>> them to only look at the video after giving a statement the key is what i hear from the chief and everybody is that f they go in and give a weak bear bones statement i'm sure i hear every chief they're not going to follow the video i think there is more ground given here than the poa by the initial draft that i sent. >> what is the vote on that. >> it was 6 to 1. to send that to the poa and to the city. so actually the poa gave more

ground than they had in the initial 1. i know public defender adachi talked about a compromise careful about a compromise as we do this legislation there is different parties subject matter experts the officers wearing the come ra i commend commissioner. loftus where we had buy in for many groups we have gotten to the point we're very strong about these body-worn cameras i think it would be fooltish for us not to vote on this evening and not to put this forward. i don't know why we can be any different than this. at some point this commission has to make a decision we do get community input our job is to make a decision i think we should be ready to do that. >> commissioner marshal?

>> my biggest concern really is that we set up this whole process we did stakeholders we conveniented got everybody's input we had 90 days they brought it back to us they agree on everything we got a few concerns then we lobby or concerns for this group then voted and send the documents to the poa they can only work with the documents we gave them. and gave the document back to us, which is actually on this point closer to what the community groups recommended in the first place i think that's what i heard commissioner i don't think we can now we cannot go back to the group again because we didn't set up the group in the first place. honestly to me that doesn't make any sense. i agree. we got to get these camera we got the poa to say this which is

closer to what the community groups represented in the first place as far as i'm concerned i will be quite frank if the chief says this is a great move and good for him i'm fine with it. >> vice president turmin? >> i agree with commissioner de jesus i briefly summarize too i don't know what that means in this policy and hearing this described i don't see the mechanisms it's going to be consistently viewed that way but i also agree with commissioner lara we need to get these camera on the street and we have the opportunity to continuously look at this. i'm in a torn position here we need to get them on the street but we need to carefully

watch what summary means i dent know what it means i don't know the mechanism for making sure it's consistent. i'm going to give it to you this time and in 6 months i want to see what that means and how that is actually played out 1 of the things i'm also concerned about is, in the use of equipment b, that has been modified too. prior to the body-worn cameras officers l be trained on the body worn cameras the training will include mandatory permissible and prohibited uses. now, what per month from our language the big change there and they'll be

trained on the provisions of this policy i'm assuming we're accepting that modification because they'll be trained on the mandatory permissible and prohibited uses which you are viewing it sounds somewhat redundant to the provisions of this policy is that correct. >> commissioner, thank you. that is discussions about what exactly is, when do you have to turn it on, when do you have to turn it off. when may you turn it off, when may you turn it off and where are other places for example in the medical facilities you cannot turn it on which is addressing the policy without breaching privacy those are issues the poa wanted to see addressed in police speak as i'm told shall nod are important and may not important. it doesn't

change the policy at all. >> last but not least can you explain the targeting prohibited. >> yes commissioner. the targeting came out of a concern you could find a supervisor, hypothetically, i'm going to -- i don't like officer gram if i look at the body cam foodage i'm sure i will find something. we want the servers to do their jobs and use the body worn footage as the tool it was made for that is very well specified in the policy but the plight about sitting down and trying to find someone without any allegation of owrong doing, that is prohibited if there is cause that can be anything from 3 officers or 3 public complaints officer gray is heavy handed

that will be cause to look for. >> so poa wants provision in here. we agreed you can't just go looking for something just to catch somebody. >> exactly right. >> use that again in the future . >> i will standby that i think it's a fair rule. >> i think there is shared agreement from the police groups it's fair everybody thinks their boss doesn't like them if they can willy nilly without any reason go with the 6 meetings folks thought we want to apply acryosphere the board. commissioner wong? >> if i thought this version was closer what the communities wanted i would have no problems voting for it i think this is the opposite of what the community group wanted i will learn more when i hear from public comment this is what they would have supported in the first place i'm happy to prove it with the community input. i think as a process issue it makes me discouraged in the use

of force discussion we put all this time into it and then the poa gets to change it at the last minute something we voted 6 to 1 approve. then i would rather wait and reserve my comments until it comes back from meet and confer. at this point , this is different -- i wrote something different than this. i wrote something different in. officers [inaudible] videos in officer involved shootings except with the inspector in the case. i agreed to a compromise proposed by the president to put the discretion at the level of the chief. the chief would be reviewable by the commission that was already the compromise we accepted going into this process i don't know why the poa get toss change what the commission decide. >> i just want to really be clear i want to make sure folks

are not miss led. there are state laws and rules frshgs the beginning when we started this process, we said look this is going to be a transparent process there's a process viered at the end by state law our president said we're a country of laws mr. gram layed out these are not laws with can choose to follow or not follow they're rights to bargain unions for their members i think if of of us as progressives hold there are working protections people have to negotiate people have when it comes to their job that is not in the purview of this commission what is within the purview of this commission we can choose to accept in meet and confer that is our job we each vote independently we like it we don't like it. if we don't like it it goes back what i understand is that process will continue and you will try to bring us back something else or it will go back to arbitration.

i want to be clear there is this notion of distrust and all this, when it is a matter of statute or state law, we should be clear it's not a choice this commission is making to allow the poa to have a second bite at the policy matter we're complying with and our obligation is to agree with that the with vehicle pursuit policies each 1 of the policies goes to the meet and confer process that's anytime a new phenomenon i want to clarify that mr. gram i don't know if there is anything you want to -- >> no. the. poa doesn't dictate the policy. >> go ahead. >> we're go limit this to lye burger cases -- state law does not apply. the officer has a 5th

amendment right to not invoke the worst case scenario use the video and says this looks bad this is a really homicide case they're bound by this policy the person is going give a brief statement and then the homicide suspect gets to oous view the evidence which we don't do in homicide investigation we would treat an officer different than the public. that only governs lye burger cases if it's limited to lye burger mankiw live wit not if we're doing transparent criminal investigation. >> those are not the state laws i'm referring to. >> -- peace office bill of rights and charter -- >> be specific. what is required and what is optional? >> explained in open session

before -- it's a state law that requires that any working condition is runned through and subject to a meet and confer process issues within the scope of bargaining classic are officer safety and workload disciplinary rules and there are a category of management rights which arguably would -- could include the issue of exactly what is the viewing process. it goes perhaps to the integrity of the investigation so at the end of this meet and confer process same with the san francisco charter section 8.90 the representative of the union police officer can go to arbitrary to within the scope of bargaining and what is outside. what has happened in the last -- whatever since the chief was

appointed acting chief. the poa has come to change it's position in a way which overlaps pretty closely with some of the discussions we have had i think this is a moment in time where the venn diagrams are overlapping and so we spent an extra amount of time to try to put together a policy that could take advantage of this momentary concentric circles so we would have a policy that both sides could reluctantly, perhaps agree to. so the mires-brown act for the city charter if you reach impasse the management agency can implement, but then with our charter we provide arbitration as an in-pass resolution procedure under the best of circumstanceses that can be a 6, 8, or 10 month process without

recourse without legal arguments what is within or outside of the scope. here, we have a policy which no fault of you gets us right into this intersection of items that are within the scope and items reserved to management rights under the law so we will have the potential not only the 6 or 8 month process, we have the possibility of a litigation with the police union about what should go to an arbitrary what issue should we allow an outside party for an entire city. if we go to arbitration if we refuse to arbitrate the union cogo to arbitration we can have a superior court decision and appealed to the superior court. and we don't have the cameras going. we have an intersection in a unique moment in time to get the camera going as the

