TO: Angela Calvillo
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Josh Gale
SFPUC Emergency Planning Director
SUBJECT: Annual Surveillance Reports for SFPUC Cameras and Drones San Francisco
Water Power Sewer Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission DATE: November 1, 2022
Dear Ms. Calvillo,
In accordance with SF Administrative Code Sec. 19B.6(a), the SFPUC is submitting to the Board of Supervisors Annual Surveillance Reports for surveillance cameras and drones, the two surveillance technologies used by the SFPUC.
The Board of Supervisors approved the Surveillance Technology Policies for both technologies in 2021. Please contact me at [email protected] should you have any questions.
cc: Julia Chrusciel, COIT Privacy Analyst
London N. Breed
Mayor
Newsha Ajaml
President
Sophie Maxwell
Vice President
Tim Paulson
Commissioner
Tony Rivera
Commissioner
Kate Stacy
Commissioner
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
Name
Surveillance Cameras Annual Surveillance Report
Respondent
Amanda Higgins
Date Completed
10/31/2022 12:38 PM
1 Change in Authorized Use Cases
1.1 In the last year, did your department have use cases which differed from your “approved use cases” in your BOS-approved policy?
Response
No
2 Change in Authorized Job Titles
2.1 Does the list of “authorized job titles” in your BOS-approved policy need to change? (i.e. Do you need additional job titles to be authorized to access the data, or do you need to remove any current job titles?)
Response
Yes
2.2 Please provide an updated list of authorized job titles.
Response
SFPUC Emergency Planning & Security Staff: 0931 Director of Security, 0932 Emergency Planning Director, 1844 Senior Management Assistant, 1820 Jr. Admin Analyst, 1054 Principal IS Business Analyst; SF Sheriff Dept. Personnel at SFPUC Headquarters: 8304 Deputy Sheriff; 8300 Sheriff Cadet SFPUC Staff at City Distribution Division, Water Supply and Treatment Division, and WasteWater Enterprise: 7120 Building and Grounds Supt., 7343 Senior Stationary Engineer, 7245 Chief Stationary Engineer, 7372 Stationary Engineer, Sewage Plant, 7334 Stationary Engineer, 0933 Programs & Maintenance Manager, 1406 Senior Clerk; 1844 Senior Management Assistant;
SFPUC Staff at Hetch Hetchy Facility in Mocassin: 7364 Power System Operator; 5602 Utility Specialist; Contractor
2.3 Why have the job titles changed?
Response
Sheriff Personnel are responsible for security at the SFPUC Headquarters (525 Golden Gate Ave). Additionally, SFPUC Stationary Engineers, Power System Operators, and Utility Specialists use Critical Infrastructure Cameras to monitor water/sewer/power asset functionality.
3 Change in Number and/or Type of Technology
3.1 Sections 4-6 cover changes in the number or type of technology addressed by the Surveillance Technology Policy.
Please review and respond according to your department's current situation. 4 Replacement of Old Technology
4.1 Has any technology listed in the policy been replaced? Response
Yes
Report Summary Information
Report Question Responses
1 / 7
5 Addition of New Technology
5.2 Why has the technology been added?
Response
It was found that some SFPUC Hetchy Hetchy Facilities in Mocassin, California have cameras manufactured by Interlogix installed (in addition to cameras manufactured by Axis)
5.3 Please list technology which was added (include manufacturer and model information.
Response
Interlogix / UTC - TVD-3201 - TruVision IP Mini-Dome Cameras
5.4 Please list how many units have been added.
Response
Approximately 85 new cameras have been added in the last year. These are cameras in new SFPUC facilities - 58 in Southeast Community Center (in SF), 7 at Yerba Buena Island Pump Station (SF County), 12 at Water Quality Division (Burlingame, CA), 6 at Mariposa Pump Station (in SF) 6 Ceased Operation of Technology
6.1 Is any technology listed in the policy no longer in use? Response
No
7 Services or Equipment Sources
7.1 List any and all entities, companies or individuals which provide services or equipment to the department which are essential to the functioning or effectiveness of the Surveillance Technology (list “N/A” if not applicable):
Response
Camera integrators and suppliers that we work with include Allied Universal Technology Services, Convergint, and Netronix.
We also rely on Milestone Video Management and Lenel Access Control Software to view footage from the cameras.
