President Clay, like to take roll?

Yes, please.

Commissioner Techie?

Here.

Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Leoung.

Here.

Commissioner Yi.

Commissioner Alliance is excused.

Vice President Benedicto.

Here.

President Clay, you have a quorum also with us tonight.

Our Chief Lou from the San Francisco Police Department and Executive Director Paul Henderson from the Department of Police Accountability.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for being here for our February 18th meeting.

All right.

We will begin.

Sergeant.

Line item one, 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 DPA 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 SAPD.commission at SFGub.org.

Or written comments may be sent via U.S.

Postal Service to the public safety building located at 1245 Third Street, San Francisco, California, 94158.

If you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

And there is no public comment.

Line item two, consent calendar, receive and file action.

DPA sustained case pending SAPD chiefs decision for January and February 2026.

Motion received and file.

Second.

Sorry, second.

Alright, if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item two, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

On the motion, Commissioner Techie, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Techie is yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott is yes.

Commissioner Leo?

Yes.

Commissioner Liang is yes.

Commissioner Yi?

Yes.

Commissioner Yi is yes.

Vice President Benedicto?

Yes.

Vice President Benedict was yes.

And President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay is yes.

You have six yeses.

Line item three, Chiefs report.

Weekly crime trends and public safety concerns.

Provide an overview of offenses, incidents, or events occurring in San Francisco having an impact on public safety.

Chief Liu.

Good evening, President Clay, Vice President Benedicto, Commissioners, and Director Henderson.

I'll start off with a summary of the weekly crime trends.

Overall part one crimes down 34% year to date compared to 2025.

Total violent crimes are down 26% for the year.

As far as homicides, there have been six homicides year to date in 2026 compared to one in 2025.

Looking at gun violence, which is defined as the number of people injured in a shooting incident, added to the number of persons killed by a firearm.

We are down 11% compared to 2025.

Incidents of reported rapes, which includes attempted enforceable rapes, are down 14%.

That's uh year over year, week over week.

We do have an increase of four versus one.

One did lead to an arrest, and then the others uh were regarding um sexual assaults that were reported, looks like at least from incidents that occurred uh greater than a year ago.

Uh assaults for the year down 25% with a decrease of 41% in assaults by firearm.

Week over week, there was an increase 41 versus 29.

Uh just a quick look at that.

It revealed that there were at least looks like uh 17 assaults on February 9th, which would equate to about 41% of those numbers occurring on one day, just anecdotally.

I think I haven't looked at every single one, but potentially uh those would be uh assaults that that uh came up due to Super Bowl festivities.

Um a lot of bars and and clubs uh with activities.

Robberies down 33 percent, with robberies using a firearm declining by 52 percent, human trafficking incidents up 25 percent with five incidents being reported so far this year compared to four last year at this time.

Total property crimes down 35 percent, burglaries down 43 percent, motor vehicle theft down 39 percent, uh larceny, which includes vehicle burglaries are down 32 percent overall, and looking specifically at auto burglaries, it's a 39% decrease over 2025.

Okay, drilling down into homicides and shootings.

There were two homicide incidents uh reported during this this reporting period, uh which were previously briefed at the last commission meeting, but I'll go over those again.

There are six homicides year to date with four resulting from the firearm, three total homicides in February, and our overall clearance rate for 2026 is at 167%.

In terms of shootings, there were four non-fatal firearm related shooting incidents causing injuries to four victims this week, ending in uh ending two fifteen.

So just uh drilling down into the non fatal shootings.

Um I reported on this one last week, but on 2 9 at approximately 0 400 hours, 1,700 block of mission.

That was related to the um 49ers player incident.

Um, officers responded to that address and they located a victim's uh that it sustained a gunshot wound.

Uh there has been no arrest in that case, and it is an open investigation on 214 at approximately 1 39 a.m., 1,200 block of Polk.

Um officers responded to the call of a shooting.

They did find the victim uh who was later transported in serious condition, no arrest, open investigation.

On 2 15 at approximately 4 43 a.m.

at 5th in Welsh in the southern.

Officers responded to a shooting.

They located a victim suffering from a gunshot wound, they were transported in critical condition, and that's currently a um open investigation, no arrest, and also on 215 at 0627 hours on the 1200 block of Buchanan.

A victim was self-transported or self-transported uh to the hospital with a gunshot wound and did not provide any information to police.

It's currently an open investigation with no arrest.

Um, so I went over four non-fatal shootings, but just a reminder uh year-to-date, we're still down 31% uh year-to-date 11 versus 16 in terms of non-fatal shooting incidents.

Going over the homicides uh again, uh, which I briefed last week on Monday, February 9th in the Southern District.

Officers responded to the area of Harrison and 2nd Streets, or sorry, 2nd Street.

Um they located a victim, uh, despite life-saving efforts.

The victim was declared deceased at the hospital.

It's an open and ongoing investigation.

No arrests on that yet.

On February 11th, 2026, at approximately 8 55 a.m., officers responded to the scene of 100 uh the 100 block of Turk regarding a shooting.

Uh they did locate a victim who was declared deceased on scene.

An arrest was made shortly thereafter.

Uh however, it's still an open investigation.

Okay, moving on to notable arrests.

On February 12th, a male subject uh entered a bank on 300 block of California Street, demanded money from an employee.

It was a failed attempt, and the subject fled from the bank.

Responding officers searched the area with negative results.

The uh the next day on the 13th, SIP received a report uh that another unknown male uh entered a business on the unit block of Montgomery Street and threatened staff members.

Employees showed the officers an image of the subject, who uh the officers then recognized the subject from the previous attempted robbery of the bank the day before, and the officers located the suspect on the unit block of fourth street um and took him into custody.

So great work by the officers, and also great assistance from the public.

Um, just again, anecdotally speaking, we seem to be getting a little bit more um community participation, just in terms of being uh calling in reporting, and then being witnesses or and or providing um necessary or vital uh video evidence and whatnot to make cases happen.

Just an update on gun seizures for the year.

Um we've seized 137 firearms uh versus 124, same time last year.

And an update on the academy.

We currently have 74 recruit officers um in the academy, and we have another academy starting on March 2nd.

And then yesterday we graduated the largest lateral class in 10 plus years that consisted of nine laterals, three special events officers, and one reserve officer.

So it was a um very good day for us yesterday.

And that concludes my report.

