Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE BOS Govt Audits And Oversight Com

>> september 15, 2016, >> city of san francisco >> government audit & oversight committee >> [ gavel ] good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight committee. i'm the chair of the committee, >>supervisor aaron peskin: joined by >>supervisor norman yee: and committee member and board president. >>supervisor london breed: our clerk is erica major. are there any announcements? >>city clerk: yes, please silence your cell phones and providing documents should be to the clerk. this is the board of supervisors agenda for september 27, 2016. >> >>supervisor aaron peskin: great. please read items 1 and 2. >>clerk: [hearing - civil grand jury - maintenance budgeting and accounting challenges for general fund departments: maintenance economics versus maintenance politics: pay now or pay more later] sf 11234 >> 2. 160614 [board response - civil grand jury - maintenance budgeting and accounting challenges for general fund departments: maintenance economics versus maintenance politics: pay now sf 21234 >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you. these items are reports to the civil grand jury. the first item is a hearing civil grand jury maintenance budgeting accounting challenges for general fund departments maintenance economics versus maintenance politics. please come forward. >> my name is james cunningham with the civil grand jury. >> thank you, mr. hopkins, good morning. >> good morning. >> that was quite a deep dive. >> thank you for acknowledging that. it was fun to prepare. in fact that report has 19 sets of fingerprints all over it. my fellow grand jury. typically my colleagues. >> if you can put that microphone a little closer to you. >> is that better? >> great. >> who spoke before you 2 weeks ago is a federal auditor and he wrote the section on accounting for deferred maintenance, and he's a man who really knows what he's talking about. also, i got much help from libby dodd who helped me get the big picture. annie who is the researcher, shannon baca who pulled together the appendix information in usable form, richard baker who was again on all the rewrites, betty, who was an editor. she's a great editor and she says here is the problem and how to fix it. and david stein, the backbone of our jury. and steven who had so many practical suggestions about how to proceed. i think it is symptomatic of a problem of maintenance budgeting for general fund department that i'm competing for your attention with two other reports which have a lot more pizza zaz. and that was officer involved shootings and homeless. it's like i'm the brussel sprouts on the menu competing with ice cream and candy. the issue of maintenance budgeting for general fund departments. it's important and needs attention from the top and needs adequate resources. the challenge that i face this morning is condensing a 75 page report with 50 pages of appendices, 73 findings, 73 recommendations into a very short period of time. it's a challenge that can't be successfully done. the advantage of having impossible assignment is nobody expects you to succeed. that's very liberating. in order to catch your attention and the problem is keep your attention over the many months before you will actually get to look at the next budget. i have put in some memory pegs that i hope you will remember. if you flip to tab 2, the first of those memory tabs. >> i just have these by page number. do you have the page number? oh, i'm sorry. i gotcha. yes, i have two. >> it's a photograph of a pretty lady. this lady's name is zra zra gab or. she's from hungary. she came in just as the germans rolled in. she and her family were the kardashians of the day sort of famous for being famous. one of the reasons she was famous was she was married nine times. husband no. 5, confided to his best man on the wedding day, a problem that in a way i face this morning, which is, he said, i know what i'm supposed to do tonight. the challenge is to make it interesting. how do you make talking about maintenance budgeting interesting? the next picture that i hope will be a memory peg, also at tab two is of an event that occurred in this building. this photograph is on permanent display in this building down in the light court. of course it is the wedding of marily monroe and local baseball hero joe demaggio. that marriage didn't last, but marilyn married a playwright, he wrote "death of a sales man" the plot gives it away. the salesman is like maintenance for keeping the wheels of commerce, wheels of government functioning supposedly. after his funeral, one of his grown sons was complaining to his mother that dad never amounted to much. and she rose up and said, in regard to her husband but i think it also applies to maintenance. attention must be paid. it is so easy to ignore the need for maintenance when everything is working properly. i wanted to update our report which was issued in june with some recent developments. the bridge at page 75 has been fixed. that's good. the beach street charter amendment is on the ballot. that's good. there was an article in the new york times about a criminal verdict against pg & e arising in the 2010 gas pipeline explosion. two things in that story caught my attention: the pg & e cut their maintenance budget a year before the explosion. the second thing that caught my attention in that story, the mayor of san bruno was quoted as saying "when this happened, i thought it was a terrible terrible accident, and now i know that it could have been prevented". so, i'm hopeful that in this city we don't face