oh vice president carter. elias like i'm carter oberstein. i'd like to take roll commissioner walker for president. mr. benedicto is excused. commissioner janez present commissioner byrne here. commissioner yee here. vice president carter wilson. you have a quorum. president elias is excused. also here with us tonight is chief scott from the san francisco police department and executive director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. could you please call the first item, sergeant at line item one weekly officer recognition certificate presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties,

sergeant victor hughes, sergeant number 1370, from the burglary unit. good evening. good evening, commissioners chief scott and director henderson. i am captain mahkota of the major crimes unit and i am honored to be here tonight to present to you victor hui of the burglary auto unit. sergeant hui is a 23 year veteran of the san francisco police department. sergeant hui has more than ten years as a sergeant. over the course of sergeant hui's career, he has had several patrol station assignments that include central police station ingleside police station, taraval police station, southern police stations, patrol foot beat and investigative unit . in addition to those patrol assignments, sergeant hui has been assigned to numerous special assignments that include the violence reduction team. the

patrol bureau task force, the department's specialist team and the organized retail theft task force. sergeant hui has been an outstanding member of the auto burglary unit since its revival in 2017. sergeant hui is one of the first sergeants into the office every morning. sergeant hui is constantly collaborating with fellow members of the department and members of the district attorney's office. sergeant hui treats all victims of crimes who he obviously he is committed to helping with empathy and compassion. sergeant hui is also quick to offer his help to every one of his coworkers and share his skills and experience. when asked. sergeant hui is respectful and eager to assist when called upon by his supervisors and will also be quick to look for obstacles and potential challenges that his supervisors may need to be aware of. sergeant hui always answers a call from his coworkers and supervisors on or

off duty at any time, day or night, when any supervisor gives sergeant hui a task that is supervisor can consider that task. well done. sergeant hui is very well respected and liked throughout the entire san francisco police department and the community in recent months, sergeant hui was instrumental in identifying and apprehending one of the largest stolen property fences in san francisco in this investigation, hundreds of stolen electronics were recovered, so far, over 50 victims have been located in reunited reunite with their property. these items include but are not limited to laptops, which in some cases contain family photos, while other laptops contain hours of work. product most importantly, sergeant hui is a dedicated and proud father. i am honored to work with sergeant hui and i, along with his immediate supervisor, lieutenant scott ryan, and proud to present him

here to you tonight. right right. so i'll read this san francisco police department recognizes sergeant victor hui, star number 1370 of the burglary unit. the officer of the week in recognition of your dedication and professionalism, demonstrated throughout outstanding community policing practices and inspiring greatness by exemplifying the ideals of police officers as guardians of our community. such an example of dedication is worthy of the highest esteem by the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police department. all right. thank you, sir. thank you. first up, sergeant, just wanted to say thank you so much for your service. no, no, no problem. thank you so much for your

service and all of your incredible work. i did want to no pressure, but give you an opportunity to say a few words if you wanted to. thank you. i respectfully thank you. okay. well, your humility is overwhelming. thank you. thank you so much again. and thank you, captain cota, for highlighting the sergeant's outstanding work. i see. i'm sorry, chief scott. oh, thank you, vice president. acting president carter. overstone i just. i wanted to thank you as well. and just for the public. you know, san francisco has a tremendous challenge with property crime, particularly some of the organized retail theft. and, you know, the work that you and your your colleagues are doing on identifying these fencing operations and identifying really some of the root causes of why people steal in the first place to get money. it's huge. and i can't emphasize that enough. the work that you all have done, i just wish there

were more people like you and your team because we need more of that. so i know your family's here and i just want to say thank you, because this sacrifice we call you guys out at all day, days and hours and weekends and all that stuff. when we get these these big cases and you you responded and you respond to the challenge. so thank you. yeah, we appreciate your service. thank you, sir. thank you, everyone. commissioner yi, thank you very much. there acting president max carter was on. i just want to commend sergeant victor healy for all your hard work. i know if you get one victim back to a laptop, there's joy out there. but 50 people that are reunited back with their laptop and devices, that's outstanding job for you and the team for the, you know, burglary details. so,

again, thank you for your commitment during your working hours and off hours. that's truly a commitment to public safety here. we truly, truly thank you for that. thank you very much there, sergeant victor hui, commissioner walker, thank you. i just want to thank you and congratulate you and the entire team. the work you do is really important to all of us and thank the family for being here. i know you're so proud and so are we. so thank you for everything. you too. thank you. sergeant, could you take us to a public comment from members of the public? do like to make public comment regarding line item one weekly officer recognition. please approach the podium.

on acting. president carter was told there is no public comment. next item, please, sergeant. line item two. general public comment at this time, the public is now welcome to address the commission for up to two minutes on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission under police commission. rules of order during public comment. neither police or ppe personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public, but may provide a brief response. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email the secretary of the police commission at sfpd commission at sf gov. org or written comments may be sent via us postal service to the public safety building located at 1245 third street, san francisco, california. 94158. if you would like to make general public comment, please approach the podium.

good evening, everyone. i'd like to use the overhead and while doing that, i just want to thank everyone that came out for my son's vigil and all the other mothers and fathers who've lost their children that day. and chief scott, who showed up in all of the others, and your staff that helped out my son was murdered august 14th, 2006. to this day, his case is unsolved. i'm still asking that that they find some kind of way to solve these homicides. in our last conversation, we were talking about getting other people, another people that you can hire , rehire to solve these cases and also to have more money to

for tipsters to come forth instead of this $250,000 reward. i mean, still that's there. but find other ways for the for the for those people to come forth, you know, because otherwise these cases aren't going to get solved. and i'm going to continue to come here until the day i die. i'm hoping this can happen before our my demise, you know, and he has sibley things that he left behind and they're suffering just as well so august 14th was the 17th year of my son's murder. the 17th year is an and that was the 17th anniversary. so numbers are significant to me. i. just wanted to say, please find some other ways to solve my son's case. not just my son, but other mothers and fathers who are suffering out there and silence,

self-medicating. i'm glad you guys are open back up so i can come up here and find other ways to get other mothers to call in because they're suffering and can't come down here. so that's a disability. and with that, thank you. hello, vice president carter auberson commissioners chief scott and director henderson tonight you'll be voting on, and i assume passing 201, which was sent to meet and confer on may 10th, 202 and 203, which were sent to me and confer on may 3rd, 507, which was sent to meet and confer on february first, 5.16, which you sent to me to confer on march 15th and go 9.01 and hundred and two, which you sent to me to confer on may

17th, not yet returned. and for meet and confer is the you passed on january 11th. then again unanimously on april 5th, 9.07 on pretext stops. there has been no update on how far along the discussions are when it has appeared on closed session agenda. tonight is the fifth time having appeared in february 15th, march 8th, may 17th and june 21st. none of the information discussed was disclosed by vote of the commission when the commission was in favor of this dgo unanimously, the chief was in favor of it. after his added april language and the public showed up to support and applaud this commission when it passed. by my count, it's been eight months. but even if it's only five months, it's still longer than most of the egos you're voting on tonight. please update us and please stay true to the resolution you passed to not extend the meet and confer process beyond what is allowed by law. thank you.

acting president carter oberstein. that is the end of public comment. uh, next item, please. line item three consent calendar receive and file action approval for four members to travel and attend 2023 benchmark analytics leadership conference at a cost of 3804 and 3606. approval to accept cash awards and gifts for the recipients of the police officers of the month award for the months of april, may and june 2023 of value of $6,000. the semiannual report of the sexual evidence kit sapd second quarter 2023. order it for bias kits. annual report sapd and dpa's second quarter document protocol report and sapd and dpa's. sp 1421 monthly report. uh, thank you, sergeant. i would like to just agendize for future discussion the kits. 2022 report and with that i'll

ask if there is a motion to receive and file. i'll i'll make a motion to receive and file a second members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item three consent calendar, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker. yes. commissioner janez . yes. commissioner janez is yes . commissioner byrne yes. commissioner byrne is. yes. hear me. yes we got your vote. thank you, commissioner yee. yes, commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter was still. yes. vice president stone is. yes. can you hear me? yes yes, commissioner, we can hear you. all right. you have five yeses, commissioner. next item, please. sergeant, line item four, adoption of minutes action for the meetings of july 12th and july 19th, 2023. is there a

motion? i moved to approve second, members of the public do like to make public comment regarding line item for the adoption of minutes. please approach the podium. there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner jones yes. commissioner janez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter ulverstone yes . vice president carter is yes. you have five yeses. line item five chief's report discussion weekly crime trends and public safety concerns provide an overview of fences, incidents or events occurring in san francisco. having an impact on public safety commission discussion on unplanned events and activities. that chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. chief scott thank you, sergeant youngblood. good. good evening. acting president carter stone commissioners executive director

henderson and the public. i'll start this week's report off by saying hope everybody had a great recess. there has been some activity to report on in the month that we were off. we had a couple of homicides that we're still actively working on, including one that i'm going to talk a little bit more in detail about this stemmed from an incident that happened on august 24th, 2023. this was in the 3900 block of richmond road. and the victim who worked at a convenience store confronted a subject who attempted to leave the store with merchandise. the owner armed himself with a baseball bat and moved toward the front of the store when he realized the subject attempted to leave without paying the subject, took the bat from the victim and struck the victim several times, including in in his head. the subject then fled in a vehicle that was that had

