years, at max. you know, the united states sent a man to the moon in ten years, upon the leadership of jack kennedy. building this system doesn't cost that much. and it needs to be done. politics needs to take a backseat to the technical needs of getting a comprehensive fire suppression system that uses non-potable water from answer infinite source. that's what the grand jury has essentially argued for. bell dings and so that's why i urge you to support this going forward in that manner. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i come here in support of the

grand jury report. and of their findings. and their recommendations. what motivates me to come here today, yesterday morning, despite the best efforts of the station 15, two members of our community lost their lives in a fire on dellano avenue. wood-frame building, built in 1915, like so many wood-frame buildings on the west side and southern sides of town, where there's a greater concentration of families and children. at present, we don't have a system that can handle the big one in those areas. i feel strongly that the city departments and the financing people need to focus on solving this question seriously. i thank the grand jury for their

recommendations, for their effort and i thank mr. dute and nancy werfell for having led so many people and explain this to them. thank you. mar thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is ellen lee chow. i'm a resident in san francisco for the last 33 year. i am a public employee. around the former civic grand jury for two terms, 2014 and 2016. i am here to support item number 2 and item number 3. as you know, our city's budget is very high. the supervisors in here continue talking about building homeless navigation centers through

public money, that failed to allocate to help the people in item number 2 and 3. you and i know we have been told within the next 30 years, we will be facing a major earthquake. which means the fire department needed every possible resources to protect all of the people in san francisco. not just to misuse and mismanage our puppet money, to attract non-san franciscans to come to san francisco. and also if we, the fire department, the staff, the public people, the public employees work so hard and try to protect the public money, i'm talking about the public resources. [bell dings] but board does not respond to

the grand jury report, then you do not respect the people who spend 500 hours a year and put this report together, to protect the public through the fire department. and again my name is ellen. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> regarding the presenters, how many pages of addendum and supplemental information do they anticipate adding to the back of the report on the documents? they state the department will be absent until 2021. it seems analysis may be being used to stall this civil safety project's development, rather than to further its development. 23 we are presently saving 700,000 gallons of water per day, due to pipe repair, why don't we aim to increase the rate beyond 1% of daily use by

replacing the pipe, or those pipes most in need of continual repair. and seems like we have a budget that increases by $1 billion year-over-year. i don't believe we need to issue a bond to complete the project. we simply need to properly apply the funds already collected. >> any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i wanted to thank all of the neighborhood leaders and activists that spoke out at the hearing today and shared your perspectives on this really important issue. i know a number of you have really been champions of this issue and the need for the city to address the complete build-out of the auxiliary water supply system for many years. thank you for all of your activism and really pushing us here in city hall to make this a

higher priority. and thanks again to civil grand jury for your focus on this issue and you're really thoughtful and comprehensive report that you produced. it really is so helpful again in sort of pushing the discussion and pushing us here at city hall to address the, you know, this urgent issue. which is literally a life-or-death issue with hundreds of thousands of lives, you know, and billions of dollars of property really vulnerable. so, yeah. and supervisor brown, do you have any remarks? >> supervisor brown: well, i agree with supervisor and chair martha, yeah, we know something is going to happen in the future. we need to be prepared for it. and, you know, my district is, you know, looks pretty good. but when i look on the west side of the city, it's something that we really have to concentrate on. i think the p.u.c., the fire

department, everyone knows that. and so i want to make sure we get it right. and if -- for me if it takes another year to make sure they come with a plan, make sure they're talking to the community. and just making sure that they get it right, that's worth it. because i think rushing a project, i have seen this happen before in the city, if you rush a project, if you don't get it right and you're not talking to the community, sometimes it just is wasted money. so i definitely feel that, you know, we should give them the time to get the project right. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor brown. and actually again i just also wanted to thank the mayor's office, the public utilities commission, the fire department and the capital planning committee for your work on this important issue. and also in developing the responses to this civil grand jury report. the department's responses are -- have already been presented and are part of the public record. we do have a resolution here

