absolutely. but that's not what was said. you know, the recommendations need to be worked through is the other part of that. okay so it sounds like you support them at a conceptual level, but with the details, you may you may not support them as currently written, might require further amendments. that's that's that's fairly accurate. that's fair. okay. i think we have to look at what what it takes to do it, you know. okay, great. thank you. i just had a couple of questions for captain tuma. um captain, we obviously we emailed and we spoke about some of the dgos that i've been charged with overseeing about 3.01 compliance and delays at. i'm just going to ask you a couple of questions around things that, that we've spoken about privately. um so as i read 3.01, it, it did look like to me, like there were some lapses for two of the dgos that i'm

charged with overseeing whose revision i'm charged with overseeing where there are delays and an extension of time was not requested. and that's for 6.08. um um, where the working group finished in april and then it was september when it was publicly posted right? so like a five month delay there that i don't seem doesn't seem to be contemplated by 3.01 to me. and then. 9.05, there was a substantial delay before it was sent to concurrence. another multi month delay and just wanted to ask you what the department's position was on that. why? why no extension of time were sort in both cases, there is no, no, no need for an extension of time because there are those periods were non designated timelines, periods. the public comment per 3.01

calls for a 30 day posting of the of the public comment of the policy for public comment. it doesn't say when it has to go to public comment. when we started this public comment process back in march, we communicated out to the commission and to dpa and we agreed upon that that we would. submit one for public comment in a ten day increment. we put out the initial schedule. we were following that schedule. and up until this month we've noticed because and go back, the reason why we did that was because we didn't. there was a new process and we didn't know how many comments would come in. we didn't know how many responses we had to respond to. we didn't know what that workload looked like. and so that was the initial reason to stagger them that way. as these dgs came up,

although it was ready in april and it was submitted by the extension deadline date, it was ready for public comment. but we at that time we had a queue of policies waiting to go up. there's no way to push that forward if we're doing one policy every ten days, it it got in line. so it made it to the next step. it just didn't get posted because it was a queue of policies ahead of it. but 6.08 was not in that letter that you sent to the commission, was it? were you proposed a posting schedule like the one that so you proposed a posting schedule that was not contemplated by 3.01. and you reached out to the commission and that's great. because you wanted to not post too many at the same time. but i don't believe 6.08 was is one of the dgos where the department requires posted that exception in to have delayed posting. so there was that five month gap in time and there was no request.

there was no request for an extension and it wasn't i don't think i don't believe part of the letter that you sent out where you listed those dgos out where you wanted to have a kind of delayed. so the initial schedule went out and it stopped at a certain period of time. so as the dgos continued to go through the process, they would again fall into the queue. so we did note that in one of the sparks reports, i think it was a quarter one spark report when that was going to be posted. there. all right. well, i guess i'll move on from that. i just wanted to pick up on something else that you said in response to this and that we talked about offline, which is, you know, 3.01 is a step by step process, right? there's step one. there's step two. there's, you know, working groups in some cases, then there's concurrence or

public posting rather than concurrence in the lays out a number of steps to happen sequentially. and one thing that you said is that in between each of these steps and in particular, i think you said in between stage two and public comment, there was the dgo doesn't the dgo is, i guess, the way you read it, silent. and so the department can wait before it starts, before it sends it to public comment or it can wait before it sends it to concurrence because for example, the 40 day clock for concurrence s doesn't start until, i guess the first day of concurrence in your view, not when the prior step ends. is that is that right ? and i'm saying your but it's not that's correct. it's not your it's what the policy says. okay and so this strike this is a pretty i think shocking reading of 3.1. right. so just to back up for members of the public 3.1 is the regulation

that lays out how the commission passes regulations. it was read , revamped in a couple of years ago because of. unreasonable delays in the promulgation of policies, something that's in the 2016 doj report that criticizes department for not being able to promptly revise its policies. and to this day, we still have on the books a number of policies that haven't been revised in a quarter century. 3.01 lays out a number of steps that need to happen in order to so imagine a teacher says your first draft is due in , you know, two weeks. your second draft is due two weeks after that in the final draft is due two weeks after the second draft. i think most people who hear that would say, okay, the final draft is due in six weeks. but what you're saying is no,

no, no, no, no, we can take as long as we want between the first and second draft. the two week clock for the second draft doesn't start until i start writing. and so actually, i could never turn in this paper to before i even graduate. and so to me, that's just that reading of 3.01. we can't possibly make sense. and i do i do want to just ask chief, if you're apprized of this issue, do you do you do you agree with this interpretation of 3.01? well, i don't agree with how you just described that. i first of all, nobody's saying we can take as long as we want. well well, then. and i don't want to cut you off, but in your response, if you're not saying you can take as long as you want under your reading, what is the limit on how much time you can take? because i didn't hear one. there are there are sections in 3.01 that don't have time limits. so that is true. i mean, we've read

this policy ad nauseam and there's many different interpretations. but i think the characterization that, you know, we're just going to not respond to these policies and take as long as we want. that's not what's happening. so, no, i don't agree with that. i do think i do believe that there are gaps in this policy where there are no time lines determined. so and i actually have a chart and i hope we you know, at some point we'll agendize this. but that's part of what we're trying to do is have discussions as we have said with with commissioners and others. so when we come to the commission with here's our recommendations, here are the gaps that we see, that we have a thoughtful list of things that the commission can can consider with the revision of 3.01. there are sections in 3.1. i agree with the captain and captain

toomer where there are no timeline determinants. now there's the overall 100 or whatever the days are that is that is true, but there are some gaps in the policy and part of this is not trying to just blow off, you know, deadlines. part of this is managing the work as i just tried to explain before, you know, the posting the concurrent. rs, i mean, dpa says in these concurrences, sometimes we'll have three scheduled and we'll get through one. and, you know, we do have to manage the flow of work. you know, we have i think the number is 25 policies since around this time last year, which is a lot. it's a lot. and i'm proud of that and happy for that accomplishment. but with that comes a lot of process, a lot of work, a lot of hands touching these policies. so some of this is not about the department trying to not fulfill its responsible duties. we do have to manage this. this workflow because we're taking on more than in any body's memory

that we've done in terms of revision. so i would just say it that way. there are some there are some areas where there are no timelines, right? and and 3.01 provides us a remedy for when you're overwhelmed and you have a lot to revise and there's not going to be time to finish it. it's a simple remedy. you just ask for an extension and you say why you need it. so so nobody's saying that. nobody's saying that you can't request more time and you have to comply with a rigid deadline no matter what. but again, in your answer, you never provided under the interpretation i just heard announced any limitation on how long the department could take, for example, to send something to concurrence under the view, under the view that you you know that you are. i guess, supporting now, the department could take ten years before sending something to concurrence . i'm not saying that would happen, but that is but that's

the position. and so i think this is an example. the department could take. but let me can i just can i finish, see people talk to i mean, commissioner, i see your name in the queue. you're next up and i've got you. don't worry, i won't forget one thing that that captain toomer and i did agree on and that i agree with chief that he just said is that 3.1 does need to be revised substantially. it and i think it absolutely must be a commission led revision process. i think we've already seen a number of issues arise that are concerning. we've got this latest interpretation that would grant the department unlimited time essentially to revise the. so we had the promulgation of unlawful bureau orders and contravention of 3.01. and we've had prior for instances of failure to ask for an extension of time without any excuse, those lapses, i think are pretty serious. i think we need to take

i think i agree with chief some 3.1 could be clarified. we should clarify it. but i think the commission absolutely must take the lead on this. this is about the commission, the core of the commission's jurisdiction. and i think we have to just really take a hard look at how to make a process that works for everyone. i had one question. i had one question. i'm sorry. yeah. have you ever respond to chief, please, just for the record, just want to say the last two revisions of 3.01 were commission led. and that's not a knock on this commission. this leads to what we're trying to do right now is get enough information and feedback for the commission. so these issues aren't raised after a policy is put into place. they were commissioned, led. we didn't do what we're doing now, you know, and now i think we have the benefit of seeing some of the gaps that you just mentioned and i just mentioned and what miss steeves is trying to do is work with the commissioners and others, including the department

of police accountability, to raise these gaps and other things that we see as problematic. so when the commission does lead this process, you're informed because i think that's why we're having some of the issues that we're having because we didn't do that the last time. great. thank plea. yes, please. director caywood yeah. so i think the primary author of the current version of 3.01 was an sfpd person, and dpr became involved at some point. i'm sorry to interrupt you, but that's that's not the case. the primary author of 3.01 was not that was a commission led process. i was on enough of those calls with the commissioners who led that process twice so that we did the typing. i just want to be clear before because i want to put that genie back in the bottle. we did the typing, but that was a commission led process. it was a commission led by cindy elias.