been parked outside the vehicle. the victim was transported to the hospital and actually passed away from the injuries about five days later, on august 28th. and this was a really, really sad, sad occasion. i mean, this is really a worst case scenario for what was started out as a basically a grab and run that ended up in the death of this employee. this this needless death of this of this this man. and we're going to do everything we can on this case to try to bring to justice the person that did this, but highlight eating some of the work that sergeant huey and his team are doing in terms of addressing retail theft. you know, many of these these crimes these days are ending up with people are are are offenders pulling out guns, firing shots and things of that nature. and it's become more brazen and more violent. so it's really something that we have to

deal with as a community and definitely as a police department to bring these folks to account on these types of crimes. but it's just a really sad case. in addition to that, there were two non fatal shootings to report this week. one, the 20 on the 30th of august at 11:06 a.m, 25th in connecticut in the bay view, the victim was just in the area when he heard a pop and then realized he had been shot. he transported himself to the hospital. no arrest has been made on that case. and officers and investigators are following up on leads. the second one is the 1600 block of casada. this occurred on september 1st at 7:31 p.m. officers responded to third and casita after receiving multiple shotspotter activations and located several spent casings. two victims self transported to the hospital in stable condition with gunshot wounds. they are. there is a lot of investigation going on on this as well. so we're trying to determine if this is tied to

other violence that we've seen in san francisco and in neighboring cities. but at this time, we have not been able to confirm that. a couple of significant arrests to report by really good police work this first one on september 4th, 2023, is. 7:04 p.m. the 1000 block of post street in the northern district. officers assigned to the community violence reduction team were in the area and saw an individual matching the description of a wanted subject near in a nearby vehicle. as a part of the investigation. it was discovered that that vehicle that i just mentioned was stolen. however the individual in the vehicle was not the subject currently being investigated by ckvr-dt as such, the officers requested that the northern officers to respond to assist with a vehicle stop on the stolen vehicle as the uniform officers attempted to detain the person in the stolen vehicle. the subject

intentionally rammed his vehicle into the unoccupied patrol car and an unoccupied marked police vehicle and two parked private vehicles. the subject then drove onto the sidewalk, then turned his vehicle toward an officer. however the vehicle became lodged between a light pole and a building. the subject exited the vehicle and a short foot pursuit ensued and the subject was placed under arrest for driving the stolen vehicle. aggravated assault on a police officer and three active warrants for his arrest, including a robbery warrant, a carjacking warrant and a shoplift warrant. the subject was booked into custody. no officers were injured. the second one was a robbery. armed robbery at a north port north point. and larkin, that's in the central district on eight 3123 at at 5:30 p.m, two victims were in a rental van when a subject

or suspect smashed out one of the windows as they were in the vehicle. and the two victims confronted the subject who went to a nearby vehicle and retrieved a firearm. the subject returned with a second subject, brandished firearms, at which time the two victims, as well as the third victim, returned to the van and ran from the scene. a fleet fled from the suspects. the two subjects proceeded to remove the victims personal belongings and then then fled in the suspect vehicle. at approximately 9:45 p.m, tenderloin officers observed the subjects of the suspect's vehicle and observed that it had a matching license plate and other identifying features that was broadcast from the earlier robbery. the suspect's vehicle was then followed to oakland, where one suspect was arrested by the tenderloin officers. three handguns, including two many ar style rifles and one semiautomatic handgun, were recovered. there was a second suspect that was able to escape and still outstanding, but

really good observational police work by the tenderloin officers . and we got the three guns and the one robber suspect off off of the streets for now. another incident, sexual assault that occurred at crocker-amazon park on 831 715. this one is also disturbing. officers responded to a call and met with a juvenile victim and the juvenile's father. it was reported that the victim was assaulted by an unknown male while in the restroom. the search for the suspect was negative and the victim was transported to the hospital and treated our pd special victims unit responded to the scene and is leading this investigation on no arrest. has been made on this case. if the public has any information on this or any other case, please call. please call (415)!a575-4444. and i just will just add on this last one that i talked about, that this was a park that had hundreds of kids

at soccer practice and the like , and this person was lying in wait in the women's restroom when this occurred. so it really doesn't get any more disturbing than that. but if anybody has any information or again, (415)!a575-4444, you can remain anonymous. it's just general crime information overall crime. we see a reduction in part one crime about a 3, which is just under. two 1200 crimes, fewer than this time last year. the driver of that mainly is property crime. we have a 4% reduction in property crimes, about 1200 fewer crimes. and we have a 4% increase in total violent crimes, which is about 132 more than this time last year. in terms of our homicides , we are five above where we were this time last year, 38

compared to 35, 33 this time last year. and we have recovered 740 firearms of those 112, our ghost guns, which is a 3% decrease compared to this time last year of ghost guns recovered. but a 7% increase in total guns recovered from this time last year. no stunt driving incidents to report over the past week in. and that is it for my report. i think i'm out of time. thank you. thank you, chief commissioner yee. thank you, president carter. chief, just have a question regarding the i guess, the i guess the theft over on the richmond district, balboa, where the person was, i guess, struck with his own baseball bat by the suspect was there photos released by the department out in the public? we have put out information on the vehicle that

that was seen as much information as we were able to obtain. but we have not released , i believe, on that case, photos of the suspect looking at social media. there were some photos out there. i don't know if it was this suspect or not. so this i'll just follow up and maybe afterwards regarding the auto burglary detail that i think you're you talk about in the press conference regarding having more officers out in these details. i see in in the report from last week, it looks like it dropped about 18, thereabouts. i don't know if that's the impact that you're having on there is you know, getting more of the i guess you're auto burglary detail out there in in in in force of i guess, the high i guess the high

crime areas where these do happen. is there. any report on that. yeah. thank you commissioner for that question. yes. so part of what the announcement that commissioner ye is referring to is our efforts to turn the tide on the car break ins that we see in our city. so we've increased visible patrols and mainly we're staffing details using overtime that we've been given in our budget, particularly in the areas, the tourist hotspots that we see just rampant car break ins. so that is already in place . we also are doing bait car operations. we hope to increase those back operations. we have made an arrest pretty much within the first few operation hours and this person, we believe, was a prolific car burglar. and we were able to get that person in custody using the bait car. so that's definitely something that we will grow and

staff up. and then the last thing that we're really trying to focus on, some of the people and crews that we know just from their past, their past arrests that are continuing in this effort, you know, and that is a variety of tactics to try to identify them and try to really catch them before before the crime happens. but it is a it's a game of cat and mouse, really . i was out saturday and in north beach and fisherman's wharf area and we had a crew out there and. hitting three, 4 or 5 cars at a time. they go to the next block. and although there is presence, you know, we just have to really focus on those areas and try to saturate as much as we can do that and then run these bait car and other type of aggressive strategies to try to catch people in the act because that's our best chance of solving these cases is to catch them in the act. very few of them we able to solve after the fact, unless we're lucky

enough to get dna or something inside the car. so we'll continue those strategies. thank you very much, chief, and thank all the officers who keep us safe out there. thank you. if i can just add one thing. i'm sorry, just a follow up on a question that commissioner byrne asked. i think in june or so with tenderloin and the deployment. so we do now have a night squad of ten tenderloin officers to work on some of the open air drug market and some of the issues we see at night that started this week. we also have a night captain that we're assigning to this drug market operation tonight because we're making some headway during the daytime and it's not solved. but definitely we're making some headway with all the efforts citywide, not just the police department, but at night time, because staffing has been so low, it's a whole different ballgame. so that started this week. i just wanted to follow up with you on that. commissioner byrne. thank you. thank you, chief, for that. just to two

areas of questions. the first one is it's my understanding that the mandate from the city on the covid vaccine requirement is now gone. that's correct. for the police department, yes, for everybody. but is the department going to make an outreach to those officers that that resigned or were terminated and to try to get them to come back to deal with the shortage? city attorney stuff that the police department is undergoing right now. so, yes, we do have a strategy of outreach and definitely working with the h.r. and our city attorney's on some of the issues. we need to work through on that. but i think the we'll see where that leads. i mean, this is the decision was announced about a week ago, a week and a half ago. so we'll see where that leads. but definitely we are looking into

that issue and do developing a strategy for outreach. okay. i'll do a follow up later then, since it is new. this the second issue that i'd like to raise this evening is, is chief, there was a an officer or a member of the department that apparently was compromised on the on the drug on the drug, on the on the drug arrest. and i understand that there's an investigation going on now involving that officer. but i think members of the public, at least i have in our recess, have heard comments that a lot of the public would like to know. the magnitude, how many cases it's have been affected, stuff without interfering with the actual investiga tation. but but i do think it's important to know the magnitude of exactly exactly what happened as a result. and i'm going to put a request that

the matter be agendized. thank you. okay. chief, thanks to the report. just a couple questions . wanted you brought up the tenderloin staffing. can you give us an update on the staffing for folks who are focused on specifically arresting drug users? is it still eight officers and one sergeant or does the nighttime crew that you just mentioned also participate in that? yeah, the night. so it's still eight officers and a sergeant and the night crew will do not exclusively that because there are issues at night are that and then the drug sales so they'll be doing some of that work in addition there is because these eight officers work you know four day, ten hour week schedule. so on. at least one, sometimes two of their off days. there's another team of officers which is usually four, that will