that in committee today, that is the board of supervisors' responses to the civil grand jury report, findings and recommendations. and that -- actually i have some amendments to the resolution. and it's more just to ensure that -- you don't have a copy of it. i'm going to verbally mention it. it's just to make sure we're following the direction from the superior court and the clerk of the board on the proper language to use on the board responses. so for the -- in the resolution on page 4, in the resolve, part of the resolution that starts on line 4, page 16, we're saying that we -- for finding number 4, finding 5, finding 6 and finding 11, the draft of the resolution

says that we wholly agree with the findings, which i think we do. the instructions from the superior court and the clerks a office just said that we should state that we agree with the findings. so the amendment is to delete the word "wholly." and then for the -- additionally -- >> clerk: mr. chair, you can just mention the motion that you're making to add the recommendations that you wish to have added. so, for instance, i'm hearing now you make a motion to recommend that findings f4, f5, f6 and f11 that the board of supervisors agree with the findings, as presented in the report, is that correct? >> supervisor mar: , yes, that's correct. and then for recommendation number 1 and recommendation number 2, i -- i would move that

we amend to say the board of supervisors reports that recommendations number 1 and number 2 have not been implemented, but they will be implemented. i'm sorry, we should take those separately because there's different dates. recommendation number 1, it should state that the board -- that it has not -- recommendation number 1 has not been implemented, but will be implemented no later than december 31st, 2021. for recommendation number 2, it has not been implemented, but will be implemented by december 31st, 2021. those were the only amendments. >> there are still responses for recommendations number r3, r4, r6, r7, and r8. they are blank on the resolution, as presented.

do you have proposed amendments to fill in those? mar re. for recommendation number 3, that should say recommendation number 3 has not been implemented, but will be implemented. and supervisor gordon mar will -- a report no later than december 31st, 2019. and we'll direct the budget and legislative analyst to issue the completed report no later than december 31st, 2020. for recommendation number 4, the amendment says that it will not be implemented, because while funding for five host tender was allocated for fiscal year 2019 to 2020, both local and state level actions implementation of the recommendation in its entirety will depend on the appropriation actions of a future mayor and board of supervisors.

and for recommendation number 6, it should state that it has not been implemented, but it will be implemented. and urge -- and the board urges the completion of a study for adding a saltwater pump station to be presented to the board of supervisors by no later than june 30th, 2021. for recommendation number 7, it has not been implemented, but it will be implemented and the board urges that a completed analysis be presented to the board of supervisors by no later than june 30th, 2020. for recommendation number 8, it has not been implemented, but it will be implemented and will analyze by june 30th, 2022, in coordination with the mayor, whether to propose a separate bond for the development of a

high pressure, multi-source seismically safe water system for those parts of the city that don't currently have one, a target date of completing construction by no later than june 30th, 2034. so those are the amendments. so i -- supervisor brown, i don't know if you have any questions? >> supervisor brown: no. >> supervisor mar: i would like to make a motion to adopt the -- the resolution as amended to the full board. and we file the hearing on this item. >> clerk: mr. chair, because some of these response types for the recommendations indicate that there may be need for future re-analysis or evaluation of the implementation of the recommendations, it is the recommendation that the hearing file remain open or -- appropriate motion will be to continue it to the call of the

chair, so agendaized in the future in order for the board and the committee to review the updates. >> supervisor mar: thank you for that. yeah, so again i would move that we adopt the amendments. we recommend the resolution, as amended, to the full board. and that we continue the hearing to the call of the chair, so that we can -- we can have follow-up on these items, you know, as they're being -- as progress is being made and they're completed. so if we can take that without objection. great. thank you, everyone, for being here for this. and i'll -- and all of your work on this important issue. [gavel] mr. clerk, please call items 4 and 5 together. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. agenda item number 4, a hearing on the 20182019 civil garage

work entitled improving continuity review for increased accountability. the 2018-2019 san francisco civil grand jury continuity report. agenda item number 5, a draft resolution -- on the finding and recommendations in the report. >> supervisor mar: thank you. so for this item, actually, mr. harvey, i don't know if you had -- you're good? yeah. i'd like to invite back mr. harvey , the floor person for the jury to provide opening remarks. >> thank you, chair mar. 2018-2019 civil grand jury. just want to briefly introduce this agenda item. so this item is about improving continuity review for increase being public accountability. so the goal here is to strengthen the watchdog function of the civil grand jury, by having proper systems in place. so you'll see the language of a database to monitor findings and recommendations across terms.