but it was written by your policy director at the time to with direction from the commission and the time before that it was the molly taylor and cindy elias. and i guess. i think part of the problem is that the people who wrote 3.01 who were in the room are not the people at sfpd that are currently implementing it. so some of the agreements and understandings like that, the time periods were going to be successive. i think those agreements were made. if perhaps i think the dga maybe it needs to be clarified. but that's what's frustrating on my end, because i had extensive conversations about how we were going to try to keep this timeline to 180 days plus the public comment period. so i'm all in favor dpa's in favor of this becoming a commission. let go and clarify it. and working with the new unit as well. so i think if there were short lapses in between the stages, i don't think we'd be here. but part of the things that we're seeing is for example, 6.14 went through

concurrence with two minor edits. someone decided there needed to be big changes and instead of asking for an extension of time, it sat with the with the chiefs office for five months while it was major updates were underway without seeking an extension of. time. and in the response i got from the policy unit was, oh, we don't have to ask for an extension of time. there's no time limit on once it gets to the chief, we can take as much time as we want. so that's why we're here. i think those little pockets are creating an avenue for overreaching and just not not completing things in a timely way. thank you for that additional color. director caywood i just have one final question, and it's for director caywood, and then my colleagues are chomping at the bit, so i'm going to let them have at it, which is one thing not covered in your sparks report was the expedited revision of the invest

negative social media policy. and just wondering if you could provide a general update on that. sure i was going to include that in the third quarter update because i didn't do. but i can up to you then don't mean to jump the gun. that's fine. it's up to if you want to hear where we're at now, i'm happy to. i updated commissioner yanez this morning. we received the police department's draft. we've been working with the commission to do research from a law enforcement perspective. what's happening in other departments. we've talked with experts from all over the country, academic experts on policing the intersection between technology and privacy so that our recommendations can balance the police department's need to conduct investigations with civil liberty concerns and we found major problems with the department's draft dgo of particular concern is in 2013, the united states department of justice promulgated best

practices standards for the use of social media in investigations, and this policy falls falls short of even meeting those standards from strictly a law enforcement perspective. and so there's we also have we're going to have to consult with, i think, with the city attorney at some point, whether the federal stored communication act and whether this policy complies with that. and we'll have to weigh in with them. the policy as written violates the terms of service for facebook instead. gram, twitter, linkedin concerns are raised at the standard is so broad it provides no meaningful protections for civil liberties. so we have pages and pages of notes and we're trying to process them and bring it all together and bring back digital. that's fair to the police department and fair to the community. so we're trying to build a policy from the ground up, and we've requested an extension till the end of the year. jermaine jones and i are working on it and we'll we're doing our best. great. thank you

for the update, commissioner walker, the floor is yours. thank you. you know, i think it's. i want to talk about the. 3.01 meeting that we had because i think that one of the things that became really apparent in going through the timeline as described in the in the language itself is that if you did the timeline, you could it stretched out for almost two years with the timeline line with all of the considerations, because it isn't just to use your metaphor, a teacher and a student. it's actually several other parties involved that have to weigh in and have their own timeline or not. and so this is actually the point i was making, that these these general orders, which seem to me to be more about describing the policy, the goals

and that type of thing are very separate from how the officers facilitate it. and one of the things we discussed at at this meeting and again, i encourage all of the commissioners to attend the meeting and to is there is a difference between the general order and a manual describing how to achieve it. and so maybe we need to look at that that there are things that should be put more put in a manual rather than the show itself because the ones that the one that we look at was which was the go about writing dgos was really vague and it really it has so many people involved in it that it just went on and on and on. even if you follow the rules. and so if we're going to have the rules, so specifically in a general order that people can be called out on

, they need to be accurate and make sense and do what they say they're going to do or they should be more in a manual that is attached to and reference. so that's just in general. and the other thing is, i, i appreciate this report, but i think it's not it's not really fair to include recommendations and ask the chief in as a response to a report if they're willing to support a policy because that's something that we should agendize and discuss in full. so, you know, rather than calling out the chief to respond to what the epa puts in a report, i think it should be on the agenda sharing a platform. um listing all of what the general orders, all of that is very good. but it does take time. and we really need to discuss it and what the ramifications are. so that's all i want to say. chief scott oh,

that was from earlier. so i apologize for not putting that on. so i don't i mean, i can answer more questions, but i think this is an in-depth discussion. and i do think that, you know, like i said, in concept, yes, it's there. but i just want to be clear. i the. no, and you didn't ask this as one of your four commissioner, but president vice president but the recommendation about sit deployment in rooted in a dgo. i am not a i'm not in favor of that in concept because i think that gets us into an area that really does go with deployment and with the needs of this department that we can do that a hundred times over for every, you know, special interest in the department. and then we won't have enough people to do the basic stuff. and that's part of our problem. so that that i'm not in i'm not in agreement with that recommendation. thank you for that clarification. director

henderson, i just had a quick question. miss k would have how many requests have we denied for extensions of time? i've agreed with all of them to the best of my recollection, i just i would like to take you up on the offer. commissioner so we would like to attend those meetings as if they have come up. if there's a meeting taking place between the department and the commission specifically as it relates to dgo. yes, we want to attend. i don't want to let this go. i will follow up to find out if there has been an a ball drop to my knowledge, we have been at every meeting i'm not aware of us declining to participate in any meetings, but i will absolutely follow up and report back to this commission in terms of what that rollout looks like. but i have very big concerns about the conversation and the dgo taking place, especially

easily without notice to dpa. if they concern the commission, which is something we've specifically addressed here before about side meetings on things that are as important as the policy, i think we may end up coming to a disagreement in terms of whether or not there is a vagueness and consecutive deadlines. as i think we've already articulated. but it is what it is. it seems clear to me, but maybe the decision is to be brought here for us to determine or figure out how we're going to interpret those things. moving forward. i, i don't think we have i think we are distracting the conversation with an evaluation of intent or willingness when the document will have to speak for itself and have to be interpreted. but let's just figure it out and we're happy to attend any and all of those meetings. i'll

report the next time we come to meet what's happened. may we respond to that, please? i think chief scott was going to respond . yeah. thank you. i'll just say this. there may be some misunderstanding about this. the there are meetings that occur about dgos very frequently with individual commissioners and they occur on dpa's side. and they occurred on the department side. so i think there is some some confusion about what this is. there are times where all of us are in the room and there are times where individual commissioners meet with members of the department or me, and there are times where they meet with you and your staff. so i'm a little bit at a loss here in terms of what what this controversy is, because this is not unusual for us to meet with an individual commissioner or for you all to meet with individual commissioners. and i think this one might be a little more unusual. i think it was the meeting about how to write dgos that we were talking about like that. the commissioner went, sure. i just want to clear this

