and then, let' see, where was i? then lastly, i would ask for a review of the law enforcement section of the san francisco bike plan in that some of the things picked up by the civil grand jury is they missed a couple item in the bike plan. i would like to see them conform because the bike plan is in [speaker not understood] and should be followed through. so, i hope the supervisors and the mayor's office would help. i've got those specific item. one is the bike plan called for the establishment of a police traffic enforcement officer using bicycles in enforcement. this covers two very important aspects, i think. one is to have traffic enforcement of cars and congested -- motor in congested areas pulled over by bicyclers same as bicyclers are an equal part of the city. people should get used to that. second message is bicyclists. [speaker not understood] part of the equal users of the road.

we would like to expand the ready ref, we talked about to a smart phone app that would enhance the police because they're moving to smart phones for their citations. able to help them in defining the key -- the key sections of the code apply to bicycles and not get distracted as some police departments do. bike codes were not intended for bicycles. so, we focus in those ways. we've asked for them to provide information on fatalities. the state law prohibits information on fatalities in the sense that it would offend in ways like that. we're asking just for collision report information so that we can trace and follow [speaker not understood] education is also very helpful in trying to prevent those kinds of things in the future. there are trends associated with it and we can ask what causes the worst. this is clearly part of the zero fatality goal. and then, let's see. lastly, include the bike plan called for distribution of

headlights and reflector citation diversion class he. they call it a fix it. and what that meant is you can't really do what's known as the fix it in the same way, but what it would do is it would identify people who were sent to the diversion class for riding at night without lights and we would provide the lights and reflectors to them for coming to the class. and those we're asking for. we feel the direction that they were going with it. so, with that i can expand ~ and then continuing, one thing i didn't mention was moving to establish a training program in conjunction with the police that really work more on the world bicyclists ride in. and i will mention the california highway patrol recently adopted the same [speaker not understood] bicyclist traffic school 101 course for their employees as did the -- the one we use in san francisco which is really quite a thing when you find out the state is using the same

program we use. i would encourage the police to take a look at that particular curriculum and consider including that as part of their training program. are there any questions? >> all right, thank you. questions? >> i just want to [speaker not understood] the amendment you would propose to the motion in front of us around responses to these recommendations. are there recommendations or amendments that you would make to the motion that we will need to pass today around the recommendations around the civil grand jury report? >> yes, i would make recommendations that we add the things that were in the bike plan that were not included in the civil grand jury report. i think that would be the best way to fill in some of the missing parts. >> great, thank you very much. >> okay, thank you. >> all right. next like to bring up member of the civil grand jury. >> my name is martha man gold and i was the foreperson of the

2012-13 civil grand jury. thank you for setting this hearing today. we recognize and appreciate the efforts of the bicycle advisory committee. the bicycle coalition, the san francisco police department, and the board of supervisors in passing vision zero ~. we're pleased that the police department has, in fact, outlined specific actions that it will take to implement this policy and we'd also encourage that bicycle education for officers and the bicycle enforcement suggested by the bac be implemented. we recognize that mta, the board of mta has fully supported vision zero, however, we really question whether there is adequate funding and adequate goal -- specific adequate goals have been set by mta to bring this to fruition. likewise, with the mayor's

office, there is the be nice look twice, but we once again wonder if there is an actual financial commitment to implement vision zero. our concern is that after we leave here today, all this will kind of go by the wayside. and, so, we don't know he if it is appropriate for their action to come back before this committee or there should be follow-up with regard to these departments, perhaps before the neighborhood services and safety committee. and, so, i have that question for you and would like to know how to best follow-up is to keep the pressure on vision zero. >> thank you. is there any more to your presentation? >> no. >> so, i think, number one, i do want to give the department representatives an opportunity to respond if they so desire to put questions that you pose. i noaa side from the civil grand jury report that this will definitely be an ongoing

conversation between colleagues, between all of our various city departments. and, so, we are constrained in term of our actual resolution as to the language we are able to adopt for follow-up. we will need to have our individual supervisors follow-up with the departments separate from a hearing here at gao. with that, supervisor chiu? >> i think i'll just add, i don't think there is anyone here who doesn't want to see vision zero adopted. the question is how do we find $240 million to do that in a short time period. and it will be part of the ongoing conversation that we have around the sfmta's budget, the general fund budget, police department, et cetera, and how we do that, but you can rest assured everything to a person on the board of supervisors wants to see this done but we've got limited resource. this is in part why the mayor, scott wiener and i have conv.edv a transportation task force to propose a billion dollars or more of additional transportation infrastructure that we pay through some revenue measures on the

november ballot and that will have to be part of this picture. but this will be an ongoing conversation for quite sometime. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. patel? >> yes, [speaker not understood]. the sfmta is a supports vision zero. [speaker not understood]. we have already established a vision zero steering committee and task force. one of these committees is a city staff only committee to really analyze the question and figure out who all the players are involved and then there will be a larger group that would include member of the public. this process mirrors really the success we had with our pedestrian strategy and our walk first initiative. there is a question posed to the sfmta how would one, you know, reduce the number of fatal crashes in five years and we brought everybody together to determine data a nail sis we put forth the answer with walk first. now, we have a new question pose today us. how do he we bring all that down to zero.