chief mentioned on an on going basis there is nothing about setting it up now which precludes the provision from revisiting it when they choose. >> may i ask a few questions it may clarify a few points first of all the homicide investigator is going to view that video if there is anything on there that is criminal conduct we're not asking for a volunteer statement we're mer ran diazing it at that point. if my homicide guys look at that video and see a homicide, he has -- at that point we would be negligent. we know we saw what we saw he's getting mir ran diazed. that officers is getting booked that is 1 things the other thing is your original proposal to leave

the discretion with the investigator plus some to go, your statement is not complete enough can you tell me what happened? you are getting what you asked for and then some. the investigators r still there they have not only the benefits of the investigators but the da which bear the charging responsibilities and the prosecutions of the case. there are safeguards in this process absent revisiting it down the road i think there is a little confusion. i think what you originally proposed the discretion of the investigator, it is there plus some. >> thank you chief. if what you are saying is what this is, i would vote for it that's why my proposal is to say, this is the provision to cover employment type actions only that's when

there are state laws at a vote when we're talking about a potential homicide investigation we're going to miranda and now the homicide inspector is going to do what they're going to do. if we add that line or make it clear this doesn't cover criminal this covers employment context that would make me more comfortable. >> the didn't. there are 2 separate issues days later the officer comes in. ultimately what ends up happening that officer has the right not to be asked at all he can watch all the youtube he wants to. this protects us and gets an immediate statement from the officer before he looks at the video then we get the benefit after he looks at the video everyone coming at him with why

this, why that. we can get to the heart of what happened that night. it allows us if he says something not accurate to leave and go back to the crime scene that night or that day before change things change and collect evidence before it disappears we lose so much if we close off that avenue being in charge of homicide there are no softball in the interviews they're asked tough questions the questions are this this and this it allows them to go out to the scene and see if that fits what the person is saying getting that statement, getting that interview done is key. more important to this, nothing has changed independent we now have a camera that can tell us if he's telling the truth or not like i said before we go to lye berger and this guy walks in a room and said i killed someone

the worst you can do is fire them. if you do it my way the way we negotiated you have ammunition this proves he's right or wrong the officer is fine if he did everything right. if he did something wrong this will allow us to get to the heart of that. it's not going to show us everything but it's 1 more layer for these dark alleys or places because it has audio you can hear what is being said if i get something different from witnesses and stops people from bearing false witness to things that cannot happen. the necessity to get this out i firmly believe every minute we sit here and deliberate this puts us in jeopardy we don't know what happened. you don't know what you don't know. >> i agree with everything the chief just said i would vote for

that, it's a drafting issue at this point i don't see it exactly here if there is a way to clean it up i'm down for that. >> if i may expand briefly on what the chief said is that it doesn't change anything. that is absolutely correct in terms of the investigatory process the investigatory process remains the same defined under dgo8.11 and 12 in officer involved shooting that remains the same this addresses 1 piece of that investigatory process and body cameras and how they fit into the investigation process so the investigation process involving an officer shooting or criminal death or al -- that doesn't change. this simply addresses the small piece of the video and how the video plays into it.

>> can i make a suggestion? 1 of the things we realized over the moss and meetings we had it's a technical process of how the various interviews are done we educated ourselves on that will it be useful chief -- i'm sure you will attach a bulletin when there is a dgo it might be helpful to reference dgo's to understand the point you made commander i wonder commissioner wong if that would ameliarate some of your concerns how the investigations are suppose today go and have a bulletin from chief chaplain how this plays in the overall investigation you can think about that. commissioner de jesus. >> i think this is all twisted this is not what the community asked for they wanted a full

statement then you can see the camera and do a supplemental they were clear on that that didn't ask for a summary or brief statement that's what this comes down to. we also might have the other dgo's regarding the investigation we haven't had head camera before in a brief summary they get a look at the camera before they give their interview i'm wondering in here if this initial statement is taped, why doesn't it say to provide initial taped statement. i'm looking for you, if -- down the road somebody says it's not required its to be here also take the word briefly out if you give an initial statement. take the word briefly it's confusing 2 sentences is brief 1-and-a-half is brief and you know you -- i believe you will

not accept this you may not also be in the chair i don't know who is in charge of that f they accept a statement-and-a-half that would be a tragedy. we ask the stakeholders to spend time and effort to work out we struggled over a compromise to work on this to the last minute and it's a slap in the face to the community i don't know what that means. we should have the stakeholders look at this for us we should do it right. we shouldn't open it in 6 moss to a year you know we're not going to do that. what we put in place right now is really important and i think we need to do it right. i think it's simplistic to say it's exactly what the community wanted because that's not what they asked more. >> no 1 said that i'm referring back to the materials we had. or an initial report or a statement

i think it's fair to say now i anticipate folks saying we want it to be full or complete in reality what we have recognized is the existing recommendations we did have referenced in an initial point or a statement i'm not discarding the point how beneficial it would be i think it's important to recognize that all of the feedback was given is a patter of public record. >> i recommend we move this back to the stakeholders to have new language and give us some new input. [applause]. >> i would second that. >> okay. >> so we have to take public comment before we vote. commissioner camara? >> we could do that, i guess if

you want, you can take a vote on this motion and ask the public to comment on. since i'm not really sure we're all in agreement with the motion, so quick motion, vote on it and move on. >> i thought we had to have public comment. >> yeah we can get the public comment as well. the issue here i think i'm going back to what commissioner loftus had requested if we were -- if there is a department bulletin attached to this that is acceptable i think it's a good recommendation primarily because sometimes i get concerned that we delve too much into the procedures part. this is a

policy and policies in general are supposed to be general, not necessarily very specific. the specifics come within the precedures in the department. that's where we're getting involved in the operations f the procedures in place a department bulletin are sufficient to be attached to this policy. >> can i address 1 concern from commissioner de jesus. from investigations to make sure things happen in the past where suggests are subjected to torture and beatings when we bring folks in to be if interviewed the tape is started and never stops it's not just recorded it's video and audio recording r. >> why don't we say it then. >> no the homicide policy a witness you can get them to a

room to be the officer in this room being videoed -- so it's video tape from the beginning to end. it doesn't stop f you take a break, there is literally tape running for however long that tape is running it never stopped to protect the investigation to say nobody stopped the tape and came back on tape. when you are given that first statement to the last question asked by the district attorney investigators in that room or the attorney representing the officer it rolls until that is completely done. you have that whole thing in it's entirety captured on video and audio. >> thank you for that clarification. >> okay we have a motion and a second. on this matter, so now we're going to invite public comment. if there is any public comment on item number 4. please

come up. welcome mr. schlosser. >> thank you. i was disturbed this morning to read in the chronical the president of the poa saying that the aclu got what it wanted from this proposal. i'm more disturbed to have president loftus pick out a letter we first send i think there was a july letter and october letter i think we're position is clear i'm going do make it clear right here. when we said there should be an initial report we didn't mean a brief report. i haven't been as president pointed out at many meetings as part of the stakeholders group i heard everything today from commissioner de jesus. we didn't