up quickly. so these are onboarding sessions for pd. so the new division that went into effect in may and we have new staff that was brought on in august that has no idea what 301 is. so as part of bringing on new staff to a division, we have to onboard them. so we have onboarding sessions with our new staff to go through 301 so that we can identify where in our unit orders we need to put stop gaps. so while there are there are designated timelines in 301, there are also there are decision points in 301 where there is no designated timeline . it's our job as the division that manages this process to create unit orders where we can say, all right, well, now we want to urge the deputy chief to move this forward. while there is no designated timeline for us to rely on, we can now say every five business days we'd like to check in. so it's an onboarding process. it's an onboarding session that we do. we're trying to do them every week with staff. and so we are inviting individual commissioners to come . there's not multiple commissioners coming to one

session. it's one at a time. so separately, we have been soliciting feedback from dpa for a few months since the changeover happened where we had this division and we've been again soliciting feedback. we've had several meetings in the last meeting we had, we were told that there was no interest in going back and forth until we had a buy in from the chief. the issue is we can't get buy in from the chief until we do the onboarding sessions and then you may not be aware, but we're also tasked as a new division to do an assessment on where policy development has been, what the efficiencies are, what the barriers are, and any recommendations we have moving forward as a division. part of that assessment is taking feedback from these onboarding sessions. so the chief is actually the last stop. but when we were soliciting feedback and really in the hopes to work together to identify where the stop gaps were with 301 interpretation, the last meeting we had was sort of a stalemate

where we were told that there were we weren't going to have any more discussions. i can't stop onboarding staff, so i still have a staff where we're building it up of almost nine people that are brand new to this process. and i can't stall that just to get an agreement with another agency. but it's my understanding that as a department, we are allowed to have business meetings and onboarding meetings with brand new staff without consulting or requiring the attendance of other city agencies. right. i think it sounds, though, that this is more than just an onboarding of staff. if it's culminate in into a position reflected from the commission during the conversation of the interpreters of what 3.1 is. but my staff is here. i don't know if that was their agreement. they were in those meetings. so if i could just have her respond . just to let me just follow up on the onboarding and commissioner walker, can confirm this. the ask of the commissioner that attends is to for that day, recognize that there are staff. so we ask them

to join the other pd staffers and not sit in as a commissioner, but sit in as pd staff. that's going through an onboarding session. so that's how we address it. i didn't ask commissioner walker for specific commission feedback. it was if we're reading this 301. dgo as is and going page by page and line by line and creating flowcharts, how does it go? and it was a group of about ten or 10 or 15 staff and also a commissioner. we had commission office was present as well. so we plan on continuing these all the way through until we can invite every single individual. commissioner. i wasn't at that meeting, so i didn't know. i'm just, all right, let's. it looks like ms. hawkins has a response. so i'm going to let chief of staff hawkins have the last word. and i think if there's still any lingering disagreement or confusion, maybe in the department can talk about it offline. and if we need to talk about it again at commission, we can do that. the last meeting that i attended where we were

talking about those stop gaps, the gaps that occurred in the 3.01 process, we did a lot of work with captain tuma, with ms. steeves, and with dc walsh to come to consensus that he was then going to run up through his chain of command so that we could discuss and get to a place where we were going to see what we could agree on and bring the rest of the commission. so i understand. ms. steve's explanation that it was an onboarding meeting. however, the description in that dpr wasn't willing to engage or that we were stonewalling from that particular conversation is inaccurate and a federal judge once told me that he wasn't going to be able to resolve all of my discovery issues in the middle of trial, which is what it feels like we're doing here. and i do think that we should have offline communication lines where we can clarify the record. i don't want to be going back and forth about this is true. this isn't. but when i feel like it's misrepresented in terms of what dps level of engagement is , when i was sitting there, that feels like i can't keep my mouth

shut. so i just think it's important we are willing to be involved in that process in the revision of 3.01, however, as deemed by this body to be necessary, we don't believe that that's stepping on any operational toes and that was our position at that meeting. right. thank you. chief of staff hawkins. thank you, ms. steeves. and sergeant, i see no names in the queue. so let's go to public comment while we while we still can for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, the sparks report, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. all right , next item please. line item nine discussion and possible action on revised department general order 5.01 use of force policy and proper control of a person. discussion and possible action.

yes. okay present on that. let me next slide. okay, good evening, vice president carter overstone commissioners chief scott. director henderson. my name is steve jonas. i'm a lieutenant assigned to the field operations bureau. as the field operations bureau plainclothes coordinator here. i'm here to present tonight on a proposed amendment to general order 5.01, specifically, see the section on vehicle intervention options and tire deflation devices. so what prompted this proposed amendment ? we had an internal review of the currently posted general

order 5.01. this review led to questions relating to compliance with policy, specifically regarding when we're deploying tire deflation devices outside of pursuit situations. so these questions led to the operational decision to cease use of tire deflation devices outside of pursuits. and then chief scott decided to initiate a expedited amendment of 5.01. this was in conversation with president elias, and she approved of this plan. following that decision, sfpd policy team and dpr with janelle caywood and jermaine jones work closely to craft language to add to 5.01, this language was reviewed during a meeting with commissioner ben benedicto under the 30 day timeline for expedited

amendments and that timeline ran from july 14th through to august 25th. if this amendment is adopted, we will then be able to reestablish use of tire deflation devices outside of pursuits. so just to talk briefly about some positives of reinstating tire deflation devices and some negatives that we've found since we discontinued use positives. tire deflation devices are a de-escalation tool that's consistent with the law and policy mandates. they save lives by preventing and ending vehicle pursuits. they enable apprehension of criminal suspects without pursuits as they, when deployed, reduce vehicle performance to a lower speed, which raises safety. they provide officers with time and distance to formulate plans and make better decisions on when

and where to apprehend suspects. our officers in sfpd are already trained on the physical aspects and policy aspects of deploying tire deflation devices and tire deflation. device technology really is an important aspect of complying with the technology pillar of 21st century policing. using technology to make ourselves a better police department. some of the negatives that we've found since we've discontinued use currently , tire deflation devices require that a situation escalate to a pursuit before they can be deployed. many high priority crime suspects, such as organized retail theft suspects, auto burglary suspects, are not pursued. while under sfpd policy and even above and beyond that, even when officers are not intending to initiate a pursuit or plan to pursue at all just a mere attempt to stop these criminal suspects without a tire

deflation device, can result in dangerous if kasian of the suspects also the we've found that the lack of tire deflation devices has limited our opportunities for arrests and raised the danger to the public . when we do attempt to make arrests. so some data that we compiled over about a 15 month period when we were deploying tire deflation devices outside of pursuits, this data was compiled between march of 2022 and may of 2023. during that period we had 46 deployed agents, preemptive deployments, that is deployment outside of a pursuit as a result of those 46 deployments, we made 86 arrests of criminal suspects, that those arrests closed. and i would say approximately four times that many criminal cases as those arrests also resulted in the seizure of 27 handguns, four

assault rifles, and a lot of evidence and recovered stolen property. the deployments did end up resulting in eight postdeployment collisions, thankfully, because the suspect vehicle's performance was degraded and they were not able to flee at high speed. those collisions only resulted in one minor injury to an uninvolved driver. there were three vehicles that were unintentionally damaged by tire deflation devices during those deployments. that was through a variety of circumstances, and those parties were provided with information on how to make a claim to get their vehicles repaired. so what are the policy changes? so they begin the revisions, begin on page 16 on which is section 5.010. 08f vehicle interventions. these were developed, as i said, jointly by sfpd and policy teams , both the sfpd and dpr teams