it's a big question. it's nothing that i can answer easily on how actually the city every single corner and agency of the city is partnering together to deliver that. so, right now our first step is to help answer that question and then continue to work on every single day to bring solutionses for that. >> all right, thank you, mr. patel. with that, would any department representative like to come up? chief suhr, welcome. >> good morning. i would echo the comments of the mta. the police department is will be salutely commit today vision zero. i don't think based on the number of phone calls i'm getting about complaints ~ about ticketing it's lost on anybody that our enforcement efforts are up. citations are up over 50% from where we started calendar year 2014. we'll continue. and, of course, after the staffing increases in the police department from the approved staffing plan by the board, presented by the mayor, 300 officers come back, that's 60,000 more shifts that will get worked. it's going to be a lot more

enforcement. we can't do it alone. we need our partners. i don't think any of the recommendations made today are unreasonable. we're happy, as ms. mann gold said, to continue to be transparent, continue to participate, and if anybody wants to know anything of us what we're doing, we're happy to present wherever and whenever anybody would like that to happen. >> all right, thank you very much, chief suhr. any other department representative? all right. >> i just want to make one comment to s.f. police department. i want you to know we all support and are very grateful for your increased enforcement. i know you get a lot of flack on the street for that, but at this time until we see zero deaths on our streets involving pedestrians, we've got to make sure our most dangerous intersections are well patrolled and that we see equal enforcement for bad behavior by drivers, by cyclists and by pedestrians. so, thank you for what you're doing. >> all right, thank you, supervisor chiu. with that, then, we'll open up this item for public comment. all right. seeing no members of the public

here, then i'm closing public comment. [gavel] >> so, in order to amend the resolution before us, we actually have to amend recommendation 4.1. and, so, on page 1 starting at line 21, supervisor chiu would like to recommend that we say "whereas the board of supervisors reported that recommendation number 4.1 which states, the mayor and the board of supervisors should support s.f.p.d. efforts to successfully enforce road rage laws by adopting a san francisco bicycle safety enforcement agreement that would pursue the zero fa tatetionv and [speaker not understood] bicycle collision has not been implemented but would be implemented within six months of the publication of the civil grand jury report from june 10, 2013 to no later than december 10, 2013." can i have a motion to -- >> so moved. >> great. without objection. [gavel] >> and following up on that for the page 2, line 22, further

move that the board of supervisors is in support of recommendation 4.1 so it will not be implemented by the board for reasons as follows. the recommendation is not within the scope of the board's authority and the board defers to the reported efforts being coordinated by city departments and encourages the mayor to cause the implementation. >> so moved. >> all right. without objection. [gavel] >> all right. and with that -- sorry, one moment. sorry, one moment, please.

okay, all right. so, that is for item number 2. and, so, with that, then, can we adopt this resolution as amended? without objection. >> without objection. [gavel] >> all right. with that, madam clerk, please read item number 3. >> item number 3 is a hearing to receive updates from various city departments required to provide a response on the implementation of recommendation nos. 3 and 4 contained in the 2012-2013 civil grand jury report, entitled "optimizing the use of publicly-owned real estate: achieving transparency, momentum, and accountability" and respond to the civil grand jury on the status of these implementations. >> all right. for this item we have here to present john updike from the department of real estate. and then we'll also give five minutes to respond as well as the civil grand jury five minutes.

as a refresher, these are in response to recommendations 3 and 4. >> thank you, chair tang. john updike, director of real estate. good morning. so, to give you some context on the civil grand jury report, we thought we'd step back for a moment to the budget and legislative analyst report one year prior in march of 2012 and just reflect on that for a moment, and then speak to the pending issues in the grand jury report. so, in that report of 2012, 26 potential surplus assets out of 5 97 ~ were analyzed. the city owns over 1,000 individual parcel within the city and county of san francisco. other persons were determined to be questioned having some issues. so, i want to give you a quick synopsis of, a, what we've done in terms of selling surplus

properties over the last seven years, and then dive in very quickly to the individual departments with parcels. so, quickly reviewing the sales of properties since 2007, we have accomplished approximately $11 million in sales of general fund assets, $20 million of sales of sfpuc assets, $30 million in sales of assets along octavia boulevard, and currently have three parcel that are surplus along octavia out for bid in fact, those bids are due on april 4. so, that gives you a sense of the transaction volume that we've had in the last seven years. so, very quickly, looking at the individual departments, the fire department had five parcels noted as potentially surplus or under utilized.