So Chief, is there any correlation between the drug arrests and the reduction in the property crimes?

It's it's you know, it's it's hard to say.

Um I would like to think so, but normally we speak about um the ecosystem of uh drug user population stealing in order to finance their their drug habit, and then that money then goes to drug dealers.

Um but that gets sold on the drug, uh sorry, the the stolen property gets sold on the black market or illegal vending.

So that's all the the entire ecosystem is being worked on by our folks at DMAC.

It's hard to say exactly what what the correlation is or if there is the correlation, but I think that we work on all fronts uh of that ecosystem to combat drug dealing, the open air drug use, but then we also work on illegal vending and then uh organized retail theft as well.

So all of the things in combination, I think lower the numbers.

Oh it's it's a good report to continue.

So that's a good report.

Thank you, Chief.

Commissioner Yee.

Thank you very much, uh President Clay.

I just got a question.

Um looking at the data for homicide, uh it's gone up uh substantial 500.

And I'm just seeing if there's any uh thought uh put into it because if you continue this trend, it'll probably be close to uh 80 to 80 homicide in a year.

Is this uh uh you know happening because we have this super bowl or something like that coming through.

So I just see now.

Yeah, I think a couple things.

Num number one, um I would say that just looking across the homicides, there's no correlation or um between them.

So we don't feel like it's a it's anything like a serial issue.

They're all independent investigations.

Um and I I think the other the other part to think about is that our numbers typically it's it's not a straight line, so we'll get we'll get peaks and we'll get valleys, and in the end it it averages out.

So um it's something that we constantly look for, especially if it's um you know, incidents that we think would be retaliatory in nature or have that component, and so when we see those, we work very diligently to try to you know keep a lid on those situations and work with a lot of partners, like street violence partners.

Um, you know, we have a pretty robust um uh shooting review process that we've been that we've implemented over the years where we take a deep dive and look at every single shooting event and figure out uh why that may have happened, and then think about any um components that we can either handle ourselves or work with partners to be able to go and deal with.

Uh also want to thank you guys.

Um the department and um I guess the command staff, I mean um officers out on the streets uh taking down or taking off uh 137 the firearms compared to 124.

Um that's a you know, that's a lot of guns out there.

Thank you very much there, Chief.

Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Chief Chief, for that report.

Um you mentioned um there were four non-fatal uh homicides and the total for February is I may have misheard, I thought it said six.

Total six for the year.

Six for the year for the year.

So for the total for total non-fatal shootings, uh total non-fatal shooting incidents for the year is eleven.

Okay versus sixteen last year.

On the total homicides for the year is six.

Yes.

Okay.

That's very I mean, one homicide is too many, but that we have definitely um Lord, um, the homicide rate in the city.

Um, I also want to ask the it seems to be do you uh for me.

I'm just thinking the majority of the um weapons that were uh retrieved, you said 137.

Yeah, let me make sure that's right.

137, correct.

Okay, uh was any of them um uh the majority of ghost guns?

Because ghost guns are up, and I know that's why we have seen all these shootings uh not just here in um but all over the Bay Area and the country because gold's guns have now quadruple because you can go online and get the kit and assemble it.

So I just want to know we're keeping track of that um majority of the weapons.

Are they gold's guns or were they other firearms?

So I don't have that specific breakdown right now.

Um but I do know that just from my you know long-standing work in gun violence that that um it we do recover a lot of ghost guns.

I don't have that number with me right now for this for this for this day, but I do I do I can tell you that uh typically the majority are not ghost guns, but it's a significant material percentage that are.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Leong.

Thank you, President McClane.

Just to follow up on Commissioner Yi's question about homicides.

How many have been closed of the six?

Five.

Okay, so that's a pretty good percentage.

Do you know what the closure rate for um shootings are?

I don't have that with me, but I can get that for you.

No worries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Welcome.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item three, Chief's report, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

Line item four, DPA directors report discussion, a report on recent DPA activities and announcements.

Executive Director Henderson.

Thank you.

Uh I have a short report this week.

Uh most of our time has been spent uh working with budget.

Uh the departmental phase of the 2026-2027 budget process concludes uh this week, so we've been very busy working uh on that.

Um we spent uh we just finished our two public meetings, including the one presented here at the commission.

Uh, but we've also had an internal meeting for our staff to walk them through the budget as well.

Uh some of the results uh from that uh are here.

We were allowed to replace our policy position.

That was a very important position uh at DPA, and so uh the our newest employee hasn't started yet, but he is here today just to introduce himself uh Jamal Anderson, who's had today's commission, um, and we're continuing to work uh with the mayor's office closely to make sure that our operations and budget continues to be uh priority for the office and for the rest of the city.

Uh we're also continuing and wrapping up our uh court hearings.

Um that's the uh most of our technology stuff, and I've been talking about it a little bit with uh the budget and our performance.

We presented to the subcommittee on those processes with the digital digitalization project that we've been having.

Every other department has it, it.

It's just particularly relevant for DPA because our records go back to the 80s, and this is the process of digitalizing our work, so it's more accessible.

Um it's mandated, uh, but that's happening right now.

Uh our update on that was well received enough so that uh DPA is going to be featured as a success story for the subcommittee for the project for the rest of the city.

Like I said, ours is a lot more voluminous than a lot of other departments.

Our records go back to the 80s and include things that have been in boxes that we've had to store at exorbitant costs, particularly with some of the more challenging uh documents that aren't easily digitized, uh handwritten notes, uh tapes, those kinds of things that are happening.

Uh I'll keep you updated, particularly now that we're going to be featured from the city uh from the department in terms of what we're doing.

We've had 17 cases open since the last commission meeting, and we've closed eight cases.

Uh the volume of complaints now has just dipped, but our case number in terms of open cases is still uh high due to the volume that we've had over the past year in terms of the number of complaints that are coming in.

That number is 209.

Uh so far for 2026, we've opened 109 cases.

Uh as I said before, there are 209 cases that are open and under investigation right now.

Uh we've sustained two cases this year, and two cases have been mediated.

There are 12 cases that have uh whose investigations have gone beyond the 270-day investigation.

All 12 of those cases are told cases, uh, and those could be for any number of readings.

Typically, it's because cases have uh civil and or criminal cases concurring, which suspend the tolling time.

Uh, but for the record, the 3304 deadline has not been minced uh for over seven years now.

Um, and we will continue to monitor those uh cases.

