pedestrian task force, the sfmta, department of public health, to bring them together and as mr. hill indicated, it's not so much about fault, butts it's moving forward with this greater percentage of individuals on bicycles to have a cohesive policy around safety and fairness. so i don't know if specifically a task force around this issue would be appropriate, but we appreciate the efforts of all the departments, but some of it still appears to be done in a rather piece meal basis. perhaps the task force inviting all of these stake holders to come down and come up with a policy similar to the one implemented in portland would be a good idea. the other item is in developing your resolution today, we would just urge that in particular with

respect to 4.1 and 4.2 that there is an effort to set some sort of timeline for folks getting together and meeting. this would be i believe the mayor's office spoke to this point. it's the pedestrian safety steering committee and their response was that they should consider reconconvening within 6 months, it's language in our opinion is a little bit loose. so something perhaps a little bit more stringent. a shorter time period so we really keep this effort moving forward for sitting down and developing policy. thank you to the departments for responding. they were thoughtful responses and we appreciate your time. any questions? >> supervisor campos? >> thank you very much, this you to the members of the civil

grand jury for your service. it's very important to hear what you have to say on these important issues. i think it holds government accountable and i will tell you that there is something that's been happening recently when it comes to pedestrian safety vehicles on the streets and unfortunately places like our parks. i do think that you make a very good point about making sure that there is more of a proactive strategy that sets time lines for action and that en insures more collaboration among agencies. that's something i would like to hear more from perhaps the agencies in timing of something like this coming together. i don't know if a task force makes

cents, but somewhere, where there is a working group of people in the city talking about what concrete steps can be taken. i know we'll be holding a separate hearing in the neighborhood services and safety committee that talks about pedestrian safety and folks on some of the bike fatalities and supervisor kim has introduced that hearing and possibly that presents more discussion. we have a hearing around safety and parks and recreational spaces. i don't know if any of the cities or the mayor's office or sfpd or sfmta have any thoughts on how we can move forward. i would like to get more concrete information on what the next steps are and -- i would like to ask any of the agencies, i

appreciate a lot of progress has been made. i know the mayor's office has done a lot of work on this. perhaps the mayor's office has some thoughts. thank you very much. >> antonio, mayor's office. julie had to go to a meeting. in talking about the timeline for reengaging the safety steering committee meeting. 6 months was written down. hopefully we can meet sooner. the department of public health and the police department were the previous members of the committee, we can sit down with them possibly sooner. i believe the mta is here as well. i don't know if you are looking for a sooner timeline. >> i appreciate that and i think it's good that there is

this plan already. i would like to maybe have an off line conversation with the mayor's office and maybe some of my other colleagues. i know supervisor kim, this has been a big priority for her. maybe we can talk a little bit more about how we expedite this process. obviously there are limitations in terms of how quickly we can move. but i think it would be helpful maybe off line to have that conversation. i think six 6 months is it feels like it's too long. i don't know what's realistic. maybe we can explore that further off line. >> absolutely. >> the other thing i would like to also suggest is maybe changing the language, incorporating the suggestion from the civil grand jury representative to instead of should reconvene to will reconvene or it be 3 months or whatever the time is.

>> the mta and dph are ready to convene. >> so went strengthen it a little bit and make that motion today. okay. thank you for your time. okay. it's a special time in the program for public comment. let's open up public comment at this time. if anyone would like to comen and discuss this item, please come up, two minutes.2 minutes. >> good morning, supervisors, i'm with the bicycle coalition. first i want to thank the civil grand jury. when they come up on an issue, they did a great job. they really did a lot of interviewing, a lot of research and they have uncovered issues that have been challenges and problems. they have made a lot

of progress like supervisors said and it's really come a long way in the last 3 years. the recommendation here are strong and very needed. i want to highlight a few. no. one setting a cheer goal of zero fatalities, and like we have the pedestrian safety and i hope this moves in a concrete way to really set priorities for the agencies. no. 2, the idea of a safety task force, i agree all that's been done to making that more concrete and more urgency so it doesn't just become an idea but a reality. we are lacking some coordination and accountability at a higher level wechlt call on the mayor's office to make

sure they are coming back. i want to share an example particularly in the area of least coverage. i understand there is another hearing. in addition to some really uft widely publicized incidents in the last week, we hear incidents every week of people being denied police reports after being hit by a car. or you don't need an ambulance or police report. that is not the case. there seems to be some underlying bias with our san francisco police department. >> thank you. are there any other speakers? all right. public comment is closed. thank you for everyone that worked on this retort. >> now, colleagues we need to decide on our part of this report. we have two findings

and two recommendations to decide on. i'm sorry, there is one finding? sorry. okay. we have one finding, one recommendation to decide on. supervisor tang? >> for finding no. 4, after length to the departments i would make a motion to agree with that finding. >> okay. agree with finding no. 4. supervisor campos, is there, you are in agreement with that? >> yes. >> i would like to make a motion for recommendation no. 4.1, i believe that further analysis maybe required for this as well as recommendation 4.2. >> can we make sure that we know what the finding is

