the baggage area. they can access behind-the- scenes information and interviews with the artist through an audio to work. it features archival audio as well as interviews with living artists. he can be accessed on site by dialing the telephone numbers located near the artwork or by visiting the commission's web site. the public art speaks volumes of san francisco as a world-class city with world-class art and culture. for more information, visit

>> good afternoon everyone. welcome to the meeting of the neighborhood safety services. we are joined today by committee vice chair, supervisor mar and supervisor yee is en route. >> he will not be attended.

>> okay. so the clerk of the committee is deric evans and we want to thank sfgtv who are covering the meeting today. before we begin, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor yee? motion by mar. if we can take that without objection. without objection. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? >> thank you mr. chair. please make sure to silence all cell phones and devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. if we can call item 1. >> item 1 is a hearing to consider the issuance of off sale beer and wine license to 507 columbus avenue in

district 3 for deli to serve the public. >> wonderful. if we can ask the applicant or representative to come up. and i apologize if i didn't get that right. can you speak into the mic, sir? >> sure. i own the deli located on 507 -- columbus avenue and located right at the columbus and green. so our deli is a one of a kind deli and is one of the neatest and cleanest deli in north beach. i get a lot of compliments everyday every hour. we provide a lot of product from italy, meet, salami,

sausage, pasta, you name it. we do have the best gelato and all day people, they come from italy and try that gelato in san francisco and they say it is better than the product existing in italy. one thing the store is missing is beer and wine because a lot of my customers come and ask for sandwiches and want to grab a six pack or wine to go and this is the only thing missing from the part of the store and i have to tell the customer i'm sorry, we don't have it. i been in the neighborhood since last seven years and we didn't have one incident or

call or whatever happening in other store causing the neighborhood. i don't have that much to say. what i need. the only thing i field is beer and wine license and that is going to make my life easier and make me more successful. i do have a couple of neighbors, they joined me if they want to talk regarding what's going on at the store. i really thank you if you can support me to get this license and i really appreciate that. >> thank you very much. anything else to add? >> supervisor, i just wanted to point out that this will be a very, very small part of his business. he'll be using an existing cooler that's there so the major part is the deli,gelato and so forth and custom sandwiches so the wine and beer will be in one small cooler.

wanted to point that out. >> thank you very much. i forgot to mention two things. one, that today we are joined by our colleague supervisor avalos who will be sitting in for norman yee today as a member of the committee. and the second thing i forgot to say is go giants. with that, if we can now hear from our police department. and we have here our lieutenants, lieutenant santos. >> supervisor campos, mar, avalos, good afternoon, my name is lieutenant ed santos and i represent the san francisco police department's liaison unit. on behalf of the deli they have filed an application with alcoholic beverage control seeking a type 20 off sale

beer and wine license for 507 columbus avenue. he operates a deli convenience store at this location. he's been operating here for over six years. this store is located on the northwest side of columbus avenue crossing green street. for the purposes of this hearing the california department of alcoholic beverage control, abc, seeks a determination from the board of supervisors as to the approval or denial of this license. this premise is located on plot 130. the plot had 162 police reports recorded for the year 2013. the applicant's premises is located in a high crime area. the state census track information, this premise is located in census tract 107. off sale licenses authorized

by census tract are 5. active officer licenses are #. 8. the premises is located in an undue concentrated area. for the record, there are no recorded letters of protest with the california department of beverage control. as far as letters of support, there are none recorded with the california abc. the san francisco police department alu has no recommended and the police department recommends that the license is approved. the san francisco ordinance used shall apply. thank you. >> thank you lieutenant santos. colleagues, do we have any questions for our alu? okay, why don't we now turn to public comment. any member of the public

who'd like to speak, please come forwards. you have up to three minutes. if there's any member of the public to speak on this item please come up.

i have witnessed the clenlyness of the store and one thing i admire the most is the amount of caution that is taken in serving his customers, especially when it comes to checking for licenses for the sale of lottery and cigarettes. that really impresses me because i have been in a lot of different places where they don't check and i think he is

very cautious in that and aside from providing really good service it's very law-abiding. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who has not spoken? seeing none public comment is closed. we appreciate the public for coming out. we want to thank the applicants for the community outreach they have done. that's very important for us as we consider these applications. this is something that ease been recommended by our police department and i know the district supervisor, chiu is supporting it as well. colleagues, do we have a motion on this? >> so move the approval of the license and thank you for reaching out to the community as well. >> thank you very much. if we can take that motion without objection. and are we sending this -- it's not a committee report so we'll take this as a positive recommendation. thank you.