feel that these policies clarify, use by members and create a sufficient, narrowly tailored circumstances to give the officers good guidance on how to properly use them. tire deflation device deployment to effect an arrest or detention will a detention will remain a reportable use of force within 5.01 an along with all the tracking that follows that this amendment also adds a procedure to report property damage caused by tire deflation devices. that's not present in current policy and use during a vehicle pursuit will remain under department general order 5.05. so what are the next steps from here? we would move to meet and confer with the regarding the proposed amendment. but if the dgo is adopted and implemented

after conclusion of meet and confer, we would then move to reestablish use of tire deflation devices outside of pursuits. the deployments would continue to be included in the sfpd quarterly activity and data reports under the vehicle intervention section. and then subsequent to that, there will be a request by the chief to initiate through 3.01 an update of general order 5.05 specific regarding tire deflation devices, and that will allow us to rescind a outdated bureau order from 2003. that's the current policy. lastly i would just like to say that myself and many officers in the department feel this is a matter of the utmost urgency. we're moving into the fall convention season . we have a huge number of visitors coming into san francisco and with the apec conference coming up in november, i think this is a

great opportunity for us to move quickly and try to implement this before that conference occurs. so i'm happy to take any questions. as lieutenant jonas, thank you so much for that presentation. i just wanted to clarify the slide with the numbers reflecting the deployment over the 15 month period were those just proactive deployments or was that all the deployments during that period? that is only preemptive deployments outside of pursuits, correct. preemptive and you said that there was 82 arrests, but roughly four times as many cases closed as a result of those arrests. is that. yes, that's an approximation. but what we find is usually these suspects, when they're going out and committing auto burglaries, which is, i would say, the majority of our deployments, they're not just committing one auto burglary, they're committing a string of three, 4 or 5, six, 12 auto burglaries in a day. yeah um,

that's i mean, it's just like it just i'm just struck by the numbers. it's just very, very impressive results. i mean, 82 arrests, 360 rough cases closed , one injury. this is obviously a really important and effective tool. chief the decision to suspend the usage of this effective tool that i saw, that assistant chief lozar sent the email out was that was that assistant chief lasa's decision or was it your decision? yeah, it was my decision is your decision. decision and the reason being is that we need to protect our officers and our department and our city with a policy that supports this tactic. i mean, i like to think of these deployments as a pilot. we know it works. we know it's effective. but at the end of the day, there are some policy

conflicts that were really problematic with us using using this this this tactic. yeah. i wanted to ask you about that because i did look at the old version of 5.01 and it wasn't obvious to me why the old version wouldn't allow the use of preemptive use of spike strips. i mean, i certainly support revising it to make it crystal clear, but i didn't see anything in 5.01 that said that would indicate you couldn't use spike strips. i think the standard was that it had to be. i think the words are reasonable under the circumstances. it is there. is there something else? there's also language and i'm doing this off of memory, but there's also language in that in the policy because there's a couple of policies, 5.05, 5.01 that calls for the use of spike strips in a pursuit. so in order for an officer to go in pursuit , you have to make an attempt to stop. you have to then the person tries to evade right?

that's when spike strips are allowed. preemptive i mean, some of most of these there is there is not not a traditional pursuit or the attempt to stop. i mean, these these these suspects are when they think they're made it will drive off it at any cost to try to get away. and so the preemptive piece is, you know, try to do this without actually going in pursuit. yeah because when you read it, it specifically states, you know, it's after pursuit, it's after pursuit has been initiated. when spike strips are authorized. okay. yeah, i'll take another look at it and maybe i need to look at 5.05 closer, but i'll just say i yeah. on an initial read and i'll take another look. i didn't see a reason to. it's a pretty drastic step, obviously, to suspend the use of a tactic that's been so successful and

it's not without cost. when was it, when was the decision to suspend? i don't recall myself. is this about march? it was about may 30th. may may, may 30th. right. so you know, it's been three months now of this. and extrapolating from, you know, the data that that we just heard, i mean, that's, you know, 70 some cases closed. that didn't happen. and that's not a bunch of folks who got away, suspects who got away that recidivated. so i'm a little concerned. i mean, because that's a pretty costly decision to make if it's not clear that it needed to be suspended pending policy review, i would have loved for the commission to have been consulted. we could have. we could have we could have issued a guidance document. we could have issued a resolution interpreting our own dgo saying we interpret it to permit preemptive use of spike

strips. like i said, i mean, it had a significant societal cost . yeah, definitely, definitely aware of that. and also, you know, part of our job is to mitigate risk to our actions. but it was it was it was risk to officers to potentially violate a policy. and the commission could have solved that if it issued a resolution, say we interpret our policy to permit preemptive use of spike strips. so that's all i'm saying. i mean, but that's why we're here . i mean, suspects got away. people all lost property, people got hurt because we couldn't use spike strips for three months. hopefully it'll be that means a yes vote. i just had a question about the substance of the changes. yes, sir. so let. let's let's. yeah. page 16. thank you , commissioner. page 16,

subsection b three, which lays out one of the conditions under which you can use preemptive use of spike strips. so. so it's a two pronged test, right? there has to be probable cause to arrest or reasonable suspicion to detain an occupant that's clear and in addition to that, there has to be inarticulable and reasonable belief that the operator of the vehicle has previously fled or is likely to flee recklessly if a vehicle stops is attempted and the piece that i'm zooming in on is that last piece is likely to flee recklessly if a vehicle stop is attempted. so there's a couple of things with this, which is how is an officer supposed to be able to predict in the future not only whether someone will flee, but whether they will flee

recklessly? i guess you could flee in a responsible way and abide by all the traffic laws. but it seems difficult before anything is happening. you know what what what would a person do in real life that would make an officer be able to know, okay, this person is going to flee, not only flee, but they are going to do so in a in a reckless manner. do you think that that i mean, i could think of some scenarios where it's clear they've done something, they've driven you've watched them drive recklessly already? maybe. but i could imagine a situations where this is fuzzy and how are you supposed to know if they're going to flee recklessly, particularly, i think this is a situation where you have to apply a lot of the different balance tests that exist in 5.01 surrounding reasonableness. yes, but where you're talking specifically about why an officer would think somebody's going to flee recklessly, there could be a lot of factors that go into that.

one of those factors can be just the activity in the area where they're engaged in that activity and what's their mode that they're using to transport themselves off. how are they operating the car when they're not being attempted, when there's not an attempt to stop? i think many of us has had the experience of seeing these cars either on video or in person as they approach or leave the scene of an auto burglary. and they are not driving in a responsible manner. and i think assessments like that are made over frequently over the course of a long surveillance, a lot of expertise is goes into it on the part of the officers. these officers are all very experienced, dedicated officers with literally hundreds and thousands of hours on surveillance of burglary suspects, robbery suspects. and i think that, like a lot of the

decisions that we make, we have to leave that to the officers to properly articulate why they felt that that suspect was going to flee recklessly. all right. that's helpful. i guess my other issue with the requirement, the adding reckless as a requirement is that the fact that they had fled previously standing alone is enough to use the preemptive spike strips. so if we're going to say that you fled before, whether reckless or not, you can use them preemptively. but if you think they're going to flee, not recklessly, then you can't use them. and so it's two different standards. if we think recklessness is like is required for in order for deployment of spike strips to be appropriate, then it should apply whether the flight happened in the past or you think it's going to happen in the future. so to me that strikes me as inconsistent. if we think recklessness is important, we need to have it before we use spike strips, then i think it's got to either got to either remove it from future

or we got to add it to past and i lean towards excising it from future. but i'm curious if you have thoughts on that. i think point taken. i think in the work that i did on this general order, i think that's in there because that's a, a that's generally how we describe a violation of 2,800.2 of the vehicle code, reckless evasion. it's felony evasion. i agree. like like you said, there may be circumstances where people flee in a non reckless fashion. it's extremely rare. 99% of people fleeing is reckless. i would not as i would not disagree with your assessment of that. it should be consistent and maybe it should just be flee, period.