exactly? is this finding for sfpd needs to support leaders to instruct roadway laws effectively? >> that's right. >> the recommendation is that the mayor and board of supervisors enforce laws by adopting it continuing? i actually agree with the finding. i actually agree with the recommendation. i do think that is further exploration in terms of what that looks like. but, i think they are right that we need to do more and so i don't know how we -- >> perhaps one way is that we can say that we agree, but further analysis is required? >> okay. >> if it requires further analysis you have to councilman -- come up with a timeframe and a plan to come up with an

explanation. >> what's the timeline? >> it needs to be within 6 months. >> well, supervisor campos, can you commit to that? >> yes. i think we can say that within 6 months, but to make sure we had language that says as soon as possible. >> okay. supervisor tang. >> it's fine with me. >> okay. sounds like we are in agreement. maybe you can summarize what you are saying for the record. it sounds like we are in agreement with 4.0 and you had some suggestions for just a recommendation 4.2? >> i guess to the extent that supervisor tang was saying that further analysis was required. i wanted to make sure that we made the clarification that we agree with the finding, we agree with the recommendation from the civil grand jury but

we believe further analysis is required to in terms of what that response looks like that we will do so in the next 6 months, but as soon as possible. i don't know if that makes sense. >> yes? >> to summarize, the committee is responding or recommending a board response to say they want further analysis on 4.2; 4.1 is agreement? okay. and then so essentially then the acceptable response according to the grand jury guidelines are the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future and the committee needs to give a time frame for implementation. >> timeframe will be 6 months.

>> okay. >> then the next one requires further analysis, 4.2, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> then the committee would need to recommend to the board on that one sort of an explanation of what further analysis is intended sort of a description of that further analysis in a timeframe. the timeframe of course being 6 months? >> okay. >> i think it would be, if i may, it would be further analysis of what collaboration among the various agencies with respect to enforcement would look like. >> okay. >> and there will be implementation? >> yes. >> okay. thank you very much.

sounds like we finalized our thoughts. may i have a motion. >> so moved. >> thank you so much. without objection this motion passes. okay. madam chair we need to make the amendment to the resolution and recommended out to the board. >> thank you. >> i make a motion to amend. >> i also would like to make an amendment to the resolution of changing the language. i'm not sure where it is, but it's on page 2. we want to change the language from should to will meet, reconvene in 6 months. do you see that?

>> maybe the folks in the civil grand jury, can you tell me what line that was on? i'm sorry, you have to come to the podium. >> in the mayor's response. >> 2, recommendation 4.1. that the building expertise developed this process in order to strengthen bicycle safety, the pedestrian safety steering committee led by sfmta and sfpd should consider reconvening in less than 6 months that it be

further analysis that was suggested. it might want to be part of that resolution. >> thank you. so looks like we need to make an addition to recommendation no. 4.2. >> in connection to further analysis might be further analysis required. >> okay. >> what line would that be? >> i don't see that here in the language of the resolution. >> it's in the mayor's response. >> i would like to withdraw my

proposed change to the resolution. thank you. okay. so we've got, madam clerk you have the suggested changes to the resolution? colleagues are we ready to make a motion and pass this. >> so moved. >> fantastic. this is unanimous. the motion is passed. >> if we are requiring further analysis for the next 6 months, this will continue. >> okay. madam clerk call item no. 5 and 6. item 130603:[hearing - civil grand jury report - "optimizing the use of publicly-owned real estate: achieving transparency, momentum, and accountability"]1306035.hearing

on the recently published 2012-2013 civil grand jury report entitled "optimizing the use of publicly-owned real estate: achieving transparency, momentum, and accountability." clerk of the boardd6/13/13; referred to department.9/3/13; received and assigned to the government audit and oversight committee. >> okay. madam clerk call item no. 5 and 6. sf 31234 item 130604: agenda[board response - civil grand jury report - "optimizing the use of publicly-owned real estate: achieving transparency, momentum, and accountability"]1306046.resoluti on responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2012-2013 civil grand jury report entitled "optimizing the use of publicly-owned real estate: achieving transparency, momentum, and accountability" and urging the mayor to cause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through his department heads and through the development of the annual budget. clerk of the boardd6/13/13; >> okay. madam clerk call item no. 5 and 6. sf 31234 sf 41234 >> today we have mr. john walker to present on behalf of the civil jury. >> thank you, i was the one who prepared the recommended report. we have jeanie bar, another member of the committee. the guiding principal of our jury was not to illuminate issues of concern but also to facilitate the work of the officials and the city and school district. we must find and implement those solutions to those concerns. thanks to the office of the mayor's and school district for

positive and encouraging responses to our findings and recommendation. i was gratified that issues discussed in our report are identified and being addressed. we look forward to seeing the fruits of the reports mentioned. we intend to read a recap along with a commentary of those responses. as the city of san francisco moves to another brighter chapter as an evolution as urban center for innovation and cultural inclusion, construction cranes marked the sky lights. the committee wonders about some places where we do sea in the city where time is standing still. an example 135 van ness avenue, a castle showing few signs of