support a summary what we supported an initial report what we meant is there would be a full report and then the officer would see the video and there could be a supplemental report and penalty because we understand that recollections change the words brief and summary are invented by the poa before you. i can only speak to the acl u. i think that's a mistake i think allowing officers to review videos before they make a full report is going to bring distrust in the community. it's going to paint their reports i learned a tremendous amount from chief chaplain today about a process i know very little i'm not sure i absorbed it all it does seem to me it would be good for people to understand it i don't understand when oakland,

richmond and san jose all have policies that require statements -- (no audio). >> a brief statement i don't agree with i would also probably like that person sequesters after they calm down a little bit. let's walk through this again and before they see the video, give a fuller statement i think that would help the person. i don't think the police

are killers i don't think they want to -- (no audio) of america is what we're basically dealing with now. but i think the officer should have the right to calm down, without talking to somebody else almost being sequesters and then let's go through this again. and we don't policies -- we want the best policies because we don't want them to be bent. we can bend the rules and we don't want that: we want an honest evaluation thank you. >> thank you. next speaker? good evening it's been over 3 years we're tired of waiting we want it asap and you still don't have

the badge camera on the badges. 40 weeks is not quick. get moving people. okay i'm with malara marshal and mazuko. i'm not for wong mankiw tell you stories that would curl your hair we have waited way too long if you don't like the way the policy is working you can change it any time. if you don't like the chief you can fire him are you the solution with the policy you are the pollution when you don't think you are what we're supposed to do it's your fault we're in this soup because years and years going way back until we got a new president of the commission you didn't do didly to keep the police like chuck limb berg in

krog. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker? >> hi, evening commissioners good night i should say i'm yolanada jackson. we convene the task force many of you have heard about. let me be clear the commission of the bar association from the beginning was no viewing of the footage ever of the officer involved shooting it disturbs me we have this debate about the officer in labor disputes going after an officer that is the cameras to begin with with transparent policing that is what this policy is coming down to, when they get to view it, before there is -- when they get to review it before they write their report or final report, comes down to the very low risk of them being caught in a deposition or in court as having

made a missation or frankly having lied that does not out way we find out the true facts of how someone got shot on the street the notion of rush to get this done, first of all body camera were not approved until march of 2015 it's not been 3 years we have to get this right it's difficult to go back and fix it after the fact we haven't had body cameras up until now with police involved shooting we have footage that tells us what happens if we do it for the right reason we have to get the process right and to rush to a decision is not what this commission should be didding. >> back again. the issue of the power of the commission to define what is meant by initial report seems obvious. i don't

think you have to send it back to 3 months of interactions and history define the terms that you agree with. use of force to not end up in a homicide there is a lot of talk about the homicide which sounds to me like the easy place to talk about it's very specific and very clear but for something on video is a question the initial report reflects the state of mind you have been talking about the mechanics of the interaction this person stood there, in the alley this person did this. the key question for the initial report is why? not what action did you take? yes, but why did you take that action? who, what, when, why, where? and the why is the element in that initial

report that allows -- encourages the officer to say i feared for me life -- for somebody else's life. then the video can help determine if that person is a block away with their back turned right chief? then we have a contradiction in the y versus what the electronic witness the camera offers us i would suggest define an initial report in terms of a pull disclosure that is possible to get the officer to say who, what, when, why, and where underlining why. >> thank you. next speaker? >> i cosign that. i think there's a lot of officer related conduct that is not murder. that needs to be captured and we need to be able to fully investigate

that the only way to have that before you see the video if you don't have a full statement f they give a brief statement and say i tripped and fell and jostled them when they beat them up oops i made a little head lock whatever you have to have the full description of what went on. without that, that is kind of putting the investigation to interpretation with in the hands of people we're not comfortable with if you want to reaffirm the public's trust part of that is having that transparency part of that is saying you don't have to trust us to have that discretion for them to view the video we say that they've said enough. it needs to be layed out when they have said enough, when is the point they get to view the video until that happens, it's

basically, you know police policing the police. it's the da who works with the police policing the police it's a bunch of people that the police's interests policing the police and we need more investigation in that part of that is a full statement. [applause]. >> thank you. next speaker? >> good evening welcome. >> good evening commissioners chief director hicks my name is brine a san francisco police officer also part of the peace officer association i took part in the commission last year with the body worn cameras as a patrol officers i want them i want the transparency i want the public the administration to see what police officers see every day out there. i can tell you police officers we want the body-worn cameras. a couple things when creating this policy

we don't want to rush into it and get these body camera out without finalizing certain things 1 of the things in the policy that came out last week regarding this is it states the footage will be held 60 days unless that officer is involved in an officer involved shooting and aa an arrest is made and a complaint will merit that investigation there was an error 60 days of keeping that footage we stated all footage is kept for 2 years and if there is no investigation or councilmember plaint then it's completed 60 days is too shrt of a time to have information to be deleted for a full investigation there has been times an occ has not

started within 9-12 moss like i said ewe don't want to rush into this we want to account everything and have everything go into effect for the policies and the public. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is sharica holmes-box. last time i was here we were talking about body camera in january. i thought we ironed this out i got out of bed ran 5 blocks with my video cameras these camera they do work because trust me, if somebody was to do something to me, i was going to take this footage i was not going to give it to the perpetrator i would give it to the police department

first i would call officer petra. i know since we were kids i know she has been fighting for black and brown vitamins since elementary school president of our school in purno heights. 1, i don't know i used for the mayor's gang prevention program for years under the police department who ended up messing with us and then under the mayor's office. i want t tell you transparency is something we should not be questioning, and so, my lani homes i love you to death. we understand you are going to be transparent i hope you are sitting in that seat you know san francisco you might not be like petra said we want to hold people accountable sitting in that seat you or anyone else.

i want to take this time i thank you petra and wong and tony what you are doing you will be hearing from me, i'm going to definitely tell you about what i feel about lorenzo 1 of the top cops like you. >> thank you. next speaker? during the an dee lopez killing in sonoma county a gang member large latino was leading 60 children with crosses into a city council meeting blocked by the police they did let us in there and they arrested him and accused him of assault and battery. they said he was assaulted by a styrofoam cross he was carrying and they showed

the video that the policeman had not scene and consequencely that man was not in jail. he's the perfect description of what a jury would say you are guilty -- that man would be in jail 7 years who just turned his life around to do the right thing they do not need to see at all that is the agreement it should be lived to the cars and the office when it happens any other way the police can see it beforehands what is the purpose? the purpose is we have an objective eye on the situation that's what we need. thank you for your time. >> further public comment on this matter? >> now, as i have mentioned before at this commission, we need body cams that are full

high definition and they need to be action cams. what i mean action cams, everybody an action cam has a very fast reflex rate that means the officer can be jumping running struggling in every which way you can imagine and are you going to end up with clear footage that footage need toss be uploaded into the car tamper proof so the officer can't tamper with it and automatically go up to the cloud so it never gets seen by an officer he can't talk nothing. period he can't see it he can't change his story but that video footage doesn't need to be seen by police, it needs to be sent off to where somebody else has access and investigate that footage for every complaint that somebody in the public brings up, this officer tried to