okay. i just have two other factual questions and then i'll circle back to this and ask. i won't. i know you don't like people. ask your view on recommendations on the spot, so i'm going to ask two other questions you can ask almost circle back and i'll and i'll ask you to director but just to factual questions, will will tire deflation devices of some sort or will they be issued to more or less every patrol officer? only a subset with specific training, tire deflation devices currently are available to every officer on patrol. they are somewhat limited just in terms of like like every piece of equipment, you know, we have how many we have and we want officers to take them out with them. but it's not something that's limited. and in terms of availability to officers, every officer is trained on how to use them. okay great. that's

helpful. and then one thing that i heard heard from a couple of folks in the department a while back, and it is that there are and this is probably the colloquial word, so feel free to correct me that there are some there are not spike strips, but there are sticks. and basically , i was told that, you know, with the evolution of tire technology there, you know, puncture proof and sometimes deploying a spike strip can be dangerous to the officer for that version. 2.0 is basically like a stick that you throw. and it kind of like a wrench gums up the functioning of the tire. well but that those had not been actually given to officers. is there is that do i have any part of that correct. and if so, are there any do you have any thoughts on that? i don't have a lot of firsthand knowledge on stop sticks and spike strips and other tire deflation devices like the brand names and what

what they are what our department has available and what we don't have available. i know that our officers that have been working on this in the this field have all the tools that they've needed. obviously, we always want more tools, but, uh, i haven't heard complaints from our officers that the current spike strips that we're using are not sufficient to the job. okay, great. that's helpful. chief how, how, how would you feel about excising the word reckless and i'll ask you as well, director henderson, i i'm fine with excising the word reckless. i mean, i understanding what lieutenant jones said about the vehicle code section. but here's the here's the thing. the there is a such thing as slow speed pursuits. and sometimes they're even though they're not reckless, you know, they happen and i think with what we're

facing with this particular, you know, we use them the most, as was explained when we when we did this with car break ins and just to say this without being too long winded, but the ability for our officers to officers to be able to apprehend these types of crimes, suspects with no not as as many restraints and conditions is a good thing because it is rampant. it is as they do flee recklessly. but, you know, in the event that they . some people actually do pay attention to what we can and can't do. and if the thought process is, hey, as long as i don't drive recklessly, sfpd can't do anything that is not the message we want to send. we want to send the message that if you come here and you break into

a car, our police officers will have the ability to, you know, to do what they need to do to apprehend you. so i think it's a good i think it's a good recommendation. so i'm happy to answer that. okay so thank you, chief director henderson. we don't have an objection to the recklessly and we have that same interpretation and agree with what the chief was just saying. okay, great. thank you. uh, commissioner yee. hey, thank you very much there. uh, vice president carter oversaw. uh, i'm just going to ask the chief because i sort of witnessed what you call car in pursuit. i just happened to be on stockton street at 2 p.m. and i was talking. to one of the sergeant out there, sergeant chu, and across radio, there was a pursuit of a car. car came down. jackson street and made a right turn. it onto stockton street. both lanes were occupied. this

vehicle went on to the oncoming traffic side to avoid, i guess, being stopped. i asked the chief , is that reckless driving. yeah, it sounds like it. yeah. yeah and then he turned. he turned right in front of pedestrians and turned up on washington street. so i asked sergeant, i said, can't you do spikes or something like that or put a vehicle in front and he says, you know, there's the dgo you know, regarding the i guess to do the, i guess the maneuver to put them in, it might put additional risk to the residents there as well because and i said, what's the option left and i'm just thinking about the spike strip to slow the person down because anybody that travels, as i say, pretty

dangerously on oncoming traffic and turning it into in front of pedestrian crossing street on washington and jackson, i would say that's the that that's highly dangerous for our residents and you know we need to do something about it. i think the spike strip is an excellent idea of de-escalation , of making it safe for our residents. so i'm in support of this. i guess, revision amendment and that's how i would be voting today. thank you. thank you, commissioner byrne. thank you, vice president. like to be frank, i'm happy with the language either way. i i understand the department's

position that that they took a very conservative interpretation of the of the of the amendment. so they stopped the spike strips because they didn't they didn't want to run ahead of it. i don't want to do spilled milk about whether they could have come for an interpretation. i understand you you operated the way you did and sort the revision of the dgo and i think i'm not going to i'm going to more or less commend because you brought it to the attention straight away to president elias. so so i'm happy either way. the quicker this thing gets in there, the better it is. and i agree with the lieutenant flee wreck closely is going to be 99% of the time. maybe there'll be some handicapped or elderly person that couldn't drive a car quickly, i guess. and therefore,

maybe we shouldn't do the strip. i'm just trying to envision the scenario where, you know, but having said that. yeah, the sooner the better. and i'm glad that i'm glad that it was brought to our attention straight away. and sure, there might have been other ways of doing it, but what was important is it was brought to our attention straight away. thank you all. all right. i'm going to make a motion to adopt and send to meet and confer with the following amendment that on page 16 of the red line version in in section to be. romanette three that the word reckless lee be struck in at the end of the last sentence. second second. members of the public would like to make public comment regarding 5.01.

please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes? mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez is. um, before i vote, i did have my hand raised. i know that it's a little bit more challenging because i'm not there physically, but i do have one question on before my vote and i just think it merits attention just in the way the information was presented. i am completely in agreement that this is a tool that the department has used responsibly and i envision it being used responsibly, moving forward. but the third slide and the way it's framed, you know, it presents positives with tds versus negatives. without tds. normally i like comparing apples to apples. i would like to know what the negative is with tds. were i know that there were very

few post deployment collisions, only one minor injury, even though any injury is obviously concerning. but is that data going to continue to be collected and do we have data of what the negatives with tds were during the same period that you provide this data for from march 22nd through may 23rd. so specifically regarding the question of whether the data is going to continue to be collected, the answer to that is yes, we will continue to collect the data, especially as these are uses of force, that this data is already collected and collect as quarterly reports to the commission. secondly as far

as what are the what have been the negatives regarding tire deflation deployments outside of pursuit, i really struggle to find any negatives in the tire deflation devices deployment. as i said in the presentation, we did have three vehicles that were unintentionally damaged just due to the way police work really happens in the field. sometimes we put out tire deflation devices and the wrong car runs over them. it's unfortunate. we feel bad for the folks that have their car damaged. we do our best to help them in that situation. clearly we do not want anybody to be injured during an apprehension by our officers, but i think in the light in which i'm presenting this, i think that one minor injury, i think if we had 46 attempts to apprehend and auto burglars without out using

tire deflation devices prior, even if we did not pursue those subjects, just that first initial contact where we would attempt to make the stop and the speed and the ferocity which with these individuals operate their vehicles are really a huge danger. i think we would have had much less positive outcome if we had proceeded in those incidents without that tire deflation devices. so i really struggle to find much in the way of negatives. as for the deployment of tire deflation devices, do we have the numbers for when during the same period these were escalated deployments of the td. i'm sorry, i don't i'm not so the data you provided is for deployment that were preemptively utilized. and from

march 22nd through may 23rd because the policy said that there had to be an escalation in order for these to be used during that period, what do we have the numbers for that same period or are pursuits that were escalate, noted and required the use of the tds? i'm sorry, i think that's a misunderstanding of the slide. so that that meet the meaning of that is that since may, since we discontinued use, we are unable to deploy tire deflation devices until the situation escalates to a pursuit . it's not that we not during that 15 month period there is data available through the academ me through the use of force tracking ing on on other tire deflation device deployments during pursuits. i do not have that for you, but because that's not the pursuit