really we want to make sure that the civil grand jury is serving every san franciscan and make sure it's effective across terms as well. with that said, i would like to call up nona, russell, who is the chair for this report. >> chairman mar, members of the board of supervisors. my name is nona russell and i'm here to present the 2018-2019 san francisco civil grand jury continuity report on improving review for increased public accountability. now as you know, california state law requires that all 58 counties impanel a civil grand jury to serve during each fiscal year. the civil grand jury investigates and reports on one or mores -- aspects of the citys departments -- where a group of citizen volunteers, most of whom have no prior grand jury experience. fortunately for us, trainee sessions are arranged for us under a the auspices of the

superior court and the assistance of the california and san francisco grand -- grand ju' association. among the concepts that are presented to us, during our training, is the importance of a continuity committee in verifying verifying that the recommendations of prior grand juries receive appropriate responses. by the way, responses to the first presentation here i thought were rather good. this is a particularly important concept, since each grand jury term is one year. we have only one year which to select topics, complete research, interview the appropriate government officials and experts and make recommendations. each published report includes a list of the elected officials or departments that are required to submit the responses to the findings and recommendations of the civil grand jury. and these are sent to the presiding judges of the superior court within 60 to 90 days, after the issuance of the reports.

now under section -- penal code 93.5 a. for each finding, the response must agree with the finding or disagree with it wholly or partially and explain why. similarly under the penal code, for each recommendation, the responding party must report one of four things. number one, the recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the implemented action. number two, the recommendation has not been implemented, but will be within a set timeframe. number three, the recommendation requires further analysis with an explanation of what that analysis is, in preparation of suitable materials for discussion. that timeframe needs to be set and may not exceed six months from the date of publication of the civil grand jury report. or the final option, number four, the recommendation will not be implemented because it's not warranted or reasonable with an explanation.

our initial finding, first of all, was there was no continuity report published in the prior year. as a matter of fact, there's been no continuity report published since 2014-2015. consequently, we reviewed the san francisco civil grand jury reports that are published online. these date back to 1995 and 1996. continuity reports were published in only 14 of the past 23 years. in one of those reports, 1997-1998, it was noted that many recommendations are either never commented upon or answered it or are answered incompletely. this observation has been made by multiple grand juries, including the current one. there have been several recommendations that continuity committee be named a standing committee that receives the initial responses to the prior-years' recommendations. this hasn't happened. there have also been multiple attempts to set up a tracking system to verify that

recommendations have received complete responses within the timeframe designated by the statute. among the tracking recommendations that have been made was that the mayor's office should develop a standardized protocol that responds to grand jury reports and requires its use by all city departments, offices and agencies. we haven't identified a standardized process. another recommendation has been the controller should provide the mayor and board of supervisors an ongoing, annual status report of the agreed-toen had been implemented civil grand jury recommendations and by san francisco administrative code section 2410, this is required for fiscal manners beginning one year after the board of supervisors' meeting. this has evolved in an audit of the responses of the previously three years only. it does not evaluate the appropriateness or the completeness of the responses.

and finally, there was a recommendation of the board of supervisors should hold an annual hearing on all outstanding civil grand jury recommendations where the implementation was pending. this does not happen. so these problems are not limited to san francisco, but follow-up problems are found in other counties. we were particularly interested in san diego county, since it's been conveyed to us, that they follow-up with the california past jurors' association. we found that that particular review committee actually is chartered by the county. no such thing exists in our county. however, interestingly enough, it only looks up -- follows up on recommendations made by the county. and whether you know it or not, san diego county includes multiple municipalities, besides the city of san diego. and this committee does not follow up on those for

implementation. this history brings us to our current report. for the most part, responses to the civil grand jury findings and recommendations are submitted to the presiding judge, within the guidelines set by the penal code, that's within 60 or 90 days. the board of supervisors has frequently laid by one or two weeks. however, they have the additional requirement, as was mentioned, to hold public hearings and they generally submit their responses after those public hearings. in contrast, with the agency's performances with respect to initial responses, the civil grand jury found that many responses to recommendations lack an explanation or a stated timeframe for implementation or analysis or they have a stated timeframe that has expired. for instance, you mentioned timeframes for all of the additional analysis that the board of supervisors are going to make. well, nobody follows up to see if you really did do that.