assault me, tried to rape me or any of that kind of stuff it can always g back to that footage, all the time so it protects the officer and it protects the public none of these crops need to see the material then if there's a complaint this material needs to automatically be sent out so the public can see it within 3 days none of this 60 days stuff. none of this 120 days stuff, period. none whatsoever. it need toss be out there so the public can see it. immediately. so that we know, you are not lying, and we know that the public's not lying got to tell the truth here be transparent. >> thank you. next speaker? >> i certainly share the urge -- urgency to get these on the

officers as soon as possible we need pho be clear why it's taking so long because the city of san francisco does not say no to the sfpo a. you were told in a letter by the aclu in october of last year to use them in place in oakland san jose and richmond what does that tell you? there is precedent in other communities it's ominous for use of force are you going to send it adopt it there and then do meet and confer it doesn't mean meet and agree. at some point you say no you adopted this policy in des why it took 6 moss to get here is beyond here this is a policy ewant we will listen to you, but we're saying no these policies existed in other cities now maybe it's a management prerogative maybe it is let's assume it's a

management prerogative that means they can choose to arbitrate i don't know who pays costs in this city if loser pays cost it doesn't matter f you never say no it's a continuation of this process go ahead arbitrate if you want you would win this case. the aclu in october told you would win this case if you don't say no, this collaborative process will be exposed as a black hole. people will not want to participate please for future reference you got this coming up later make sure when you pass the policy it doesn't go into this black hole. thank you. >> thank you. >> yes president and members of the commission. i want to express concern because there was a quote from president halrand in the chronical of the

position of the occ the position of the occ has consistently been that in these critical incidence thaters first give the interview then view the video in reviewing this policy, which i just received late today, is different than the position that the occ has taken. i understand this is the police commission's prerogative to establish it's policy and there was a meet and confer process i did want to clarify that the compromise does not represent the position that

the occ has taken. i'm particularly concerned because of the definition does not pr vied clarity on the official statement. this is very different than the public safety statement and again, very different than the homicide da interview and the administrative interview, so, i don't have the clarity to say that this in fact reflects the position of the occ because it does not appear to. >> thank you. sergeant welcome. >> commissioners i just want to say that i'm a little disturbed because as the president of ofj i met with the other

stakeholders in good faith. it is of concern when things are changed without our approval. i understand the importance of the body camera going out as soon as possible. to those of you who are concerned about when it's viewed, how it's viewed what the statements are, whatever, this is the first time san francisco will do something historical i don't have a problem with somebody seeing what i do when i'm on the street however the 1 thing i do have a problem with, is when (no audio) if we're truly stakeholders and try and work within the realms and variations of police activities not so flattering again, i say yes let's get the body camera if

you have to make changes in the policy down the road that's why there are department bulletins that can be override and resend certain things f we find it's not acting out the way we want it to: but at this point, i think we need to do the right thing and put those cameras on officers so we know exactly what is happening. we no longer have to second guess thank you. >> thank you. >> further public comment on this matter . >> commissioners again, common sense and discern is given to a few. what this commission has done is cause stakeholders t give their best and after the stakeholders have given you their best, you have chosen to

give a blank check to an entity with wordings that betray stakeholders you do it again and again and again. anybody that is a legal expert will tell you this, you have betrayed literally betrayed the community and don't look at me like that because i have expertise in what i'm saying i work for the army but i also work for the united states park police so i understand what i'm saying. the community and the relevant stakeholders gave you a mandate. a mandate that you can take and

put it in a policy form what you have done is betrayed the stakeholders and put it in the hands of somebody that does not have the public's best interest thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment on this matter? >> my issue is it took 20 years to issue this force you put this together will it be another 20 years? the other thing too is, a brief statement is a brief statement. i thought i was in danger so i shot him that's a brief statement. the other thing too, with all the loopholes that the police officers have that

brief statements if he does lie chances are it can be thrown out you should remember while you are talking about this remember the henry hotel the officer said 1 thing the camera said something else you allow him to give a brief statement, then it's all -- we can go watch the video and make it as he goes along. it's bad you create bad pl sea and wait 20 years to fix it. the issue becoming prevalent is are you in charge of this body and policies and precedures that you create or are the poa in this clan des dined back room, last minute fashion, do

they run things? again, i think you should table this as the motion because shouldn't you at least have 72 hours to review this. they will dump legislation on you and expect you to review it and pass it. how long have you been exploited by the poa? will you stand up to the poa? i'm asking if courage integrity stand up to this cartel. >> thank you. any further public comment? hearing none public comment is now closed we have a motion on the floor sergeant i believe it was brought by commissioner dejesus and sected by wong. >> restate the motion. >> motion to postpone a vote on this item and send it back to

the stakeholder so they can review the language and give us their input. >> okay. >> on the motion to postpone the vote and send the draft of body camera to the stakeholder vote. commissioner loftus. >> no. >> commissioner turmin how do you vote? >> no. >> commissioner turmin votes no. commissioner marshal. >> no. >> dejesus how do you vote? >> yes. >> commissioner mazuko . >> no. >> commissioner wong how do you vote? commissioner wong votes yes and commissioner malara how do you vote? >> no. >> commissioner malara votes no.

the motion fails 5 to 2. >> i would like to now make a motion that we accept the proposal we have before us. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> sergeant please call the vote. >> on the motion to accept the proposed draft body worn camera policy commissioner loftus? >> yes. >> commissioner turm how do you vote? (speaking off the mic). >> on the advice of the city attorney our public comment was handled go ahead. >> deputy city attorney the public has a right to vote on the item agenda that has happened there is 1 public comment per item on the agenda. >> proceed sergeant. >> vice president turmin how do

you vote on the motion? >> yes . >> commissioner [inaudible] how do you vote? yes. >> dejesus. >> no. >> commissioner mazuko . >> yes. >> wong? >> no. >> commissioner malara how do you vote? >> yes. >> commissioner malara votes yes it passes 5 to 2. >> thank you. >> by way of next steps we will ask the department to provide an update as soon as possible on the training that will happen the immediate next steps i understand there will be a certain number of stations that will start the process so this commission i think the public are very interested in following all of that we will be sure to calendar those updates as well as the 6 month check on the roll out of that policy and any issue come up. sergeant please call

the next line item. >> before you do i want to put on the record i think this is a trav isty and we won't get input from stakeholders when we do things like this. >> item 5. report from commission use of force subcommittee on updated use of force policy and draft conductive energy device bureau order. >> i will go to commissioner wong and [inaudible] through doj's religiouses and put them through the discussions on may 11th. that reflected the opinions of the various stakeholder groups that weighed in on this policy also. this is not on for a vote a discussion i deferred it to the 2 of you. >> just to members of the audience what we have done is have all the stakeholder group meetings we're not done, there

is no vote tonight on this. what has happen we have taken all the inputs from various agent cease including the aclu the occ everybody's been involved all the different stakeholders then what we're waiting for is looking for the various department regarding use of force we're waiting for the subject matter experts doj department inputs we have had several meetings commissioner lofts and dejesus thank you to rachel. kilshaw we have had meetings we have gone through and put together the cop's organizations have said together with what we reached attentive agreement on about everybody involved how the order should read. with you have learned significant things that commissioner dejesus said

