less complexity and less dependency on that. at the end of the day, administratively, it is very clear cut. >> the indicated earlier, he finally received the medical examiner's report. is a year later that you received this report? >> 17,005, yeah, let me look that one up. >> it took a year for the medical examiner? >> typically it is a year are sometimes longer. we have outstanding cases. sometimes, you know, -- right now -- >> if i would like to interject, to give you a historical perspective, used to take two or three years to get these cases to the firearm discharge review board. the police department was waiting for a case closure from

the district attorney's office. there is concern that it was taking three to be long and there is to reach out to the district attorney, explained to the d.a. that a lot of times, the police departments reach their conclusion, but everybody is waiting to hear what the final say is from the d.a.'s office. the police department no longer say because candidly, their conclusion should be independent from the d.a.'s office. so there's been -- and escalation of speeding up the process. it all started with an officer involved shooting at the airport the san mateo d.a.'s office closed it down in six weeks. so i think that was an example to give impetus for people to do a thorough investigation, but not to let things sit on a desk. said there is a huge backlog four years ago. that backlog has been cleared up and there are more resources being put towards this. there has been a change. >> i believe that one of the dgo

is recommended that we not wait for the district attorney anymore. i see one of them from 2016 where it indicated that charging decision was announced on may 24 th, 2018 and we are finally moving forward on the fdr b. review. [laughter] >> so we are doing this balancing act. it was the chief's directive. all things being equal that we understandably -- we concentrate on the oldest cases and get those done. and then, you know, as it would be, we would get a letter from the district attorney and have all the pieces that we would once we can close the cases. the focus has been a moving target based on what we can get done most effectively. so so there some shifting on that.

but i think we have been able to do that well. 17,005, for example, took about a year to get that. we got it a couple weeks ago. so now, we have enough to wrap it up and get it presented to the fdr b. >> what is a typical turnaround time for the ia reports that are done? >> a week? a matter of weeks. part of it is there is a really in-depth review process before it comes out of our shop. it gets thoroughly reviewed and that takes as much time as anything. typically, we get the pieces that we need to close it out. we close it out and prepare the report. the base report might be 70, 80,

85 pages of information and analysis. that goes through a process of review, and sometimes reviewers say that we need to flesh this out or this isn't clear. what ever. so there's this whole internal -- within the internal defenders just affairs division, there there's a thorough review process of those reports. and then is a matter of getting materials ready and everything prepared and scanned. in time, to distribute so that the reviewers at the fdr b. haven't enough 7:04 pm to read everything. so we have to get it done in x number of weeks ahead of them and have that. it is always a process. is a process of pushing things out but it is constant. >> if i may add to your question , there are a number of things that we have a

streamlined. we have a little bit more work to do. we met with director henderson and this goes on with coordinating the investigation with the sfpd investigation. so they are able hopefully, to present their findings to the fdr b. as well where it is appropriate. and between the medical examiner sfpd and the d.a.'s office, there is four, sometimes five investigations going on at the same time. ideally, there's a lot of coordination that needs to happen so all the information gets to the people that it needs to get to to make the decision to the chief's office. but i think we are in a much better place. i did give a directive to start with the older ones because we were backlogged. we are at a point now where we will not wait on the district attorney process decision, on a policy decision.

that will play out as it will. we do talk to the d.a. and get a feel for where a case is going. but it is a policy decision, whether it is in policy or out of policy. we are in a much better place and it should get better as we work with d.p.a. to coordinate these investigations. all the information presented will be at the same time. >> it is my understanding that the district attorney's office has two investigations going. one from the d.a.'s office at south and one for their independent investigation bureau is that correct? >> it will conduct -- we conduct a criminal investigation and they also conducted their investigation to make a determination on whether the shooting -- the use of force is legal. it is one investigation from the district attorney's office. it is all it determines -- determining the legality of the shooting. but still, there is some coordination that has to happen.