congratulations. [applause] mr. clerk, if you can call item 2. >> i'm 2 is a resolution urging the pacific gas and electric company allowing the police department to install gunshot tracking system throughout power poles throughout san francisco without charge for curbing gun violence. >> this is an item that i have introduced with the support of supervisors kim, breed and mar and we are in discussions with the various individuals that are involved on this very important issue and i would simply ask that we continue this to the call of the chair. but before i do that i would like to ask any member of the public who'd like to speak on item 2.

can we take that without objection? without objection, thank you. mr. clerk, if you can call item 3. >> item 3 is a hearing to review the feetz blt of equipping police officers with video cameras [inaudible] potential savings and reductions of citizen complaints in use of force lawsuits. >> this is an item that has been introduced by supervisor avalos and i want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. with that i will turn it over to supervisor avalos. >> thank you chair campos and appreciate your scheduling this hearing at this time so we could actually ensure that youth commission participation. it worked for my schedule too as it's difficult for me to be here on thursdays. this was a hearing i called earlier in year.

this year is a year we've seen a real flair up around the country surrounding the interactions between police and community members, citizens and one of the ideas that could help to alleviate tensions between police and civilians has been addressing potential discrepancies and points of view with body mounted cameras on police officers. if police officers in ferguson, missouri had a body mounted camera it probably would have avoided the incident that went on with mike brown's life in ferguson. we also had a recent incident that's been high profile in san francisco surrounding the death of alex nieto at the

hands of police officers and i think if there was a way that that incident could have been recorded with objective camera work it could have alleviated the questions out there between community and police. so i had called this hearing so we could explore what's out there in terms of policy, what approaches the police department is taking in bringing in body mounted cameras. there is a pilot bram. program. i want to thank the public defender who's here as well. he's done a lot of work on how evidence is collected around arrests and has done a lot of work on the issue of body mounting cameras. today actually has an op ed in the examiner around it as well which i appreciated to help

frame today's discussion. i think there's moving forward with the city so it'll be great to hear from the police department what is happening and we also have the members of the aclu here as well to discuss the ideas around the use of body mounting cameras and i want to make sure we get their perspectives as well. there are, i think some rules of the road that i think enable them to be used more effectively and with transparency. the aclu also has report of use of body mounted cameras and i think they'll be here to share those as well. i believe we have detective joyce hicks here as well and she may be arriving later and now i'll cede the mic. . we've dot at lot of work around the body cameras about i'll go briefly over the presentation and please

interrupt if you have any questions. the san francisco police department is a recipient of a $250,000 grant from the department of justice. because it's $250,000 it's enough to fund a pilot program where we'll purchase 165 cameras. during the pilot we'll deploy the pdrds at ten district stations and investigative units. the lion's share of cost is the storage of data. the actual cameras themselves are not that cost prohibitive, but storing the data and all the things that come with the technology are quite costly. so plain clothed units that would be out and about and some of the investigative units that work downtown and

supervisors will carry the devices shall complete department approved training so all the training will be very thoughtful to make sure we're very cognizant and ensure the privacy rights of all human beings. officers that have the body cameras will operate in preplanned searchs of a person or resident under condition of parole searchs and the execution of a search warrant. they may be activated during a consensual encounter. all pdrds are subject to periodic audits. members are not allowed to delete files without authorization. data will be stored in evidence.com for three years. >> when you say members that means officers. >> anyone in the police department is a member so it'll be a supervisor -- only

supervisors of plain clothes units will be allowed to use them during the pilot so supervisory members are not allowed to delete information and it will be stored for three years in evidence.com and any usage will be documented in a police report. pending action -- why don't we have body cameras today? well, our draft policy under review by city attorney's office and our final contract is undergoing another [inaudible] of the approval process and i've been in contact with them very frequently. we're almost there so it's very close to coming to fruition. our next step is to train officers. the vendor will come out, train our officers, sergeants and supervisors, rather and will conduct the pilot program. during the pilot program and after we'll document our findings. it's a requirement to be a

grant recipient you have to audit and document all the findings and will also be a requirement from the san francisco police department so we can accurately track how effectively these work. the long term projected costs of equipment with officers with body cameras for this grant period is $250,000 but should we equip all of the officers, the long term cost is roughly $21 million if every single officer in the san francisco police department is equipped with body cameras. clearly that's a significant cost and we would have to go after budget matters to make sure that happened. privacy is of course one of our major concerns. we'll require members to comply with sunshine ordinance, requiring additional staff to redact videos and reports involving

juveniles for confidential incidents. really the logistical concern is really the data is difficult to store and there's security concerns. it's a new technology and as it evolves we have to evolve our policies and practices to conform with that, but it is a new frontier and with that new frontier comes some significant changes to how we do business. there's a lot of other police departments in the area that are using body cameras. we went and visited oaklands. . they have a significant societyset up for network services and it's very costly and we want to be cognizant of how we move forward. >> thank you. when does is the start for the pilot? >> we can't start it until we get the cameras so we are trying to get those out of oca. it's in office of contract and there's several steps of

