Back in open session, any Public Comments on whether we need to disclose the discussions held in closed session pursuant to administrative code 67. 12 [a], employee evaluations. Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners. Whats your pleasure . A second . All in favor . Its unanimous, thank you. Item 11, adjournment. Commissioner covington so moved. President cleaveland the Commission Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Welcome to the november 15th, regular meeting. Did i go too soon . Im supervisor safai, and to me is supervisor fewer and joining me is supervisor yee who is not here and my clerk is lisa wang and i thank charles kriminac from sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. Clerk please silence all cellphones and complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the files to be submitted to the court and items will appear on a november 28th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Super safai i think that supervisor safai i think that item number one is going to be continued. So actually why dont we take item number two, please. Clerk yp two, ordinance of money to require parties to pay a refundable deposit when requesting written findings when the assessment appeals board has established procedures concerning the waiver and renewal of requests for written findings. Unless theres any comments from my colleague here why dont we hear from supervisor peskins and aide lee hel heppner. The proposed legislation before you today is an amendment to chapter 2b of the administrative code with policies and procedures for requesting findings of the assessment appeals board prior to an assessment hearing. As i understand it and this was sort of urged to our office at the request of the assessment appeals board, these amendments codify the policies and the procedures that have been developed by the assessment appeals board with the cooperation of the assessor recorders office. Relative to requests that the board prepare findings pursuant to california revenue and taxation code 1611. 5 and the property tax rules 308 and 325. And im happy to go into details and either the applicant or the assessor may make a written request for findings before commencement of an assessment hearing and theres a 215 ddeposit to cover the first hour of those finds and to the requesting party is billed for the preparation of those findings up to 30 hours. Theres also a procedure established for the abandonment of a request for findings and if the deposit is not paid before the conclusion of the hearing itself, if the requesting party fails to pay the total assessed amount or if the requesting party either explicitly or through neglect abandons their request for findings. If the request is abandoned, the requesting party is entitled to a full refund of deposit or fees paid unless the city has already spent more than an hour preparing those findings and for the appeals board to notify all parties that the request for findings has been abandoned. Again, this is to codify the existing procedures that the assessment appeals board already uses and in doing so to fill a gap in state law that was left there for us to be able to develop these procedures. One nonsubsanative declaration, on page 2, line 4, i believe that it should read, finding fees shall be waived instead of just findings shall be waived, and so it should be waived if any of the following occur. So i request that slight modification be made and don duran from the appeals board is here to address any details that i left out. I have a quick question. So this is designed and so this is prior to having a hearing that youd get essentially a written response. Is this prior to having the hear something. I think that is the case. Okay, great. Please come forward, mr. Duran. Good afternoon, supervisors. In answer to your question, the request for findings of fact must be made prior to the commencement of the hearing and the deposit is due either before or at the conclusion of the hearing. Once the hearing is held, when the board has the hearings, both parties are present, and the board can choose to render its decision prior to issuing those findings, or they can choose to issue its decision in conjunction with the findings. If the board releases their decision, if they choose to release their decision prior to issuing the findings or writing up the findings of fact, the parties both parties will be notified of the boards decision. The requesting party is then given the original requesting party is then given 10 Business Days to confirm whether they still want those findings to be issued by the board. please stand by . My name is jan an wong a regional paralyzing in the bureau i did not see might have as at management in the beginning which my career i have a master in Civil Engineering i thought ill follow a technical career path i scombrie being able to create a comprehensive plan implement and shape it into realty love the champs of working through cost quality schedule political and environmental structuring and finding the satisfaction of seeing the project come into fruition ive also take advantage of the sfpuc Training Program yunt my certification i see the flow from the pipeline into the tunnel one by one and i also had several opportunities to attend and make presentations at conferences also as a tape recording San Francisco resident authenticity rewarding to know the work i do contribute to the quality of life my life and those around me good morning, and welcome to the government audit and Oversight Committee for november 15th. My name is jane kim, ill be chairing todays