There are sixty-six cases that uh were sustained by DPA that are pending with the police department, and there are two cases uh pending with the police commission currently.

Uh again, the full breakdown of these cases at a macro level is in the reports uh presented and also available online if people want to hear those records.

I am here also today in today's commission uh with Sharon Wu, who's going to be reporting on agenda item seven, so I'll reserve my comments for there.

Also, our senior investigator is here as well.

Chris Chisnall is here in case issues come up during the meeting where people need DPA.

Uh in the future, people can contact us directly uh at SFCov forward slash DPA, or can contact the office directly at 415 241 7711.

That concludes my report, and I will reserve comments for the later agenda items where we have folks in the audience to be presenting.

Commissioner Benedicto.

Thank you, President Clay.

Thank you for that report.

Uh, Director Henderson.

Uh, just a couple of questions.

I know you mentioned uh that uh you're joined by unit staff.

Is he is he taking over the policy role?

Correct.

Welcome, Mr.

Anderson.

Looking forward to uh working with you.

Um, we don't scare you off.

That was uh a deal.

There's been a restriction, as you know, on hiring for almost a year now, and so being able to replace that position was uh tricky complicated, but it's it's a very important role for DPA.

So it's a big deal, which is why I just wanted to make sure that he was here and you guys got a chance to know who he was.

Absolutely.

Um I also wanted to ask you, you'd mentioned the cases that are uh pending with the chief.

I think you said sixty-six, was that the number?

That is the lowest that has been in 66 pending, but that is the lowest it's been and I would say at least two, three years, maybe even longer.

The numbers are going down.

Yeah, that's that's what I was gonna get to.

I I know that um towards the end of Chief Scott Senior and through interim chief yeah, senior.

We'd identified, you know, areas in which try and reduce the backlog of cases, and then there was an expansion of Chiefs' hearings to was it Commander's Chief Lou, the word where we're we're at it.

Yeah, so how is that process?

It sounds like it's working as uh I either part of how's that process been to reduce the backlog of cases awaiting chief's decision?

At least on my end, just in monitoring those numbers, even with the transition of uh Bill Scott leaving, Paul Yep coming in, and the new chief coming in, whatever that structure is, the numbers are going down, and every month we're seeing the numbers go down in terms of those cases being resolved, and that's I think that's the point of having me report out on those numbers.

The chief is probably in a better position to articulate what's happening internally in terms of how those numbers are going down or what the new system is.

Thank you.

Chief.

Yeah, I I would just say it's it's working quite well for us right now.

Uh we have we're fully staffed up uh as far as the deputy chiefs and commanders, uh whereas we had some people out before, so that's really helping with the backlog.

So I think the system was working quite well now.

Uh thank you very much.

Those are all my questions.

You also see a summary of those outcomes in our annual report.

And now we have a schedule.

We started it at the end of 2025, but starting through 2026, you'll be able to track that schedule for our annual report and quarterly reports on a more regular basis that will have the results and the comparisons with the charts in the same ways that you've seen in the past for the results of those hearings.

Thank you.

Are the final determinations?

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item four, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

Line item five, commission reports, discussion and possible action.

Commission president's report, commissioners' reports, and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting.

Well, I had the wonderful opportunity today to be accompanied by Sergeant Reynolds and Sergeant Youngblood who arranged for me to go out to the academy to visit it.

And I'll tell you what a great tour I got.

And to to meet the people out there who are educating uh these uh cadets, the setup out there.

I got to see the group of the smaller class that was in the larger class, uh, was out having the right at the range shooting, but to see the facilities and how they pull it off.

Now, all of us have been to the graduation, so we've seen the videos and you see these cameos, but you don't really you say, how did they do this?

Where is this at?

It's a very tight squeeze for them to be so innovative to do it and pull it off and how you get the f sense of feeling now.

When you're sitting back like you're watching a movie, but then you're on the set and you see it and go, Oh my god, look at this.

How did they feel?

But it's really it was a great opportunity to learn what they were doing and how they were doing it.

Uh I got to meet a um the sergeants who have been promoted.

Uh they had uh review and and educating them to to begin their job or continue to begin their job and got their education there.

There was a whole group of them that I got to meet.

Uh, there also was some la the laterals.

I got to meet the laterals who were coming in, the new class of them who were there in other rooms were being educated.

I got to read sort of like the can you continue an education group where all the post certifications, the two-year uh education of those, the group that did that, as well as train the young young young um officers coming in.

It's sort of like when you're a judge or a lawyer, you get to continue an education, the officers every two years have to be post-recertified.

So they get educated and people say, Well, why didn't they get the strength?

Well, there is training available, and so and they do do it.

It's required.

You can't you can't go on the job.

But it was a real good experience to see the facility, to see how it worked, to see the the energy of the people there teaching the other people and and their jobs wanting to do it, and how much they were in, uh, you know, just invested in doing it.

So it was a great, it was a great, great opportunity.

What we do need to do, and this is one of the things we need to put on our agenda for the people of San Francisco.

We need to rebuild that facility and give them a bigger facility to do that.

Because what they're working, I mean, they're working miracles doing what they're doing in that that small area.

We need to do a first class.

We are San Francisco.

We need the technology.

We got all the tech industry here.

Uh we should update this because San Francisco is the model for the country.

Everybody sees it, they got to see it, and we are that.

So I think in in the end, as we go forward, I think that's a real consideration.

I think we have to do with our administration, our board of supervisors, the mayor, and anybody else out there in the private community which would like to give and help us out, but they need that.

They need that training facility.

But it's great.

It was great to see it, and it.

It was a great opportunity.

I think the sergeants again for getting me out there.

It was a great, great experience.

Although they got a little clammed up before that as they were coming through the gates, were shaking, getting a little nervous.

They thought they were gonna have to come back to training academy.

And I was going through, wait a minute, what's going on here?

But it was it worked out.

They calmed down.

So you're okay, you don't have to come back.

So it was good.

It was really good.

All right.

That's my report.

Commissioner Benedict.

Thank you very much, uh President Clay for um for recognizing me.

Um the last time I was at the academy, they tested a control device on me.

So I don't know if they fired a bowl of app at you.

And I I'll try not to take it personally if if I was the one that's experienced that.

Uh which actually did remind me, I know we did uh that was what happened the last time I was at the academy.

Chief, how is that the the I I know there was like a limited deployment of that of the the Bolo wrap device.