the bottom line is, we don't feel like the recommendation that the d.o.j. that is where we are right now. basically making that transition >> thank you. sergeant, let me follow-up on questions that have been asked. just to be clear right now, there is no -- you don't take into account the d.a.'s investigation and whether it has been closed or not in conducting your own investigation, correct? >> our direction has been to move away from that. >> is it accurate to say that there is no issues of access to evidence and coordinating with the d.a.'s office? >> no issues of access to

evidence. do we have access to evidence, yeah. we do. >> meaning no one is holding you up from doing the job on your end of things? >> it has not been an issue. i have been doing these for seven years and it has not been an issue. >> what you are saying that because in the past you had relied on the policy waiting for the d.a. office to conclude investigations, that policy has been changed and you can expect it to be wrapped up. >> yes, sir. before our directive was to weight until there was a conclusion on the situation that had been adjudicated. however, we have never not to don the administrative concurrently. so what we typically have a something that is drafted up with pieces missing that we would ideally have an investigation. what our investigation is usually -- had in the past back

been pretty well moved along, waiting for the last pieces. that is why once we had -- once we had the signed documents on our side and approved reports from the others, as well, it was a matter of getting -- >> has their, i may have missed this, but has there been a goal set or a timeline set for concluding these reviews? >> no. no specific timeframe as far as i am aware. in the past, research with other agencies -- 18 months is not in a typical amount time for other agencies. but we've done cases -- i did a very simple case and it was a self-inflicted, but a very

simple case that was wrapped up, signed up and delivered before it had a chance to do a return to duty presentation on the case so because of dependency, they can go very quickly. a medical examiner dependency, you know, we definitely want to know cause of death and we want to know toxicology. we need to know these things. there are dependencies that are out there. analysis, information that we would get from csi. same with the criminal investigation. >> i guess what my questions were getting to, are there any impediments to you conducting your investigation now, we would obviously like to know about them. so if there's anything we can do to assist you in moving the investigations along, we obviously would want to do that as a commission. >> in fact, i feel like we've got pretty good support in

getting these things done quickly. i know that i feel very fortunate or have felt very fortunate in my world because through the chain of command, the folks i have worked with the past three years have been all very sensitive to getting these things wrapped up and done as thoroughly, as and quickly as possible. there is great -- great cooperation with the homicide detail that handles the criminal investigation in these things. and d.p.a., they get all the material we developed. >> one other question. my understanding is with the o.i.s., they -- there either is or will be a switch in the lead agency on the investigations. >> that is above my pay grade. i know there is a discussion about it. >> there is an m.o.u. on the table that the meeting can confer.

>> let me follow-up. this might be a completely new be question, but with case 15,004 and 15,008, you mentioned there was issues of not being properly equipped. >> yes. >> can you explain what that means? >> so i have to be careful because we are not allowed to discuss the specifics with regards to an individual officer for the bottom line is this. in the course of an investigation, we may find that an officer didn't have their best or they didn't have general orders. the requirements sometimes a factor in to factor decisions. >> ok. >> we have determined what is a

ballistic vest or a bullet resistant vest that the officer wasn't wearing. whatever it may be that comes through the course of the investigation, maybe it does not have a direct impact of the outcome of the incident. may be, we turned over the rock and we will not ignore it. >> that is what i was trying to understand. if the lack of proper equipment -- if that is a factor in the actual investigation of the discharge, that would be detailed in the actual report, right? >> and definitely a point of discussion at the firearm discharge review board. >> that was not a significant factor? >> no, sir. >> regarding 15,001, is that a particular o.i.s. that was pretty well publicized?

>> i would like to understand a little bit more about the findings in that case and how the determination of this and policy, how did you come to that let me ask some preliminary questions. did this occur under the old use of force policy? >> yes. >> ok. the old use of force policy did not have requirements or guidelines regarding de-escalation, time and distance , using general tactics that are now pretty well accepted in these type of situations?