committee. Joined by aaron peskin and joined when i president london breed shortly. Mr. Clerk, any announcements . Clerk silence all cell phones and electronic documents. Items acted upon todays will appear on the november 28, 2017, board of supervisor agenda unless otherwise stated. Supervisor kim forgot to announce our clerk today is victor young and the staff from s. F. Govtv is leo and charles, making sure its available online. Mr. Clerk, call items 1 and 22. Resolution of intention to form project area i mission rock, and infrastructure financing district number 2, establishing the time and date for public hearing and determining other matters in connection therewith. Item 2, resolution of intention to issue bonds for project area i of the sfru financing district number 2. Supervisor kim i see we have our presenter here up today. Good morning, madam chair, supervisor and members of the public. My name is rebecca benisini, assistant director of the port, pleased to be here on the first board action or recommendation related to mission rock project, the port has been working on many years. Acknowledge many members of the team here, fran weld, jack bare, harry obrien, and roscoe from the San Francisco giants available if there are any questions. A bit of context on the site, lot a and pier 48, comprise the mission rock site. Here is a rendering of the project at buildout. Very exciting project with a lot of important highlights that ill just briefly mention to you. The site is intended to build out at about 2. 7 million gross square feet, including residential, office, retail and active uses. Pleased we have 40 inclusionary below market rate units, mixed income from 45 to 50 of a. M. I. , eight acres of parks, the site to 2100 projected Sea Level Rise at 66 inches. Ongoing Revenue Streams for shoreline adaptation at the site as well as in other sites along the port. The site has a comprehensive planning and design framework, design for development was extensively created with a lot of Community Input and a lot of great folks from the design team on the giants, we are proud of the sustainability plan in the project. All of the pretty pictures take a lot of costs, anticipated infrastructure, hard and soft costs today in 2,017 estimated about 281 million. In addition, we are anticipating using excess tax increment and special taxes from c. F. D. We plan to form in several months to be directed to resiliency throughout the port. And then well have financing costs associated with developer returns as well as Public Financing and bond issuances. Total estimated costs, 692 million in 2,017. We have several Funding Sources and financing mechanisms in order to make this happen. The one we are talking about today is infrastructure financing district which captures growth and property tax revenue and the intended use of the revenues, eligible expenses are public improvements, Public Infrastructure and parks, as well as historic rehabilitation. For our one historic resource, pier 48 in the site. I. F. D. Is intended to cover the entire site. You see the building blocks, the park, as well as fear pier 48 and mission rock square. Authorized by state land for i. F. D. In 2013, went through the board how the i. F. D. S may be established across portland. There are threshold requirements the port needs to meet well bring to you when we actually complete all the documentation and are recommending formation of the project area. Once the guidelines are established the board then established the port wide i. F. D. And since then, activated with g1, historic core in pier 70. We now have in process the waterfront site also at pier 70, and the resolutions today for mission rock represent the first step, the public noticing requirement and the board would direct the port executive director to prepare the infrastructure financing plan and then brought back to the board for activation of the actual project area. A bit of background on timing, we have gone to capital planning. We have been to the port in terms of informational for the project approvals. We were here with you today and we intend to be coming back for full project approval to the board in january, when we ask you actually form the infrastructure financing project area. And we subsequently come back to the board for the formation of the Community Facilities district. The recommendation that we are asking for today is to we read the budget analysis, recommendations related to the i. S. P. And details included in the plan and consulted with the consultants and they are prepared to include all the details and bring them back for the formation proceedings so we have those available for the budget analysts at that time and recommending approval of the proposed resolutions. That concludes my presentation. Supervisor kim thank you, and i understand that we also have adam sandwater from omwd as well for additional questions. And so before i move to questions and comments, i want to go to our budget and legislative analyst. Good morning, chair kim, supervisor peskin. Yes, this as she noted, resolutions of intention. They do not obligate the board to approve the i. F. D. Sub project area or the bond issuance. Also do direct the port director to prepare an infrastructure financing plan for the i. F. D. Project area. That plan was not available as of the writing of the report. There is a list on page six of our report of the potential projects. However, the actual projects are not yet defined. Also notice on page 11 of our report that the property tax increment expected to be generated by the Mission Rock Development is about 1 billion over the term of the i. F. D. S. However, the proposed limit on tax increment that could be allocated to the i. F. D. Is about 3. 