come in and work those issues. in the tenderloin, it's usually four officers at and they do mainly that type of work on open air, public drug use. the. other part of it is the drug sales, which the entire narcotics unit is basically focused right now on this. but they focus on the sales side of this this equation and not necessarily the well, not at all on the on the use side of it. so we're pretty stable with the deployment this night. crew we hope, will help alleviate some of our issues at night. but it's only i think it's six, six officers. so they can't do everything. and you just have to focus on what the problems are and try to manage what what they can do at night when they're when they're working. so for the night crew at six officers and what percentage, if you know roughly of their time is spent on arresting drug users. i don't at

this point. they just started this week and most of the arrests this week have been sales. if i'm not mistaken. but they will do some of that work for instance, if they are, we get complaints quite often where you have a block or a corner that might have 50 or 60 people, many of them users. and so that type of thing, they will call be called to engage on on that type of thing. and some of that is warning, some of it might be arrest. so it's not a one size fits all type of strategy, kind of depends on what they have in front of us. that's helpful. so just just trying to get a sense of the scale so we've got the eight officers and one sergeant full time doing drug intervention with drug users. then we've got the four folks who are doing it part time to make up for the 40 hour week of the main staff and then we've got a six officer hours at night doing some percentage of their time on on focusing on drug

users. okay. and i did see this publicly reported, but i just wanted to ask, it was a few weeks ago just the number. do you happen to know the number of arrests of drug users? and then how many of those folks have accepted treatment? yes, i do. as of today, hang on one second. i think it's a summary here. uh, let's see. year to date, there have been been 467 arrests, and this basically is from when we started this at the end of may until september 3rd, 467. now and that's just for either public intoxication from drugs or public drug use, where they're actually using in public in how many of those folks have accepted treatment from my understanding, there is one one that has accepted treatment. but and just a little bit more

context on that. i know our public health folks are out there. i don't want to get the name wrong. i think it's their street medicine team and they have a team of people that really focus on engaging with some of our addicted population on the streets. and so they do that pretty much daily. they're not deployed seven days a week, but every day that they work, that's what they do. and what i have been informed is that they do have about six people that they're at least doing some type of case management that and that's where the one who actually accepted treatment. and there's one. and then there was another one that i just learned about today. so actually there's two. i believe so. i mean, i know that's a small number, but we started from zero, so we'll take any type of success as a step forward. and i think it's going to really take my opinion

. it's going to take a sustained effort, you know, particularly dealing with addiction in and i think it's going to take both sides of this equation. it's going to take the law enforcement side and the public health and others to really turn the corner on where we need to go with this. so thanks, chief. i don't want to we when we originally spoke about this at the commission, you and i talked about what metrics the department would be looking at to determine whether this new focus was succeeding or not. and we threw out different metrics. and i think you said at the end of the day, what matters is the conditions need to improve. and i certainly don't want to reprise the debate on this, but given the number of arrests versus the number of people accepting treatment, it seems like so far the strategy of arresting people for using drugs is not been successful. and i'm just wondering, how much longer are we going to continue to experimenting with this before we make a determination about

whether it's a good use of resources to continue? yeah and i definitely respect that opinion, commissioner, and definitely i too don't want to open the debate, but i will say this is until some other entity other than the police department deals with this issue, it really doesn't leave us with much of a choice because what i can say with absolute certainty from going to a community meeting after community meeting after community meeting people are just fed up with what they're seeing on the streets. and no other agency really has the ability to immediately at least change to get a person off the sidewalks if they're if they're using in public or so intoxicated that they can't stand up or whatever. no other. no. right. as we sit here tonight, no other no other department has the ability to do anything with that except for to talk about it at. and i think

people are just fed up with the talk and you will never hear me say that the arresting of these folks is going to solve addiction. but but, you know, these are still crimes that we can't just turn a blind eye to and say it's not working. so again, that invitation is open. if somebody has a better idea, as some other department wants to take this on with a better way to do it, that's why we're all working on this together. and i will say public health has been at the table. they. are aggressively trying to do outreach to get people in a position to not have to go to jail. is that successful? maybe not. now, based on the number of people that accepted services, but another thing that i think i learned about addiction is sometimes it takes many, many touches before people decide that they want to, you know, take advantage of what's been offered to them. so i think we've just got to continue to work at it and continue to put

our heads together to look for a solution that works. all right. thanks, chief. i'm going to hold myself to it and not actually reprise the debate. i'll just say, though, that you said you made a statement that there weren't any other ideas. and as we discussed before, this city did commission a blue ribbon commission to come up with ideas . in the very recent past, the san francisco police department was part of that. and there's an eight point plan out there just collecting dust with some other ideas. so i'll just and we've all we've read it. okay. it's a nice report. okay. i'll switch. i'll switch gears then on bait cars, could you say a word on, on on the, the, the bait car program that was recently announced. and if it's already been fully implemented, the scope of the program. um it's really a resource issue in terms of how much we can do on the bait car. but it has been implemented. um, it's a resource

issue. you know, we're pulling officers and investigators off of their regular assignments and they have to work these bait cars. and you know, one of the things that we want to make sure is, as much as we can do this is to do this safely, do it in a way that it minimizes risk to the public. because, you know, one of the things that we see over and over again when officers engage with people as they break into cars, some of these folks will do anything to get away. and that includes running red lights, running up on sidewalks, ramming cars and things like that. so we want to make sure that we do this safely. and i know, you know, there's a general order coming from the police commission tonight that's a part of this effort to do it as safely as possible. but it's really a resource issue into the scope of what we can do. what i hope that will happen or not hope. what we plan to make happen is we're going to resource this with on duty resource forces and supplement this with some of the overtime we've been granted. and focus on this issue. so to expand this program so we have

more bait cars out there and we do them more often. and could you just give a i don't know if you know or not, but just a rough sense of how many cars we envision being deployed, if that if that's something you can disclose? yeah, i don't know at this point. hopefully we the vision is, you know, as many as our personnel resources will allow for us to do it in a safe manner. you know, it takes kind of a team of officers to do this right. so you can't put more cars than you have. people to manage. you know, the operation. so but are we talking about three cars, ten cars, 100 cars? i'm just just a rough i don't want to. but just a very i just really have no clue what the scope is, if there's just any if there's any kind of rough guidance, you could give. i'm just curious to know. yeah, we don't we really don't have a set number. and you know, one of the things i'll say, you know, respectfully, for the people that are breaking into cars, you know, we don't want them to know

how many we have out there. we want them to think that all cars are they're breaking into or break cars. and hopefully that will be a deterrence. but okay. what is the last time that the department used a bait car? i don't know. i don't believe we have used them during my time here. but i think there has been a time where they were used in the past. so yeah, i do have some experience doing this before i got here. and it can be very it can be very successful. and do we so do we have a sense for how things worked out the last time sfpd used? we don't know. i don't know when the last time i'm told that we have done them in the past, but i don't know when the last time. i know we haven't done them during my tenure here. and i seem to vaguely remember that the district attorney, the prior district attorney did use bait cars. is that right? i believe they did. bait car operation or two. yes. and was sfpd involved with that or not? with the actual operation itself? i think we got in after the fact. we got

we were requested to do some work after the fact, but not with the actual operation. they did that with their their team of investigators. gotcha. last category of question. just wanted to follow up on the dolores hill bomb. there was a couple updates that you gave that at the time were not complete because you the department had not yet, for example, reviewed all the body worn camera. and so you weren't totally sure. i just want to ask about three, three issues that were kind of left open ended because the review wasn't complete. so there you made a statement that, you know, there was a lot of parents who came here and said that their child peed their pants while they were handcuffed, waiting to be transported. and you had said there was you had not seen evidence on that based on the video that had been reviewed, but not all video had been reviewed. there is also a difference in in what was reported and what you could confirm about whether all youth juveniles were mirandized and

then whether all juveniles were actually indeed released to a guardian. do you have an update on on those three things about whether you can confirm or deny the public comments on those issues? i don't have an update, but i do believe that those are all part of dpa's investigation and we'll wait and see. and we're doing our own investigation into this. but i don't have an update to report publicly, you know, and didn't know you would be asking that. but i, i do know there's two investigations happening in terms of looking into these issues. okay. fair enough. thank you, commissioner walker. thank you. going back to the issue of alternatives to the police acting in especially in the drug use issue, and it's one of the issues that i've been meeting with folks in the community about because there is no alternate authority that can

respond when someone's breaking the law. and it's not instead of taking them to jail, it would be taking them to a place where they can be in treatment, at least for a period of time. and so those conversations are ongoing, as i'm understanding, and i saw i think i saw today the information. i think one of the supervisors asked for an audit of one of the providers, health 360 to get more information about their their services, because that's kind of the alternate of instead of taking people to jail, it's having a place to take people who need treatment. so are you all meeting with the department of health and those different departments to really i mean, there does really need to be an alternate infrastructure other than taking the police going to jail. it's not dissimilar from what we were discussing about pre-booking youth. you know, and

having a system. we don't have one. we have the one system that books and takes people to jail. so that's the conversation i understand is having with the heart. the department of emergency management to try and create that infrastructure, because that really is what's needed. am i wrong? no, you're not. you're not wrong. excuse me, commissioner walker. and yet those meetings happen daily. yeah. so with the drug market agency coordination center or dmac, as we call it. public health, all the all the entities that should be at the table are at the table. and every day there are a series of meetings and objectives to try to on the immediate thing is to address what's happening that day on the street. but the longer term