I know there was an OIS in which it was deployed.

Like how is that um deployment gone?

Is there anything you need from the commission in terms of um uh an update on that deployment?

Specifically with bowler wrap.

Sure.

Yeah, Bolarop.

I don't think that we are going with that product.

Okay.

Um I yeah, she's the expert on it, but uh, I got wrapped up in it for nothing.

This is on it.

Okay, there we go.

Um you got wrapped up for nothing.

So in our limited deployment of it beyond our special operations, we found that it wasn't a terribly consistently effective tool.

So because we had ebbs and flows on its success, um, mostly with it not being successful.

Uh we decided not to continue forward with that technology.

But still in the exploration phase.

As you know, our field tactics force options unit is extremely proactive about reviewing all of the latest technology that's available out there and um testing them out and securing and seeing what's the best option for this city and our department.

While on that topic, uh did it work on you?

I mean, uh a little, I guess.

Ish, you know, we'll go with ish.

Um, on that topic, I know another technology that we were evaluating around that same time was uh Star Chase or what what else?

Star Chase is still currently being used.

Yep, and we're finding success with that.

So that's great.

I know a lot of the subject matter experts we'd spoken to were were quite optimistic on Star Chase.

Thank you.

Yes, absolutely.

Um, the uh thank you for that.

Uh next to my report, I wanted to uh rec uh greet a happy uh lunar new year to folks, which was celebrated yesterday.

Um, and uh there'll be the Chinese New Year parade in early March.

I think some of us are in red to commemorate.

March 7th will be the parade.

I'll look forward to to join the SFPD contingent in that one.

Today is also Ash Wednesday for those who celebrate uh happy Ash Wednesday as well.

And it is still uh Black History Month, so continuing to commemorate that as well.

Um, one topic I had that I wanted to raise to, especially in light of the report we saw at DPA, and I know we have the IED and uh quarterly reports today that I don't think is covered in any of the reports, but I think is worth maybe DPA and the department putting their heads together.

I don't see a purple folder, so I don't know if we switch formats.

Ask for this as a long-term question, which is we have seen a really tremendous historic public safety results in the last you know 12 months, really like as we've heard, tremendous drops in you know violent crime, property crime.

And I'd like to take a look to see year over year if that's correlated in any way when it comes to DPA complaints or ID complaints.

And so I guess I have two questions.

Does that normally correlate?

So, like when we look at other periods where crime has been low versus crime has been high, do we see IAD and DPA complaints matching that?

And if so, are we seeing that now?

Because we are seeing such a huge drop.

I'd like to know if that correlates to, and I know a lot of the ID stuff is looking quarter by quarter, so this is gonna be definitely a longer term view.

Uh, but I think it's it's a question worth looking into.

I think I love the question.

I would love to share and compare.

We have very detailed notes and records, as you know, as I've reported over the past year when those the volume is coming in and uh the difference in allegations that come in versus sustained cases and actual actual cases and investigations that are independent.

If ID has those records, we could overlay them very easily.

So I was gonna ask a question to uh Vice President Benedictus.

So we were talking about the analysis of we get these monthly reports, they have statistics from IAD, they have it from DPA.

They can overlap and then we have the statistics of what the crimes are done.

So taking those on a month-to-month basis for the 12 months and just mirroring them and see where the numbers are.

Yes, seeing those seeing where the numbers are, and then in a more historical end, seeing okay in this period, you know, two thousand five, let's say, there was high like you know I just want to like so much of our work, and I know that I I want to acknowledge uh the League Women Voters has asked the commission to do more of this sort of long-term looking.

Yeah, a lot of our analysis is month to month data, week to week data, and to sort of look at a longer historical end.

So maybe it's something that the department uh, a first assignment for our new policy director DPA, but now that there's a uh, you know, to put your heads together and maybe figure out something again with a bit of a historical lens is to see what this looks like.

I I it's not terribly time sensitive, but sometime in the spring or summer to come back.

I would welcome that we have the presentation from IAD today, but we even at a macro level can go down and even say line by line what each of the allegations are, independent of the work that comes in, just to give you a sense or a measure of what people are complaining about or what people what issues are being raised, at least for on the DPA side.

I presume it's the same for our why don't we put up for six months from now and get a report.

Sure.

Get together and get a report.

Okay.

Thank you.

And uh which are you?

Uh thank you very much, there president uh clay.

Uh also wanna say um again, the um it's uh yesterday was uh happy Luna New Year Day.

Uh celebrated with the Chinese chamber out there at uh Port Square along with the chief and uh sheriff and uh all the elect officials uh talking about public safety and making sure that uh they report crimes that they you know if it happens, making sure that they're safe out there.

Even in the rain, they all um came out there.

It was raining pretty hard.

Also joined at uh Chinatown historical uh culture associations uh that did a uh good fortune uh walk through Chinatown, uh so uh when we walk it was the rain stopped and subsided um as a signal that the city is back on its feet and moving forward.

So again, stay safe out there, and uh rain is good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item five, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

Line item six presentation and discussion on SFPD's second and third quarter 2025 IAD reports discussion at the request of the Commission.

Okay, hi, good evening.

Um, President Clay, um, Vice President Benedicto, Commissioners Director, Henderson, and Chief Liu.

As you guys know, I am Lieutenant Lisa Springer, and I am the officer in charge of the Internal Affairs Division.

And I think you get to hear me for the rest of the night.

So I'll start with the quarter to um for our 2025 IAD uh report, and this is gonna look at open cases, closed cases, uh sustained cases, and it's gonna have IAD as well as DPA cases shown.

Just a brief overview of the demographics of the department.

Um, this is by bureau, and then uh we also have the statistics for ethnicity, and this is for both sworn and professional staff.

This is the breakdown of the age groups um in the department as well as uh gender.

Uh these are tenure groups and again member status.

And we kind of just look at this to see if we're getting complaints in a certain category and if there's anything we can do about it.

Excuse me, open cases in 2025.

So you can see that there are a lot fewer cases opened.

And if you look over to the right in 2024, DPA cases, and it's broken up by DPA and IA.

Closed cases, 15 DPA, 103.

I don't have my glasses.

Sorry.

Closed cases, and in 2025, you can see we did close more GPA cases, fewer IAD cases.

Of the open cases in quarter two, this is a breakdown.

And by the allegation type, so conduct unbecoming was the highest in that.

I looked at all of the conduct on becomings.