85 billion, this is considered like 20 contingency. This contingency is higher than the contingency included in the proposed i. F. D. S for project area for pier 70 and for the hoe down yard and the tax bond authorization asking for, 1. 4 billion. The port said that they would include our recommendations in the financing plan. Our recommendations are the first is that there be very detailed accounting for the tax increment limit on these, this i. F. D. Project area because of the 200 contingency there be a detailed explanation in the financing plan of the actual projects that would be financed and a cash flow analysis. We do recommend approval of the resolutions. Supervisor kim thank you, miss campbell. Are there any questions on this item . Ok. Well, why dont we open up for Public Comment on items 1 and 2. Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is now closed on items 1 and 2. Supervisor peskin madam chair, i would move these two resolutions of intention to the full board with a positive recommendation. Supervisor kim thank you, supervisor peskin. We have a motion to move this forward. Supervisor peskin i believe there is a proposed amendment. We do need to amend. She said committee of the whole date and i believe there was a proposed amendment from your office that was dropped off. There is i do not i see it but dont see what the amendment is. I dont see supervisor kim i dont have a copy of the amendment, im so sorry. I dont think its from my office. May i clear this up . I think i might be the source of this. There is a cost typo, or a resolution, there is a cost in the resolution i had spoken to supervisor kims staff about potentially amending but i was not sure if i was able to do that at this time and let us know we could amend in the resolution, its not a substantive change to the resolution or we can do it at a later date. So, if the supervisors are amenable to it i dont see it in the copy you forwarded to our office. What page and line. Page five, row 13. 355,100,017. Thats correct. Should have been 692 million. Instead of 355 million. Thats right. And i have clean copies of the resolution if you are able to take this amendment at this time. This is this would be the appropriate time to take any amendments. So, that should be included in the presentation so that we know before we take a motion to pass an item. Is the recommended amendments from the port. On page five, line 13, an amendment to change the dollar amount, 355,100,000 in 2,017 and amend to 692 million. Is that correct . That the only amend that your office or department is requesting . Yes, maam. And that, to be clear, is in file number 171118, not 117. Thank you. So, we can take this motion to amend as stated, and just a quick question to miss campbell. I know in your recommendations you have requested that the port executive director include in the infrastructure financing plan the specific definition of public facilities to be funded, the details on the total limit on the property tax increment and the detailed cash flow source, and you said that recommendation has been accepted by the Port Department . Yes, thats correct. Great. So, lets take this motion to amend and we can do that without opposition. And theres also the setting up the committee of the whole hearing date. I believe the proposal was january 23, 2018. Ok. So, before we pass the motion to move this forward with positive recommendation we have to take a motion to convene to committee as a whole at this whole. To set the committee as a whole hearing date. Supervisor kim could you point out what page that is on . Page three, line 22, and supervisor kim line 22. Whereas on january yes. I believe on page two, line 14. Supervisor kim ok. Whereas on . Yes, and strike 2017 and insert 2018. Supervisor kim ok. So the second motion to amend is that on line 14 whereas on january 14th, is that the i believe january 23, 2018. 2018. And also on page three, line 22, i believe. Supervisor kim again, january 23rd. 2018. Yes. Yes. And file 17117, we would need to amend the title to insert the hearing date. And also on page two, line 18, where we can insert the date of january 23, 2018. Supervisor kim im sorry im not sure we are looking at the same sorry. This doesnt make sense to me. In the first file i believe you need to amend page six, line 16, which is the notice that dates when the board will hold its public hearing. Right. But i think the other amendments are not january 23rd. The other amendments i believe can be added by the clerk after the board november 28th. Whatever that date is, the clerk can add administratively, i dont believe the committee has to make those amendments today before the board actually takes those actions. But the critical date for the amendment today is to set the date for the public hearing. Which is on the first file, 117, public hearing line 16 and that 2017 should be stricken and it should be january 23, 2018. Respectfully, next time to the port, nice if you communicate them earlier rather than later but im happy to make that motion to the first file and the clerk can administratively do the dates on pages two and the other corresponding areas. Supervisor kim page three and maybe page six. It would also be really helpful to get copies of these in advance so i know what we are amending specifically. But forgetting the date that the clerk can put in administratively without this committee body having to take action, we will take the single motion as stated by city attorney, the motion was made by supervisor peskin and we can do that without opposition. We now have a motion to move forward both items, positive recommendation to the full board. Supervisor peskin as amended. Supervisor kim and we can do that without opposition. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Can you please call the next item. Agenda number 3, hearing on the coordination of data sharing between Public Safety departments as it relates to Crime Prevention and investigations and requesting the Police Department, District Attorney, city administrator, adult probation, juvenile probation, sheriff, superior court, Emergency Management and department of technology as part of the justin tracking Information System to report. Hearing was called by supervisor norman yee and begin with opening remarks. I want to thank supervisor yee for calling for the hearing. An issue that i have been hearing about for quite some time and i think its incredibly important for the Public Safety of our city that we really ensure that we are moving swiftly in a process for appropriate data sharing. Supervisor yee. Supervisor yee thank you very much, chair kim and thank you, and also supervisor peskin for holding this hearing today. We all know the importance of data in the work that we do as policy makers. And we constantly are asking about data to identify problems, to measure success and to analyze, to form our decisions. Todays hearing is focussed on how data is tracked and coordinated among our many Public Safety departments. Originally when i called for this hearing i was mainly focussed on learning more about Crime Prevention and investigations. At the time of the hearing people say that there was that basically what we are doing now is outdated and complicated process for sharing data between the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco District Attorneys office. It was alarming that we were dealing with a rising property crimes, namely auto breakins and we were still having trouble making a breakthrough because of lack of communication. It seemed ridiculous to me that data was not streamlined in the first place to help expedite cases. After learning more about the different challenges it became clear that the problems were inherent in our technology, technological system, and others were stemming from a lack of political will to make coordination happen. This is when i learned about the project that started in 1998 called justice. The Justice Information tracking system that was formed to get all these departments linked and transition from our outdated paperbased management system. So as you see, this, its been about 20 years. The impetus for this project stemmed from the tragic death of claire joyce timboko, murdered by her ex who was murdered by her exboyfriend after several attempts to have him charged with previous assaults. Due to this lack of coordination we lost of mother of two children who counted on our city for protection. We are now 20 years into this project and we have yet to fully become independent of this antiquated system of putting things on paper. Now more than ever we are trying to catch up with technology and to ensure that the data we collect is useful, transparent and streamlined. I want to acknowledge the staff of justice in the various departments who have kept this work going despite the many leadership transitions. I also want to acknowledge that since chief scotts arrival this year he has been fully committed to upgrading the Police Departments data system and has already made progress and establishing a better sharing process with the District Attorneys office. There is there is progress and i think this needs to play a more prominent role ensuring it gets done right. We only ask for a few formal presentations from the project manager team at justice, the San Francisco Police Department, and the San Francisco District Attorney. I would like to acknowledge the majority involved in justice to answer questions that may arise. I want to thank you for being here. First i would like to call bob castillia. With the office of the city administrator and the project. Brief overview of justice, the goals are the same and the focus is replaced the aged legacy mainframe system and assist the departments in implementing their individual vertical solution systems, more modernbased systems. The justice hub was designed to be the integration tool that would connect all of the individual Case Management systems, the cable or mainframe replacement systems since none of these systems had a default way to connect or communicate. One of the challenges in decommissioning cable and integrating the modern systems with the mainframe is the size and scope of the task. We broke the implementation down into phases. One of the ways to make this manageable on the integration side of the new systems and assist the departments were to focus on the data fields critical in the existing cable environment. We knew with the more modern systems there is a more diverse set of data in a more mature fashion, but again, to make it manageable, we focussed on specifically the critical elements on the mainframe. Since we began, phase 1 through 3, have in one way or another blended or merged if there is any kind of pause in implementation for department, we move on to solving a reporting issue or identifying enhancement to existing interfaces. This diagram is meant to highlight some of the data interactions between the departments and the frequencies of the Data Transfers. In some cases like the sheriffs jail management system, the interaction is near rail time. Other end of