picture and the bigger picture is how are we going to find better solutions? so. so those those meetings are happening, happening and hopefully something positive will come out of that. i do think for instance, one of the things that we discussed today in today's discussion was the public health will have a night team starting very soon. that will do a lot of this work. that we're talking about engagement and trying to engage people and deal with addiction and try to get people into services at night. and that's been something that's been lacking. yeah. so, you know, in addition to what we do on the police side, that's going to be a welcome addition. so another thing is there's been a lot of conversation about. what

is the alternative and what does that look like. i know the city does have bed space for addiction programs and addiction services. one of the gaps, though, continues to be how do we get people who need these services into those beds if they're not going voluntary? briley yeah, it's got to be involuntary. and right now there's not a whole lot of options other than yeah, other than there's no other option, right? yeah yeah. that's kind of it. and i think that's, that's the crux because that probably happens at the state level, right? and so until there is the equivalent authority. in a health care response, then right . all right, great. i think that's it for now. i mean, on the on the skateboard bomb, i think that has there been discussions with the folks who organize or maybe there wasn't

people organizing, maybe the problem. but i think that the issue. that came up when we were discussing passing it before was really how to have a different outcome after after they're being held and to get our the our partners that deal with youth health mapping so that the issues of if there were issues of not having access to bathrooms and stuff, those would be helped by our partners. huckleberry et cetera. but those folks were not on duty over the weekend. they don't work weekends, so are those conversation options ongoing to try and get ahead of this next time? yeah i personally have had one conversation with the director with the director. i mean, there's been a lot of conversations in. our side in

terms of just ideas. but one me, i've had one conversation with the director of huckleberry and it was a good conversation, but there's a lot more that we need to really try to vet out to see how we can be better as a collaborative agencies that that, you know, should be working together on these issues. yeah, because i think. there's the issue of the event itself, which it's hard to you know that's one thing but but how to deal with large groups of youth if they're in that situation to make sure it doesn't happen again. right. okay well, thank you. thank you. commissioner janez. thank you. acting president carter overstone. good evening, everyone. sorry i couldn't. be there physically, but, um, i just am a little limited today. but i do want to follow up on some of those items you just talked about, chief, you know,

last time we met, you, you had to be an article about the outcomes that are taking place in portugal. right. with this decriminalization movement. and some of the challenges that they're not now experiencing and what i don't want us to lose kind of in this process is to understand the correlation between post covid, you know, the increase in mental health issues across the nation and the fact that there is an increase. in substance use across the nation as a result of, you know, this increase in depression and mental health conditions. and so as to max to carter stones point, you know, we really do need to have an outcome in mind that is not further criminalization of a mental health condition. or an

untreated substance abuse issue. right and so i'd like to know whether in those conversations with that team that you that you're meeting with daily, that has the institutional partners like has there been a formal conversation about. revisiting the lead program that you had mentioned was in practice for a few years ago? that isn't necessarily about about mandating treat. it sounded more like in lieu of incarceration, you have the option of treatment, which looks very different than i'm arresting you. you're going. to jail. and then if you want treatment, you can access it. and which we know the outcomes have been very

limited in that. so is there that conversation taking place about revisit how to structure a lead program potentially to address this issue long term? well when you say formal conversation. that conversation has happened. it hasn't gotten to the point where we are developing a lead program. but we have talked about lead and the potential of lead in terms of adding value to this this work. you know, as you know, commissioner, there's a lot of parts to lead and it's, you know, definitely more than just the police department. as a matter of fact, police department got zero funding for lead. and we were one of the for the pilot, one of the biggest proponents to make that happen. but some of the other agencies

it's definitely a funding. issue. public health. you know, the both sides of the of the prosecutorial and the public defender's side they all got funded for lead. sheriff's might have gotten some funding. i don't know if they got any. but anyway, i say all that to say yes. the conversation. there have been conversations. there has not been a formal agreement that that's the direction that the city is going to go in it. but we definitely will plan to keep that on on the radar, keep that on the map and see see where it goes. is great. thanks. i mean, if there's anything that this commission can do to support your effort. to kind of reestablish that effort, please let us know just because i know

that, you know, we do need a solution in and we do not want to, um, continue to, to go in a direction that isn't reaping the outcomes that we would hope, you know, here, obviously we want safer streets. we don't want public intoxication, but we. also want to hopefully address the underlying conditions that a lot of folks that are using drugs have. and i know that it isn't solely our department. it is a collaborate nation that that is going to make this impact that we hope for. so whether it's car lead, i feel like we need to begin to advance some of those previous efforts. knowing that they have had some success in different areas. i do want to have a little bit of more information, if possible. around the hill bomb incident, there was a report, um, that apparently there was a number produced for how much overtime was utilized. something around

$443,000. is that. accurate, as far as you understand? you i don't know if it's accurate or not. i do know we did have a lot of officers on overtime. so i think i reported to this commission what the count was. i mean, we can do the math, but i don't know. so i can't sit here and say that that number is accurate without actually doing the math. will. we be getting those numbers anytime soon? because that was one of the explicit questions and requests that we made at that commission hearing a few months ago. yes, we can get we can provide those numbers. i mean, i think i did provide the deployment numbers. and we'll just put how many of those i mean, yes, we can do that. i mean, i think it's important for the public to understand that when we make a large investment of time and energy, there's a cost attached to it. right? and considering that if it was just 143,000in

overtime time, that doesn't take into account the eight hour shifts that come up to about $100,000, maybe even more. so, you know, it's a investment. it's a major investment in an operation that, you know, obviously received a lot of concern, criticism, and some of it merited. right um, without delving into, you know, the investigation that's happening internally and whatever is doing to follow up with individual reports or complaints, as i did ask and i know that i understood. and as far as a majority of the juveniles who were charged, that as my understanding, the cases have been dropped. and i wanted to know specific whether the department was going to be able to clear those records or remove any report or any trace of those individuals who were caught. maybe in a kettling incident. and then the charges were dropped for them no longer to have records. has that taken place? do we know what mechanism to utilize to be able to remove those records for those young people whose charges were dropped? i believe that's a part of what juvenile probation does already. but i rather than i'll verify that, i'll verify that, and i can circle back the next police commission or the one after, because i'll be in training next week, actually in out of town. but definitely we'll verify that. commissioner because that's very you know, some of the members of the

public that came and expressed concern, uh, you know, detailed how difficult it is to remove whether it's through a clean slate program or in any other, you know, avenue that a person pursues. it's really difficult to remove, uh, some of those records from a person's history. and and, and i and i do not believe that the probation department. but don't quote me either. so i think it is something that we really need to figure out so that those individuals that that that do not need to have a record do not have a record for being at a public park during this incident. um, and the last question around this is it's not something that you need to answer, but i understand that and these are different incidents, but i understand that new york recently banned kettling as a result of some of the issues that they had. you know, in the last couple of years in is, is kettling something that is part of any of our protocols and is there any consideration for or whether it's removing the practice or limiting the practice? um, has that crossed your desk or is that something that you've thought about it. well, by kettling, are you talking about mass arrests? the process of kind of in closing, you know, directing people all into a place where, you know, they will be arrested in a mass arrest situation? um, because my understanding is that a lot of young people, at least per the testimony and i know that these investigators aren't completed, a lot of the young people that were arrested were actually not even part of the hill bomb

incident. right. some of them claim that they didn't hear the message. they were just walking through the neighborhood and they got kettled into this mass arrest incident. and so the practice itself seems to be a very concerning practice that will inevitably be at least the way it did in new york lead to lawsuits. right. and so is that something that we're going to consider moving forward, given the fact that, you know, a lot of young people and maybe young adults were also caught in a tattling incident during this mass arrest of the hilbert well, i don't i'm not familiar with what new york pd is doing, but i will say this, you know, we always have to look at and reflect on when we have an incident of this nature or of any nature of this this this scale of what went wrong, what didn't go well, what what went right and i'm sure we'll have some lessons learned from this. but there is a place for in our tactics in the law, actually, as well for unlawful assemblies. and there are tactics on how you handle an unlawful assembly when

you have a large amount of people and one of the things that is supposed to happen is you're supposed to give people an avenue of egress. you're supposed to block streets and block sidewalks so they can use that avenue of egress for those that want to leave and give them an opportunity to do that. i do. we heard loud and clear from many people that, you know, stood in the commission and talked about some folks were just caught in that situation and they were told to go one way and the other way. and those are all things that we have to look at and evaluate and see, you know, what we can do if we ever in this situation again to not have that happen. but i don't think it's a wise idea to say that we just throw out the practice of making large mass arrests because there are situations having have lived through many of them where that is absolutely appropriate. it's the right thing to do, the safest thing to do and to just ban it all together, i think

would be unwise and not in the best interest of public safety. so my answer to you, commissioner, is let's look at what we did right and let's look at what we didn't do as well as we should and then come up with the training necessary to not make the same mistakes twice. if we made mistakes, which i'm sure we made some, but to ban it outright, i mean, i haven't seen what new york is doing and i don't know why they would do that with the number of mass protests that they have. but if they did it, i'm sure there's a reason for it. but i just think we have to have a way to deal with that situation because we do get those situations from time to time. particular when there is civil unrest and riot type situations and you have to have a way to deal with that. and deal with a large amount of people at one time. and without the ability to do that, you're kind of helpless. so i would say not. we haven't looked at abandoning that, abandoning, abandoning, abandoning. i can't