SFPUC also contracts camera-related services from the Citywide Technology Marketplace Contracts developed by SFOCA. Xtech, a vendor in the Marketplace, has been our Marketplace supplier. 8 Surveillance Technology Goals
8.1 Has the surveillance technology been effective at achieving its identified purpose? Response
Yes
In 3-5 sentences, please explain how the technology has or has not been effective 2 / 7
8.2 In 3-5 sentences, please explain how the technology has or has not been effective Provide quantitative data to support your response. This should include crime statistics for the radius where the technology operates if that was a motivating factor in acquiring the surveillance technology.
Response
Camera footage has been useful in resolving incidents related to safety and security. SFPUC maintains an internal security incident log to capture crime and law enforcement incidents such as assault, theft, threats, trespassing, and vandalism. For reference, in 2021, there were 184 incidents and in 2020, there were 247 incidents. Camera footage is routinely used to investigate these incidents.
For example, footage from cameras was useful
in the following incidents: On 3/25/2022, there was a trespasser who breached our SFPUC headquarters. SF Sheriff personnel utilitized our security cameras to identify the suspect.
Additionally, on 5/31/2022, SFPUC noted a broken security gate at the SFPUC Tesla Water Treatment Facility in Tracy, California. Security camera footage identified that a vendor's chemical tanker leaving the facility was
responsible for the damage. We are using the footage to aid in a formal claim against the company to recover costs for the gate's repair.
While the footage is imperative to the SFPUC's security and operations, the procurement process for the technology could be improved. SFPUC is continually repairing and replacing broken cameras. The current process of using the SFOCA Technology Marketplace to contract repair and replacement services is lengthy. Therefore, SFPUC is working on an SFPUC-wide Master As-Needed Construction Contract to streamline the procurement of SFPUC camera repairs. 9 Data Sharing
9.1 Has data acquired through the surveillance technology been shared with entities outside of the department?
Response
Yes
9.2 Was the data shared with city and county departments or other entities associated with city and county government?
Response
Yes
9.3 List which departments received surveillance technology data from your department, what type of data was disclosed, under what legal standard the information was disclosed, and a justification for the disclosure.
Response
Camera footage is only shared to Law Enforcement Agencies as requested. This includes Law Enforcement both in SF City and County and Law Enforcement in other counties where our SFPUC facilities are located - San Mateo, Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne,and
Santa Clara counties.
9.4 Was the data shared with entities outside of city and county government? Response
No
10 Accidental Receipt of Face Recognition Data
10.1 Did your department inadvertently or unintentionally receive, retain, access or use any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology?
Response
No
11 Complaints
Has your department received any complaints and/or concerns from community members about this 3 / 7
11.1 Has your department received any complaints and/or concerns from community members about this surveillance technology?
Response
No
12 Violations
12.1 Were there any violations of the Surveillance Technology Policy or Surveillance Impact Report, reported through community members, non-privileged internal audits, or through other means in the last year?
Response
No
12.4 Has your department conducted any internal audits of the technology? Response
Yes
12.5 Please provide general aggregate information about the result of your department’s internal audits.
Response
SFPUC is constantly performing audits to assessing the functionality of our SFPUC security system to see if any cameras need to be repaired or replaced.
12.6 If the audits revealed violations, please list any actions taken in response to the violations.
Response
No violations were revealed from the audits.
13 Statistics and Information about Public Records Act Requests
13.1 Has your department received any public records act requests for this surveillance technology? Response
No
14 Total Annual Costs for the Surveillance Technology
14.1 List the number of FTE (new & existing).
Response
Two SFPUC Emergency Planning and Security Personnel work on the Camera Security System - the 0931 Director of Security & Asset Protection and the 1054 Principal IS Business Analyst. Both spend about 20 hours a week on the Camera Security System.
14.2 Are there one-time costs for Fiscal Year 2022-23?
Response
Yes
14.3 Are there one-time Salary and Fringe costs?
Response
No
4 / 7
14.5 Are there one-time Software costs?
Response
No
14.7 Are there one-time Hardware/ Equipment costs?
Response
Yes
14.8 List total one-time Hardware/ Equipment costs for FY 2022-2023.
Response
Cameras are installed as new facilities are added to the SFPUC organization or as needed to replace broken cameras. It costs about $2,500 per camera. In FY 22-23, we expect to install 10-15 cameras, so we expect to spend approximately $25,000 to $37,500 on cameras.
14.9 Are there one-time Professional Services costs?
Response
Yes
14.10 List total one-time Professional Services costs for FY 2022-2023:
Response
As needed, SFPUC hires integrators (companies authorized to work on our Milestone and Lenel Security Systems) to install/replace cameras,
integrate those new cameras into the SFPUC security system, and troubleshoot and remedy problems with our camera security system.
SFPUC plans to spend about $100K this year on professional services related to our camera security system.