tonight we should combine these waters we should have clear definitions in the beginning we have melded these together in a difficult process where you can see from the process tonight. commissioner dejesus tonight come out differently on these issues we sat down with commissioner loftus and tried to reach an agreement what would be beneficial based on what would be help from the experts. as early as recently today there was more changes there was a conference call today regarding the input what it has boiled down to is the language issues minimal force, reasonable force. what we have agreed on is first and foremost the sanctitity of human life and we agreed we want our officers to use whatever source for whatever is reasonable under the

circumstanceses we have tracked the united states supreme court case law and 9th. circuit court case law and the department of justice has done through cops we have taken a lot of language we have listened to the subject matter experts we have what is in front of the commissioners several drafts that are tentative there are options involved that is where we're at right now i don't think we need to dig down deep. with where the direction the community wants to go. again, it's not a finished product i apologize it's almost 11 o'clock i think we're all tired there is a lot of time and effort put into this the only changes are recommended by the subject matter experts those involved in this worked with other police departments it's

not just the initial best practices it reflects what our goal is, we want officers to use minimal force with the sanctitity of human life yet we have to follow california and human law with reference to the circumstanceses and reasonable. that basically it i will turn it over to commissioner dejesus. >> we need stakeholders to look at this for discussion. the religious is to have defined terms we did have defined terms we had help from tamura we took 1 definition -- imminent threat and pointed out it's immediate threat. so there is definitions we need stakeholders to go through. we did try to define the terms, that is 1 of the things that's a criticism there is no defined term we had too many general words a 5.01 and

5.012. we did our best to consolidate it. on section b3 -- i think b3, we did borrow a definition they had have several -- several phrases that our stakeholders have never looked at. i would like them to take a look at that. that is 3 -- i think it's b-h. and it's in there. we left it in there to see if there is any complaints with it. i think we would be more inclusive we can discuss that language. it's also f we moved the paragraphs around to see about the flow we have the

issue with 8:35 penl code standingure ground that is left in here open for discussion even though that's the law we said before we don't know if that needs to be in the policy and seems to contradict the idea of minimal force we're struggling with minimal and reasonable at some point we combine it reasonable, minimal we do need stakeholders to look through this and define it. and we have asked tamura she made corrections for us and she will continue to look up things. on section i don't have it. >> may i say something real quick. >> sure. >> there are 2 versions what is the difference between the 2? >> that's a good point. 5.01 is where we try to combine all the

smaller poll cease now it's 19 pages and there's a version 1 and a version 2. i'm talking about verbal 2 where we put most of the stakeholders -- some of the things the stakeholders wanted to do -- (no audio). >> for you which 1 -- >> version 2. >> thank you. >> why are we given version 1. >> it's closer to the original 1 we had. >> okay. (multiple speakers). >> it would be nice if somebody highlighted on version 2 the pieces that were inserted so we don't have to go through this then go through this. >> it's highlighted yours is just not printed in color. you didn't highlight yours . >> good point then. >> there is changes made after phone conversation with the sub committee and tamura from the oc c. much to her credit she was up late last night working on

the changes she did an excellent job we received later today i want to tell the members of the public what we did is received another version and looking at an online this afternoon not too long before coming here. so what it is again it's a work in progress and i think we wanted to highlight for you, where the issues lie so we have the 2 versions 1 with the prior version and 1 with the second version for the commission to review. >> my point is, if we're going to go through it you don't have a highlighted version -- >> i agree with you. it's kind of late too. i don't even have the newest version here because i was able to proint it out i like to make sure the stakeholders have the newest version for the language. >> my proposal there is another meeting before friday where we can isolate the differences

between version 1 and version 2 with reference i think that will help the public in their advocacy it won't be confusing there are 2 meetings coming up there are real differences between version 1 and 2. i think we need a little bit of a guide to make sure folks can weigh in oun on which version towards the end of this week. for the stakeholders we have a page on the website which is the "use of force", page when we post the agenda we will post whatever information we have and the agenda for that meeting and the summary of what the issues are and the differences the version 1 and 2. the goal would be to make sure we make it as clear as possible when we have 2 competing poll cease 19 pages each i don't know how many differences you think there would be 10-15 but they're

significant differences and departures in thought . >> we need to get it to the public to review for the next meeting . >> commissioner marshal. >> thank you for your work on this. thank you. >> any other comments from the members of the subcommittee on this process or progress. commissioner kilshaw. >> i have a question. samera and i worked on this until the very end before we got here we didn't have an opportunity to post these 2 versions on the web. we can do that tomorrow so these people have a starting point before the subcommittee meets on friday. >> -- the highlighted version comes out. >> there is no highlighted version. that is just for the working group. >> all right. we would like a highlighted version. >> we will do that on friday. that's what i think the commissioner loftus agreed.

>> that's what i'm proposing . >> we will have highlighted versions for everyone. >> i want to thank. marian and sergeant kilshaw spent most of the weekend working on this. -- she doesn't i want to thank her. >> thank you. >> thank you to the members of the subcommittey spending hours on this and making themselves available with the day job during the day as much as it might not appear this way we're trying to make this clear as possible but these are changes so thank you. sergeant please call the next line item? >> commissioner we need public comment on this. >> yes public comment on the next item any public comment on item number 5?

>> good evening jennifer director of the coalition on homelessness wanted to talk specifically about tasers and control webs i'm submitting a long letter it could be twice as long it's about 14 pages it could be much longer the deeper we get into this i will try to briefly go into this the big picture thing is that we basically have staved off many years 9 years not doing tasers in san francisco. and we have a very awful company put out a lot of lies now the country is shifting in a different direction towards deglobalization we want to jump on that ship it's ridiculous. we have a situation where taser use

is contrary to time and distance fundamentals are you trying to get in place we're trying to shift the mind set and training and distance then you will introduce a distance where you have to get close up to people 7-15 feet it's going to distract the department. we're going to have too many tools at once we're going to be introducing body camera training on that the crisis intervention then we're going to do something contrary that creates a whole different set of instructions. we know that we're going to introduce these even though they're limited in scope we're not confident a policy will be followed by the police it hasn't been in any where in the nation it's been proven to be ineffective the medical evidence is overwhelming we're talking about a lot of lawsuits and the taser international is releasing

liabilities so lit be san francisco liability for a very poor product it will be the officers that will be blamed. (speaking off the mic). >> thank you for your ongoing advocacy all the work you have done. appreciated. good evening welcome. >> (speaking off the mic) i. >> i don't think your mic is. >> i'm earn an attorney with the bar association and task force and taser subcommittey when we met on the use of force the bar association didn't give a position we want today have an informed and credible position to give. we came to the conclusion the best idea right now is not put an additional weapon into the hands of the

police officers with the following reasons we're concerned with the medical information mentioned it's mentioned that people think taser are a safe alternative to guns people are miss informed taser international has marketed them that way don't want officers operating under false information. secondly we're rn concerned with how tasers are dispronately used on people of color. at a high rate. and homeless and those with mental illness that escalates the situation rather than deescalate also the close contact is inconsistent with the use of officer training on deescalation and time and distance it's a bad decision we urge you to read the report the bar association gave