even say the word. i'm sorry. the process of making mass arrests, i i've heard the term kettling. i just needed some clarity of what that means to you, because it means different things to different people. we don't call it that, but we do have mass arrests and we call our tactic encirclement. i i'm pretty sure that i heard the word settlement when the presentation took place. but whether it's kettling or a different approach, it's i'm glad that it isn't a door that we're closing. if you're saying that there are there's still an ongoing analysis of what we did. well what maybe went wrong, you know, i don't want to take that off the table just because it has led to some grief for a lot of people. is there a and this is my last question on the hill bomb, is there a timeline when we can expect the this analysis of your report? not necessarily the investigation from dpa or

internal affairs, but just an update on is specifically these points? well, what went wrong and how we're going to make sure that the kids that got caught up in this situation are no longer have a record. yeah, i think some some of this will come from there's of course there's a lot of people that have to be interviewed. and i'm sure those interviews are ongoing in terms of the public investigation or the public complaints. and, you know, i'm sure we'll learn something from those interviews as well that will help in this analysis. so i don't you know, we can look at this from our own eyes and say what we think. but i do think it's a good practice . i believe it's a good practice to actually hear what people have to say. and bake that into the analysis as well. and because i'm sure we'll learn something from all these interviews that we'll we'll get a lot of different perspectives. so to answer your question, i think we you know, we'll we'll have it. but to do a complete

job, we need all perspectives and see what some of the people who were impacted by this are saying or have said. got it. thank you very much. seeing no names in the queue. sergeant, could you take us to public comment for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the chief's report, please approach the podium. thank you. hi. it was a little long, but it's okay. i should have spoken to the first section of the public comments, but it's okay. as you know, probably now, my personal mission. can you hear me? personal mission is just more like general. you know , i don't can't be specific, but it seems to me that you have to be a bit more serious. you are attacked on both sides now. you have a mad max. it's mad max raff in the street. i see. and on the other side, you are attack. remember the fire department can't extinguish the fire anymore. what's coming to san francisco might be very bad

. you know about this thing? they use technology. so you chief. i mean, the police is here to arrest the criminals. i mean, come on. and you are not a doctor. it's not your job. so we have to stop asking him. what does he do for the drug addicts? i mean, come on, you have to arrest the drug dealers. that's it, it seems. come on. it's objective. whereas, yeah, i think there is something wrong with this autonomous car here. what is this? autonomous car? you see them all over the place . so they take away jobs that are necessary. they take away jobs. now they create traffic and they feel ugly and it's ugly . and it looks it's spooky. it's coming. so maybe your next car is going to be just a car on his own with guns. and what is this? we don't want to live in this society, guys. so at some point, wake up really seriously. i am here to try my best to stop you. you know? but everybody has his

own responsibility here. come on . it's important to understand this. now there is a link for you. please. and that is the end of public comment. next item, please. sergeant, line item six directors report discussion report on recent activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. could of director henderson. thank you . so currently we have open and quite a few more cases this year than we had last year. we're at 544 cases have been opened so

far this year. the same time last year we were at 468 cases. we have 298 cases that are currently pending and open in the office. we have sustained 39 cases so far this year and mediated 19 cases. we have 21 cases who's investigate? options have gone on over nine months while we continue to work on them. and of those 21 cases, 71 of the cases are told, meaning they have restrictions on where time is not being told or counted either from criminal or civil legal issues outside of the agency. there are currently still seven pending cases as with the commissioners themselves, pending outcomes and there are 86 cases pending outcomes with the chief's office . in the past four weeks, we've . received 57 new cases, 56 of

them were sfpd. one of them was with the sheriff's office, but a total of 104 allegations of those cases, the highest top allegation received 18% of them, in fact, was for neglect of duty with an allegation that the officers failed to take required action for the full list of the 100. you can check on the website. all of these numbers are posted there as well. i won't read all of them to you. i'm just reading the top summaries in terms of the allegations that we received regarding the police department, the top two allegations were for one, tied three. we each use of force allegations and misconduct related to improperly arresting someone that they don't believe should have been arrested. in terms of the district breakdown,

in terms of where folks are getting arrested, the for not arrested, i'm sorry, in terms of the district breakdown, in terms of where complaints have come in about which precincts the top precinct for this time period was the tenderloin. and seven of the allegations came from the tenderloin, the highest eight complaint there were for officers failing to respond to calls for service. the next two are tied with central and bayview. one was as the allegations at central surrounded individual calls making allegations that officers failed to cite and arrest individuals. and the baby. new allegations were regard ing how complainants property gets released. terms of audit. we are

still again the full allegations with all of them are located on the website as well as the numbers in terms of the audit and with the misconduct audit, we are still waiting for the independent review which is one of the steps that must be taken to validate the audit that audit is still with the comptroller's office. i'll continue to give you updates until we get the review back from the comptroller's office to complete that step. once we receive that final report back, we'll provide a copy of that draft it to the police department for their review and for their response, which is the next step in august , we reported it was reported to dpa that the department did not conduct any investigations governed by. 8.10 and 2022. we

are following up with the department on the status recommendation was made to the prior audits. those were mostly about policy clarifications, which are very important as well as the destruction of privacy files amongst some other issues. so we're still waiting for those things as part of the multi prong approach to complaints related to the dolores park hill bombing, we are looking at at rolling some of those allegations that we've been talking about into an audit specific addressing either our crowd control and or event management process. i'm going to give you an update on the hill bombing again before you get to those questions. in terms of outreach, we did a couple of community outreach events during the break, both with mo magic and with b magic, where we

staffed those community engagement events, talking with the community about the role of dpa. and we had staff there at both of the events during the summer. we're also now sharing information on metas threads application is just an extension of some of the social media about things related to dpa of what we're doing, including posts that are on formerly twitter. and we are in the planning process now of a community event focused on mediation. so more details to follow on that. also last week we. participated and had an event with the department and i want to thank the chief for coming out honoring the retirement of mike nevin, who was the acting captain at the academy, in large part with the work that he had done with our office just as a reminder from 2016, he worked with dpa when we

wrote collectively the use of force policy that ended up being the model for the state of california's use of force policy. it's a big deal and we just wanted to acknowledge that work. in terms of the hill bombing, one of the things that we had promised to do was to get the commission and update on on the investigations from dpa as well. and you'll have that update in writing before the end of this week. and in that report , we will address some of the quantified time from the dpa side in terms of the investigation, the amount of work involved, as well as some of the challenges and outright blocks that we're finding to complete and engage in the investigation. but that work is continue going. we've also been involved. i didn't want to not mention last week's officer involved shooting that we're also investigating as well. so

we're in the middle of that as well. there is one case this evening that's in closed session , also present here in the hearing room today is matt stonecipher, the senior investigator. also our chief of staff, sarah hawkins is here and our director of policy. i'd like to call up briefly our newest outreach director, carolyn wysinger, to come and introduce herself so i can introduce her to all of you. you probably received the notification today. i think we sent it to everyone in from the announcement about her new position. but this is our new director of outreach and i wanted to show her off for all of you. so and welcome her to the work she couldn't be happier to have her here. thank you so much, director henderson, and good evening to the commission

and vice president carter oberstein. i'm very familiar with commissioner walker. so good to see you. look forward to meeting the rest of the commissioners and just servicing our community and bringing more of the folks to the table. so we can continue to do the work that you have charged to do. so thank you again, you're supposed to speak for ten minutes. i'm supposed to speak for ten minutes. just kidding. i was just i mean, i can speak for tonight. yes, you can. you can do. thank you. thank you. if anyone else has information that they need to share with dpa, the website is sf gov.org/dpa. you can also contact us at any time for 152417711. i'll reserve the remainder of my comments for the agenda items as they come up. that completes my report. thank you, director. i just wanted to wish a warm welcome to carolyn and thank you so much for your decision to join the dpa and do all that important work. commissioner byrne thank you.

thank you. just one question. i know, i know you're going to do a report on, on it approximately how many complaints has dpr received relating to the officer's conduct on the dolores hill incident? i know i have to get back to you, i have to tell you. so that'll be in the report. how many officers? it won't be, but it wasn't going to be. but i can add that. well, yeah, obviously, i would like to see how many. thank you. sure all right. seeing no questions in the accused. sergeant, can we go to public comment for members of the public? would like to make public comment regarding line item six director's report, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. next item, please. line item seven commissioner reports discussion and possible action. commissioner reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be

limited to determining whether the calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meeting commission president's report commissioners reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. commissioner walker. thank you very much. yes um, there's a couple of things that i know. it's been a long month, so i kind of forget some of this stuff that i've been doing and it always seems like we're not meeting, but there are more meetings that happen in august outside of this one. but um, i've been meeting ongoingly deputy chief flaherty and a group of folks from the department as well as director ellis from the commission on the status of women have been meeting pretty regularly to discuss recruiting women into the force. the next meeting is

going to happen. we're we're going to be meeting specifically about the child care issue to see if there's something that we can do to really move forward child care programs for our officers. as i would like to see one near every station we have. i think it would help a lot of people. well, especially with all the overtime that we're asking of them lately. so i'm really excited about that because i think it's really going to be helpful going forward. i've also been meeting to have the discussion about the patrol specials program with various staff and community to talk about that issue. it's so complicated just going through getting the history and the current status and figuring out what it is and what it we're all going to try and either have it on the next meeting agenda or the last one in september, but we will have it on the agenda. this to discuss what we've sort

of come up with in a and talk with the commission about what the program might be for future . there's a lot of issues that come up with the patrol specials just so people know it's a it's a actually private security that has that was created actually at the beginning of san francisco before we had a police department to enforce our laws. and it's carried forward and even to the current day. but it's you know, it's a it's a tool that may may be helpful in working with our partners in the private sector. so i look forward to the discussion about that. we're going to be meeting with the city attorney and. assistant chief lozar and some of the other folks to get current about just the legal status of it so that we'll have a good presentation to start the discussion here at this level. so i'm really excited about that because i think it might be helpful. so that's my update.