those questions because one other incident that has happened, and supervisor peskin, i know you are very much aware of this one. in washington square park, a young mother was watching her two children play when suddenly a tree limb fell and caused serious serious injury. so, whether that was related to deferred maintenance in this particular case, i don't know. but i think it is symptomatic of the problem. i would like to ask you to visualize this hypothetical situation. it is a baseball field in a city park. the young pitcher is at the mound looking in. at home plate you have the batter, the catcher, and behind them is the backstop made out of metal post and wire mesh. behind them on the hillside, a tree is falling directly towards home plate and it will crush that backstop. i will come back to that hypothetical in my closing statement. okay. very briefly. what did we do? what did we learn? what did we find? we did the standard that all grand jury panels do, lots of reading, lots of investigation. we interviewed about 30 people in the city and wrote and rewrote. what did we find? probably our most important finding which isn't in the report is we found the high caliber level of the city employees we talked to. they were smart, they knew what they were talking about and they are trying their best to do the right thing. that was very gratifying. we also learned that when it comes to budgeting, and we heard this from a colleague of yours, the mayor basically holds all the cards and that it will be 9 or 10 months before you next get to consider budget issues including maintenance budgeting. that's a long day and the lay is easy to forget. another comment that was made over and over by the people we interviewed was one of the reasons they can come up as to why maintenance budgeting wasn't getting much attention and getting cut much of the time is it has no sex appeal. it is not sexy. which is in part why those memory peg pictures of those pretty ladies i hope will counteract to some extent. and, so, i would ask that when you see a pretty lady and in particular when you see these bride's here in city hall everyday, all decked out in their finery, when you look at those bride's, you will think, maintenance. when we did our research, we first looked, okay, this is the city and county of san francisco. let's see what other cities and counties are spending on maintenance. in california, the closest we could find was the city of honolulu. pretty close in size and population. based on their public records, they budget a lot more for maintenance than san francisco does. but as we researched further, we found that's not really the best standard. if you will turn to tab 3 in the yellow handout there, the first page is the pie chart that appears every year in the budget, the mayor's budget book, that blue budget book. in this particular page is all of the uses of funds for general fund departments, and the amount that is budgeted for facilities maintenance is 0.2%. a very very tiny amount of the overall budget that we are talking about. another reason why i don't think it gets much attention. one of the things we learned that i had no knowledge of, had not paid any attention to before serving on the jury was the distinction between the enterprise funds and general fund between departments. enterprise get to decide how to spend it whereas general fund departments acquire monies doled out to them from the departments. the consequence is that enterprise departments spend tend times more than their general fund departments. talking to that, when we talked to general fund departments like the airport, we say how far is your maintenance backlog? zero. they have no maintenance backlog. general fund accounts, how big is your backlog of deferred maintenance. you get various answers. i put one together, a tab 4, going through the 10-year capital plan. my numbers for the general fund departments and they can be quibbled with. there is $1.9 billion of deferred maintenance. going back to tab 3, figure 2, which is that graphic comparison year by year of the growth in the enterprise department's budget for facilities maintenance, goes up up up, triples over a 10-year period versus that same facilities maintenance budget for general fund departments which trended down over a 10-year period. a period of time which the overall city budget was increased by $3 billion, but facilities maintenance was dropping. it's approving a little bit in the current budget, but still a significant problem. the most important surprise to me at any rate is the next page there in tab 3. it's a chart or graph that was produced in response to a document request to the capital planning committee, and it shows the need of each of the general fund departments as a percentage of their crv. crv is current replacement value or sometimes calculated replacement value. that is the one thing about if this board can do nothing else about maintenance budgeting, it would be urged, request, mandate that the city adopt this percent of crv standard to start as where you begin when you start negotiating the facilities maintenance budget. we didn't pluck this system out of thin air. it's based upon a recommendation from the national research council which is the arm of the national academy of science. it is very similar to what industry does through buna and i ma. industries management associations followed by many cities across the country including the cities of san jose, sacramento and other cities. it's not a new idea. i digress for a morning. here this morning is dick morton, most of our ideas were stolen from dick's article. i thank