14.11 Are there one-time Training costs?
Response
No
14.13 Are there one-time "Other" costs?
Response
No
14.15 Are there annual costs for Fiscal Year 2022-2023:
Response
Yes
14.16 Are there annual Salary and Fringe costs?
Response
Yes
14.17 List total annual Salary and Fringe costs for FY 2022-2023:
Response
$176,000
Are there annual Software costs?
5 / 7
14.18 Are there annual Software costs?
Response
Yes
14.19 List total annual Software costs for FY 2022-2023:
Response
The cost to renew our Milestone license SFPUC-wide is $20,050 annually. The vast majority of our cameras connect to the Milestone's XProtect Video Management System.
A small number of our cameras are connected to Lenel Network Video Recorders. The cost to annually renew our Lenel software SFPUC-wide is $60,275 annually. However, this Lenel software is mainly used for SFPUC Access Control to buildings and facilities (not our main camera system).
14.20 Are there annual Hardware/ Equipment costs?
Response
No
14.22 Are there annual Professional Services costs?
Response
No
14.24 Are there annual Training costs?
Response
Yes
14.25 List total annual Training costs for FY 2022-2023:
Response
SFPUC Emergency Planning & Security has an annual reoccuring budget for training related to our security systems to keep our team abreast of the software. We expect to spend about $1,995 on Milestone training and $6,000 on Lenel training this year.
14.26 Are there annual "Other" costs?
Response
No
14.28 What source of funding will fund the Surveillance Technology for FY 2022-2023? Response
SFPUC Annual Operating Budget will fund maintenance and use of this technology.
14.29 Have there been any changes to the one-time costs from your department’s approved Surveillance Impact Report?
Response
Yes
14.30 Why have the one-time costs changed?
Response
The approved Impact Report listed as an annual cost "One Camera: $2,517.00". In FY22-23, we expect to install 10- 15 cameras, so we expect to spend approximately $25,000 to $37,500 on cameras (hardware) as a one time expense this FY.
6 / 7
14.31 Have there been any changes to the annual costs from your department’s approved Surveillance Impact Report?
Response
Yes
14.32 Why have the annual costs changed?
Response
Both labor and software costs have increased. The Director of Security and Principal IS Business Analyst both spend about 20 hours a week working on the camera security system, more than the hours previously listed on the Impact Report. Since the Impact Report was approved, SFPUC has added additional cameras to our system as new facilities were added to the SFPUC portfolio. Additionally, SFPUC is continually working on replacement and repair of existing aging cameras. The increased quantity of cameras in our security system has also led our software costs to increase.
15 Annual Inventory Check
15.1 Note:
In 2019, all departments were asked to compile a list of surveillance technologies which their department uses.
Since then, departments have been asked to contact COIT about new technologies for a surveillance technology review via the Surveillance Technology Ordinance Form in ServiceNow. Please feel free to reference the current Surveillance Technology Inventory for your department to help you answer the following questions.
15.2 Is the Surveillance Technology Inventory for your department current and accurate? Response
Yes
15.9 You have completed the Annual Surveillance Report:
Congratulations and see you next year!
7 / 7
Name
Annual Surveillance Report - Unmanned Arial Vehicles (aka UAVs, Drones) Respondent
Amanda Higgins
Date Completed
10/31/2022 12:39 PM
1 Change in Authorized Use Cases
1.1 In the last year, did your department have use cases which differed from your “approved use cases” in your BOS-approved policy?
Response
No
2 Change in Authorized Job Titles
2.1 Does the list of “authorized job titles” in your BOS-approved policy need to change? (i.e. Do you need additional job titles to be authorized to access the data, or do you need to remove any current job titles?)
Response
Yes
2.2 Please provide an updated list of authorized job titles.
Response
1770 Photographer, 1774 Head Photographer, 5241 Engineer, 5203 Assistant Engineer, 5211 Senior Engineer, 5212 Principal Engineer, 5508 Project Manager IV, 5201 Jr. Engineer, 5130 Sewage Treatment Plant Superintendent, 0943 Manager VIII, 1824 Principal Admin Analyst, 7252 Chief Stationary Engineer, Sewage Plant, 0942 Manager VII, 5506 Project Manager III, 0933 Manager V, 1844 Senior Management Assistant, 6319 Senior Construction Inspector, 0955 Deputy Director V, 0941 Manager VI, 0932 Manager IV, 1446 Secretary II
2.3 Why have the job titles changed?
Response
The 1774 Head Photographer and 1770 Photographer in SFPUC's Infrastructure Division use drones to create records of documentation for infrastructure capital projects.