commissioner commissioner yee, thank you very much. they're acting president carter. i just want to report that that was out at the chinatown night out today. that was great to see the chief here. and also our new captain over at central station , eric kim. i also want to thank the acting captain, mark moreno , for all his work and keeping us safe in the chinatown. chinatown night out was came about close to. this is the ninth anniversary and we probably skipped two years during the covid. so so 11 years ago, this decided by one of the community leader rose park, to have a the chinatown community come out and meet the police as well. many of the residents in chinatown live in sros. and it's pretty difficult for them to,

you know, travel across a couple of blocks and at night and stuff like activity. so they held it. they hold it at the porch mound square and over close to 500 people are there to tonight enjoying themselves in this beautiful weather. great to see everybody out there in community and building trust along the community and officers. so i want to thank that team for that . also on labor day weekend on saturday, september 2nd, we had our third annual san francisco chinatown car show and parade. so we got to meet the new caps. and then but there's also a certificate that for our recruiting team that was here. i want to thank sergeant reynolds for bringing out the ford fairlane. it reminds me of the

streets of san francisco. so i was looking for mike douglas and karl malden. so so it's good to see that car out there. and maybe next time we'll be the cab. so they have a certificate in appreciation for the san francisco police department. so should i present it to the chief ? thank you, chief. thank you. going to take a picture. thank you. okay. this is a community based and many of the volunteers and people that came from out of town, they got to enjoy a wonderful weekend and a nice and sunny and festive event. so

hopefully we can roll it out throughout the city of san francisco and all the neighborhoods, not just only chinatown. thank you very much for. thank you, commissioner. just a couple updates for me in in early i believe it was early july or late june, the working group for dgo 810 for first amendment investigations was concluded. i just want to thank the department out and all of the community members who donated their time to participate in a five day or i should say five meetings of working groups and provided a lot of really helpful feedback. i did want to agendize two things. the first is that in the last couple of days, a flurry of communications was forwarded to the commission between dpa and the department about dpa

requesting ng documents. that's bw iwc footage and investigation reports from the department in connection with its investigation of officer involved shootings in the department, declining to turn over those materials that were requested. this is obviously a very important issue. dpa has a charter or mandate to investigate officer involved shootings and so i would like to agendize this issue and hear from both the department and dpa on what exactly we the nature of the dispute is. i'm i would like dpa and the department to provide the commission in advance an explanation of their respective position ions with citation to legal authority or whatever authority they think supports their position so that the commission can kind of take this issue up and we'll send we'll send more detailed

instructions shortly on that. the other thing i wanted to agendize is the, the our vehicle pursuit policy, the chase policy . in the last few months, there's been a slew of gray ivus injuries and deaths resulting from car chases and i should say deaths of innocent and injuries of innocent bystanders. i think that we last updated this policy 9 or 10 years ago. i think in light of these recent tragedies , it's incumbent on the commission to take up the issue and just see if best practices have changed in the last decade , if we can see what other departments are doing in other jurisdictions that may be working better. and frankly, the other thing that i'll just acknowledge frankly about this is that i have seen in various

corners of the internet, people blame this commission's chase policy for the recent uptick in vehicle thefts. and you know, this is i just wanted to acknowledge this head on because i think it's something that's that i've seen increasingly in the last couple of weeks. it's something that, you know, i think that our, you know, our chase policy, we should certainly take a hard look at it and see if we can improve it. it can't possibly be the cause of increase in vehicle theft, though. we know that for certain because it's been on the books for a decade. whether vehicle thefts are up or down and vehicle thefts also happen to be up all across the country, including in jurisdictions that have much different chase policies than we do. so it's clearly not causal. our policy may may need to be improved, but it's certainly not the cause of

those of the increase in vehicle thefts. and i just do feel the need to acknowledge this because i think there is an increased desire to promulgate, i think, falsehoods about how the san francisco city government works and in particular how this commission works and blaming this commission for, you know, changes in crime rates and i just think that we should be more forthright about acknowledging that, i think unfortunate political reality and meeting it head on. so i hope to have a good discussion about the status of our chase policy and how it can be improved in due course that is it for me. commissioner walker. i'm sorry, i forgot one thing. i, i was we were given an email by our, our sergeant to, to attend one of the, the drafting or the, the policy writing

departments and we were looking at the specific dgo about drafting dgos and. to your point of the commission being blamed for things, i mean i think that that sometimes we complicate the process of law enforcement a lot in ways that don't work. so it's good to always review them, which is what we were doing with the, the, the dgo about writing de egos and i mean i would i would invite and encourage all my fellow commissioners to go to some of those meetings because is when you break down some of the egos just the one about drafting and the calendar. and we talk a lot about missing the dates and why aren't we responding in a timely fashion. it's really confusing as to what the time schedule is and the calendar calendar dates are and

who's responsible for what. so the more cooks you put in the kitchen, the more complicated it is to cook the dinner. so i feel like i feel like in the conversation about what you're talking about, about who who's responsible for what and our egos. one of the things we need to look at is what is our jurisdiction as a commission versus what is the day to day operation that the chief is responsible for. and then our position is to evaluate the chief's performance. those are really important issues. i think that we need to look at. so i, i encourage us to have that conversation about what is our jurisdiction and what is what is the day to day running of the department. none of us are police officers and so we can easily sit here and talk about policy and what we want to aim towards in achieving. but i think the challenge is how we get there and making sure we get

the data to evaluate. so you know, i think we have one of our most reform minded and focused departments in the country, if not the world. i mean, i don't want to get that big, but i want to be supportive of the reform efforts that we are doing and also keeping our streets safe. so i just want to thank the department for the added coordination of our process of this so that and we got our email today informing us of what a schedule is. and i think that that's a positive step forward to put us all on the same page and keep us in the conversation. so thank you. thank you, commissioner. i forgot to note two things. first, on the chase policy in addition to a commission hearing, i want to convene an officer town hall so that we can hear directly from officers about their views and their experience implementing the policy and their suggestions

for amending it, if any. and the reason i say this is because i think as written, our policy actually is empowers officers to make the decision based on a laundry list of factors about whether a chase is appropriate or not. but i've also heard from officers that they don't feel that way in practice, that there are so many factors that they have to weigh that it's not clear to them whether a chase is permitted. so that's something else i'd like to add to the potential revision of our chase policy and one other thing i wanted to agendize that i forgot is i would love to have a presenter station from the department on on its deployment practices and because i think. one thing that we hear a lot is the department is understaffed and it clearly is. and that's often a reason why we can't do certain things. you know, there's multiple district

stations that don't have, for example, any foot patrols. i'm told, you know, we can't respond to certain calls for service in a timely manner. but then, you know, as we discussed during the chief's report, we do have eight officers and a sergeant assigned full time to arresting drug users in other officers. also participating in that effort on a part time basis, we can find hundreds of officers to arrest a bunch of kids for skateboarding. 99% of them were not engaged in any real criminal conduct. and so we do hear on the one hand that staffing shortages are a reason why we can't do basic policing, that that we all want, like foot patrols. but we also seem to find the resources to do and engage in certain practices that you know, like arresting drug users that i think have been shown to not be effective and not be the greatest use of our time. so i think as

commissioner walker said, this commission has no jurisdiction over day to day deployment. but i think it's an issue that the public is interested in and that would be illuminating for many, including myself. so i'd love a presentation on that as well. and seeing no names in the queue . oh, i'm sorry. committee yanez . thank you. president carter oversaw doan quick report on my end. we did have some ongoing meetings to with the community partner at the community assessment referral center and trying to develop a design and program agreements for pre-booking program. that's an ongoing conversation. it has been very, very productive. we also so i also met with some members of the community who are very, very interested in doing some cross training around youth development needs. they're very

versed in the community policing dgo and have asked for an introduction which i will be following up with to see who the community liaison that the chief thinks is the best person to put this in touch with. um, which, you know, i think it is something that considering the, the feedback that we received after the hill bomb, it's a good place to be able to engage community city in identifying what the best practices are. in addition to that, i did have a meeting also with juvenile probation commissioner to continue to discuss what the what the dynamics and what the collaboration with the juvenile probation department should look like if and when we embark on this pre booking program, which was very productive conversation , action and the last question i or the last update that i both

want to inquire about, provide an update. and then also agendize is, is about a month or two months ago, i think in in july, there was supposed to be an update about the juvenile. draft 701. and as a result of the turnout for the hill bomb incident, we never received a draft update. but i reached out to the contact person there, aisha stephens, and she indicated that i was going to get a draft on august 16th. when i came back from my break, i inquired about where that draft stood, and i was told that we still can't have a copy of the draft. and so i'd like to note, chief, why i can't see the draft and how we're supposed to design a program with our community partners when we do not know what exactly the concerns from