policy is not being affected by this amendment at all. i just i was just hoping that that information is available somewhere and it would be good to have it. you got to point out, as i said, this is obviously a tool that we will move forward with. my vote is yes. so i just wanted to make sure that i ask those questions. thank you. thank you. all right. director henderson, i just want to thank lieutenant jones. chair, do we have a motion second and a vote count? we are in discussion. or are we? yes we followed a less than standard path, as you pointed out, commissioner, can i get the city attorney or our attorney to weigh in or are we on the vote or are we on discussion there was a motion and the vote started. but you have the prerogative of going back to discussion, which seems to have happened. well, we'll go back to discussion and we will do what

we need to do to make everything legally compliant. i share your concern, commissioner. director henderson, to close out the discussion. i just wanted your mic and thank your mike. mike your mike's not on. know that. i just wanted to make people lean in to hear a little bit more. i just wanted to thank lieutenant jones for the work on this policy. i think it's a creative policy, particularly that it's based on data and is a big step both for public safety and officer safety. and we are in support of the policy moving forward. i know i don't get to vote, but from time to time things stand out like this one. and how this policy came into being is great. thank you for that. and to commissioner yee's concern, just want to ask the city attorney on the record, do we need to redo public comment as a result of our return to discussion? no, you do not need to redo public comment, but i am not. you were on the vote so

public comment period was closed. okay i'm i'm going to make a friendly amendment to my own motion, so i'm going to. yes, i'm going to make a friendly amendment to my own motion because the city attorney was nice enough to point out that i forgot something, which is i am going to make a motion to approve and send this policy to meet and confer, subject to our previously passed resolution resolution 2330, which gives direction to the labor commissioner. i'm sorry, not the labor commissioner, the labor negotiator is there a second on that revised second? thank you. all right. on the amended motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner yanez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes mr. burns. yes. commissioner yee yes . commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone yes.

vice president carter wilson is. yes. you have five yeses. next item, please. line item ten discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 2.01 general rules of conduct, discussion and possible action. good evening. good president carter overstone commission chief scott director henderson. i am acting commander mark kim from the risk management office and with me i have acting captain angela wilhelm and sergeant ramesh shankaran. they are the smes and we're here to present dgo 2.01 general rules of conduct. it has already gone through, meet and confer and the two smes are here to answer any questions that you may have. thank you, captain. just one question and for those in the audience, i'm going to ask the same question for all post meet

and confer dgos, which is just whether the department is requesting any delay in implementation for training or other reasons. no, we are not. so it will become effective the moment this commission approves it. if it were to be approved. i'm sorry, can i speak on that, sir? we would like to at least have a 30 day period. one of the issues that we have, like i said, 25 dgos and there's a lot of moving parts here. so just just getting together a schedule to socialize this in a department that takes a little time and i believe 30 days with this one would be sufficient. is that business days or calendar days? business days? yeah. i always got a check. no, i know. thank you for asking that question. business days. so i mean, that does make a difference. so. okay, great. thank you. seeing no no one in the queue, i will make a motion

to approve the to be implemented in 33 business days. second, members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 1002 .01. please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. monsieur yanez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is. yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter oberstein. yes vice president wilson is. yes. you have five yeses line item 11 discussion of possible action to adopt revised department general order 2.02 alcohol use by sworn department members. discussion and possible action. good evening. i'm going to stay up here with me. i have dr. jessica chang. she's our police physician, one of the smes for 2.02 and will the department be

asking for a delay in implementation? yes, we're asking for 30 calendar days. oh, sorry. 30 business days. all right. seeing no questions in the queue, i will make a motion to adopt the dgo to be implemented in 30 business days. i'll. second any public comment from members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 11, please approach the podium. this is a new to dgo prohibiting alcohol use or for officers on duty or. i'm just confused like why is this coming up now? all right. i guess you don't have to answer, but. for members of the public, there

are copies of the items that are on the agenda. you can find them by by the door. there so if you'd like to review the policy , see, you're more than welcome . and seeing no further public comment on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes? commissioner walker is yes. commissioner yanez yes. mr. yanez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone yes. vice president overstone is yes . you have five yeses. mine item 12 discussion of possible action to adopt. revise department general order 2.03 use of intoxic agents or drugs by sworn department members. discussion and possible action. this is my

last 12.03 and will you also be asking for 30 business days? yes great. okay. see? no. no no one is in the queue, so i'll make a motion to adopt this to be implemented in 30 business days. i'll second, for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 12, please approach the podium. seeing no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes? mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez yes. commissioner janez is yes. commissioner yee i'm sorry. commissioner byrne yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president cordova stone. yes. vice president stone is. yes you have five yeses. line item 13 discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 5.07 rights of onlookers discussion and possible action.

good evening, chief scott. director henderson and the san francisco police commission. captain harvey here to talk about what the rights of onlookers the general order draft. 5.07. will the department be asking for any delay in implementation? yes. i would like to recommend a 90 day extension for the sheer fact that we have a couple significant events happening in the city of san francisco in the coming months, including but not limited to apec. so for that reason, we would like 90 days versus 30 days as discussed in the previous general orders. all right, i'll make a motion to adopt the dgo to be implemented

in 90 and 90 business days. business days, business days. right yep. sorry. is there a second? okay for members of the public, they'd like to make public comment regarding line item 13, general order 5.07, please approach the podium. seeing none on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez. yes commissioner janez. yes. commissioner byrne. yes commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president cordova stone. yes. vice president stone is. yes. you have five yeses on line. item 14 discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 5.16 search warrants discussion and possible action. hello good evening. good evening. acting president carter and commissioners director henderson

and chief scott. my name is carrie lee and i'm here with captain james ahern. we're here to present 5.16. it is back from meet and confer. we are asking for a 90 business day implementation window. there are there is in-person training that goes along with this. so. all right. seeing no questions, i will make a motion to adopt this dgo to be implemented in 90 business days second, for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 1405 .16, please approach the podium. seeing none. commissioner walker, how do you vote on the motion? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez yes. mr. yanez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter oberstein yes. vice president stone is. yes. you have five yeses. line item 15 discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 9.01 traffic enforcement at

discussion and possible action. good evening. vice president carter. overstone commissioners chief scott. director henderson . i'm here. to present 901. i know it's already been previously approved and meet there. was one typographical error i noticed that was previously only adopted in the. resolution 2346. that when the edit was made, there was a paragraph that repeats itself on page. six to eight. previously

asked that what is listed here as paragraph five be stricken in paragraph six, be renumbered as paragraph five and then paragraph seven be renumbered as paragraph six because five and seven. repeat each other. and to be clear, you don't want to delete, just delete seven and leave everything numbered as is. you want to delete five and renumber and delete five and then renumber because the order is important. that's the order in which the work would be done and just one, one moment.