The remaining above job titles have access to drone footage related to SFPUC's Southeast Treatment Plant (750 Phelps St). This site is currently undergoing construction as part of an extensive Biosolids Sewer System Improvement Project. MWH Constructors/Webcor Builders, Malcolm Drilling Co. are the SFPUC contractors awarded this Capital Project. These contractors decided to hire Multivista, a company providing UAV services, to help monitor their own construction progress for this project.
Additionally, SFPUC WasteWater Enterprise uses
Minilab Factory LLC / SF Drone School for documenting construction progress at SFPUC Southeast Treatment Plant (750 Phelps St). 3 Change in Number and/or Type of Technology
3.1 Sections 4-6 cover changes in the number or type of technology addressed by the Surveillance Technology Policy.
Please review and respond according to your department's current situation. 4 Replacement of Old Technology
4.1 Has any technology listed in the policy been replaced? Response
No
Report Summary Information
Report Question Responses
1 / 6
5 Addition of New Technology
5.1 Has any technology been added which is not listed in the policy? Response
Yes
5.2 Why has the technology been added?
Response
SFPUC continues to only own one DJI Phantom 4 Pro unit that was purchased on 10/31/18.
Multivista uses DJI Phantom 4 Pro V2.0, DJI Inspire 2, DJI Mavic 2 Pro Model L1P, and DJI Phantom 4.
Minilab Factory LLC / SF Drone School uses
DJI Phantom 3 Pro, DJI Mavic Pro, DJI Matrice M 100, and DJI Matrice M 600.
5.3 Please list technology which was added (include manufacturer and model information.
Response
see above
5.4 Please list how many units have been added.
Response
n/a
6 Ceased Operation of Technology
6.1 Is any technology listed in the policy no longer in use? Response
No
7 Services or Equipment Sources
7.1 List any and all entities, companies or individuals which provide services or equipment to the department which are essential to the functioning or effectiveness of the Surveillance Technology (list “N/A” if not applicable):
Response
Minilab Factory LLC / SF Drone School and Multivista are entities that provide drone services related to SFPUC's Biosolids Improvement Project at Southeast Treatment Plant. 8 Surveillance Technology Goals
8.1 Has the surveillance technology been effective at achieving its identified purpose? Response
Yes
In 3-5 sentences, please explain how the technology has or has not been effective 2 / 6
8.2 In 3-5 sentences, please explain how the technology has or has not been effective Provide quantitative data to support your response. This should include crime statistics for the radius where the technology operates if that was a motivating factor in acquiring the surveillance technology.
Response
Since August 2021, 188 drone flights have been made. 113 were for construction management. 58 were for environmental monitoring and documentation. 13 were for inspection, and 4 were for disaster relief.
Drones are flown within the confines of SFPUC property and not over residential zones. SFPUC property includes Southeast and Oceanside Treatment Plant located within San Francisco and the Peninsula, Alameda and Hetch Hetchy Watersheds.
As noted in the Business Justification Section of our Policy, SFPUC continues to find that using drones offers significant time and financial savings;
it is much more cost effective to capture data aerially versus on the ground.
Additionally, using drones to document construction progress at capital projects, such as the Southeast Treatment Project Biosolids Sewer System Improvement Project, keeps staff out of safety-compromising situations.
Drones also improve data quality as locations (such as large watersheds or construction sites) can be difficult to
canvas/access on the ground. The drone footage can even provide video and stills of areas that cannot be reached at street level.
9 Data Sharing
9.1 Has data acquired through the surveillance technology been shared with entities outside of the department?
Response
Yes
9.2 Was the data shared with city and county departments or other entities associated with city and county government?
Response
Yes
9.3 List which departments received surveillance technology data from your department, what type of data was disclosed, under what legal standard the information was disclosed, and a justification for the disclosure.
Response
The 1770 Photographer and 1774 Head Photographer in SFPUC Infrastructure Division upload the drone footage from SFPUC's one drone to SFPUC's photo collection/digital asset management system (DAM), viewable to all users with a ‘sfwater.org’ (SFPUC) email address. The SFPUC does not anticipate any privacy risks from using a drone. The SFPUC's Photographer and Head Photographer use professional editing software (e.g. Adobe Premiere) to edit and blur personal identifiable information before uploading to DAM.
9.4 Was the data shared with entities outside of city and county government? Response
Yes
9.5 List which non-city entities received surveillance technology data from your department, what type of data was disclosed, under what legal standard the information was disclosed, and a justification for the disclosure.