just wanted to point that out. now the civil grand jury actually, in our review of the past three years, we found 72 such responses actually in the past four years. that's 11.9% of the total, a number of recommendations. 37 of them did not specify a timeframe for the implementation of the recommendation of the completion and analysis. and an additional 35 listed an expected implementation date that had expired. as of the most recent controller review. it's noteworthy that neither the california penal code nor the san francisco administrative code mandate any follow-up after the initial receipt of the responses by the superior court. and after the public hearings by the board of supervisors, until subsequent follow-up is performed by the controller, 12 to 15 months after the initial recommendations are made.

this gap is a significant period without documented activity on the recommendations. that gap, the turnover of civil grand juries, the irregularity of continuity reporting all contribute to inefficiency and diminished effectiveness of the civil grand jury. so we're making some recommendations. actually our first finding that you'll all get the replies to the superior court within 60-90 days, we compliment you on the relative efficiency of that situation. however, our second finding, there's a significant lack of compliance by the elected officials, agency heads and governing bodies of the city and county of san francisco with the statutory requirements for designating timeframes for promised implementation, providing the details of further analysis and completing that analysis within six months of the date of issuance of the civil grand jury report. this is complicated by a lack of a statutory requirement to bring the responses to final status.

so what are we recommending? we recommend the board of supervisors should adopt an ordinance by no later than june 30th, 2020, providing that the elected officials, agency heads and governing bodies of the city and county of san francisco must continue providing the civil grand jury across civil grand jury terms with timely follow-up, information regarding the ongoing responses to the recommendations in its reports, until the responses reach final status. and amend the san francisco administrative code section 2.10 to add subsection c, specifying within three years of the publication date of a civil grand jury report, the designated respondents to the report's recommendations shall bring their responses to final status, that is either implemented with a summary of the implementation or not implemented because it's not warranted or not reasonable with

an explanation thereof. we made one further recommendation to the board of supervisors. we found that some of the responses to recommendations of prior civil grand juries, in addition to being -- along with being out of compliance with the penal code, merit additional follow-up. i'd like to point out one particular 2016-2017 report on the san francisco retirement system, increasing understanding and adding voter sites in that. the civil grand jury investigated the fiscal status of the city's retirement system and concluded that it threatens the financial future of the city, due to an unfunded liability of $5.81 billion, which leaves the system only 77.6% funded. according to the san francisco performance score cards on pings plan funding levels, the retirement system has not been 100% funded since 2009. the funding deficit varies with

the economy, with the greatest deficits occurring during economic downturns. regardless of the economy, the taxpayers of san francisco are responsible for the obligations of the retirement system, including any unfunded deficits. in recommendation 2.1 of that particular report, the civil grand jury recommended that the mayor and board of supervisors establish a permanent retirement oversight committee to develop a long-term solution that was fair to both employees and taxpayers. the board of supervisors replied basically they review the financials. the mayor said the city already had a retirement board, that functioned as oversight to the retirement system. the retirement board itself, and i really want to emphasize this, said its fiduciary responsibility to beneficiaries supersedes they responsibility to the voters and citizens of san francisco. as a citizen and a taxpayer, no longer a member of the grand