>> i'm very wary of getting into the specifics to drill down on this. but the general order, the old general order did not have the level that this order has. in this case, there was some review of the tactics. there was a review of the consideration and there was a review of the perceptions of the officers at the scene at the time their efforts to de-escalate or use alternative force options with someone who had committed a violent, deadly assault prior who was in a public arena, and in the area of other people who could have been exposed to violent assaults. >> so going back, can you tell me, or discuss what de-escalation techniques or

tactics were used during this investigation? or were analysed during the investigation? >> i did not personally do this investigation. i can tell you that the different force options were reviewed and the considerations of the officers back in using deadly force, were reviewed, and other force options and other -- including uniform presence, including voice commands, all the officers that fired their weapons had c.i.t. training. some form of its. >> and you are satisfied in the investigation that all de-escalation and c.i.t. tactics were used in this case? >> if i can interject, commissioner, the discharge of the firearm evaluates the

tactics. they do evaluate the tactic as to how they impact or effect the use of the forest that was used. de-escalation and those things are considered and in this particular case, it was verbalization deployed. all of that is evaluated. in terms of whether or not -- how much they use or did they use enough, and that is not a factor, at least in the decision of the firearm discharge review board. you evaluate the tactics and look at what the officers did, and then they have to apply that to whether or not the use of force is within the department's policy. there is no measurement of how much is enough in terms of de-escalation. it goes to a point of what is

reasonable. unreasonableness is a standard. i'm not sure if that answers your question. there is a determination made as to how much escalation there was made. it is evaluated but that is a very difficult measurement in terms of how to objectify what is enough and what isn't enough. >> let me ask a different question. part of the investigation and analysis of these incidents, the departments looks inward and determines whether or not -- not just whether or not something is in policy, but whether it lessons can be learned from that -- from this. to improve tactics and training. did any such improvements or lessons learned arise out of this investigation? >> yes. as i mentioned, new training was developed after this incident

that involved the combination of tactics. there is a 20 hour course of the academy that has a lot of practical exercise reviews. there were some short-term things that were attempted at the station involved. to try and mitigate things. but the bigger picture things involved training and the revision of policy. that included a greater emphasis or more specificity on some of the de-escalation things that you have described their. >> just a little background, being in the discharge review board, they can't wait to -- you will both have that opportunity -- there is not soundbites. it is very thorough in their statements from members of the public who don't want to be

public that are reviewed. for the first time, the statements of the officers generally aren't public. their perspectives are given. these conversations are very robust at his conversations about -- as you said earlier, what can we learn from this and you better? these are thorough conversations and very hard conversations just watching the command staff go through it. i know the d.p.a. participates. these are never good incidents and there is a strive to do better. >> so you have to forgive us, but this is the first time that this is come before the commission. the public needs to know that this commission does not sit on the firearm discharge review board. only one member sits on it. as that member is a guest, none of us vote on whether this is an policy or not. this is an entirely internal decision and we just get to view it as one individual. we get this report is a short

report. as we have said, this is a wood case. i'm not asking about the policy. i understand you say it is an policy, but what concerns me is this letter is faded -- dated june 2018. when you read this particular incident, -- i don't want you to get defensive. i think we should really talk about it. we have an opportunity to discuss this. i know you are not the chief of the times you aren't even here. what concerns me is that the captain discussed the department is in the process of updating training to address the scene. the members should evaluate the incidents and consider options such as assigning officers for crowd control and forming arrest scenes. i don't know what that means, one of the things we have been told over the years is this incident is used as what not to

do for officers training across the nation, what not to do. it has also been looked at as a failure in training. what i want to point out is that even though the d.g.o. is old, the chief had put a bulletin in that was in place at the time this took place about time and distance. so there was time and distance bulletin. not only are the dg a supposed -- d.g.o. supposed to be obeyed, but so are the bulletins. i understand it has been a while now but most of these were young my understanding is they did not wait for the sergeant. they did not close down the street. they didn't move the bus and they didn't move the passengers. it happened very quickly. i was disturbed i was wondering if you were disturbed when the prosecutor and the district district attorney's report said that the time that they analyse a video, it showed the suspect was not directly threatening the officers with a knife 126 shots

were fired and 21 hit him. i guess i am looking at this. and it seems to be -- there seems to be a lot of rules that are already in place. there seem to be some training errors here. i am concerned when it says we are in the still -- were still in the process three years later of updating these type of -- i don't want to call them simple, but analysing these incidents. so i guess i just want to no kak when you say it is in process, what you mean it is in process? what does forming the arrest team mean? >> are you talking about -- >> i'm talking about 2015. >> i understand. i'm not sure when you say the arrest team and you are referring -- >> i am reading your report. i'm reading your letter. >> i'm sorry. the second page of your letter.