There was not one any specific thing that kind of stood out to me.

Could be anything from if the officer got a DUI to even just disrespectful.

So not one thing stood out to me.

And we also did open up the airport range now, which has been helpful.

And again, this could be anything from losing department property to not doing something they were supposed to.

This is the number of open cases in Q2 2025 by member status meaning professional staff versus sworn.

And this is number of employees by bureau, as you could see, field operations is by far the most, and that's obvious because that's patrol.

Open cases by race we have here.

Uh followed by Asian and then Hispanic.

These are open cases by age group.

Uh the highest age group being 40, the 40 to 49 age group for this quarter.

Typically it's in the younger ages.

Number of employees by gender, 11, about 21% female and 78% male.

These are open cases by tenure, and you can see the highest being those with the fewest number of years in the department.

Um then we have the peak too at the 16 to 20 year mark, and these are closed cases by findings.

So 131, and this is by allegation.

Um, we found proper conduct, so just under 50%, about 30 percent improper conduct, 10% insufficient evidence.

These are the findings broken down by bureau, a lot of numbers in there.

If you guys have any questions specific questions on any of it, let me know.

Uh, this is again closed cases by race, and then we have by age again here.

Total number was 273, and then findings by gender.

And it's just broken down by ever any possible findings.

So anything anything from dismiss to unfounded training failure, insufficient evidence.

And these are findings by tenure.

I don't know how like how much into the weeds you guys want me to get into to all this, but I can.

Findings by member status, professional versus sworn, and then the actions.

So non-disciplinary actions, anything from an admonishment to retraining, uh performance improvement plan.

If they re resigned, obviously there's no disciplinary action.

And retraining, we do with every case that are found improper.

And then the highest uh or the what was uh what most happened was written reprimands if there was a disciplinary action.

And then again, broken up uh dis non-disciplinary or disciplinary by the bureau, then we have actions by race as well as age group, gender, and tenure.

These are the actions by member status, uh again broken down same way.

So this close this, these are closed cases with employees with imply uh excuse me, prior disciplinary history, so meaning that we may probably use progressive discipline.

Um again written warning is still the most or the highest uh uh percentage, closed cases here again by bureau, uh race, age group, and gender, uh employee tenure, and we do only look at the past uh seven years, member status again, sworn versus uh non-sworn.

So, looking at trends, these this is the percentage of sustained and not sustained allegations by bureau, and then here's a crazy looking chart for you guys.

You see they're pretty much in line with each other.

This is percentage of sustained and not sustained by race with both charts, age, both charts, gender, and tenure, and then again by member status, and then we have the open case complaints summaries, which I think you guys got a copy of this, so there are any questions about quarter two.

So I don't have any questions about quarter two, but what I was doing the analysis on this and looking at the numbers here, and when you say the total numbers of cases brought or investigated, when when you take a look at let's say we have eighteen hundred officers in the department, and we're talking about eighteen hundred officers, and let's say eighteen hundred officers who maybe work forty hours a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year.

So, what we got a de minimis number of actual complaints when you're talking about a hundred or two hundred with all those numbers of potential incidences with people, it looks like we've got a good department that's in really good shape, and we're not out of control.

If the numbers were in the thousands, because we got so many days involved here, I would be I'd be upset.

And 500, I'd be upset.

But what we have here with you think about all the opportunities that you could have with somebody doing something each and every day with those numbers, and you have these numbers, uh it was it's pretty good to see it.

But it's good that you're keep in these stats and let us know, and we can see the areas that you still need to improve on, but it's not a sign that we're out of control, but in fact, you're doing the necessary things that may be a deterring discipline.

These guys going out and men and women doing things that they shouldn't do and following the DGOs as as they're supposed to.

So I that's that's what I take from this.

Uh other people take differently, but looking from the totality of the circumstances, it looks pretty good to me.

That being said, Commissioner Techie.

Thank you, President Clay.

Um, my question is um the FTA, the range thing.

I I was really shocked to see so many of them almost I just counted maybe 17.

Uh of course it's sworn officers and they carry guns.

So what are we doing to help officers to remind them?

I mean, I'm assuming I don't know the process per se, but uh, how are we gonna train folks?

And are there any, that's number one.

Like, what are we doing to make sure they really do go and do their practice or whatever they need to be doing for that to remedy that?

The second question I have is like how many of these off how long can an officer go without doing that, then what happens?

So our department requires uh us to qualify twice a year.

The guidelines for a post or uh requirement by post is just once a year.

So I think during COVID we did once a year.

Um, but we are a lot of those two were um recruits or laterals, and so they I think they have so much information thrown at them.

So they think that if they went to the range in the academy, say in April, they don't realize that if they're out in field training in June, because it's by star number that they have to go.

So we have even though they are told, uh, we have a lot of those, especially we've had a a bunch with the laterals because they literally had gone like two weeks prior.

So they think like, oh, the one I went two weeks prior, it's good.

So they actually are quality the probably more than twice a year.

It's just the timing is off.

So they actually would have to double quall in that six-month period.

And then, like I said, at least we we have the airport range now open.

Um, and I think we've restructured the chief can talk more to this, but we've restructured the range as well.

Um, so a lot of it it's hard for officers to get the time slots or they were being canceled, uh or like you had like during APEC, for example.

Obviously, it's the wrong quarter, but um it was closed for two weeks, and then you have Thanksgiving, so it's harder.

But that's why we were going to implement um we had spoken with the Range Master and said, is there a way you can when you get the list at the end of the month of who has not come to send them a reminder, like get to the range ASAP, and you won't get an FTA.

So those are the things that we've tried to implement.

Thank you.

Commissioner Benedict.

Chief Chief had something to say.

Oh, I'm sorry, Chief.

Oh, no worries, I just wanted to clarify.

So I think um just to underscore for you, I think it's and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, Lisa, but it's rare that you would have an so our officers qualify twice a year.

It would be rare to have an officer not qualifying like if they miss their month, they're going to make it up within a month or two.

Uh so they wouldn't go without qualifying at all.

Is I just want to make sure you understood that.

Yeah, okay.

All right, Vice President Benedict.

Thank you very much.

Um I had a question, I think it applies to both quarters.

So I'll I'll just ask it once.

I was looking at the trends slide, which I think was um page, which page is that on here?

41, I think, on the Q2 report.