jury, i find that alarming. so our overall finding to this particular situation was that in their responses to recommendation 2.1 of the civil grand jury 2016-2017 report, the san francisco retirement system increasing understanding and adding voter oversight, the mayor and the board of supervisors did not take into account that the retirement board fiduciary responsibility for investing the assets of the retirement system and maximizing the returns for the beneficiaries supersedes any responsibility to the voters and citizens of san francisco. nor was it acknowledged that this could prevent the board and possibly the mayor and possibly the board of supervisors of acting as appropriate fiduciaries for the voters and taxpayers of san francisco. so since we did not

independently investigate the retirement system, we are only recommending, we are not making a separate recommendation ourself. but what we are recommending is, the mayor and the board of supervisors should reconsider and resubmit their responses by no later than december 31st, 2019, to recommendation 2.1 of the 2016-2017 civil grand jury report on the retirement system, considering the formation of a retirement board oversight committee. our continuity committee had additional investigations, but since they didn't involve the board of supervisors, i won't go over those. thank you very much. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, ms. russell and to all of the other members of the civil grand jury that worked on this important report. and came up with the findings and recommendations. next, i would like to invite

kelly kirkpatrick from the mayor's budget office to provide the departmental's responses. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm kelly kirkpatrick. thank you so much for having us this morning. first and foremost, thank you to the members of the civil grand jury for all of your hard work and contributions towards investigating important matters, as it relates to san francisco. especially in this term public safety. we really recognize that the civil grand jury spent a lot of time and were very thoughtful in their analysis on evaluating critical public safety matters, including the emergency water supply system, the city's interest in rejoining the joint terrorism task force and pedestrian safety, of which i know you'll hold hearings on all of those. on behalf of the mayor's office, the city administrator's office and the police department, we submitted a letter in response to the report expressing our appreciation and interest in working with the jury on ensuring timely and responsive feedback to civil grand jury reports.

the grand jury clearly put a lot of time into their analysis, reviewing responses since fiscal year 2014-2017. and noting over 70 instances in which timeframes were not adequately responded to and follow-up responses. we agree that there is ample room for improving year-to-year continuity. and think, for example, easy changes to format and form, that can help with that responsiveness, for example, should a department or an elected official respond, which will be implemented or require further analysis, develop a form that then requires a response to timelines to that effect. so willing and happy to work on form and with departments to ensure that responsiveness. the mayor's office is interested in working with city departments, as well as the civil grand jury, superior court, in the controller's office, who does play an

important role in the follow-up process to come up with process improvements either through forms or databases to ensure responsiveness as appropriate. happy to answer any questions. i believe that mark from the controller's office is available, should there be any questions about the controller's office, either response or the processes that they have in place currently in areas that they view for opportunities for improvement. and how they support the civil grand jury. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much. ms. kirkpatrick, i also did want to acknowledge that we have mark dellrosa from the controller's office, actually he's the acting director of audits who is available for questions. and actually before we go into public comment, i did want to

ask deputy city attorney john givener to clarify the board's recommendations in this particular report. >> i was on the wrong side of the room. deputy city attorney john gibner. the report itself requests the board to provide a response. and usually the civil grand jury report requires -- with the civil grand jury report, the board is legally required to provide a response. here after the presiding judge and my office reviewed the report, we each concluded that this situation, where it's a follow-up to the previous continuity report, the board is not legally obligated to provide responses to the findings and recommendations. the board could choose to provide those responses to the

specific findings and recommendations or more general response or you could choose to hear the testimony today and not adopt a formal response by resolution. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, mr. givener. supervisor brown, do you have any questions? >> supervisor brown: no. >> supervisor mar: all right. any members of the public that wish to testify on this item? please step forward. you have two minutes. please state your name. >> my name is ellen chow. i was a former civil grand jury. i am active public employee. and i am a union bargaining team for public employees. as you know, we have 32,000 public employees. and i'm here today to ask you, if you elected honestly into the office, maybe it's about time, 2019, to start implementing

civic services grand jury's reports. i personally spent a lot of time for reports similar like that in 2014. and if you check the record, 2016, we are talking about government accountability. unfortunately san francisco has been running by one party, democrats only. our government should be balanced with political -- but we don't. san francisco we only have democrats for the last 45 years, that has been destroying the city that was so beautiful, but right now we don't have republicans, no libertarian, no green, no independent and none partisan. and i'm here today to ask you, not only review the political power, but also to implement, as a supervisor, the decision in here while i'm talking, that