isn't that the one we are talking about? >> it is the chief's letter. >> i'm sorry. the chief's letter. >> said the letter to the commission? >> the letter to the commission. second page, third paragraph. this is as of june. i was a little baffled -- baffled. >> if i could clarify. there is, based on, you know, this is subsequent to this particular case, but based on some of the cases that the commission has acquired recent officer involved shooting us, we have identified a need to address some command-and-control issues.

we have asked our training captain and our staff to work on a module of training to address the issues that we have seen, including those issues that you just raised. in progress, the training is almost at a point where we are excited to -- pointed out. that is not just a result of this particular incident, but incidents that have happened since then. we saw a need to -- >> this is not the only training this is developed -- so there's been new offerings in training already that have been put out there in different places. cpt, you know, which is when officers recertify. there is training related to use of force policies in time and space and de-escalation and tactical communications.

that has all been put in place. but the chief has been working with the training division to put together this more comprehensive training that will include all these concepts with more of a state-of-the-art emphasis. >> when i have sat in on a firearm discharge review i do but against a particular incident, even if you find it an policy or not an policy, they will sometimes make recommendations for the particular officer. i sent them to the shooting range and i sent them to another class and i had them repeat this , and i don't see anything in here about the officers, having to review and get training on time and distance that was in place at the time. or crowd control, or, you know, waiting for a sergeant to arrive at the scene. my understanding was there was no sergeants. i'm wondering in this case, was there any follow-up training afterwards or anytime in between

for these officers? >> the officers did have initial training immediately after. but they haven't had the benefit of the new training. >> when you look at these, sometimes you see in the reports that the shooting was in policy but you find other things to be out of policy when he violated a d.g.o. or a bulletin. i'm wondering, did anyone review whether there was an out of policy and terms of the bulletin that was in place or anything like that? no? ok. not these officers. i take that back. >> just to remind everyone, the reason why it is here is to update or the report on whether the shooting was in or out of policy and getting into the discipline that runs the risk for the city. >> so, sometimes -- >> the concept that was

expressed in the bulletin you are talking about which was titled lawful, but all full, was initially presented -- was affiliated with policy, another bulletin that was issued in 2013 , with regards to time and space, with respect to subjects in a mental crisis who are armed and having a supervisor respond. in a situation that is static. the d.a. may have found, in their determination looking at video, they didn't feel that anyone was threatened. the question is, what was the perception of the officers? what was the action of the officers? the officers attempted to contain a subject of a violent assault. it is not all the all the oxen

free. he does not get to leave. you don't get to walk out and go he stabs somebody. several of the officers believe that he had killed someone. he was not allowed to leave. in an area that was highly congested by people. the officers used the concepts of time and space, it was determined, to the degree that they had time and space. but when the subject goes on in assault and is trying to leave the perimeter back exposing the public to greater risk, that becomes a problem. >> thank you for that. i guess, lets me back up. the officers had misinformation. nobody died. it is concerning. if 911 is giving improper or -- let me finish. you made me lose my train of thought. sorry. i'm sorry you interrupted me. you said there was misinformation and the fact that

25 bullets were shot with children standing half a block away at the bus stop. these are concerning things. i don't know if those are part and parcel of the overall review looking at it. >> yes, ma'am. they are. one of the things that we look at is why each officer started the fire, why each officer fired and why each officer stopped firing when they stopped firing. what they responded to and what they reacted to. and if i give you the impression that they had misinformation from 911, they had the impression based on a couple of the officers that stated in subsequent interviews, they understood that the person had gone to the hospital had had expired. how they came to the conclusion was based on the nature of the injuries. it was a neck injury. >> the last question i have then -- i think we've talked about this before, chief, when

officers fire at one time. or is this something we are still addressing in terms of looking into the psychological aspect of it and the training aspect of it. i don't know how to do this. i think the chief told us one officer with a gun and one behind him with support or something. i don't know. the others -- yeah. they stand down unless they have to. have we address that? >> that speaks to some of the training that we want to evolve to get better at. and part of what you just read or asked about with some of the training that we are moving to, we hope to address some of those issues. we are revamping some of that training. >> this last sentence is forming arrested teams. what does that mean? i don't know what that means. >> a scene is -- we had a scene with officers, supervisor, it doesn't have to be a supervisor,