And I'm curious as to when comparing 24 and 2025, what jumped out at me is the not sustained sustained rate under field operations, which is the highest number, so less likely to just be sort of uh, you know, affected by sample size, like airport bureau or something like that, where in quarter two it was 35% not sustained, 64% sustained in 2024, and then in 2025, those effectively flip where it's 69% not sustained and 30% sustained.

And we see that in quarter three as well, comparing 2024 to 2025, where there's a a 60-40 split that gets more or less completely inverted.

Is there any particular reason for for that development you can think of?

Um, none that I know other than a lot of times one case has m multiple um employees involved, so it could just be like a difference of one case, even but yeah, for me looking at these, and uh I'm not an analyst and I don't like math, but um it's really hard to look at like you were saying earlier.

I I think it was you um I think to see if there's an actual trend, we need to look at like five years of data and not just quarter to quarter for year to year.

Yeah.

Would it be possible?

Uh and I don't need this as an agenda item, it can be provided in writing to the commission on the 10 calendar to just get like I I know obviously this lives in all these reports, but it would be easy if the problem could do it.

Could we get that stat pulled out, which is the sustained not sustained for the field operations bureau, annualized going back just so we can see where the aberration is.

Is it normally 6040 one way or the other?

It doesn't even have to be quarter by quarter, but I think it would be helpful to see that data presented to see um the not sustained and sustained rate for field operations bureau, which has the the vast majority of the complaints.

Sure.

How far do you want?

You said five years.

We go back to I mean, I think if it's if we're doing just annual data, which I think would be more helpful because I think the quarter by quarter data isn't as helpful in this context.

If we could go back seven years, okay that'd be helpful.

So it's annual, not quarter by quarter.

Yeah, just annual seven years, just one table.

Right.

Because again, I think it would be an uh if if it turns out it's almost always, you know, the way 2025 looked in 2024 was unusual, and how many complaints was not sustained, that's helpful to know.

If it turns out it's the other way, that's helpful to know and might inform uh the commissions.

Sure.

That'd be helpful.

That's all.

All right.

Sergeant.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

There is no public comment.

Line item seven, SAPD's serious incident review board findings and recommendations, third quarter 2025, part two discussion.

Okay, as uh Sergeant Young Blood stated, this was part two.

We uh and I mentioned last time we actually had seven covered incidents closed in the third quarter.

Uh of these uh DPA did handle one or investigate one, which I believe was the first one, OIS 23-004.

Uh they concurred with IAD, IED's findings, which I'll present here.

Uh so we'll be discussing three covered incidents, um, OAS 23-004, OID 25-001, and OIS 25-002.

Uh the first officer involved shooting occurred on August 28th, 2023, at approximately 10 22 p.m.

Uh dispatch.

Uh received an A priority 222 call, which is person with a knife in the tender line.

Um the 911 caller reported a person holding a large knife uh threatening people on the 300 block of Jones Street.

Responding officers arrived on scene and tactically repositioned themselves and their vehicles, parking on the north, south, and east side of the subject at a safe distance to contain and isolate the subject.

Officers, they use their vehicle spotlights to illuminate the subject and gain uh better visibility and containment.

Um and the first officers uh on scene gave numerous commands for the subject to drop the knife.

Officers attempted to communicate with the subject.

Uh he was non-compliant.

Uh the subject shook their head from side to side, uh, took the knife from their waistband and held it by their side.

Simultaneously, an officer uh deployed or appointed the ERIW at the subject.

At approximately 10 28 p.m., a sergeant arrived and took command of the scene and a leadership role.

Um the sergeant directed officers to clear the block for public safety, um, established roles for the officers, including a main communicator, lethal cover, uh, non-lethal cover, additional vehicles from the station, and an arrest team.

Um the sergeant requested a tactical shield and specialists equipped with the 40 millimeter.

At approximately 10 30 p.m., an officer attempted a dialogue with the subject by asking them their name.

The subject replied, I don't have a name.

The officer followed up by asking, How can we help you?

The subject responded, I don't want your help.

The officer told the subject, Well, you're freaking people out because you're walking around here with a gigantic knife, and the subject responded, Don't F with me.

The main communicator role was transitioned to another officer who was known by their colleagues for past success in talking to people in crisis.

And for over 10 minutes, the officer attempted dialogue with the subject.

At approximately 10 40 p.m., so about 15 minutes into this incident, after or after the first officers arrived, the subject began to leave the containment area, picked up a duffel bag and a milk crate from the ground.

The subject then began walking northeast on Jones Street towards the officers.

With their right hand, the subject pulled the knife out from their waistband.

The subject quickened their pace as they moved towards the officers and with their left hand, the subject held the milk crate and the duffel bag up in front of their face.

The subject continued to refuse commands to drop the knife and then began to run at the officers while swinging the knife that he displayed.

Multiple officers yelled out the red light admonition to warn the subject, and officer number three deployed the ERIW along with officer number four.

Officer number one discharged their department-issued firearm, as well as officer number two.

Multiple officers yelled shots fire fired and dropped the knife as the subject fell to the ground.

Officers formed an arrest team and approached the subject who was lying on their stomach.

The subject's knife was on the ground next to their right hand.

Officers observed this knife appeared to be tied to the subject's wrist, right wrist with a strap.

They were able to remove the knife and handcuff the subject and rendered aid.

These are all of the policies that we looked at administratively, most of them obviously in use of force, and as well as treatment for injured persons and investigations of officer involved, shootings and body worn camera and equipment, and we found officer number one to be proper and in policy.

Same for officer number two, and those were the two that discharged their firearms.

Same with the two officers that deployed their ERIWs we found proper.

And DPA concurred with our findings in this one.

And this occurred in November of 2024.

At approximately 10:48 a.m., officers responded to the Safeway parking lot on Webster Street regarding three large black dogs that had attacked a smaller dog and possibly attacking people.

There were multiple 911 callers reporting the dangerous dogs.

Some included dogs were running around the middle of the street, and it's unknown where the owners are.

One of the callers advised that their dog had been attacked by the dogs that were running loose and they were on their way to the emergency vet.

One caller described the dogs as large black pitbulls and another as three black king corsos, which is what they in fact were.

King corsos, I may be saying that wrong, but weigh an average of 80 to 120 pounds.

And the officers on scene believed they were on the heavier side of that average.

Several units responded to the parking lot, and they located two of the black dogs.

One was already secured inside of a vehicle, a van that was parked in the parking lot.