you're not listening. [bell dings] >> supervisor mar: please continue. >> well, because i'm talking and you're not listening. i am here to request, supervisor mar and supervisor brown to take a look at the civic grand jury reports. and save our city. you raise a lot of money on a lot of unnecessary items. but we are talking about government accountabilities. [bell dings] >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is elena schmidt. i also was a former civil grand jury member. actually of the '14-'15 civil grand jury that had a continuity report. currently i'm the coordinator of the local association that miss

rosa referred to, of the former civil grand jury's association. i want to compliment the report that this committee put together. it is just an amazing treasure trove of what this civil grand juries have done over the years, the important issues that they've brought before them. and basically what we see is that those issues disappear. you put good time and the supervisors put good time into listening the reports, to get a response, an immediate response and then it disappears. so i understand what the city attorney said in terms of you have no obligation to respond. but i would say you should think a little bit about all of the effort that goes into it and to make sure that that effort pays off in the long run. and maybe it's worthwhile to sit down and talk and try to talk through with jury members, past

jury members to find out if there's a way to make sure that the civil grand jury reports are continued and are looked at down the line. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to testify on the item? please step forward. >> hi, i'm jonathan. i'm a member of the current civil grand jury. and i just want to say that the current civil grand jury has taken the previous grand jury's report very seriously. and we look forward to making some progress, with respect to the technical aspects. being able to have the data in format that's easier to 70s, breath for the grand jury and the public. the issue for the follow-up from the departments is something that's beyond our control. we are actively working on it and taking it very seriously. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. are there -- is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] i would like to ask mr. dellrosa

from the controller's office to -- oh, to just explain the work that the controller's office does to sort of track, you know, the responses and the progress on the civil grand jury findings and recommendations. >> certainly. good morning, supervisors. mark dellrosa. i'm acting director of the audits for the controller's office. just to give you a very brief background on what it is that we actually do. so as part of our mandate, per admin code section 2.10, we are required to report before the board of supervisors on any of the updates from the previous civil grand jury recommendations. and what we do is we annual report out on the information that is actually provided to us by the various departments, so around september, october is when we obtain and gather information from the various

departments. we gather them and we issue a report, basically with a letterhead that we send to the board of supervisors, and also available through our website. we have been doing this for the last few years. and it's available through our website in the controller's office. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. dell rosa. yeah. i wanted to thank the civil grand grand jury for your work on, this the continuity jury of the civil grand jury's work and the board and the city's responses to that. and i fully agree with you that, you know, we do have a great responsibility to ensure that there's follow-through on all of the important findings and recommendations, that, you know, are presented to us. and we need to do a better job and really improve how we do that. and communicate that back to the

-- you know, to the presiding judge of the superior court and the civil grand jury. and that's important, you know, both because of the amount of time that you all put in, on a volunteer basis to really look deeply into these important issues and to come up with the recommendations. and but also just because of the importance of the issues themselves and the recommendations that you do put forward. so thank you again for all of your work on this particular issue. supervisor brown, do you have any ... >> supervisor brown: i just want to thank everyone that's here today and past. because you have put so much work into it. everyone that i have talked to in the past, that have sat on these committees and really looked deeply into these issues, they've spent so much time and it's so thorough.

so i just want to say thank you. i have to say, you know, i was a legislative aide for ten years before i became a member of this board. and there were a lot of recommendations that we used over the years. and it's actually digging into your reports. and it takes time also for us to dig into those reports and finding the things that we bring forward and say, okay, they're spot on on this one, let's move this forward. so i want to let you know that through the years, we have used these reports. they're so important. and it is something that i just want to commend all of you for every day that we're there looking at these reports, seeing what we need to do. so thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor brown. so considering that new information was not presented in this item, warranting required board responses, i've drafted