one of them is [speaker not understood] records updated. one has been repurposed. that is for fire station 30, now incorporated into the public safety building. and three are under study. [speaker not understood] from the sfmta, those are under study. by the sfmta as part of their recently adopted vision plan. 23 parcel from the port were noted for further investigation. the port provided a very comprehensive memorandum and a targeted approach to deal with parcels as development opportunities arise and, in fact, the board is seeing those as they move forward. two parcels from the library were noted. one involves the record adjustment being made. one is under study and in fact is the subject of a library discussion jointly in my office in january of this year. and then 17 parcels from the sfpuc were noted. five are current pipelines. so, that seriously reduces development poe he tension. two have been identified for

greenbelt use. seven are in active use. one has been sold and two are under study. those two under study i think we all know well which two, and that's the balboa reservoir and francisco reservoir. [speaker not understood]. six were noted for real estate in my department's jurisdiction. two of those were identified as potential surplus. one of those we've already completed the lease process and just received bids and are making an award of lease on that. the other one is in process. and then lastly, between the mayor's office of housing and the department of public works we had a total of 16 possible parcels and we're working very closely with the new urban agriculture coordinator [speaker not understood]. and identifying opportunities for interim use where we will have difficulty conveying those parcels sometime in the future. so, that's a look back. look forward quickly to the civil grand jury report. the majority of the issues still pending involve code

amendments to chapter 23 of the administrative code. those draft amendments are moving along swiftly. we expect to be able to introduce something for the bur to consider just within the next month or so. that will address many of the issues. and really will involve us taking a closer look at what we adopt in the capital plan to address our real estate assets in that capital plan and use that as a more robust reporting mechanism. also want to note that the other pending issue involve data. we've cleaned up a lot of the data since the report was provided and i'm pleased to note that we have a new business analyst in real estate following a lengthy hiring process and, so, she is now working aggressively with our colleagues at the department of technology to upgrade our database and provide additional transparency to the public. lastly, i want to mention the public sites framework. that is helping to inform our

future sales processes as well as the final version of code amendments. so, an interdepartmental team was put together, that's including sfmta economic development, the mayor's office, recreation and park department, mayor's office of housing, public health, and my division. we have been working for several months on this public sites framework which is he recently plentied to the planning commission for initial ~ comments toward the end of january this year. strategies, a four-prong strategies, real simple, developing a framework that based on existing policies guides our process in order to implement future sales. it's a comprehensive menu of potential public benefits for public sites. it provides a tool kit to achieve those benefits, and applies a framework for development of specific sites. and in particular, what we have identified are five principles. we have optimized our land use.

we want to provide public benefits wherever possible as part of the disposition. we want to fund public services through the transaction and the funds are saved. we want to utilize innovative approaches to deliver these approach he and projects. lastly we want to make sure we're complimenting a neighborhood context and engage the community in that process. this is fairly well received by the planning commission. we have a commitment to come back to them with some refinements. and as i said, it will help inform our final report and those code amendments that will be coming forward to the board for consideration. happy to answer any questions you might have, other than that. >> thank you, mr. updike. any questions? all right. with that like to bring up our civil grand jury to respond. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm fred rodriguez. i was the chair of the

committee he that worked on this report ~. a third of our civil grand jury devoted a year to this topic. i was unfortunately not able to be here when this came up six months ago in september, i think. supervisor chiu was there, but supervisor tang what not. and i just would like to just give a little bit of background as to why this report was done. we were aware of earlier reports that dealt with surplus property, that the school district had, as well the budget analyst report to the board of supervisors at the request of supervisor farrell about surplus property and under utilized property owned by the city itself. i think part of the inspiration for the report came from the fact that 170 fell street had been boarded up and since then

for 25 years, in the interim city hall has been raised and retrofitted. the de young museum has been rebuilt. the eastern span of the bay bridge has been rebuilt, but 170 fell street is in the heart of the civic area still remains boarded up. and in the course of doing that, we looked at both city properties and properties belonging to the school district. and what we found -- the earlier reports, they come up, get some attention, and then with the passage of time they tend to phase. and our concern was is how do we keep the attention on the issue. and part of that is the information that becomes available. at the start of the process when we started to try to identify the properties, the information was much less. as mr. updike said, that has improved. much of it is now visible. the city owns 20% of the land