life right at the agriculture scene and bordering plans at the housing area around market. on busy franklin, cracked wauls of the loma prieta earthquake. the only signs of life are posters from a jazz group that maybe performing across the street at the new sf jaz venue. a few blocks south at mission street, an abandoned block that is only placed by classroom modules with new housing and enhancement to the street scene. as you know all of these are and will be soon school district real estate. the jury is to investigate what is the status of these properties? is there any movement for change? and how many examples are below the radar? and how can we make

a difference? there are previous grand jury reports and other reports prepared for supervisor mark ferrel for the supervisors budget. our investigation came up with these major conchugsz -- conclusions as stated in the report. the discussion and dialogue are generated to a wide audience. sheeping a bright light on district properties will face eat the the kind of informed discussion that must take place early on prior to the give and take of any agreement moving forward. this is the basis of our recommendation of a consolidated web base data base to develop complete information about city properties and all city departments be able and expected to maintain properties on that. we were extremely

pleased to know in that regard and the mayor's response is in full agreement that right to know that all publically known real estate and rot map and real information data base is in beta testing as of this july with full implementation with the the first quarter of 2013. we know that the administrative code will be maintained by the city departments in the same timeframe. the jury also noted with pleasure in the response to the school district, it's acknowledgment of the importance of a comprehensive listing of property available to the public. secondly, the report concluded actions that led to guiding real estate must be reviewed in the lighted of current conditions. we recommended a review of the

code to find further action to obtain optimal utilization including affordable housing. a directive property prepared to a legislative clean up with the board of supervisors and the mayor by 2014 to balance the needs for affordable housing. based on the demographics and reports and the districts responses to our reports. we recognize the school districts takes a concerted review to this opposition. in order to hedge against unanticipated future needs. while we acknowledge this, the thrust of our obligations for the limits at the time of this remain

dormant and utilized, a more aggressive pursuit of that revenue. as urged in the 2010 report commissioned for the schools at uc berkeley. lastly, the jury found that there are institutional barriers to decision making and recommended that specific entities within the city and district administration, be designated, authorized and charged with the review of property utilization and the preparation of plans for distribution of properties where profitable and beneficial. we are happy to provide that the school district has been formally charged with the district property and will meet formally in the future. the city has vied for legislative clean up of chapter 23a will include greater authority upon the part of the director of property to

ensure conformance by the property and outline the surplus and under utilized assets and there will be substantive discussions around the property status of the capital planning committee. in our opinion, this satisfies the spirits of our recommendations. so returning to our signing of what appears to be inactive city and school district access, we now know it's under way. school district superintendent carranza, a school for the arts as part of the strategy for message -- major initiatives for all areas. a design for soda as and a preliminary funding figure has been developed. in the mission, we are now informed the school district property at 950 mission street will be part

of the exchange of the mayor's housing. once this exchange is in place, we hope a time table for project's completion will be developed promptly. these are two excellent examples of an action that will have a lasting impact. or report was intended to help make that a forward and timely consistent part of timely and real estate management. thank you. >> i would like to introduce paul change for a remark of soda. >> mr. paul needs no introduction. he's a legend. >> good morning supervisor cohen, supervisor tang and supervisor campos. i'm delighted to being here this morning. i appreciate the chance to address this committee about an idea whose

time has finally arrived. my colleague tom walker has already laid out the reasons why optimizing the city owned real estate is important for the fiscal and economic health of this city. any decision it makes about it's property translates into something even more significant in terms of how it affects the lives and education opportunities of thousands of our city's young people. because of such high stakes, the civil grand jury is very pleased and excited with the school district's response to our recommendation no. 6. which highlights the option of converting the historic school buildings at 170 and 135 van ness plus auditorium to a new campus for the school of the arts. we commend the school district, school board and

especially superintendent richard carranza for his leadership and foresight to go forward with this project after so many years of set backs and disappointments takes courage. it is indeed an idea for years to come. what does the school district center say to the public? it's a loud statement to families who are uncompromising in their quest for a great education and robust curriculum for their children. with this project they won't have to leave the city or attend a private school to get what they are looking for. it's a powerful message for our students to be ambitious to be the next jo jo ma, john legend or next jennifer lopez.

>> but not miley cyrus. >> you notice i didn't mention here. there is a special place to be trained and mentored by ak accomplished artist. this project signals to the nation and the world that we as a community place a high premium on the public arts education and we recognize the universal benefits of promoting creative expressions among young people around the globe starting with our own. we recognize, we understand the school district is a state agency with independent decision making powers, but we hope that board of supervise will take an interest with the progress this school district makes with it's project. we strongly urge board

of supervisors to take on a positive role to seek funds negative -- funding necessary to bring the project to its fruition. it raises the $235 million needed to construct this new campus. the challenge is daunting but not impossible. it's going to require an unpress department partnership in collaboration among all the major stake holders. the school district, city government, the entire arts community, corporations and private donors who believe in the notion that a world class city be built in the heart of a vibrant civic center historic district in san francisco. to make it happen