but if you are making a tactical plan, often times you will assign officers to be the arrest team. if someone has to be handcuffed and taken into custody, you want a preplanned to know that may be these two officers or this one officer of these three officers will have that task. so when you assign tasks, it makes for a more coordinated operation. that is the f.b.i. deal. everyone should have that. sometimes you don't have time to do that. time allows and you have the presence to do that, you want to have a designated task to take care of whatever situation comes with that circumstance. >> thank you. >> director henderson. >> a lot of these issues that you're talking about are some of the things that we mentioned before in the sparks report when we presented changes that we want to see in the fdrb. but let's speak to some of the questions that where you -- that were you were raising. the chief and i have been

meeting for the past month or two months. a little over a month, since the sparks report on a lot of the specific issues on expanding both the scope and fdr b. and the broader collaboration, specifically with the d.p.a. ticket almost doesn't make sense to have us there adds in the room, merely asking questions when we have our own independent investigation going on about some of the same exact cases where we have either conflicting or collaborative evidence that we can be presenting as well. we are having conversations now starting immediately, both on how we can expand our role to present other information to that commission as they meet, and both to have better collaboration. one of the problems we are having in the past was that the review boards would come up and we either had completed an investigation, had not completed it or there was not collaboration in between the agencies.

so i know that my chief and the chief's chief have been meeting to rule that out sooner rather than later. you will start seeing an update on this process, sooner rather than later. i wanted to articulate that. >> have you ever witnessed don't have witnesses talk to your department and not talk to the internal affairs or the police department? >> yes. >> how do you reconcile that information not being in front of the fdrb at the time? >> we have not been able to reconcile its. that is exactly the reason why we want to be able to present our information as well as the information that the department is presenting to itself. i know that i've been there in the past with other members on the commission where we have -- again, we don't get to vote. we are allowed to ask questions. but we are expanding. by the way, i think someone mentioned it earlier. these are the specific recommendations that were made in the d.o.j. report as well. we are all trying to be

consistent and move towards that model, but not waiting for outside input about what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. >> thank you. >> you never know. i will aim for that. just a follow-up. i think that we said it. this was an incident, regardless of what is in policy are not in policy, whether it is criminal or not criminal, that it did not help the department to did not help the city. so i think what we are concerned about is the commission -- as a commission, is doing anything that we can to ensure it doesn't happen in the future. it sounds like the department has taken some steps. it sounds like the new d.g.o. is in effect and we have done some new training. can i ask, do you believe, under this new d.g.o., and all of the changes since then, that if this

happened today, would this be in policy? >> i can't say. i don't know. i don't like taking a hypothetical. >> is not hypothetical. it's a policy and a set of actions. >> i don't know. >> i'm sorry? >> i don't know. >> let me ask you this. as investigators as -- and as members of the department, would you be satisfied, after all these changes that have been made if you saw this happen again? >> no. >> nobody was satisfied that it happened at all. >> satisfied the department had done its best job that it does not happen again? >> again, nobody was satisfied. i understand what you are saying every o.i.s. is an opportunity to learn to get better.

that one in particular, gave us a lot of pause and a lot to get better at. i think we have done some things to get better and i think there's more we can do to get better. i think the chief has done some things recently that really are going to take us in another direction. you know, i couldn't possibly say i would be happy no matter what the outcome was. i grew up in this city. this affected the city i grew up in. no matter what, in policy, legal action, whatever. now, later, before. i would not be satisfied with that. >> thank you, sergeant. thank you for answering my questions. i know i was probing a little bit beyond the scope of the agenda.

>> please call the next presentation. >> next we have a commander on the device.