the spectrum, a few, once per day transfers happen or occur in batch. The District Attorney system, we have a once per day, one direction only interface. Some of the departments including the District Attorneys office is seeking replacements to their system and with that replacement i anticipate a more realtime sherifflike interaction with justice and the rest of the criminal justice partners. Currently the slowest part of the entire Data Transfer mechanism is the interface between justice and the mainframe. We have a limited interface method. That limits us to a serialized interaction with the mainframe so we, justice, is on hold essentially in transferring data while the mainframe processes that data and sends it back to justice before then we can send it the next transactions. In december of 2009, 3 systems came on line to production. Sheriffs jail management system, the justice hub and the interface between justice and cable c. M. S. Since that time, all production Justice Systems have been supported around the clock by the justice team. Justice today has a secure Network Infrastructure that allows each department a protect the pathway to our core criminal justice repository. That allows us to receive data such as the Police Crime Data warehouse incident data, securely bring it to the criminal Justice Network and forward that along to the District Attorneys network and systems. That is just one example, crime Data Warehouse data, one example moving noncable data through the justice of infrastructure. And meant to address the business process needs of the department but still are gaps that need to be addressed before cable can fully be decommissioned. Justice started to create and host web applications that tie into the repos tories to fill the gaps. Some are Realtime Data notification systems, others are more modern webbased that replace online single focus transactions in cable. Moving forward we will continue to make progress with the courts and assist in the implementation of the replacement system. We also anticipate working with the district toronto, adult probation departments on their replacement systems that will require new interfaces into the justice hub. At the same time, creating a verification and validation checklist for the decommission of cable to address those gaps i mentioned. This encompasses reports, local, state, federal, any other updates not handled directly in the departments replacement system. Finally, the City Administrators Office has been facilitating meetings to redefine the justice vision and charter, taken into account what we have learned since we started and the current needs of the department. We expect through the data sharing discussions that data sharing definitions, rules, protocols, will be one of the outcomes. Thank you. Any questions . I have actually a few. You talk about, on the slide you had phase, a couple of phases that were up there and after almost 20 years, still in phase one, or has that been completed . It does not team like its been completed. Phase one is not completed, although i would not say we are just in phase one. I believe that we are in different stages of all threephases combined now, just as the progression of the project. Phase one was, i would call it complete whether every Single Department has a replacement criminal Justice System or Case Management system that eliminates their dependency on the cable mainframe. We are not there yet. Is there any projection when that might happen . I anticipate over the next fiscal year well be working with the courts on implementing their system, which is a critical element, and adult probation, even though the District Attorney has an ask him, the District Attorney was one of the first agencies to go live with a replacement system but now they want to replace their replacement. So well also be working with them this coming year. So what you are saying is outside of the courts, the other departments can talk to each other, get information from each other in realtime . I wouldnt say realtime. They can all share data, they do all share data. The District Attorney receives a once per day update from justice. Yet they can still access the data that comes in throughout the business process day, via the cable mainframe. Thats where the mainframe is still in use. Same would apply for the adult probation. Its a oneway data feed. Does not come back from the District Attorney. It does not. So what i meant to say, they receive the once per day data feed. If they receive everything from the last 24 hours at 7 00 in the morning, anything that happens after 7 00 in the morning that they need reference, anything filed, dispositions to charges, things like that, they can go into the cable mainframe through the access that way to pull it. Next day at 7 00 in the morning anything that was touched in any of those cases would be sent through that oneway feed. Why i guess im not a systems type person. Im not that knowledgeable. But im thinking as a regular consumer that if im staffing one department and basically have to make decisions on what to do with staff in terms of something happening criminally, it makes more sense to me that as the different departments feed in information i could actually, i in one department could look at it and not have to wait for an end of the day report. Is that is there any thinking around that . Oh, absolutely. Thats exactly how the Sheriffs Department interface works. So, going back in time, the District Attorney, because they were one of the first departments to have a replacement system, they were the prototype for the justice hub. This does go back some 15 years. The Sheriffs Department, when they went live in 2009, event driven near realtime transaction. When a sheriffs booking deputy presses finish on the booking entry, justice receives that subsecond. And we are able to turn around and notify adult probation and very importantly the Sheriffs Department to say you booked someone suspected on probation, you may need to do a probation hold, which denies bail. And that ties directly back to the unfortunate incident with claire joyce. Whats the government structure and budget for justice . The budget have been thereabouts around 3. 