review. there's new review processes that were put in place when we buy computer based xhiment so that's it, we're just waiting for it to go through final step and the city attorney's office has been shepherding it true the process. >> the pilot is how long? >> i don't actually have the exact facts, but i know the grant expend chur has to be done by the end of the year and the pilot is for two years. >> while we're waiting for the cameras, have officers who will be using them already been trained? >> no. because we don't have them. the vendor will come out and do the training, work with evidence. .com. >> it's a pilot. have you already looked at what are the issues that you want to explore in terms of information the pilot will provide? what are some of the those

considerations? >> the most important consideration, i think are the privacy issues it brings up and so we want to just be very thoughtful and cognizant of protecting peoples' rights and making sure those privacy issues are key to how we role this out. >> right. i wasn't clear what you meant, you have on one of your slides about the consensual -- >> a consensual encounter, if i have a search warrant i present you with a document, i go to your house and we can conduct a search, but you can have a consensual encounter where it's do you mind if i talk to you, and you agree to it. >> you agree to me talking to you -- >> not with the -- that interaction is consensual and not turn on the camera, but

-- is the camera turned on automatically in those encounters. >> most of them go on three seconds before -- and i'm not really clear because we haven't had the demonstration from the vendor, but any time you're going to use the camera it starts filming before any action is taken so it gets kind of a before glim msst ps. glimpse. >> tasers work in that way in that sense? >> right. >> cameras are being provided by [inaudible]? >> yes. >> how is it we selected them as a vendor for -- >> it went out for bid. >> and did we get a number of responses for -- >> there's several companies that -- i know we sent it out for bid and that was the vendor that was selected. >> are there -- i know storage is going to be a big issue. >> that's the biggest issue. >> are there major differences between vendors and storage. >> yes, and cost associated

with it. oakland keeps all their data forever and they have a room bigger than this for network storage systems. that would be next to impossible with the cost of real estate and everything else to secure that so we're looking at how other agents are doing it. if we can use evidence.com for three years and then for certain crimes, incidents we have to keep thing forever if there's an appeal process and whatnot so those can be downloaded and kept in a certain file, but we don't have to keep every encounter if they'd already been adjudicated. >> so were you able to research places that have been able to use storage at a much lower cost than others that still gave access? >> evidence.com was the cheapest, most efficient program we could find without building an entire network that was cost prohibitive and

we couldn't have initiated the pilot program? >> what about evidence.com. >> well, they negotiate it had contract and he was just really trying to hold them to the cost so we could move forward with the project. >> okay. you had talked about authorization to delete files and i'm wondering, has that already been worked out and is the criteria for which gets deleted and when, is it certain types of files, certain member, supervisors have the chance to delete? >> yes. so for three years we don't have to delete anything so we're still figuring that out, but no file will be deleted without authorization of -- right noul it's in charge of the investigator of the case. so the investigator of the case has the evidence so we'll still follow that protocol and then will go up through the

chain of whoever oversees investigations. >> i'm trying to fg your out a measure has there been any discussion with the police officers association or any of the association groups of police officers included with that -- another point, yeah, i just wondered if there's acceptance of them or -- >> i think there is an acceptance. we've worked closely with the police officers association so we can make this happen and it's new technology being used across the board at other places so they understand that and they actually welcome the scrutiny. >> is that something we have to do a meet and confer about or -- >> no. >> no. okay. >> colleagues, any other questions you want to ask? >> i have a couple questions, if i may. thank you for your presentation.

can you describe a little bit more sort of how many officers would actually be involved in the pilot, how many officers or cameras we're talking about? sort of where exactly in the city that's happening? >> well, it's not happening yet because we don't have the cameras, but when it does we will purchase 165 cameras so with ten district stations that's roughly ten at each district station and the sit team and their supervisors. so that's where it would be used. the undercover officers, we call them the 35 cars, they have a sergeant assigned to them so they could only be used when a supervisor sergeant is with them. so they'd be used with undercover investigations, search warrants and whatnot. and then we'll have a few back ups and then we have the violence reduction team and

if they're going to do a homicide search warrant or something of that nature. and again, being extremely cognizant of what things are not appropriate to videotape if they're confidential. >> how do you know if the pilot is successful? i mean, what kind of metrics would you use or look at in deciding that? >> well, i think in speaking with director hicks today, we're not really going to know if complaints have been reduced until the conclusion, but we can recognize from other agencies, the police executive review form and other places that have used cameras, that complaints against officers and complaints in general were greatly reduced. we'll be tracking the number of complaints we get and working with the office of citizen complaint.