you. we spent time drafting this report it contains the most up to date data compellation about tasers that is currently available. we appreciate we're not weighing in irresponsibility. thank you. >> i have a quick question for you we decamp's son sessions taser international. can you tell us. >> some of the concessions i recall for example, where you can hit a person with a taser at some point they're saying the best use is a mass area. eventually taser changed their upon where it could hit somebody in the most effective way. secondly, 1 of the concessions is the amount of distance tasers need to be away from individuals finally they admitted it can be actually deadly. something for

the longest time they wouldn't admit part of that concession has to do with a person in excited delirium somebody who has heart conditions, is on drugs mental illness there are concession but they're often qualified by something. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good evening commissioners i'm kevin benedicto providing nonprofit to transparent and accountability that is a mouthful. we had an opportunity to review the 2 versions of the revised use of force poll seeshgs and the comparison of the difshs differences between the 2 versions we would like to street signingly take a position in the language of version 2 of

the 2 versions the commission is comparing. from the out set of this rewriting and redrafting process it's critical that the goal is to set high standards for officers, to meet community standards and modern i'dize policies out of date. this includes deescalation and use of force. version 2 the blue ribbon pen believed best effectuates -- [inaudible] there are problems with version 1 the way it's drafted the use of language for example should that is unreasonable shall and necessary -- removes language about proportionality and escalation given our 1995 djo use of force

blue panel version 1 risks lit be a step back from the 1995dgo from the standard it's unclear how it compares to the 1995 dgo the blue ribbon panel believes the version of the second language reflects the panel. >> thank you for your input. wasser welcome back. >> i'm in awe of morgan lewis to analyze the version 2. it seems like version 2 is the 1 the stakeholders proposed it would be an insult for me to comment. i gather stakeholders here i am a stake hlder will have a chaps to comment on it i'm not going to say anything on it now. about

tasers. president loftus said earlier data, data, data that's a good reason why you should not be adopting tasers you do not have the use of force report data under control. the early intervention system is something you are working on. you should not be -- i think with all due respect irresponsible that is going to use a weapon that is going to divide this community without the controls in place. it's the opposite it's not deescalation time and distance in fact it has to be a short distance it's not going to meet the standards we want that the officers charge and gugara will fire tasers at him and adopting tasers is sending the wrong message i don't quite understand why you are doing it. it's

undermining what you are trying to do. i know the poa is strong on tasers i hope you exercise the independence the charter gives you. >> thank you. further public comment? >> i just wanted to say that 21st century policing requires out of the box thinking and i've been inspired. i did share it with commissioners loftus and mazuko. i thought of the fact we should have a critical incident team crisis intervention team excuse me as a rapid response team. we should be able to get 30 to 40 officer who are already cit trained they're interested in getting intensive training from practitioners that deal with mental health issues i have an idea we should contact ucsf doctor on campus the doctor that

did the presentation last week about violence. i think we should be able to get some type of 1 year certification program with them. and deal withing people with mental illness crisis people that receive that training and certification after 1 year of extensive work to go on in help us deescalating things and arrive at the solution we want which protects the sanctitity of all life. >> thank you. >> good evening again. forgive me i'm going through both versions i know we will be discussing them throughout many weeks 1 concern i have on version 1 where it does list the codded restraint for a use of force for officers there is a line i would like to [reading] read only in situations where looetal force would be

justified. from my understanding, of that sentence if the threat if the suspect presents a gun, knife or other weapon i can use the curaded i'm sorry they would not be using that they would be using another option. i urge the commission to review this policy for the difference between codded. police officers use the codded but not just under a looetal force option it sends a bass message. thank you very much. >> tom gilbertie. sanctitity of life we also have to add the term dignity. we have to treat people with dignity. listening

to chief officer on the radio he was saying in skt land only 5% of the police carry guns. england i don't know how many of them carey guns but i'm still pushing the idea that 2 police officers teams that 1 person is not carrying a belt. like that little girl says when she came to answer that she said we don't want them in a dangerous position if you don't want the belt you will not put yourself in a dangerous position. you take time you have back up and not escalate it once we get that through, amen. next. if you are that close to a person, you can tle an overfishing net have it in the trunk of your car. if you have been entriangled with an

overfishing net you are just geography to trip over yourself. that's a nice deescalation and the mental health aspect of this city is just beginning. i don't think that we should rely on our police force to be experts in mental health we're asking them to be mental health guardians yes for the time being but we need a whole new set of people to come around and be on the street that are mental health guardians they don't have guns they can be backed up by the police, again, we need to calm this down we have a lot of mental health it's going the wrong way the. city needs a big help. thank you. >> thank you gentlemen and with jennifer moving towards an opportunity to bring back the

humanity of our police force that is a true job and proper leadership and training we can do that. the health care training, what happened at ucsf everyone should watch that video it's online they're offering to help us understand how do deal with these things 1 doctor said we deal with mental health people that are violent and crazy in hospitals we don't shoot them or taser we manage. maybe they can help us with training there, it's an excellent idea. also, the danger of tasers within the jails a young man in sonoma county 30 minutes being tasers. 30 minutes of being continuously tasers lawsuit? over a million dollars taser international doesn't want

anything to do with tit. they will put it on the officers some of the other abuses using tasers to get homeless to move along common practice. also in 4 year old girl was truant, tasers 8 year old boy, tasers they're considered to be quote unquote safe to too much to deal with. if we can get back to the idea we have an opportunity to truly have a police force that are peacemakers that are not here to protect the serve the money interest and businesses but in fact the communities, that would be a wonderful and such a needed change. thank you. >> thank you. ucsf has been mentioned a few times 24 years

working there the officers offices the impaired program i mentioned that to you through e-mail it's a great program for physicians who are impacted by emotional distress all kinds of stress working too long, hard ets drug abuse it's a way of saving physicians from themselves if doctors need it certainly police officers can use about something ul would look at. tasers can be used for torture it's an electric tri cushion device i will ask you what is the difference between a taser and an electric chair you all know the answer, it's due process. they're both electrocution divided. the answer is how they're used and under what situations. so i

would hope you would also look at this whole issue that occurred some time. you and i know people leave their homes scare t death of the work they have to do. they fear for their life. that reasoning attends t a later event some time in the shift that starts when hey get out of bed. is it's very important we think about the mental health of police officers. on the issue of concessions from the maker is an officer going to stop and ask a person are you suffering from mental illness before i taez you how is that concession applied in real time in real life. makes no sense. i challenge any police officer t turn in a 40 caliber

gun instead of a taser see what kind of -- (off the mic). >> appreciate commissioner loftus to watch this i will repeat the offer i made tow by e-mail i'm in touch with 1 of the film makers he has worked on it 6 or 7 years he's continuing to publish stories within days when you watch this film look at it from the perspective of what he insteaded his audience his dream audience for this film -- police officers to see if they really understood what was behind this weapon. i would ask you to think about the paid radio adds of the sfpoa that have characterized tasers as quote safe and effective. it's not that simple. san francisco

police officers are going to be impacted not just by the particular policy you drafted but there are impacted by the internalized messages of the marketing of this product and what their own associations said. i would love you to watch it and the gentlemen from the asian american police officers association ask yourself if they're sold a bill of goods with the police officers in this film depicted. i'm able to put you in touch with this reporter before he's the most knowledgeable on this subject you asked about the concession this will take you year by year what the taser corporation said over the years i heard about this product there is not nearly enough time. let me say you have put the cart before the horse on this 1 you come out with policy the only discussion you had is on the language of the order.