Officers attempted to create a perimeter to keep the dogs from fleeing.

I think one even went inside and bought some dog treats.

They were waited for animal care and control to arrive.

And I lured the dogs.

Additionally, officers tried to use a hobble as a leash, but they were not successful.

While officers were on scene, an individual approached the officers and advised that he knew the dogs and the owner.

They made several attempts to secure the dogs, but the dog started to bite the subject and latched onto his left arm.

The subject yelled, this be biting.

Since the dogs were actively biting, the subject officer one closed the distance and shot at the two dogs, striking one of them.

And this caused both dogs to release their bite on the subject and run away.

One of the dogs collapsed a short distance and away in a parking lot after sustaining lethal uh wounds, and the other dog continued on into a surrounding neighborhood.

Officers responded to the area and deployed less lethal, contacting the dog several times, which had no effect on the dog.

On the 1400 block of Golden Gate Avenue, the dog ran down a driveway, so they had it trapped.

Several officers surrounded the dog to prevent its escape, and at approximately 11 22, the dog came running out of the driveway area.

So one of the officers uh fired at the dog and lethal rounds were delivered.

Again, they did try the ERAW with no effect prior to that.

The dog was struck but continued to run away, and a short time later it was located at uh Kimball Park.

It was hiding in a bush.

Officers maintained the perimeter, and ACC came and took custody of the dog.

These are the wounds sustained by the victims.

You can see it's pretty severe.

These are the policies that we looked at in regards to this OID, and we found both officers to be um within policy and proper conduct.

Any questions on that one?

Okay.

The last one was officer involved shooting 25-002, and this occurred on Tuesday, January 28th at approximately 610 p.m.

Officer number one discharged their personal semi-automatic handgun, a six-hour while in the locker room of mission station.

So when our policy is rewritten, this will actually be considered an OID and not an OIS.

The bullet struck officer number one in the left leg.

Mission officers on scene provided aid to the officer, including a tourniquet.

Fire personnel responded and transported him to the hospital.

He was stable and later discharged.

So this one we found the officer was not in policy.

Third quarter 2025, there were no in custody deaths.

And then we have the status of all open cases, which we're down to two pages, was four not that long ago.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

Line item eight, presentation on SAPD's disciplinary review board findings and recommendations, third quarter 2025 discussion.

This is Chief of Staff Sharon Wu from DPA, and we will be presenting together on the disciplinary review board quarter three, which we held on November 13th, 2025.

The aggregate trends identified by IAD and DBA are here.

As you can see, conduct and becoming, which was what we discussed in the other quarters, was the um highest number of allegations at about 28%, failure to peer range, about 24%, and neglect of duty general, about 27% for IA.

For DPA, sorry.

For DPA, the neglective duty, the general was the highest at 63%.

Body worn camera is next.

Failure to start your body warrant camera and conduct unbecoming 14%.

There are 50 cases open in quarter three, involving 75 employees, and 122 allegations.

Those are the allegations only, not sustained conduct at all.

When we have these meetings, we are only looking at policy and training failures.

So there were two IAD cases that resulted in a policy failure in quarter three, and zero IAD cases that resulted in a training failure.

The same numbers for DPA as well.

Two policy failures, zero training failures.

The first policy failure for IAD involved the Flock database.

An outside agency contacted uh the department after one of their flock images of a stolen vehicle appeared on a personal Instagram account.

The image also included text stating that the vehicle had been stolen from a relative.

An audit was conducted and found that the license plate was searched multiple times by a member of the SFPD that in fact had Flock access.

Although there were numerous allegations and findings in this case, the policy failure that was explored was a conflict of interest in investigations, as the vehicle that the member searched for in the database was their spouse's vehicle.

A member circumvented the purchasing policy for years by inappropriately using the personal account to purchase and later be uh reimbursed for supplies for a specialized unit.

The complaint stated that although over multiple years, the member knowingly violated the city and department's purchasing process and that they exploited the use of the city's 12B compliant vendor.

Items that they believed that were needed for day-to-day operations or projects were personally purchased from local stores such as Home Depot and Amazon Costco.

These purchases were made using their personal credit card, and it is uh not a known fact, but it is assumed that by using their credit card they would receive like certain points or credits.

The member would then turn in these receipts for reimbursement from the vendor.

Uh, and this way of purchasing circumvents many policies within the city and department.

These purchases could have been done through the approved vendors, but instead for convenience and possibly personal benefit, they were made in unapproved ways.

The two policy failures that DPA noted during this quarter.

Uh, the first one involved a decoy vehicle that was parked in the Union Square area.

Um it was parked there for uh an extended period of time.

There are complaints from merchants that it was in a red zone for a very long time, and the uh DPA has recommended that the policy be updated to talk about how long a decoy vehicle can be there, how and who was responsible for moving that vehicle.

Um, and we didn't find anything for the lieutenant who was in charge of the actual vehicles themselves.

It's impossible for him to be required to move all of those vehicles himself.

So we uh suggested that the department update their uh policies to talk about how and when those vehicles can be parked.

Uh the second policy failure had to do with um DGO 6.15, which is property processing.

Um, a phone was uh two phone, two cell phones were seized pursuant to an arrest.

Uh, the phones were um placed in a secure location where many other phones were also located, pending a search warrant to do a uh to download those phones.

Umwh along the way, there was uh a mix-up.

The phones were uh wound up missing, nobody could find them.

Uh a search warrant was not conducted for those phones.

DPA has requested that 6.15 include, which hasn't been updated since 1994, include new technology and and how that technology needs to be um secured, when the the technology needs to be reviewed, um, and a um an appropriate property processing so that we can determine where it is and who's responsible.

Um there were a number of phones on charging banks there associated with many different cases, um, and when it came back time to you to find that particular phone, it was just it was gone.

And it was I think over six months that that nobody had even looked for the phones.

So uh and 6.15, I'm pretty certain is on for concurrence in on March 11th, so they've already updated 6.15.

I'm uh I've looked at it, might have a little bit of suggestions, but um it will be updated.

So these were the recommendations that uh the board came up with.

Uh recommendation one uh was to expand 2.03, excuse me, 2.01.03 rule 19, the conflict of interest in investigations.

Um just be expanded to include include clear language.

Uh that member should not conduct any part of an investigation if there's a conflict of interest.

So even running a plate.