5 million consistently, about a third of that is direct staffing and twothirds of that is comprised of department Case Management system Maintenance Agreements paid through justice. Software licensing costs, and any equipment. So, it hosts for the criminal justice partners for their replacement systems, we host all of the infrastructure. Thats all the servers, all the storage, the networking, ba backups, security, everything. So, how many Staff Members are in this department . Theres seven. I have four Application Developers who double as business analysts and i have two infrastructure specialists who take care of the hardware and Networking Infrastructure i just mentioned, and then myself. And i im just i read somewhere some information about justis and the origins and where you used to have, the department or the office had 52 people. As long as i have been a part of justis, we are at our largest now, with seven. Are you under the department of technology or no, we years ago part of the history of justis we were, mocj was the executive sponsor of it. Department of technology was the implementation arm, and then since we have been transitioned under the office of the city administrator. Why was the transition, im just curious. The executive management felt that justis could gain more traction, having the own needs and staff and priorities and the ability in house to be able to take care of the items that come up in a 24 by seven basis. I and maybe this is a question for d. T. In regards to why arent it makes more sense, i guess logically, seems like it would have been under d. T. If they had the expertise, maybe they dont have the expertise. I think ill wait for, you know, others to present and ill have a few more questions for you. Thank you, supervisor. Next i would like to call up, yeah, from the San Francisco Police Department, director susan merit. Hi, susan. Hi. Good morning, supervisors. My name is susan merit, im the chief Information Officers for the Police Department so i run the technology division. Im starting with one of the original justis slides, sorry about the technical slide, i wanted to show something my colleagues would recognize as a plan for justis that we are still on, a road, a journey we are still on. On the lefthand side of the slide is the you see the Police Department hub and each of those boxes represented an enterprise system that needed to be implemented in order to create the data to be able to share with the other departments. And then across the middle is the line that we would this hub is kind of important to the Department People because its a better way of sharing. So instead of the police share data with the District Attorney and the District Attorney with police and probation, you can imagine all the different interfaces. If you want to make a change, you have to change 40 interfaces. With the justis approach, we send our data one place and if they need to make a change, we only change it in one place. So the architecture was i think sound then and still is. And what i want to show here, and as you said, supervisor yee, when i started in 2010, still largely on paper, including not even having email. So, these projects that you see, we have been working through these one by one over the last seven years to get to the point where we have data to share. Incident report, Police Report was on paper at that time, and we could not share it with the rest of the city it was on pieces of paper. So one of the Major Projects was the crime Data Warehouse to allow Police Officers to enter Police Reports on a system and one of the first things we did was share that data with justis. So, the next slide sort of shows, this is a lot of detail, but shows that we have been working on these systems one by one to create the police data that will allow us to share with the other departments. The right up to the current day, if you look to the right, the e citations project to the rest of that Police Department hub, department of parking and traffic. We are currently this year piloting an e citations app that allows officers to enter a citation on the smartphone, goes directly to the crime Data Warehouse and the plan is we will share that with the courts, not directly, but through this justis hub, so well share the citation with justis, justis will share it with the courts. And that represents a huge change because today citations are primarily paperbased. So, if you ask yourself how do you track enforcement when everything is on paper, well, its literally, you know, sorting into piles, pushing down hard, measuring an inch, how many citations can fit in literally thats still how we are doing it. So, tremendous amount of work to implement these enterprise systems to allow us to share with the justis hub. In terms of incident data, so the lions share of the elephant was the incident report, a lot of the other agencies rely upon, we began credited the crime Data Warehouse in 2011, began sharing the data in 2012. And we the agreement, the plan is before you share