there is no discussion what commissioner omtis said is about which is introducing tasers to the force. that is the discussion we need to happen the first time i heard about this is a death in california in 14 years ago they said this weapon -- (speaking off the mic). >> thank you. any further public comment on this come on up. >> office of citizen complaints i want to talk about our agency's position on tasers from the beginning our position was should be decoupled from the use of force 21st century is a new mind set and training we got departments working on and it's a long-range project and at the

core is deescalation you heard taser is a weapon of close contact between 7 and 15 feet ideally at 7 feet. it's not a weapon of deescalation of distance it undermines what we're doing the other aspect everything out there is miss leading i want to highlight 1 recent case where it was a 17 year old child, youth who was tasered and these are the comments from his father -- as a police officer myself for nearly 2 decades i have been trained on tasers and i continue to get up daelted training my 17 year old son was taezed at a traffic stop for 23 seconds by another local agency the taser captured my son's -- he died at the scene but suffered a brain injury he

still suffers from i see a problem with this weapon i drank the taser cool aid and thought there is in way taser could cause a cardiac arrest this is from a law enforcement officer in kansas city. it has no number of cycles sh and duration of time if you are taezing somebody over a period of time over 15 seconds and 3 times -- (speaking off the mic). [inaudible]. >> thank you. further public comment on this matter? line up the evening is late i appreciate it. anybody who wants to give public comment. >> really briefly. when langora

was shot within twenty-seconds of the police getting out of the car already time and distance was supposed to be brought into effect you can have all the poll cease that you want with all the safeguards but if you have a police force that's riddled with racism and i think the text and the cover up of the text shows that you have so many things going on at once the body cameras looking for a new police chief to introduce a new weapon that can be used t terrorized people particularly black and brown is just insane. >> thank you. next speaker. come on up. >> it's 11:20. appreciate it.

thank you. >> still have another hour to go. >> okay barbara card again. we have heard a lot this evening about culture change and the sanctitity of life yet tasers are being pushed through for apr(x < 12) with the use of policy and the taser contradicts what are you looking for in your new poll cease tasers are not in keeping with these changes. tasers escalate force tasers cause death tasers are not an alternative to leaf of force. tasers do not train officers to use tasers in looetal force situations. -- looetethal forceu

speak of data i wonder if anyone has crunched the money the money has put out in taser lawsuits the last thing we need is to pay lots oof money. i urge you to separate it from the use of force if you want the community to trust you please do that. thank you. >> good evening welcome. >> thank you. my name is kelly cut ler i'm an organizers with the homelessness coalition. i'm also a social worker 1 of ot things we learned is to look at the research and really assess so you can make a decision on that based on the actual research and so people have

talked about all the important points tonight 1 concern is mine is straight out reach 15 years in the city. and a lot lately what we're seeing is pretty stunning how much older and sicker people are. so they are disproportionally at risk of being on the other end of the taser. so that's a huge concern because there are already at the point where they're just physically having a difficult time so i think adding tasers to the equation is not going to helpful at this time. >> thank you. >> line up please do so.

>> i'm sitting there thinking about what it was like when i was a young adult in the 70s they didn't need tasers cops behaved like they were supposed to i can say i was pretty naive what was going on in the 60s and what you guys were doing to the blacks that is pretty fucked up. it took me a long time to realize how shitty cops are to black. cops behave most of the time they act as if you were your friend if you had a problem they invest gaed someone broke into your house they did a good job of finding the culprit now you don't do jack didly do

squat. it's harass and kill. that's what we get right now: we didn't need tasers back in the 70s 80s and 90s why do we need them now. >> public comment is closed. i. >> i want to say something. >> it's public comment. >> they brought up something i wanted to ask. >> just a quick question chief we're going to have this taser conversation going forward when we negotiated the camera with tasers have we signed a contract for tasers i think that is something important going forward to know that is in the works and has been done. you don't have to answer me now. >> i know -- don't know how far down the process they are i will check into that.

>> that makes a big determination based on our decisions . >> last public comment on this matter. >> we need to remember the medical aspect of this. can -- can you taez someone who has epilepsy, pregnant with a heart condition where can you taez them at in the chest, head, genitalia where is it allowed where is it anytime allowed. i think there is probably -- i believe there is too many requirement requirements where somebody would not be allowed to use a taser if an officer pulls up and he knows this person has epilepsy or knows this person is pregnant, how does that effect it? i mean can they just i feel like this is not a good policy

we're trying to push towards. it gives the officer a reason to pull out a weapon and teas someone there are too many cases where these work appropriately we need more reform before we bring weapons on. i think this is bad policy. just no to bad policy. and if the poa is pushing for this, it's probably a bad decision. >> thank you. public comment is closed. call next item. >> item 6 [reading]. >> any public comment on this matter? >> 1 of the sessions i attended

at city call 1 is the muni clezed conference it's labor management i'm starting to think that close comment there could have been nice to hear what is going on. city hall they closed public comment last week. i'm starting to believe that closed sessions are where transparency starts here in the rooms right now. we're here. we're understanding how intelligent people are addressing the issues although it's late i want to go home too, please, but i'm not in favor of moving away from closed session. >> thank you. any further comment on this item. hearing

none item closed. call next item. >> item 7. [reading]. >> do i have an action to hold the items in closed session. >> >> back in open session we have a quorum discussion on item 8 held in closed session (san francisco administrative code section 67.12(a)) (action). >> have a motion? >> moved. >> second? >> all in favor? >> >> (multiple voices): aye. >> any opposed? motion carries. >> item 10 adjournment action item. >> have a motion? >> second? >> all in favor? all opposed?

thank you. we're adjourned. (meeting adjourns at 1:02 a.m.) >> i want to thank our city administrator and her public works director for being here with the dpw street paving crew. also, our neighborhood services as well. derek, thank you for being here this morning. we are here to go to work. i know it's a political year and everybody's talking about some big election that

were going to have but, i think the real story is about the mostly the men today get where are the women? we have to deal with that get there we go. where are your hardhats? okay. well, i was there is a men and women. today is mostly men that are out here. at our neighborhood corridor and this is of coarse, one in many many neighborhoods across the city where we get a chance because our city is economically strong and thanks to our capital program that our city administrator is involved in. thanks to their mind or from a public works that they want to be out here paving all of our streets. you know, one of the great people that in a city that is increasingly become very expensive for people is our own streets. if our streets can be

paid everybody can use them whether you are a senior, whether you are a young person, whether a bicycle rider. when you take a ride share with you guide drive your own vehicle back and forth, everyone uses our streets. that's a great equalizer and when we fix it up than every single neighborhood of the city benefits from this. this is sometimes what we were for to as shared prosperity of the city. in years past, when we did not have the resources in our capital program suffered, then our parks and our streets suffered first. i want to say that we just concluded next two years our capital program over four lap $411 million from our capital planning and he and our whole

