don't turn anyone away. we take every child regardless of race, creed, religious or ability. the most common thing i hear in my adult life is oh, you don't seem like you have autism. you seem so normal. yeah. that's 26 years of really, really, really hard work and i think thises that i still do. i was one of the first open

adoptions for an lgbt couple. they split up when i was about four. one of them is partnered, and one of them is not, and then my biological mother, who is also a lesbian. very queer family. growing up in the 90's with a queer family was odd, i had the bubble to protect me, and here, i felt safe. i was bullied relatively infrequently. but i never really felt isolated or alone. i have known for virtually my entire life i was not suspended, but kindly asked to not ever bring it up again in first grade, my desire to have a sex change. the school that i went to really had no idea how to handle one. one of my parents is a little bit gender nonconforming, so they know what it's about, but

my parents wanted my life to be safe. when i have all the neurological issues to manage, that was just one more to add to it. i was a weird kid. i had my core group of, like, very tight, like, three friends. when we look at autism, we characterize it by, like, lack of eye contact, what i do now is when i'm looking away from the camera, it's for my own comfort. faces are confusing. it's a lack of mirror neurons in your brain working properly to allow you to experience empathy, to realize where somebody is coming from, or to realize that body language means that. at its core, autism is a social disorder, it's a neurological disorder that people are born with, and it's a big, big spectrum. it wasn't until i was a teenager that i heard autism in relation to myself, and i

rejected it. i was very loud, i took up a lot of space, and it was because mostly taking up space let everybody else know where i existed in the world. i didn't like to talk to people really, and then, when i did, i overshared. i was very difficult to be around. but the friends that i have are very close. i click with our atypical kiddos than other people do. in experience, i remember when i was five years old and not wanting people to touch me because it hurt. i remember throwing chairs because i could not regulate my own emotions, and it did not mean that i was a bad kid, it meant that i couldn't cope. i grew up in a family of behavioral psychologists, and i got development cal -- developmental psychology from

all sides. i recognize that my experience is just a very small picture of that, and not everybody's in a position to have a family that's as supportive, but there's also a community that's incredible helpful and wonderful and open and there for you in your moments of need. it was like two or three years of conversations before i was like you know what? i'm just going to do this, and i went out and got my prescription for hormones and started transitioning medically, even though i had already been living as a male. i have a two-year-old. the person who i'm now married to is my husband for about two years, and then started gaining weight and wasn't sure, so i we went and talked with the doctor at my clinic, and he said well, testosterone is basically birth control, so there's no way you can be pregnant. i found out i was pregnant at

6.5 months. my whole mission is to kind of normalize adults like me. i think i've finally found my calling in early intervention, which is here, kind of what we do. i think the access to irrelevant care for parents is intentionally confusing. when i did the procespective search for autism for my own child, it was confusing. we have a place where children can be children, but it's very confusing. i always out myself as an adult with autism. i think it's helpful when you know where can your child go. how i'm choosing to help is to give children that would normally not be allowed to have children in the same respect, kids that have three times as much work to do as their peers or kids who do odd things,

like, beach therapy. how do -- speech therapy. how do you explain that to the rest of their class? i want that to be a normal experience. i was working on a certificate and kind of getting think early childhood credits brefore i started working here, and we did a section on transgender inclusion, inclusion, which is a big issue here in san francisco because we attract lots of queer families, and the teacher approached me and said i don't really feel comfortable or qualified to talk about this from, like, a cisgendered straight person's perspective, would you mind talking a little bit with your own experience, and i'm like absolutely. so i'm now one of the guest speakers in that particular class at city college. i love growing up here. i love what san francisco represents. the idea of leaving has never occurred to me. but it's a place that i need to fight for to bring it back to

what it used to be, to allow all of those little kids that come from really unsafe environments to move somewhere safe. what i've done with my life is work to make all of those situations better, to bring a little bit of light to all those kind of issues that we're still having, hoping to expand into a little bit more of a resource center, and this resource center would be more those new parents who have gotten that diagnosis, and we want to be this one centralized place that allows parents to breathe for a second. i would love to empower from the bottom up, from the kid level, and from the top down, from the teacher level. so many things that i would love to do that are all about changing people's minds about certain chunts, like the transgender community or the autistic community. i would like my daughter to know there's no wrong way to go through life. everybody experiences pain and grief and sadness, and that all of those things are temporary.