data, every department does have an m. O. U. With every other department, and so we began, we are not yet sharing with what we are with the sheriff, but not through justis. But sheriff accesses the incident through level two, another system that we still provide, cable data into, incident data, and then arrests is something that still needs work. The original plan was that we would enter the arrest data at the police, we would send it to the sheriff, sheriff then does the booking and the update so the person we thought we arrested might be a different person, so some integrating that needs to be done. We have not yet received funding for that project, so the system of record for adult arrests in San Francisco is still the sheriff system. And but, we have made progress in that one of the challenges with arrests in San Francisco is all of the agencies did not have the same set of charge codes. So we might charge something at the police that the d. A. Doesnt recognize or the state of california doesnt recognize. So, there was a lot of work in this team over here, i think met for, you know, every week for two years or something, to get an agreed table of charge codes. The other challenge was the state of california, when counting crime, has a different set of codes. So for example the state of california might say the possession of xyz drug is not a drug crime. But in San Francisco we consider the possession of xyz drug a drug crime. So when we report locally drug crimes the number was different from what the state is reporting from San Francisco. So all kinds of problems with categorization. So not only does this table have our agreed charge codes, but it also has what we call the b. C. S. Code, a station version. So we need to report as the state does we can also do that. So a lot of progress with that. I mentioned data sharing with the District Attorney. We did finalize an m. O. U. With the District Attorney in 2014 and so the d. A. Has been receiving this Police Incident data since then. I want to say a word about direct access to the crime Data Warehouse. So, the crime Data Warehouse is a police system, it has core data, incidents and field interviews, officer data, not meant to be a public repository, not even meant to be shared. And again, the plan is we share the data with justis and justis shares the data with others. So, the way the security works on crime Data Warehouse, if we give someone access they see everything. No different access levels for different departments. So we cant at this time give direct access to crime Data Warehouse but that should not be an issue because we are sharing the data through justis. I just a word about Data Available to the public. A lot of new data since that slide i showed you has been requested from the police, mostly having to do with policing as opposed to crime. So, we have added, in addition to all the crime data, we have been focussed on crime data prior to the last couple years. The last couple years we have added the demographic data, the stops data, so officers now have an app on a smartphone every single stop they make they enter the race, ethnicity of the person they stop, searched, the results of search and a whole bunch of data. Officerinvolved shooting data and use of force. So, these are all things that chief scott has asked that we make available to the public and we have done that. The compstat, the work here was we were we were completely manually counting crime and sending it to the department of justice. We have automated ten of the 13u. C. R. Reports we sent to the state of california, and that was a tremendous amount of work. The remaining reports are still things we dont have electronically, like officers injured in an incident, things like that. But the compstat, this version that you are seeing has been in place a couple of years. So basically we moved to a completely u. C. R. Based reporting. So what you see on this report posted on the website will match exactly to what you see the state of california. So, we are trying we had years and years of we would like to see certain incidents broken out, this broken out, we had a crime report that didnt match anything because the categories were different. Now we standardized the categories. We also produce data for both citizens and Small Businesses like the real estate apps when you say how much crime is in this neighborhood, they are pulling data off of data s. F. , which we populate, and so i pulled up 1245 3rd street to look at the crime around my neighborhood, and alert to look at different crimes in different areas. We also provide the actual raw data of the incident, so you see if you go on to the website, and you go to s. F. P. D. Incidents coming up from data s. F. And that allows you to look at all the specific incidents. And this is something we post on our website, its the demographics of the Police Department. Part of the white house Police Department initiative, wanted every Police Department in the country to have certain datasets. The mayor asked us to participate in that. We were one of the first agencies to provide that data publicly and this is administrative code 96. A, documenting the stops, detention, traffic stops, officers selfinitiating a stop versus officer receives a 911 call and responds. And finally use of force, we also post publicly on our website, you know, how we are doing in terms of use of force, and we will be posting this indefinitely. Supervisor yee you mentioned earlier that one of the agreements you have is with the d. A. Yes. Supervisor yee is it sort of a separat d
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.