and shared with supervisor brown amendments to the resolution that express our gratitude to the jury's work here and our commitment to work together going forward, to improve the continuity process. i would like to read the amendments. it's to resolve that the board of supervisors reports to the presiding judge of the superior court, that they appreciate, commend and recognize the investigative and analytical work of the civil grand jury and the importance of the continuity review process to ensuring the effectiveness of that work. and be it further resolved that the board of supervisors agrees that the recommendations should be continued until they reach final status, that improvements to the process can be made and the board of supervisors looks forward to working with the civil grand jury and superior court to identify and eliminate obstacles in the current continuity process cycle, and

improve follow-up, timeliness. so i'd like to move that we adopt the amendments and recommend the resolution, as amended, to the full board. and also that we file the hearing. can we take that without objection? thank you. [gavel] thank you so much, everyone. mr. clerk, can you please call items number 6 and 7 together. >> clerk: agenda item number 6 is a hearing on the 2018-2019 civil grand jury report entitled pedestrian safety in the era of electric mobility devices. agenda item number 7 is a resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2018-2019 report with the same name. and urging the mayor to pause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through her department heads and through the development of the

annual budget. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. i'd like to welcome marty sutherland from the civil grand jury, who will present on the report for this item. >> good morning. my name is martytherland and i've been the chairperson of this specific committee. we would like to thank the representatives of the government audit and oversight committee for hearing our presentation of the 2018-2019 grand jury report entitled pedestrian safety in the era of electric mobility disqualifies. we'd like to begin with a brief overview of this report. all trips within san francisco begin and end with walking. for 17% of our population, walking is the primary mode of all trips. san francisco pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users,

accounting for half of the all san francisco traffic fatalities. op may 11, 2019, the eighth death in 2019. four times the number that occurred during the same timeframe in 2018. then the arrival in 2018 of shared mobility devices, particularly electric scooters but also electric bicycles and various types of motorized skateboards quickly generated conflicts with pedestrians, as some underinformed users of these devices used sidewalks as their preferred travel lanes to minimize their own risk of commissions with cars. the expectation of pedestrian safety is eroded when pedestrian rights of way are ignored on sidewalks and in intersections. so first arrival in san

francisco, e-scooters were left on the sidewalks, creating tripping hazards. in april 2018, complaints about e-scooters started to be reported and surged within the san francisco 311 customer service center. the city and sfmta responded to the need for structure, information and data-driven actions. they launched a 12-month powered scooter-share permit and pilot program that began in october 2018. the san francisco civil grand jury investigation reviewed the status and progress of san francisco's efforts regarding pedestrian safety and emerging mobility recognition option. these efforts improve policies and support policies and procedures suitable for personal mobility advancements yet to

arrive on san francisco's sidewalks and streets. the key recommendations -- the key findings and recommendations, presented in this report, focus on ways to improve education and outreach for pedestrians and motorized device users, enforcement of existing ordinances and laws to help reduce injuries. to better identify root causes and the contractual terms regarding liability and responsibility for injuries, device maintenance, and repair. to incorporate emerging shared mobility devices into the city's transportation planning and infrastructure. adherence to the city charter transportation goals require continued and diligent efforts to improve pedestrian safety.

in the background section of our report, there is a timeline of pedestrian safety efforts in san francisco that is outlined. these include the creation of the pedestrian safety advisory committee in 2003. walk first in 2013. and vision zero in 2014. the san francisco county transportation authority created guiding principles to evaluate the impact and benefit of emerginging mobility devices in 2017. the discussion sections, pages 10-27 of the report, include documentations in the areas of education, engineering, enforcement, and injury data and liability issues. these defined are findings leading to our recommendations. san francisco has always been and will likely remain a

forward-looking city and an incubator for innovation. personal mobility devices are expected to evolve rapidly, and to test the city's commitment to creative transportation system, that is among the best in the world. our report has seven findings and six recommendations. i will highlight a few of them for you. finding number 2. the successful expansion of marked and protected bike lanes represents an opportunity to include signage, indicating bike lanes are also used for -- i'm sorry, also used for use by e-scooters riders. [ please stand by ]