within san francisco and that's not including that owned by the school district or by the preside yo or the like. but the other land 20% is owned by the city and county of san francisco. in addition, it owns 92,000 acres for the three times the size of the city outside the city. and with not having the information readily available, it's hard to really do the oversight. for example, there is now -- it is possible to look at properties on-site that are outside the city limits of san francisco. in there you'll turn up 1400 acres that supposedly belong to rec and park, and the library in kern county and another [speaker not understood] acre in fresno that belong to the same entity. and you wonder why is the rec

and park having property in kern county or the library. and later on by digging, you find out in fact it is property willed to the city and that it produces oil and is being used for the benefit of those departments. but if you don't have that visibility, how do you ask, is this the best use and are we limited to these uses going forward? so, if you go to the site, not all the information that is required by administrative code 23-a is available on the site. 23-a, which is the object of the recommendation 3, we're happy to hear is being amended. it is a administrative code that is miss named because really deals with the issue of

homelessness and affordable housing, even though it's called the surplus property ordinance, it really is dealing with the issue of homelessness and the like. but it has within it a mechanism that would be useful to monitor and police what goes on with property owned by the city that is either under utilized or surplus property in itself. so, there are similar recommendation with respect to the unified school district. the unified school district does not come within ordinance 23-a. it is state agency and the rules that apply there are different. so, our desire is to -- and the reason for testifying today is we'd like the transparency, the issue of making the information available to not get lost. and second, that there be momentum moving forward a things are being done. the 23-a would require an

annual report to the board of supervisors. that has not happened since 2007 and it's done with impunity because it doesn't work. 23-a would require departments to discourage an asset but get nothing in return. our recommendation is that any department that disgorges a piece of property ~ should be compensated. there should be something that they get in return for doing so. and secondly, the purposes for which the properties can be used are too narrow and our recommendation, again, is that those be broadened. and finally, we had made recommendations with respect to having some oversight committees. that way the attention is maintained and there is a committee called for in 23-a. we'll have to see what the amendment says, but these purposes, to keep the attention

on this property that gets to be used in the best ways, and if not, maybe they need to be repurposed. thank you. >> all right, thank you very much. and i also wanted to call up david golden, our representative from the san francisco unified school district if you are here. mr. golden? >> good morning, supervisors. i'm david golden, the chief facility officer for the san francisco unified school district. it's a pleasure to be here. i was here, it seems, like a long time ag but it probably wasn't, to discuss ~ the civil grand jury report. the district was asked to come back today for finding 3 and 4. finding 3 does not pertain to the school district, so, our sole response is only for

recommendation 4. and if you're not familiar with that recommendation, the grand jury was asking or requesting whether the board of supervisors and the board of education should each adopt rules which limit the length of time that a property can be on the surplus property list without action and without consequences. our original response was that the recommendation will not be implemented because it's not warranted or reasonable. i want to point out historically, of the nine parcels of -- if san francisco has a thousand parcels, we have about 150. of the nine parcel that we declared surplus in 2007, sick of them have now since been reopened as public schools, administrative offices. our needs are unbelievably

fluid, as you know he in the educational world, that the classic example of that would be the de avila elementary school on 8 which was reopened a few years ago as the chinese american school and is completely and totally thriving. the san francisco montesori school on jackson street, old pacific heights school was closed when newcomer school moved out. it is now reopened and is thriving. so, our needs come and they go. they are incredibly fluid. so, our response at the time was not to be implemented, not warranted because it's not reasonable. the educational programs and the administrative facility requirements of the district are fluid and must remain flexible and we need to have that flexibility in order to do our business. so, therefore, and in relatively quick conclusion,

our sick-month update is in response to recommendation 4, the board of education answered that the recommendation would not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable and there is no further update or change to that recommendation. and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any questions from the committee? no? i know that our office has expressed some interest at the last hearing and we'll certainly follow-up with you directly about some of the properties as well. >> i didn't speak to that because [speaker not understood]. one recommendation that we made for both the city and the school district was that the legislative bodies of each entity should adopt rules that would say, okay, they self-declared property, for example the school district, these are surplus properties. that it just doesn't languish there. after a period of time there should be some accountability.

now, the assumption and the response is that what we're suggesting is it should be sold is it's not -- nothing ha happened within a period of time that we didn't specify. but whatever the time would be, five years, seven years or so, that it should come back to that legislative body to say, okay, why has nothing happened. it's a way of making sure that things move along and just don't go into the wayside. so, that's the purpose of the recommendation to say that it's not warranted, i think is not correct. you have had with the unified school district this vacant lot, 7th and lawton, nothing goes on there other than it's used for selling christmas trees and pumpkins. but is that the best use of it? and unless it continues