Response
As mentioned previously, MWH Constructors/Webcor Builders, Malcolm Drilling Co. have used drone services from Multivista for construction management of the Biosolids Improvement Project at Southeast Water Treatment Plant.
This footage from Multivista has been shared with the
Improvement Project's Design Team (Jacobs, Brown and
Caldwell, ENGEO, Structus), CM Consultants (Arcadis, ECS, Thier Group, Parsons, RDH Building Science), HDR, Subcontractors (DN Tanks, Sachs Electric, VMA Communications, Malcolm Drilling, Smartvid) 10 Accidental Receipt of Face Recognition Data
Did your department inadvertently or unintentionally receive, retain, access or use any information 3 / 6
10.1 Did your department inadvertently or unintentionally receive, retain, access or use any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology?
Response
No
11 Complaints
11.1 Has your department received any complaints and/or concerns from community members about this surveillance technology?
Response
No
12 Violations
12.1 Were there any violations of the Surveillance Technology Policy or Surveillance Impact Report, reported through community members, non-privileged internal audits, or through other means in the last year?
Response
No
12.4 Has your department conducted any internal audits of the technology? Response
Yes
12.5 Please provide general aggregate information about the result of your department’s internal audits.
Response
SFPUC requires SFPUC personnel to document planned drone flights from both contractors and SFPUC employees using a "flight summary form" that is routed to our SFPUC Emergency Planning & Security Team (EPS). EPS ensures that the planned flight is in compliance with the SFPUC Drone Policy and then uploads the flight information into the COIT Open Data Portal. Since EPS reviews flight information for Policy compliance before a flight occurs, there are no Policy violations.
12.6 If the audits revealed violations, please list any actions taken in response to the violations.
Response
n/a
13 Statistics and Information about Public Records Act Requests
13.1 Has your department received any public records act requests for this surveillance technology? Response
No
14 Total Annual Costs for the Surveillance Technology
14.1 List the number of FTE (new & existing).
Response
It collectively takes the 0931 Emergency Planning Director and 1820 EPS Jr. Admin Analyst about 2 hours a week to review planned flights and upload the info into the COIT Portal. The 1774 Head Photographer and 1770
Photographer operate drones on a as-needed basis throughout the year. The Number of FTE is approximately 4 employees at a collective 15-20 labor hours a month.
4 / 6
14.2 Are there one-time costs for Fiscal Year 2022-23?
Response
No
14.15 Are there annual costs for Fiscal Year 2022-2023:
Response
Yes
14.16 Are there annual Salary and Fringe costs?
Response
Yes
14.17 List total annual Salary and Fringe costs for FY 2022-2023:
Response
about $31,882
14.18 Are there annual Software costs?
Response
No
14.20 Are there annual Hardware/ Equipment costs?
Response
No
14.22 Are there annual Professional Services costs?
Response
Yes
14.23 List total annual Professional Services costs for FY 2022-2023:
Response
SFPUC hires Minilab Factory LLC / SF Drone School for documenting construction progress at SFPUC Southeast Treatment Plant (750 Phelps St). The expense is expected to be $7,664 this FY22-23. This expense may reoccur annually until project completion.
14.24 Are there annual Training costs?
Response
No
14.26 Are there annual "Other" costs?
Response
No
14.28 What source of funding will fund the Surveillance Technology for FY 2022-2023? Response
5 / 6
The SFPUC funds this technology use and maintenance through its operating budget.
14.29 Have there been any changes to the one-time costs from your department’s approved Surveillance Impact Report?
Response
Yes
14.30 Why have the one-time costs changed?
Response
One-time costs for Hardware/Equipment has decreased to $1,500 in FY22-23. In comparision, the approved Impact Report has this cost at $4,000. SFPUC has hardware and equipment in existing inventory that was purchased during prior fiscal years.
14.31 Have there been any changes to the annual costs from your department’s approved Surveillance Impact Report?
Response
Yes
14.32 Why have the annual costs changed?
Response
Labor costs increased from $30,364 in the Impact report to about $31,882 due to annual SFDHR labor compensation
CPI adjustment.
15 Annual Inventory Check
15.1 Note:
In 2019, all departments were asked to compile a list of surveillance technologies which their department uses.
Since then, departments have been asked to contact COIT about new technologies for a surveillance technology review via the Surveillance Technology Ordinance Form in ServiceNow. Please feel free to reference the current Surveillance Technology Inventory for your department to help you answer the following questions.
15.2 Is the Surveillance Technology Inventory for your department current and accurate? Response
Yes
15.9 You have completed the Annual Surveillance Report:
Congratulations and see you next year!
6 / 6