the smes and some of the legal entities in your department that have purportedly raised, but not necessarily delineated. is that a question for question? yes. why don't we have a draft? yeah. commissioner i don't have an answer for you. i will get that answer for you. i did see that you sent a very lengthy email today, but i honestly have not had an opportunity to read it. so i'll have to really get back to you either in this commission , in the public forum, or i can call you after i read your email . and because you had i scanned through it as i was walking out the door, i headed to city hall and i knew there was a lot of points that you raised in that email. so if you would please give me an opportunity to read it and then i can get back to you either in this forum or privately. i mean, it would be ideal to do it. yeah. in the public forum. i know that this

draft has been just kind of laboring in the background there for at least six months. we ended the workgroups. i think in january or february, and for us, not to be able to even view a draft of the draft is kind of concerning. so the email wasn't solely focused on the draft. there are some other questions that i raised there, but i do want to make sure that we agendize the juvenile draft update so that we can resolve whatever concerns have been presented. and that is my report. thank you. thank you, sergeant. for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item seven commission reports, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. next item please line item eight presentation and discussion on sapd and sparks reports. second quarter 2023 discussion. good

good evening, president carter. commissioners chief scott and director henderson. i'm here tonight to present the quarter two sparks report. but before i do that, i want to make sure i go back to quarter one where we were asked to provide the number of bureau orders in our sparks report and i want to point out that we did add a section for that. and there were seven bureau orders that were issued in that quarter. there was one new that was issued in quarter two, was investigated with social media accounts. and that was the only new dgo for that quarter. but beyond that, i want to make sure that i communicate to you all that we expanded the written directives unit. it's now a division. it's been centrally used for our policy

development processes as miss steve so i'm sure you all know through the working groups and other department interaction is our manager and she's taken on that lieutenant role of managing the processes as we go through it. we have three buckets that we are has for units. one bucket will will be be a civilian staff that will manage our working group processes. as we have written directives unit still with and we added a person, another officer for that unit because we've had some personnel changes in the last couple of months, but then more importantly is we have a policy development unit. we have three sergeants now that will be tasked with owning the policies , will be in charge of writing the policies. they'll be interviewing the smes will know exactly where the policies stand as they go through the process.

and it's all centralized to one division. we work directly for. flaherty who then we report to the to the chief. so our processes are now streamlined. they're centralized. we know exactly where we are and where we need to go. and in saying that we're bringing on the new members, we've started to do these workshops and starting to look at. digital 3.01. we have. over the course of the time that i've been here, there has been a lot of discussion about intention of 3.01, the spirit of 3.01. and when we come to the commission meetings, we've noticed that the letter of the 3.01 is sometimes read verbatim and so we are training our new members and ourselves to do the policy and sticking to the policy so that we're on the same

page as as anyone. who's reviewing what we're doing. we've invited the commissioners to come out and take a look at that and work through that with us. i am happy to say, and i'm happy to hear that commissioner walker came out and engaged with us, sat through a through a workshop session, and we really appreciate that because we actually want to work with all the commissioners and sit down and work through this, through the policies and get on the same page with how things are supposed to be developed and with that, i'll stop and take questions. should we also should we do dpa's presentation first and then and then we'll have a joint questions. sure.

first. good evening, vice president carter oberstein commissioners chief scott, director henderson and members of the public. i'm janelle caywood. i'm the director of policy at dpa, and i'm here to present a summary of dpa's second quarter 2023 policy work. next slide. so here's just a quick roadmap of our work this quarter. dpa recommended that all sfpd policies be publicly posted, and we made 20 recommendations on three dgos we recommended that the department raise the age of missing children who get an expedited response from sfpd. and we also recommended that sfpd expand its body worn camera usage and provide access to sfpd's body

worn camera viewing platform. next slide. okay getting into the details in the second quarter, dpa recommended that the department put all active policies up on its website, including general orders, bureau orders, department notices and unit orders. this is consistent with president obama's final report on 21st century policing , which said all policies should be made publicly available to ensure transparency. see the us department of justice echoed the same sentiment in 2016. in recommendation 68.3. so currently sfpd only publicly posts dgos some department notices and bureau orders that were enacted this year. many policies continue to remain inaccessible to the public. we recommend that all active policies be indexed and publicly posted to comport with best practices. next slide. this is an issue that's near and dear to my heart. i hope that you checked your email today. there

was some public comment that came in from members of the citywide crisis intervention working group and the citywide crisis intervention working group jointly recommend that the department amend dgo. 5.21 sfpd's policy on crisis intervention to require a minimum of eight sworn staff to rectify a long standing problem that's not improved. so currently we my information might be a couple of months old, but i believe there are two full duty officers, one light duty sergeant and one light duty officer. these officer trainings and the field service provided by the cit unit has helped significantly to reduce the use of force during critical incidents with members of the public. police shootings have also fallen. as a result, the city unit has changed policing by introducing core concepts of creating time, distance and building rapport during crisis incidents. but for the city

unit, the department would not be in compliance with many d.o.j. recommendations on. moreover for the city unit served as a national role model for how to implement crisis intervention techniques. it is the embodiment embodied of police reform and it needs your support. we understand sfpd has staffing issues at the same time , we note that the department has had a budget increase and that other police units are growing and new units are being created. add so in the city working group jointly asked this commission and the department to take the necessary steps to support this important unit, which is changing the culture at sfpd. next slide. we made made 20 recommendations on three dgos as 1.06 duty of superior officers, as we did a lot of work on oh 610 missing persons, which is been overseen by commissioner walker, and we

appreciate her involvement. i'd like to thank senior investigator chris chisnall together, he and i made 17 recommendations to update this policy, and he was a lieutenant in the uk before he came to dpa . we also made a couple of recommendations on the traffic ago. we made earlier recommends actions in 2021, but two of this quarter and we were involved in some working groups. next slide. so. participated in two robust community working groups. my colleague jermaine jones participated in oh 810 with commissioner carter oberstein and both of us participated in the working group for 10.11. the body worn camera policy. next slide. i'd just like to highlight some key policy recommendations that we made that are noteworthy regarding missing children under the current policy, which is from

the 1990s, a missing child is only an exigent circumstance requiring an immediate search if the child is 11 and under epa recommended that the age be raised to 17 and under so that all missing youth get a priority response, this this recommendation is consistent with california state law and would help protect teenagers and adolescents from the dangers of human trafficking through we also had some important recommendations regarding body worn cameras through the working group. on 10.11, we recommended that the body worn camera policy be changed to require the command staff, with the exception of the chief to wear body worn cameras when responding to critical incidents and interacting with the public. we believe there needs to be transparency and accountability for the decisions that command staff makes in the field and we need we believe that they should set a good example for the officers who are required to wear bwc, currently only sworn

members of the rank of lieutenant and below are required to wear a body worn camera. so we encourage all members of the department to embrace the body worn camera. we also recommend that sfpd give access to its body worn camera viewing platform because it will help with information flow. it will reduce our server costs as it will provide access with a whole suite of tools, present on the platform, including the ability to watch four videos at once. and importantly, there are no confidentiality concerns because sfpd can still review and redact the bwc as they currently do. but before providing us access. next slide . and this is going to be a standing policy item. it's very important to dpa in 2022. recommend amended that sfpd form a working group with dpa academic partners sfpd's it division and experts on traffic.

stop data to ensure that sfpd systems are up to date. that our traffic stop data can be validated and that officers are entering stop data accurately. this work working group hasn't been formed yet. we haven't gotten traction on this issue and we continue to recommend that the department follow this, recommend action and that this working group be formed as retired chief harold medlock from north carolina said during his earlier presentation on the pretext stop policy. police traffic stop data belongs to the community it serves. thank you. director henderson. yeah, just, uh. i saw i heard earlier where you were just talking about that. the thing i think commissioner walker was talking about the problems you were invited to talk about with 3.01. was there because there was a whole we weren't. no, i don't think so. we weren't invited to

those meetings. so we are we have not been well, how do we have a conversation about the dga if we're not at the table to have the conversation? i can answer that. we had several conversations with with dpa's, your dpa members. they elected not to engage with us because they want to hear from the chief to hear his opinion. the chief can't give us an opinion until we finish the workshops and write a recommendation statements. and so until that's done, then the chief can't give an opinion. so dpa declined to participate in the dpa declined because they said that they thought that they wanted to hear from the chief his position before they would engage with us. that's not accurate. well we have an email that says so. well, i think there's been a miscommunication. i've never heard of this meeting with this unit, with the commissioner on writing dgos. we have had several conversations with dpa about it. the interpretation and the and the written language of 3.01. that's true. there was a

meeting that was called from the department that involved the commissioner was dpa invited to that meeting? no because prior to that they had already declined to engage with us on the discussion of 3.01. clearly we're having a miscommunication . if we can address this offline . all right. thank you, director caywood. thank you, captain toomer, for your respective presentations. i have quite questions for the chief, captain toomer and director caywood. so i'll just start by asking the chief, do you do you have a position on dpa's for recommendations? so i'll just stop there. which ones? so the recommendations were that all members of command staff below the chief should wear body worn cameras when interacting with