>> finding number 5 and 6 are interwoven. five the pilot terms require them to im demfithe city from injury and damage claims. scoot and skip terms put responsibility for injury, damage and equipment inspection on the user.

finding 6. current terms and conditions and the skip agreement expose a delegation of responsibility for scooter inspection and maintenance to their independent contractors, called skip rangers, who receive no specific training from skip. scoot, however, hires and trains employees to provide inspection and maintenance services. our recommendation for these two findings is the s.f.m.t.a., city attorney and service providers review all related agreements to assure responsibility for risk management is allocated to the parties best able to manage the risk. this review and modification of terms should be initiated prior to the end of the existing

pilot, which is october 19, 2019. these revisions should be incorporated and implemented in all agreements for replacement program to follow at the conclusion of the pilot. finding number 7 requires a response from the board of supervisors and before our finding and recommendation i would like to add a few comments. the pedestrian safety advisory committee has a potentially important role to play regarding pedestrian safety. established by the san francisco charter, administrative code chapter 5, article 4, peace act was formed and given an ambitious agenda touching on policy and planning issues

related to pedestrian safety. our san francisco grand jury members attended three monthly meetings, reviewed past meeting minutes from 2017 and 2018 posted on their website and annual reports and our findings found the following, as of june 27, 2019, three of the 17 seats are vacant. in 2018 only four meetings had a verified quorum, five did not, one canceled and two had no minutes to verify if a meeting had taken place. in 2017, only eight meetings were scheduled and seven of the eight had no minutes to verify if there was a quorum in an attendance or if they met. they are required to report to the board of supervisors on an

annual basis. the reports are to include pedestrian injury and fatality statistics to recommendations for changes. the most recent annual report was submitted in 2011. we want to revise that to 2014. information came out after our term ended june 30th of this year so that is the correction. the last report was issued in 2014. our information was provided through e-mails with several members through our review of the website and what was posted at the time of the investigation. those were the two main areas. i will go back here.

our finding number 7. a key obligation of the pedestrian safety committee is to prepare and submit annual reports to the board of supervisors. these are to include pedestrian injury and fatality statistics and root call analysis to recommend changes in policy, funding and enforcement. the report has not been prepared or submitted annually since 2014. our findings are documented on pages 26 and 27 of the report. our recommendation number 6. the board of supervisors should allow the public -- i'm sorry. the pedestrian safety advisory committee to terminate effective october 1, 2019 as designated in

the san francisco municipal code. this completes our presentation. we would also like to mention how much the interviews we had with pernell from the -- assisting us in writing this report. thank you. >> thank you so much. now, i wanted to invite up the presentation for the department's responses. the m.t.a. pedestrian manager and co-chair of division zero task force. >> thank you. i am from m.t.a. joined by my colleagues from the department of public health. we all enjoyed working with the civil grand jury and appreciate

the attention they have given to vision zero, which is very important to the board of supervisors. i am going to go to response to the civil grand jury findings and recommendations specifically brought up today. wwe will look into additional signings and markings for scooters. we currently have a limited palette at our disposal. bike lanes are goffed by traffic -- governed by traffic control. it is currently limited to a bicycle stencil and the word bike lane. absent a change to that we will not be able to put scooter markings within the bike lanes, however, we are able to look into any additional signs as

recommended by the civil grand jury specifically on sidewalks. the department of public health continues to support all of the s.f.m.t.a. work relating to infrastructure and education through the annual injury and commission analysis. the most recent version was published a couple weeks ago including the first annual findings on e-scooters that presented themselves to the san francisco general hospital. our police department continues to do work on focus on the five, and it has recently enhanced their traffic company through vision zero enforcement team. i cannot speak to the findings related to the city attorney office because i am a transportation planner and not a lawyer. i defer to the city attorney for recommendations and findings

related to i to those questions. >> do you have any questions? >> thank you. >> why don't we go to public comment. are there any members of the public to speak on this item? if so, please step up. >> i am emily. i am a local resident for the last 33 years. as a public employee you talk about government accountability and pedestrian safety. 2016-2017 i was appointed by former supervisor david campos for the committee. from the committee we know that the website was