>> good evening. >> on the communication device audit. >> good evening. commissioners, chief scott. director henderson. thank you for leaving during my presentation. [laughter] >> i am here to present the second quarter, 2018 bias audit which we do on electronic devices. first off, the audits are limited to devices that the department owns, not personal phones, computers, et cetera. we get that question a lot. we do pick up any transmissions that come from private devices onto department devices and vice versa. we can get one end of a conversation from a private device. all members of the department are aware of the communications policies and they fall under d.g.o.

it guides the team that looks at these. there's three systems that are audited. level two which is california law. there is a communication system. department e-mails and text messaging via department issued cell phones. i will explain how each one of these works. i know the report came out and i will briefly touch on the reports and try to head off any questions. there's a lot of spikes and i usually have to explain these. first, there was a program established that searches all entries made into the system using an established word list. the audit process is passive in nature and runs continuously. if a member uses one of the identified words, a hit is generated and automatically set to ied personnel via level two. each hit is printed, scans, and saved to a file and the analyse every hitch throughout the week.

those determined to be potentially biased are immediately investigated. for the second quarter results, specifically to the level two audit process, it has been fully operational since december 2016. there were 35 hits returned and analysed and then were determined to be potentially biased. the department e-mail system. all e-mails are sent and received internally and externally through the department server and are audited using an established word list. the audit process is also passive in nature. given e-mail contains one of the identified words on the list, it is generated and automated -- automatically sent via an e-mail address exclusively used for the audit process. those e-mails are saved and maintained on the server. the staff analyse is every hit, and those determined to be potentially biased are investigated. that is an immediate investigation.

this is a little different than the other two. their automatic hits. these are researched on a monthly basis going back and they are retained even farther back. every 30 days, a search is done of the text using the established word list. additional terms can be used as well. parameters allow staff to search department systems for historical texts if necessary. for data not available on local systems, a cellular provider will be contacted to determine if additional information access on their servers. the staff analyse this every hitch to determine context in which the term was used. those hits determined to be potentially biased are investigated. all false positives are saved by at&t in this particular. we had 70 hits returned and analysed big number determined. so to go over a couple of the numbers, if i can help clarify,

generally, the level to, the way it works as it will pick out any set or string of words even if it is contained in another words that is generally where we get hits. i usually use the example of the word stick, and sticker. if the word is derogatory as stick but sticker is just a word that everybody uses and you don't use it that way, if stick comes up, it hits, even though it is sticker. the word itself was not that bad as far as the department e-mail system, what we really have tried to do is actually look more in context pick so we have a lot more innocuous words in it innocuous words and e-mails, when they are in paragraphs and in sentences, we can delve a little farther. if we have a word that is in that case, innocuous but if i use it in a sentence toward someone or something, then we

can obviously see that the word itself is not innocuous. the problem with this word, and we've had it twice as it is very common and is used by everybody sitting at the day is at least 20 times a month and we look at that context and that is where we get a spike. also of note, without giving away the list, which we don't do , june happens to be pride month. so everything leading up into pride month, there are terms that people will probably not use in their everyday life but are used for the community during pride month to take back those words. when e-mails come in about events, they are on our e-mail servers and things pop up. lastly, the text is the biggest one we have. it is words that pop up and officers do have confidential informants. sometimes their informants use colourful language in reporting things and i'm using that as an

example. the word is actually not a word we would use. however, it has not asked sending the word. we are getting it from a member of the public. we have also had hate crimes where people have written in and that e-mail or text has travelled in with a graffiti word, et cetera. that explains why you see a lot of hits on some of these areas. and then i will make my offer because i always make it. if you want to see the list, we have had pra his and we do not give it out as an investigative technique. we don't want everybody taking guesses. they are probably pretty close. if you want to see how the system works, we can bring you to i.a. and show you the portals and things like that. >> i know that there were thieves hits and commander walsh does speak to me in advance and told me what that was. we don't want to give up that information for anybody to know but i have shared with the commissioners what those two words were. >> so i'm just looking, you have