The second recommendation um the DPA recommends that a policy or procedure be added or modified to address the lack of clear guidelines for parking patrol vehicles used for officers or vehicles deployed at the mobile command center for deterrent or decoy vehicles, as there are no clear department policies, procedures, or op orders, um designated legal parking areas for these circumstances.

Uh recommendation three, uh what Sharon just mentioned.

Updating 6.1.

Yeah.

OAI did review the quarterly report, and based on their review uh of the information, um, no findings in indicated any negative trends uh towards bias disparities or inequities.

So no correct corrective action was recommended.

Um fourth quarter DRB actually, I think is next week, 26th.

Uh, and OEI will review that information as well, or RD has I will say I believe um recommendation number two.

Um some of the command staff did not, I think concur that uh we should have a policy because where we park, like a lot of it's covered in vehicle code, and or like there's a reason why we have to park close by, so not sure what will come of that.

Any questions?

President Benedict?

Thank you, President Clay.

Thank you for that presentation, both of you.

Um, so my question relates to recommendation one about DGO 2.0103.

So this was a recommendation because of the incident with the member searching flock and then it appeared on social media.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And so it's a policy failure because the policy right now doesn't clearly have a prohibition on that behavior, or just there are other allegations related to that, and this was the one policy failure identified.

So it's to us it wasn't clear as to like how how far can you go, right?

Like, so when the uh officer was interviewed, we we asked, like, well, what would you have done like if there was a hit?

Like, are you gonna go look for the car?

Um, and the the officer said we would have notified the local law uh, you know, law enforcement jurisdiction.

Um, so we're just we think it has to be clear, like at what point should you be involved, if at all.

I think that makes sense.

I think, especially as the department has moved to adopt a lot of this new technology that's had a lot of benefits, want to make sure that the policies are keeping up and that we're having you know make sure it's it's completely clear in cases like that.

Is there uh chief?

Do you have a response to recommendation one about expanding Rule 19 of DGO 2.01.03?

And before he answers, sorry, we had we had another recent one where it was unclear because the member um the member didn't really know the person, but like the father was good friends with him.

So again, it was kind of like a gray area, so we just think it has to be very clear, like what the relationship is and at what point.

Sorry.

Yeah, I would say that whatever the change would be, we just need to stay in line with like a collet's violations.

It's on a need-to-know basis.

Exactly.

Yeah, like we we have this language and the commission has dealt with this in the CLETS context.

Um, is there I know sometimes when we have these sort of um surgical changes that we identified, we're able to sometimes take them and able to update DGOs fairly quickly.

Is there is this something that is is on track for that?

But rather than waiting for whenever 2.01 is up next in the cycle.

I know we have oh yeah, I'd have to refer to our policy development.

I I know we have Director Steve's here.

Uh so we are proposing a revision to DGO 301 that allows for a limited revision uh carve out.

So when we have these situations that come up where a DGO just needs a simple change throughout, instead of opening the entire DGO and opening the entire process to what that 225 days or even the 30 days, which is the expedited, even the current 301 expedited process has many rules and regs that we have to comply with.

Instead of that, this new 301 proposes again just a limited revision that allows for these changes, and that is coming to the commission very soon.

So our hope is that that'll address it.

Otherwise, the only other option really is to put it on an expedited review uh or slate it for uh a future update for 2027.

Okay, I mean because even if we if three if the revised 301 that has the limited review comes before the committee, you know, it's still multiple months from final.

It'll have to go to meeting confer and then and come back as well.

I I know that in the past we've been able to make changes like this.

The the commission under its authority as the policymaking body of the department has been able to, at the department's suggestion, make changes like this outside of a normal 3.01 process.

Like I remember it had come up with the preemptive deployment of tire deflation devices as well, uh, or when there were issues with burdensome data entry for 5.01.

So those occurred, the 501 revisions occurred before the 2022 301 went into place.

Um if the commission, and this might be a question for a city attorney, if there's a resolution that says that we can circumvent DGO 301 and do a policy revision, maybe that's a potential, but DGO301 as is the authoritative document that determines how those policies are updated, and right now the options are.

We put it on the annual list, right?

And it has to comply with the timeline.

The chief can initiate the commission can initiate, but then that opens up Prop E, so then the community engagement process would have to occur.

Um or you could do an expedited review, which then we need to count all of the DGOs that we're working on, and um so depending on how many we're working on, we can only do expedited so many times a year.

Um, or we open it up, put it on the 2027 list and do that, or uh, which might actually wind up with the timing of the new 301.

Quite frankly.

Okay, I I think that's helpful.

Uh maybe we can put our heads.

Because I think what we've done in the past is the 301 allows for like like you said for commission initiated DGOs, which and then if there were a waiver for the prop E.

Anyway, uh I I think it's just worth figuring out how we can, you know, we're we're seeing we take these data access issues very seriously.

I think we should maybe we can put our heads together and try to figure out the most efficient way to uh to get this before the commission.

Happy to discuss.

I think we can look it over, but we can't circumvent anything we have now.

No, no, I I I don't mean circumvent, I just mean that the existing 3.01 has been used in ways that have allowed us to make these changes in the past.

I know that in the past we have done it, but in the future we don't do it when we're gonna figure it out.

We'll we'll sit down and figure it out.

Of course.

But but this is not of of the essence that we have to do this now, we'll do it right because this I haven't seen this situation come up very many times before us or before you were here about that.

So we'll we'll get it done, but I'm not interested in circumventing anything.

Because that's when we do that, then we have problems, right?

All right.

And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting we circumvent anything.

Well, I just wanted to clear because everybody's hearing that language, and so I I just wanted to make yes, I I I'm certainly in agreement with you.

Thank you.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium.

And there is no public comment.

If you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

A vote on whether to hold item eleven in close session, San Francisco administrative code section sixty-seven point one zero e action.

We need a motion.

Motion to go in close session.

All right, on the motion, Commissioner Techie, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Leoung is yes, Commissioner Ye.

Yes.

Commissioner Ye is yes, Vice President Benedicto.

Yes.

Yes.

You have six yeses.

We are going into closed session.

So, I think that's a good thing.

I would do it on the other thing.

All right, on the motion, Commissioner Techie, how do you vote?

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Scott is yes.

Commissioner Leon?

Yes.

Commissioner Yee.

Yes.

Commissioner Ye is yes.

Vice President Benedicto?

Yes.

Vice President Benedict was yes.

And President Clay.