the public or responding to critical incident. there was the working group around auditing very buying the accuracy of our stop data. uh. posting all policies to the website. so whether you call it bureau order department, notice and now i'm forgetting the fourth the recommended action. um. yeah. so on the first one, that is the body worn camera policy. oh i'm sorry. and the last one was also body worn, camera related. it was access to the bwc platform. um, yeah. yeah. so on body worn camera, the policy see, in on critical incidents. i don't see an issue with command staff wearing body. body worn cameras on critical incidents. i do think there are situations where definitely it's inappropriate

and but i get the spirit of what that what that is. on the second issue, on the working group and what was the other one? it's to the platform. one of the things that i hope that people understand is we've got a million things going on and we have to prioritize what we have . our folks do an and you know, it's something that may sound as simple as uploading all the policies, for instance, to bureau orders. that requires that we look through decades of bureau orders and clean out the ones that need to be deactivated or whatever before we post them. and that is the plan. so there's processes and people required to do a lot of these requests and i do think it's somewhat unfair for these ideas to be, you know, launched at us and then we snap a finger and said, drop everything we're doing to do something new. we have reform

that we have to finish by april. we have more work than we have people to do. so we have to prioritize and what i would ask is some under standing about when these demands are made, what type of work it really takes to do what's being asked of us so we can prioritize our work. because when we pull people off to do this, something else is dropped. and then we're in here talking about that. so commissioner, you mentioned you know, the day to day operations of the department, which is the role of the chief of police. i think deployment and prioritizing work and all that is a part of that function. and you know, these are not bad ideas, but a lot of these ideas take a lot of people, a lot of work, a lot of thought in an environment where we don't have enough people to do the work that we already have in front of us. so that's all that i would say in terms of that, i don't disagree with a working group,

but a working group to create a platform, to create, to look at stop data. that's not a that's not a small thing. and so let us prioritize our work and then let's have a conversation about what that actually is going to take to actually do that. you know, we get, you know, it's fine public inquiry is fine. it's a part of it's a part of, you know, what the commission does. and i should be answering these questions. but i do say this. we are repurposing our people. we just as the captain just stated, took three sergeants out of the field just to try to keep up with the process. that is five times what it's been over the last 30 years. so i can repeat this over and over again because we live with this every day. we don't have enough people to do all the work that's on us. so we need to prioritize. thanks, chief. i just just to restate the question, understanding that there's resource constraints, my

question was whether you supported the recommended actions, whether you think that they should be implemented or do you disagree and you don't think they should be implemented. so, yes, i thought i said it a separate issue about the timeline for implementation. how many how many, how long it will take to implement. i'm just asking you, do you agree or not agree with the four recommendations made the concepts? yes i do think, though, that the concepts are just that we have to work through what that actually takes . so if i say yes, i agree with it, then we're kind of stuck with, okay, make it happen. and these things need to be thought through, you know, the concepts. yes. working group to talk about stop data and all these things that we that we have to do. yes 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. 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. i've got time i've bp g

with 25 jobs so for young people one of my favorite days in san francisco thank you, thank you to the companies that are hiring. >> (clapping.) >> the city of san francisco and united way are calling an employers to have jobs for youth in 2012 president obama issued a challenge and the challenge was get disconnected young people connected to jobs and so mayor ed lee said we should lead this challenge that the city will have 25 hundred jobs that first

summer 6200 jobs and been building. >> i'll high are ups we like to pledge 50 jobs so for youth this summer. >> excellent. thank you. >> a large part of the jobs it did manual resource center started off a a youth program and our first year 35 percent of the young people working full-time we know there the pressors looking for committed young people the resource fair attracts over 6 hundred people if all over the city and the greater bay area. >> we have public and private partnership the employers came from hertz rent a car and many private sector jobs sea have the city staff so the airport is here, starbuck's is here we've been retail we have restaurants,

we have offices and so the young people will get an opportunity to partner search warrant with so many of the great champions for jobs. >> for the past 5 years we've hired over 3 willed youth to work as business traces they have been promoted to supervisors. >> if you're doing a job at starbuck's the opportunity for them allows them to understand math if tire working at anothers architectural firm understanding debris or a media to understand reading and writing differently those are opportunities that the mayor is clear he wanted to provide we're going to be do mock interviews helping young people that the resumes a it pulls them to the career opportunities and building inspection commission make sure they're prepared for

those opportunity educational and in terms of their preparation skills by the time many of them leave they'll leave with jobs and new relationships building their network of the opportunity to thrive and i think i could focus and i check around the booths to see had is available i'm hoping to get a job but have employers you know employers give practice. >> i feel this will be a great way to look for jobs we can do this like you get paid. >> when our young people walk we capture their information so we can do follows up and we have a room that has a our computer lab an opportunity for them to do cover letters and talk about updating their profile and i think how you do things on the

internet we help quam and they can update tare resume and can look in interviews and on the spot job officers we hire about one hundred young people today lee alone it is exciting out of that it is if they come through with one hundred walk out with a job. >> we'll rock and roll i guess in the job interviews it went great. >> as a youth we get to go through experiences 3 builds a great foundation gymnasium a positive outlook and more importantly confidence. >> we really want to do at the end of the day exist a young person with the possibility of what we can be and do we have them go home i want to get there let me connection with those folks and ultimately got on the

path. >> good morning good morning caitlin i'm caitlin lopez 23 years old i moved out to california and san francisco, california had i was about 8 years old and actually put in foster care at the age of 9 or 10 had a baby at the 16 years old so i've kind of had this crazy like youth experience. >> despite the challenges she faced caitlin finished high school and take advantage of program. >> i heard will mayor ed lee's program through my social worker and i interviewed with entrepreneurs after i was matched walking sweet spots office i thought imitated not been in that type of office ones i got into the office with my

supervisor we boptd and i got a call from h.r. i got the position and i'm in. >> i have. >> we hired merry for 8 weeks and saw how she did she was only going to work 8 weeks but at the end question offered her a position part time. >> i have those traits it has been great working here my term of 5 weeks was pretty much like family supporting each other i feel like the mayors job program helped me to get in job without the jobs plus program i - i probably would have not even had a job. >> in her case she's a mother of two now going to school

full-time and making it happen so if she can do it differently anyone that has a willingness to try at least try to make it can do it. >> those programs are amazing they're so important for young adults to really go out there and make a better future for themselves and despite not having a traditional - you can go out there based on the programs that's what they're for they want to help you succeed. >> we'll be committing to 25 jobs in the tech. >> the san francisco rec and park is hiring 3 and 50 youth that summer . >> (clapping.) >> and only child born in the office development allocation to r so for me is a network of the community that made the difference no way i'll be with

united way this network was here for me this was personal and professional so important we create the opportunities who know the next ceo or champion of the community is coming today to find their path. >> that's the roll in san francisco we really by helping each other out >> (clapping.) >> the goal for 2017 to create 5 thousand jobs for youth if you want more information invite them at sf youth.org(music). >> i started the o was with a financing and had a business partner all ended up wanting to

start the business and retire and i did was very important to me so i bought them oust and two weeks later the pandemic h-4 one of the moments i thought to myself we have to have the worse business in a lifetime or the best. >> we created the oasis out of a need basically so other people bars and turning them into a space and when the last place we were performing wasn't used turned those buildings into condos so we decided to have a

space. >> what the pandemic did for us is made us on of that we felt we had to do this immediately and created this. >> (unintelligible). >> where we would offer food delivery services with a curbside professionalism live music to bring spectacular to lives we are going through and as well as employ on the caterers and the performers and drivers very for that i think also for everyone to do something. we had ordinary on the roof and life performances and with a restaurant to support the system where we are and even

with that had terribly initiative and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt had to pay our rent we decided to have an old-fashioned one we created club hours where you can watch to online and or be on the phone and raised over one quarter of a million dollar that of incredible and something that northbound thought we could do. >> we got ourselves back and made me realize how for that people will show up if i was blown away but also had the courage but the commitment now i can't let anyone down i have to make the space serviceable so while this is a full process

business it became much more about a space that was used by the community. and it became less about starting up a business and more about the heart of what we're doing. this building used to be a- and one of the first one we started working on had we came out what a mural to wrap the building and took a while but able to raise the money and pay 5 artists to make a design around many this to represent what is happening on the side and also important this is who we are this is us putting it out there because satisfies other people we don't realize how much we affect the community around there when he i want to put that out there and show up and show ourselves

outside of those walls more fabulous. and inspires other people to be more fabulous and everyone want to be more fabulous and less hatred and hostility and that is how we

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.

>> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner.

it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived

in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint

venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive.

>> all right. it is time to eat, people.

it is ti the san francisco music hall of fame is a living breathing world that's all encompassing about music. [music playing] it tries to do everything to create a music theme. music themes don't really exist anymore. it is $7, the tour is two floors, (inaudible) so, each one of these frames that you see here, you can-you are

and look into the story of that act, band, entertainment and their contributions to music. affordability is what we are all about. creative support. we are dedicated to the working musician. we are also dedicated to breaking some big big acts. we like to make the stories around here. ultimately legends.

>> good afternoon. staff and members we thank you for gianting us this is hybrid in person at city hall. [inaudible]. beginning march first there was a sunset of the provisions suspending local meeting mraus time limp nenlts to remote comment set and noticed. the number to use is >> commenters have 2 minutes to provide comment unless notified. speck clear and quiet location and turn off tv's or computers.