5,611 hits in the second quarter and 4,963 was for one word? >> one word. >> ok. you will take that word off the list now? >> we are. i think i looked at second quarter last year and it was our biggest spike. i think between pride and pride events and what we did similarly with this particular word, it was kind of the same time. last year and this year are kinda very similar. >> ok. that was all i had. thank you. >> anything further? thank you for heading this off and thank you for doing this. we don't want the officers to know what these words are. at the commission, you are free to go see what the words are. i think commander walsh has intellectual intellectual-property certificate for them. >> one other thing, we do constantly update these. when we don't see words, and as we grow older, i have made this

statement before. we do use things like urban dictionary to keep up with words that we sometimes wouldn't know that would be pejorative his are derogatory. the list is always evolving and things are on. we do save all the lists. there is a historical context so that we are not just using words from one we all watched archie bunker. [laughter] >> i was corrected by my kids. >> thank you. if i may just add, there are four department of justice recommendations that speak directly to this audit. so -- as we report on the progress of the department of justice recommendation, what we plan to start to do is point those things out to the commission on the public that we are actually putting a lot of these measures in place. is important for the public to

know that. >> thank you. >> thank you, commander. >> thank you. >> next we have commander david lazar he will talk about the state -- safe place initiative and then he has an update regarding the homeless initiative. before he speaks, i would like to point out again, when you get to the homeless initiative part and give us the update and the presentation, that speaks directly to for very involved d.o.j. recommendations, as it relates to how we address the whole homeless issue in the city i think commander lazar process presentation should give the commission and the public a lot of insight on how we are collaborating with our partners in government and city partnerships on the homeless issues. and we are really happy with the progress on these recommendations in this regard. >> thank you, keith. commissioners, members of the

department, members of the public, i am from the community engagement division. i have two presentations to make this evening. looking at the agenda, we will start with a safe place program. i will briefly go over what that is followed by what the chief is mentioning. our work with the healthy streets operation centre. if you will remember, several months ago, i came before the commission to talk about our work with a safe place program. back then, we were doing research and looking into what seattle was doing and trying to see how it would fit in our city , what the benefits are. thanks to the work of the acting captain and specifically the program manager, we have a solid plan that we are ready to put in place. within the next four weeks or so with your pocket and this powerpoint, i would skip over to the next page. just a reminder about this great program happening in seattle,

which will soon happen here, in seattle, they have had a safe place program together by seattle p.d., and basically it was focused on the lgbt community and giving the community, in seattle, an opportunity to have a safe place to go if they felt threatened or harassed or they needed somewhere to go where they needed police services. they could go in any business that had the sign, et cetera. looking at that, back in 2013, we implemented a very similar program. we had the design, as you see, similar to what seattle had. we had a department bulletin and essentially it was put up in police stations. sent a message to the community that as a person in the lgbt community, you can go to a police station, feel comfortable in doing so and report crime. we are there to help individuals that is really the concepts that we have had over the last five plus years.

in terms of what we are looking at now with a safe place program and how it will work in san francisco, we will have a liaison officer of the community engagement division who will monitor the program. restarting in a couple stations and moving at citywide. we will have a great messaging. we will market this out in as many ways as possible, through social media after the captain put just newsletters and press conferences and every way we could possibly can to the public to say, if you are travelling in san francisco and you see our sign, feel free to go into that business or school or establishment and they will help you and you can report crime. you can ask for the police. we will have a simple thanks to the work of lieutenant williams and her team who put together a great poster and a great design that you will see shortly. it is a u.v. sticker, and you be protected so does not get worn out from the sun. 4 inches by 6 inches to be put up on windows. the other part of this is

training to make sure that not only every police officer is trained in the safe place program but our dispatchers are prepared to receive calls from businesses you may identify themselves as a safe place location. we make sure the department of emergency management is up to speed as to what we are doing there peerk to be having few goals. the first goal i already briefly mentions. goal number 1 is for individuals , the person who feels like someone is following them pack or they are on the street and they don't feel safe for some reason, or they've had an altercation with an individual, it gives them a place to go and they know they can go there safely. we know there's been times where the public has walked into a business just to be told, no, not to your. you have to leave our business. in order to prevent that, that is our goal is to have a place people can go. number 2 is rolling this out. we will start at bayview and mission. we could easily roll this out. i think, citywide but we will want to make sure that our

policy and our program and our procedures and our strategy is sound. by doing so, we will start at the first two stations at bayview and mission. we will partner with a banking institution, but we also have support from target to help us financially with this. those recommendations will come before you for approval, financially. phase two is to do outreach in the community. c.b.o. his. phase three is to outreach to merchant groups. phase four is to the school district and phase five is to interfaith associations and faith-based organizations to make sure that everyone in the community has an opportunity to participate in the program. [please stand by]