bunch of smart numbers people get in there and they crunch numbers and they say, hey, look, if we spend this amount than that apartment late dpw can say, you can get to that magic seven. is every window with the magic 70 is? this a pci index that engineers know about. i plot the others and the engineer department and they will tell you that's how street levels are graded in cities like san francisco. it's what they call a pci index. for over 30 years, we got close to this number 70 and now it's within eyesight. i think if we are disciplined in making sure that our capital money sources are spent in paving all of our streets were to get to this magic number 70, which is something we've not a published in over 30 years of investment. that every year it's been the streets come do we want to do that or do we want to do trees. people voted for the trees did that was parks and people voted for parks. that was health institutions and people voted

for the health institutions. so we never got a story out there about how streets are so important to us and how maintaining them is a great service to every single neighborhood in the syndicate were finally able to do that and this is important and it's part of our 10 year capital plan, but were funding the next two years at $411 million. that's a significant amount. i know that those that are involved in our capital planning have something to smile about because it's not just streets good streets is one of the key examples. that's why we are here today. we are going to do more of the streets for the benefit of all of our neighborhoods,, all across the city. over the next two years. but in addition to streets, infrastructure is about all the other aspects assets that we have. for example, they dpw horizon particularly for engineers is outrageous. third street grades. christmas creek bridge. they have to be maintained and put in a good state repair. guess what? the largest population growth is

happening in the southern part of our city and were needing to grant across those bridges a lot. those are bridges that are constantly used for mission bay, for all of the development in the dogpatch and in the hunters point area. there also going to be of course, a ballpark and eventually [inaudible]. so, that's going to happen in the next couple of years. those bridges will get repaired. in addition to that, there is something that we have not talked about in public a lot. something a little more hidden in our-underneath our streets, but something i've been dedicated to discussing with the port about and that's the infrastructure called rc wall. that seawall is goes all the way from the fisherman's wharf area all the way down to the ballpark and onto your 50. that seawall is absolutely critical for everything that is from the water to the peers to

the embarcadero roadway. if we don't keep that seawall up in good shape, the water eventually, will you road all the infrastructure underneath, which includes our wastewater, unclean water, all of the utilities, will all be subject to incredible incredible cost is not danger, in of course, the majority of our ports assets we lie on the seawall. it's about time we started talking about it because the seawall is over 100 years old and we have not made any very significant investments in the seawall. that's another part of our infrastructure. there's another part of our infrastructure that we don't talk about until there's flooding in the city. that is places like telegraph hill. you

know, that very steep hill where i kind of look up and i get nervous and all those condominiums up on top and how steep that hillside and every year, every two years or three years, when the heavy rains come, you see a little bit of a you rose and i called the city engineer or all call these private companies that dpw has oncology what's going on. they say, well, the earth is moving. it's sliding. we got to reinforce those cliff areas around the telegraph hill. otherwise, thousands of homes will be in jeopardy. this is all part of infrastructure, all part of capital planning. when we do capital planning at 10 year stretches, we want to take care of infrastructure like these and we do it in a very land way. we do it in the way it does not shop the general fund every two years, and when we do this planning everything, all of our assets get touched. they get treated. in one year it'll be these kinds of things like our streets and our

hillsides and are bridges,. another year it will be our parks. another year it will be our cultural institutions that need to get a touch. you talk about parks. again, that's an asset that everybody enjoys. particularly, if you're a senior or families with children, more and more of our parks are being used with to keep them clean. keep these assets not only clean but expanded, we-updated refreshed, and this is how i think our city is so successful with our residents. so, i want to say today, thank you dw for being out here. particularly, the mostly men and some women that are going to be picking this street the right way and it's going to last 50 years, right?

not to come up here for another 50 years. so when we do this, we do it right. yes. we've got to tell everybody when we do the streets, that the tell all the utilities were coming in because i don't than breaking into the street saying you do not tell us about it we notify everywhere. we have the residence and of course the residence of the happiest. they get to come out and drive on some smooth streets. they don't have to tell me at least this block, will be donated stories about how their transmissions not ruined and had to buy new tires. but we need this kind of treatment to get to this pci index we been longing for, where the grading of our streets by the federal highway administration, who funds part of this, by the state, will say that let's keep this kind of high-level streets smoothness in our capacity, and every neighborhood will benefit from it and all the neighborhoods will be better as a result. it

begins with good planning. we've got all the people that will execute all this. and the more you were out here in the neighborhoods of getting things done or fixing our streets, or fixing on herschel corridor, again, with public works leadership, were putting additional pit stops were people need them, they don't need them in this neighborhood, but in other neighborhoods, were going to keep a good relationship with our neighbors and i hope that the neighbors will want us to finish this quickly and go on to the next streets. but, thank you to the men and women of pablo's for your dedication,. keep working hard to get this stuff done and then go on to the next week. would you do all employee. by the way, the next two years of infrastructure work that i just talked about over 3400 jobs keeps everybody employed. that, again, we have such a low unemployment rate but i never want to ever forget that when i started people were screaming at me for more jobs. now we get to employ more people. does that feel better? with a lot

of jobs? yes. our dignity to move forward with these really good jobs. i get, what effect our city administrator, public works director, art and neighborhood services and capital planning group for everything they do and that's keep on working and that's what our neighborhoods. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you mr. made. naomi kelly city administrator and have the honor to chair the 10 year capital plan. it's a 1.6 $6,000,000,000.10 year plan that is transparent with a public process process. the plan that oversees our infrastructure over the next 10 years and helps us prioritize where to spend our money over the next 10 years and it's creating more jobs. as the mayor mention. our unemployment rate is down to about 3.1%. thank you, mr. mayor are all the jobs you're creating in the city. one of the reasons that are capital planning process is so successful, started by the former former city administrator current mayor, ed

lee 11 years ago and because of our long-range comprehensive planning where we are looking at projects, we've estimated how much the projects are going to be and when were going to complete it, then we make good on that promise. the voters and the residence of san francisco have appreciated. we delivered on a sf general hospital. we delivered on time and on budget a public safety building. we are keeping our promises and we are delivering our promises to the voters and the residence of the city. simply put, because of this good planning, arbitron ratings are high. they trust what we are doing in this 10 year long-range processor

stopping fly-by-night ideas together. we are actually doing a lot of planning. so, i want to thank the department of public works in all the work they do. the clues behind us because as a resident in san francisco in i enjoyed writing over smooth streets and i look forward to driving down the street very soon. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you all for coming out. i am probably the most excited one of all. everybody out here today get me along with my cruise because of the commitment that the mayor and city administrator have made towards improving our city. you heard from the mayor stabilizing telegraph hill. fixing our bridges. fixing our playgrounds. our firehouses. all the things people want to the capital planning process, those are prioritized and does receive funding in the next two years. to see-you will see the big difference. i think since the last two years under the mayor's leadership, we have a better working relationship with

city partners. the public utilities commission, the mta. together, were working really hard to deliver the projects that make a difference for the people of san francisco. we have some projects in the works and now and those are the result of some of the capital planning also. my cell street is being done. potrero right there thereby the new hospital that's being done right up to ocean avenue is being done and coming soon, we have a lot more. we have second street. second street is going to be an entire new design with nice bike pathways among nice sidewalks where people can walk, and really achieving the type of streetscape that offers twice the sky city like san francisco should have. today, were paving the street that was last week caved in 1989. the payment was given score was 1500 at the end of today this pavement score will be 100. 10