yeah, just. okay. all right. just confirming with the legalities, you know, we're always want to be on top of that . okay. um, and will you be asking for any delay in implementation? no. no. so it will it will be effective tomorrow. uh, it will be effective tonight if we. then i retract my last statement. no, we would ask for 30 days, 30 minutes a day. but. but oh, okay. so we're still. i'm i'm sorry. i stepped out of the room for a minute because i didn't want to get my car locked up

again, but are you amending 9.01 that we have an agreement with the proposed amendment is. oh, it's just a typo. deleting a duplicative paragraph and renumbering. so. so not. not substantive. yes thank you. you just wanted to make sure she she had all the facts so we can get it through. so okay. okay um, all right. so i will make a motion to adopt the with the following amendments on page six, subsection. five will be struck. and what is now now subsection six will be renumbered subsection five. and what is now subsection seven will be renumbered subsection six. and this will become effective in 30 business days. second, for members of the

public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 15 9.01, please approach the podium. seeing no public comment, commissioner walker, how do you vote on the motion? yes. commissioner walker is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone yes. vice president stone is. yes. you have five yeses line item 16 discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 9.02 vehicle crashes, discussion and possible action. hello commissioners scott and director henderson. my name is sergeant kevin edison. officer ushkowitz here with me, mike urkowitz. we're at traffic unit and we're here to present 9.02. so basically it's on

vehicle crashes. it's gone to meet and confer. it's come obviously back and forth. and i think we're here to ask for your approval to go forth with it and have it put in the policy and will you be asking for any delay in implementation? should we approve it? yes we do. 30 business days. great. all right. seeing no questions, i will make a motion to adopt this to be implemented. question sorry. oh, i'm sorry. please. please i'm sorry. my mistake. uh the question i have is school shooters. i understand. i don't. would they be included in this as considered as vehicles or bicycles? i don't necessarily see electric scooters. uh detailed in any way, shape or form. or do those reside in another detail? so the scooters and there's many vehicles out there between electric, non electric, those are addressed in the collision investigator

manual, which is put off by chp in the state. so in the general orders, it refers to that manual as what is the guide for us all police officers in the state on how to do reporting. um, i the reason i raise this question is i read an article about an incident report not being generated for an individual who was on a bicycle, who was hit by an electric scooter, and the officer who took the report or who took the complaint indicating that to their understanding, scooters were not covered by these things. would it be helpful to clarify that in this. i think trying to clarify the collision investigation manual pretty much states what is considered a pedestrian conveyance versus what's like an electric vehicle. it's kind of outlined in that pretty clearly . um, it's kind of hard to outline every single vehicle that's out there because as you

know, with technology, things are coming much more apparent. so the manuals seem to cover those, in my opinion, better. to as far as bicycles go, all bicycle collisions that result in injuries should be reported. right and that that is an that is in the general orders. got it . and so do any commissioners feel that it is worth amending and adding language that covers electric scooters just because we have such a large preponderance of both scooters and incidents, sometimes with this in this area. can i, i mean, i see what you're saying. and can you tell us where in the general order it refers to the manual? okay. yeah. there is one reference to an incident report

on page and some manual, but there's no language cited from that manual. so mean something that would provide officers with more clarity considering that not every officer apparently has read that manual thoroughly and understands what that may entail and cover. so this is covered first page under our section a, and this is referring to the chp california highway patrol collision investigation manual, which every officer when they go through the academy, is taught out of that manual how to investigate, document and overall look at a collision when they do go through that manual. see. yeah. yeah see before section c. sorry, sorry. california highway patrol's crash investigator. i mean, i, i

actually sort of in that there was a commissioner yanez mentioned having an officer say that he didn't have to complete a report because it was a scooter or is concerning because there are there are scooter issues. i mean, there are all sorts of sort of vehicles. so i mean, i understand that if you include one and don't include another, that might be a problem. but i feel like i mean, it would be great to have some mention in that. see not just to follow the manual. i'll maybe say including all vehicles, motorized vehicle. you know, i don't know. i mean, i, i think

that we are having issues collecting data on the those kind of collisions. so i think well, just to add to that, the collision manual does a much better update when it comes to new devices and mobility devices that are introduced east, locking ourselves into a particular item here may or may not change the fact because a lot of these electric scooters, hoverboards, you name it, they're constantly changing their wattage output, which puts them into another category of vehicles. so that's why that's not covered here, because we're going to lock ourselves into something that can change tomorrow. i totally understand it. i mean, i just think that we need to reference it successfully so that people understand it and maybe, i mean, if you can say that the training does that, then i, i can say the training does that because i

teach the officers in the academy collision investigation and we specifically go over this manual as an exercise. so they have to figure out what some of these different things are in here. if i were to reference everything in that manual in this dgo, it would be a very long ago. yeah no, i appreciate that. i mean, it's kind of what i was talking about with just the dgo dgo itself, that there's some things that are more changeable and more adaptive on a regular basis based on state and other laws. so i understand that. yeah, i think we, we adopted it as it is. i mean, if we have the if we have the problem that we had with the strips things and we come back immediately to fix it, but i think the chp manual is pretty

extensive from what i understand . okay. thank you. uh, commissioner yanez, did you have were you going to say something ? um, i was just trying to identify where in the dgo some language that just identified that that details moving vehicles that are not, uh, let's say, mechanical vehicles, right? maybe that would be a way to cover all this new new technology because they're not necessarily gas powered vehicles . right? maybe just an electric transportation kind of, uh, placeholder would would be broad enough. but i understand without reading that manual, i am not you know, i'm i'm not aware of how detailed that is. so, um, i don't want to necessarily hold it up. i know that there is a way to amend moving forward if, in fact, this does become a problem. so i'm comfortable

moving forward with, uh, the dgo and the in its current iteration. and i will be going through that manual just to see if, just to reassure myself that that is covered somewhere. all right. well seeing no other discussion. so just to be clear, commissioner, you're not making an amendment or proposed amendment. i'm not going to amend or make an amendment at this moment. and i'm comfortable moving forward with the vote. okay, great. seeing no other names in the queue. i'll make a motion to adopt the dgo to be implemented in 30 business days. second, members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 16 9.02 please approach the podium . i have another question which may or may not be answered, but if this is adopted, when will

the updated be updated? on the website. yeah, my answer. yeah. we will get it as soon as we get it adopted. adopted it's already on the website because it's been posted publicly, but the official policy within that that 30 day business calendar days, our goal is to have it up by the time it's actually implemented. all right. seeing no further public comment on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes commissioner walker is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is yes. commissioner byrne yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone yes. vice president overstone is yes. you have five yeses line item 17

discussion and possible action to adopt revised protocols for release of sb 1421 and sb 16 documents. discussion and possible action. who's presenting on this? this is 1421. let's see. we got. just as a reminder last time it was commissioner elias, president elias. you took the lead on it and i worked on it with her. but i don't know anything that happened in the meeting process. all right. yeah. i thought this was because we have all the names of our

folks who are presenting tonight. and this one that was maybe a commission on and since i guess it's an and then so do we have a recollection about whether there should be any delay in implementation for this since there shouldn't be just given that we're already turning over records for sb 14, 21 and 16 because it's required by state law? i don't think that there's unless louwana has anything to add from the meet and confer process, i think no. okay, then it's okay. great. so i will make a motion to adopt the revised policy. second, members of the public, they'd like to make public comment regarding line item 17, sb 1421, sb 16 documents. please approach the podium. hey let's see. no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes mr. walker is yes. commissioner yanez yes. commissioner yanez is yes.

commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter oberstar. yes vice president carter is yes. you have five yeses. line item 18 public comment and all matters pertaining to item 20 below closed session, including public comment on item 19 a vote whether to hold item 20 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium. uh and there is no public comment. line item 19 vote on whether to hold item 20in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10. action on move to go into closed session. second all right. on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? hi, commissioner walker is. yes, commissioner melendez. yes mr. ramirez is. yes. commissioner byrne? yes commissioner byrne is. yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter oberstar. yes. vice president carter is. yes. you have five yeses. we will go into closed session.

sf sf, govtv, san francisco government television.

and.

sf govtv san francisco government television.

and venmo.

