recommended 1.5. certainly we need to offer businesses that is being implemented as i understand it in the mta and bicycle coalition. finally no. 2 bicycle training should be by utility bicycle operators and what style of doing it. it should be more by the league and bicyclist program and working together on that rather than having it on the confines of the additional police training which is currently proposed. moving to recommends 2.1, a long support and advocated for sfpd bicycle training not only for better understanding the law and conditions bicyclist deal with but also bicyclist enforcing traffic on our streets. we believe police are not on bicycles, they can travel quite fast and thoroughly. we would like to see a program by sfpd to bring new bicycles into traffic enforcement now. it would be good for them too. recommendation 2.2, recommendations analysis on going training of all police officers especially those who raise outside of san francisco and have otherwise little connection to the transportation goals of san francisco in developing events first city discouraging auto use and establishing a priority for slowing traffic for the benefit of children, seniors and bicycle and pedestrian users. we tend to feel that a good deal of society as a bicyclist has a connection of empathy for bicyclist everyday. recommendation 2.3, bicycle specific safety through munis operators with training goals. the bec has long supported the civil grand jury recommendation for the development of what's called a ready rate, something the highway patrol focuses on which is shorthand guide to officers as to which vehicle codes apply to bicycles versus those intended for other purposes like vehicles and other traffic. at the same time we would like to see citation for motorist for -- which is dangerous for bicyclist. there have been at least two fatalities in the south of market where a vehicle makes a right turn. that is very dangerous and with trucks it's often fatal. we need to have this ready focus on motorist citation and things they do with honking the horns that is never cited these days. finding 3, no brainer. finding 4, which is extension of 4.1. i would say it's part of it that what bicyclist that we found through our committees that bicyclist are looking for equity and equality and evaluation. the feedback is important. it's not particularly addressed well. not to criticize the grand jury report. i will get to that. recommendation 4.2. recommendation requires further analysis. the bac has made further attempts to reach the parties and requires bac meeting and specific agenda items regarding the response. the committee has not responded to this committee. i'm not going to the administrative codes that requires it. the ba c looks for the participation in 2012, 2013 civil grand jury. we recommend the safety committee being recommended. i would like to bring your attention lastly to a document that you were given, you may see it, >> there are three sheets that i would like to illustrate for you. what this identifies is the kinds of causes that result in the fatalities. over the last 2007, we've had 26 fatalities in the city, 1997, excuse me. 26 fat alities. related to vehicles and as well as two died by gunshot assassination and one with solo crash. and two unknown. what i want to bring with you is the swerve side-swipe. the reason i want to bring this to your attention is this entire document was produced without any help from the city or police or anyone else because the records on fatalities are not published. we have the fatality 2 weeks ago because it made so much public. with what is truly dangerous, we need to have access to the kind of statistics that are telling us what is causing these accidents. the police look at who is at fault. we are not concerned with who is at fault. we want to see what the conditions are and work out the engineering and education to work out the conditions and causes. it's an interesting document. i also quickly is that we average in one place an average of 1.4 fatalities. we've had three. i hope this is not a trend. the other thing i would like to show you quickly from the mta collision report. as you look at the highlights, the no. 1 cause or factor is driving in unsafe speed conditions. driving for the vast roads are probably not going over 15 miles an hour. talking off the record with officers this appears to be a default where officers tend to write when they don't want to take the time to figure out what the right cause with a. we would like them to focus on the cause. if you notice on the motor resist side, speed is only a factor. if you look at the ratio of 100. that says that approximately 1/3 is due to unsafe speed which i assume could be they are not going anywhere. the second thing i would like to bring your attention to is the fact that this is the classification. you can see here it side-swiped head on and classification for the federal highway administration or the state police version and i'm not even sure it ties necessarily with the police. we need to standardize along the lines of what are used with motorist to make the changes we need to make. with that i'm open to questions. >> thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. hill? >> okay, seeing there are no questions, thank you for your presentation. >> okay. so now we are going to hear concluding remarks from the civil grand jury. >> in response to the sfmta's response to our recommends to collaborate with the bicycle coalition flyers. our intend on that recommendation was to reach out to bicyclist and general public and be mindful of the city's budget constraints. we thought that was a creative option. being that that can't be implemented i would like to say on behalf of the jury that we really encourage the sfmta to come up with more creative ideas that are cost-effective to reach out to the greater population. with respect to recommendation 4.2, a number of the parties have responded. the idea behind that recommendation was to get everybody on the same page. so to gather groups of pedestrians and we have the existing 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

Related Keywords

San Francisco , California , United States , John Walker ,