>> hi everybody, we down here at the /ep is a center which is our pop up space down here in san francisco where we operate a store front to educate the policy from the home owner who has center which is our pop up space down here in san francisco where we operate a store front to educate the policy from the home owner who has never done anything in the house to the most advanced structure engineers we have working around here. we we're

going to here from kelly to talk a little bit about san francisco. how are you doing kelly? >> very well, thank you for having us here. >> in front of us, we have a typical soft story building. when i see this, i think this is some of the most beautiful architecture our city has. a lot of people don't know these are problematic buildings. why don't you tell us about some of the risks he we have in these buildings? >> soft stories are vulnerable in past earthquakes and the northridge earthquake to this type of building and character of building. when we talk about the soft story, what we're talking about is generally a ground story that has less wall or other /pwraeugs to resist the lateral forces that might be imposed by the earthquake. so we're looking for something that is particularly weak or soft in this ground story. now, this is a wonderful example of what some of the residential

buildings that are soft stories in san francisco look like. and the 1 thing that i would point out here is that the upper force of this building have residential units. they have not only a fair amount of wall around the exterior of the building but they also have very extensive walls in the interior and bathrooms and bedrooms and corridors and everything that has a certificate amount of brazing yea it's significantly less country /srabl in those stories. now very often, we get even a garage or storage or sometimes commercial occupancy in this ground story. that very often not only has a whole lot less perimeter wall but it often has little or no wall on the interior. that wall is the earthquake bracing and so he see very significant bracing in the top floor and very little on the bottom. when the

earthquake comes and hits, it tries to push that ground floor over and there's very little that keeps it from moving and degrading and eventually /paoerblly keeping it from a collapse occurring. so we know they're vulnerable because of this ground story collapsing >> is this only a problem we see in sentence france? san francisco? >> no, this is certainly a national problem. more acute in western but more up to california, washington, moving out into other states. this kind of building exist and this kind of building is vulnerable. >> when you're involved with the community safety, this is a different way of thinking about these types of things. we had a community group of over 100 people involved and upper 1 of them. tell us about * how that conversation went. why did we decide

as a city or a community to start fixing these types of buildings? >> there were a lot of aspects that were considered well beyond just the engineering answer that these are vulnerable. and that effort brought in a lot of people from different aspects of the community that looked at the importance of these buildings to the housing stock and the possible ramifications of losing this /houbgs in the case of an earthquake. the financial implications, the historic preserve vacation s implication as you mentioned, these are very handsome looking buildings that are importance to the tourist city ask which make san francisco something that people are interested from outside in coming and visiting. >> it's such animation story when you think about the 10 years that the community spent talking about this /seurb but we actually did something about it. now we have an order unanimouses put in place to

protect 100,000 residents in san francisco and retrospective in 2020. so on behalf of residents and employees in san francisco, we want to say thank you for the work you've done in pushing this forward and making people more aware of these issues. >> and it was a fantastic community effort. >> so in an earth quake, what happens in these kinds of buildings? >> what happens when an earthquake comes along is it moves the ground both horizontally and vertically. it's mostly the horizontal that we're worried about. it starts moving the building back and forth and pushing on it. when you see i'm pushing on it, the upper stiff of the wall stay straight up but the lower floors, they actually collapse just like i did there. >> luckily, we can put this building right back up where it came from so it's a lot easier. now kelly,

obviously these aren't real frame walls here but when you talk about buildings, what makes the property for stiff? >> the easiest and most cost-effective type of bracing you can put in is either put in a brand new wall or to potentially go in and strengthen a wall that's already there where you don't need to have an opening is where you maybe have a garage door or access to commercial space, you might go to a steel frame or other types of bracing systems that provides the strength and stiff if necessary but at the same time, allows continued use of that area. but some combination of walls or frames or other tools that are in the tool kit that can bring the building up to the strength that's required in order to remove the vulnerability from the building so that when ground shaking comes, it in fact is a whole lot more resistant and less

vulnerable. ideally, this story down here would be made as strong and stiff as the floors above. >> if i'm a property owner, what is the first thing i should do? >> the first thing you should do is find professional that can come in and help you evaluate your building in order to, 1, figure out that indeed it does need to be retro fitted and 2, give you some idea of what that retro fit might look like. and third, evaluation and design to help you determine the retro fit requirement. >> well kelly, i can't thank you enough for being here today. thank you so much for your wealth of information on how we can take care of our soft story problem in san francisco. and you the viewer, if you have any questions, please feel free to visit our website