21 vote to elect whether to disclose any or all on discussion on item 20 held in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.12 a action i'd like to make a motion to disclose all non privileged discussion on item 20. a. i don't understand the motion. the motion consider non privileged. the motion is to disclose the discussion under

item. under item number 20 a except if there is anything privileged covered by the attorney client privilege. everything is you were talking to the attorney the whole time? yeah no, we i don't think. which one are you talking about? if i made a mistake. no no. yeah. 20 a we did not consult our attorney, wanda preston. is it our attorney? no she's. she's not. i don't even think she's barred. she's a labor negotiator . sure. yeah. so she's. but she's okay. so she's acting as a labor negotiator, but she's an attorney. i thought to as well. not to my knowledge. she's and even if she was, she's not acting as counsel. i understand . i. i mean, part of the reason for the that they didn't push it

was because who's somebody's father died. was it the father died. i don't see why that needs to go into public record that she expected a delay because the father died. just to clarify, i think you're asking is the reason why you go into closed session for labor negotiation is there's a privilege there for labor negotiations. right. and so acting president carter overstone is his motion is to release the non privileged information. and i think you have questions about what that means. yes isn't the isn't the letter a labor negotiation? yes, it is. so i would not second it. so we can vote on it right. your motion. okay. i'm sorry. is there. his motion was the motion is pending. your motion didn't hear a second for that motion. okay. is there a second for this motion? okay. hearing no second,

i'll second that. actually okay, there's a second. then okay, so then you have a vote. all right . so if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 21, please approach the podium. seeing no public comment on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? commissioner walker is no commissioner janez. yes. mister janez is. yes. commissioner byrne no. commissioner byrne is no. commissioner yee no. commissioner yee is no. and vice president carter overstone yes. vice president carter overstone is yes. you have three no's and two yeses. the motion fails. okay. the motion failed. is there another motion on move to go into open session and not disclose? is there a second? we're in open session. right move to not disclose. is there a second on that motion? i'll second. all right. on the motion

to not disclose, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner janez. no commissioner janez is no. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is. yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president oberstar. yes. vice contrabassoon is yes. you have four yeses. all right. line item 22, adjournment action item . oh one, we got you out early. chief. i know.

i know. ♪ >> welcome to hamilton recreation and aquatics center. it is the only facility that has an integrated swimming pool and recreation center combined. we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody.

hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice, they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center, they are very committed to combining for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety. >> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. they, their family or teach their kids have a swim.

>> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you will find out why mca. parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools that are still around, and this is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. >> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play

some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. >> from more information, visit

>> the stewardship program is a (indiscernible) based program. we work with student kind r garten through 12 grade and work with scrks fusd and (indiscernible) focus on 5 themes. sense of place, plant adapation and animal adaptation, water soil or (indiscernible) depending on the grade level and accommodations the class may need the educators work to adapt the programming to be whatever works best for the class, so they can gain

activities (indiscernible) some don't, we try to meet students where they are at and get comfortable connecting in the space and feeling a sense of ownership and safety within their (indiscernible) >> the first component of a youth stewardship program trip will be a in clasds visit where we go to the school, we give a presentation on the natural history of san francisco, we talk about the concept of a habitat, so what does a habitat contain, understood, water, shelter, space. >> children at this age, they learn best through using their senses, having the real life experience and (indiscernible) students also learn about responsibility and it is a great message for student to learn, if you take care of environment, the environment will take care of you.

>> so, when we finally get the kids outside, we have two main components to the field trips. one is going to be the restoration component where we are working on the habitat and parks by pulling out (indiscernible) or maybe watering, and then the other side of our trip is going to be the educational component, which can range from a nature walk with a sensory theme where we are talking about what we smell and hear, to a focus on plant adaptation and animal adaptations. >> (indiscernible) >> just a great opportunity for students to learn more, connect with nature, and hopefully what they learn from the youth stewardship program they can take with them for the rest of their lives, and they will appreciate their

environment more. hopefully, when they appreciate it, they take care of it more every day. >> (indiscernible) >> so every year we open the application up in the fall. interested teachers can apply for a classroom visit and up to two field trips to the city park of their choice. field trips are 2 and a half hours long and like i said, they can happen in any city park (indiscernible)

>> when o'shaughnessy dam opened 1923, there was a grand celebration that was an achievement of ensuring san francisco's new water supply but it was the beginning of a unique collaboration between the city of san francisco and yosemite national park. >> lands around the dam are critically important. we, along with the park service have a very common goal thereof protection of that watershed, both for national park values and water supply values in yosemite is the cub tree's premiere national park visited by millions of visitors but the protection of our watershed and the city provides significant outside funding for the national park, over $8 million a year is for trail maintenance and wilderness education and park operations and security keeping

the water safe and the park a haven. >> one hundred years ago when the dam was first built, there was a different view of the environment back then, than there is today. and the dam was part of changing that view across the nation. that brings an importance to our work here at o'shaughnessy dam, how we manage this dam and manage our releases and the environment downstream, it's very important to san francisco that we need that challenge. >> for 100 years, o'shaughnessy dam and the park service ensured the bay area has clean water, along with ongoing stewardship much our precious natural resources. >> this o'shaughnessy

>> driver, bye. >> hi. i'm will b. mixture weltake a walk with me. >> i just love taking strolls in san francisco. they are so many cool and exciting things to see. like -- what is that there? what is that for? hi. buddy. how are you. >> what is that for. >> i'm firefighter with the san francisco fire department havings a great day, thank you

for asking. this is a dry sand pipe. dry sand pipes are multilevel building in san francisco and the world. they are a piping system to facilitate the fire engineaire ability to pump water in a buildings that is on fire. >> a fire truck shows up and does what? >> the fire engine will pull up to the upon front of the building do, spotting the building. you get an engine in the area that is safe. firefighters then take the hose lyoning line it a hydrant and that give us an endsless supply of water. >> wow, cool. i don't see water, where does it come from and where does it go? >> the firefighters take a hose from the fire engine to the dry sand pipe and plug it in this inlet. they are able to adjust the

pressure of water going in the inlet. to facilitate the pressure needed for any one of the floors on this building. firefighters take the hose bunked and he will take that homes upon bundle to the floor the fire is on. plug it into similar to this an outlet and they have water to put the fire out. it is a cool system that we see in a lot of buildings. i personal low use federal on multiple fires in san francisco to safely put a fire out. >> i thought that was a great question that is cool of you to ask. have a great day and nice meeting you. >> thank you for letting us know what that is for. thanks, everybody for watching! bye! [music]

i'm chanel joyce i'm a firefighter for the san francisco fire department. i currently am the station 4. in the mission bay districtism lived in san francisco in noe valley. grew up with my mom and i went to high school in san ma te'o. after high school i went to mississippi where i played volleyball in university of southern mississippi. what got me going after college was i was applying to place related to fire and police i loved my experience but my family is home. i grew up here and could not be far from my family anymore i came back.

>> i have been a firefighter for 4 years the transition to the fire department has been seam tells is the same. team work and coming together. transitioning to the job med me comfortable that i made the right decision to come become and work for a fire department that is big in diversity and equality and becoming a fell. i got to be a member at a few different fire stations. each station has their own culture. i worked in places that are xroem and with a young crew and had the most seniority have 3 or 2 years in whatever it may be. learning stuff when people have been in the job for 20 plus years and learning from people got in it grew me to adopt and work with everybody. >> a lot of people will come up to mow and say, thank you for

your service noise to see a woman in the fire department. you are doing it. it is nice to see kids waiving look a woman firefighter. they get excited i love that part of the job seeing the excitement that people see. you are a woman you can do this job. every person has a good experience with the fire department. no one ever spokous they say, they are here. they're do this work and everybody loves them. not everybody gets that in their job. i don't do it for the recognition but niez nice to see people that respect had you do and know you did a lot to get here and you still do to work and you set your life on the line for other people. it is cool.

commission members, please respond when i call your name commission aquino present committee commissioner. drew present commission. scott is absent. chair brackett present commissioner scott is absent, but all other members of the commission are present. madam chair, we have a quorum. please note that the commission has one vacant seat. the next order of business is item two announcements. a the next regular scheduled regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled on tuesday, september 19th, 2023