him for that. but getting back to this standard. when i entered the fifth grade we had a brand new teacher just out of teachers college. i walked into her classroom the first day and she had a big banner on the front wall above the blackboard which said, set your standards high and strive to reach them. and i looked at that motto everyday during the fifth grade and 60 plus years later, i still remember it. i think it would be good advice for the city when it comes to maintenance budgeting. set your standards high. take this best practice standard of 4% of current replacement value and that should be where you start. do we need to cut? okay, we cut. we can't make that this year, but we want to come close. supervisor breed, i understand you are an ex- officio member of the planning committee. i would hope that you could use all of your influence on that committee to get them to take this information which they have in their computer system. the frrn. the system and make it public. show it to the board, and show it to your constituents. to make maintenance budgeting less abstract, i think if you can show them this information, what is the best practice standard of what maintenance budgeting should be versus what's in the budget? what is that gap? right now it's a huge gap. and then how that plays out in terms of the facilities of the various departments that are in your individual districts. and then, the deferred maintenance backlog broken down by district. and i think you will get a lot more public interest in adequate maintenance. i'm running out of time on my opening statement. i hope i have some time for my closing statement. and i look forward to what the administrative departments have in response. thank you for your time. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, mr. hoskins. let me say before we bring up brian strong from the capital planning function of the city that many of the things in this report are i think well-known to city officials and are things that we have been grappling for some time. the report from the civil grand jury is very timely in so far as this is the 10th anniversary of this city's effort to have comprehensive capital planning. we now know what deferred maintenance backlogs in the department are. there is no question that there is an endless amount of need and a limited amount of resource, unless you are the airport. because the airport can always increase it's amount of receive -- revenue by increasing landing fees on an annual basis. we can't do that as a general fund department. so we must choose upon our children. you have the police department and the homeless crisis and housing crisis. each year we have to struggle with that in the budget. no question there is a huge general fund maintenance department backlog. and not all agencies have this deferred maintenance fund either. the port doesn't have that either as well. as we want to pay for as much as we go as we can, the reality is that we've had a very robust bond obligation fund through the generosity of voters of san francisco that have allowed us to chip away at that backlog and there is a sense from the government's office and the controllers office that we need to do more. thank you for your contribution. there will be an opportunity for closing statements. we appreciate your matrimonial and baseball analogies. with that, we have mr. strike -- strat from the capital planning committee. >> good morning, members of the committee. brian strong director of capital planning. as the son of a hungarian immigrant i have to wholly agree with the civil grand jury's findings that it's not as effective as z aza gab or. there were a lot of issues that the grand jury raised that we feel very strongly about and agree with in fact with 33 of the findings and 32 of the recommendations have actually been implemented, some of them were mentioned at the start of the presentation here. i also just want to mention that we have several staff on hand that can answer questions, that participated in the report and that includes anthony with the mayor's office, john from real estate, tonya, and mark delarosa from the controllers office and hilda from human resources, and from parks and city planning and from public works. i think i would also say i have been doing the capital plan for 10 years and what the civil grand jury was talking about an their focus is something that is very near and dear to my heart and something we track and work on. we appreciate their effort they made to bring light to this issue and also to give us an opportunity to talk about the things that we have done that we managed to be successful with. first some transparency tools and what we are doing. foremost, i use his reference as well. that the same report put together is what led to the capital plan and a lot of that report has been incorporated into the plan for the last couple of years and one of the founding documents that pushed supervisor's push to push the legislation to create a capital plan. we have a fiscal 10-year capital plan. we always state what we are funding and what we are not funding. we do track backlogs so we can tell you what the city's backlog is and how we are addressing it. the effects of the capital policy on that backlog. we have an annual proposed budget process. and when we get to the city planning committee we are very clear in what we are funding and what we are not funding. i should mention that along with some of the questions around the trees, the discretionary budget. the decisions that are made there have to be weighed against all the other needs across the city operating as well as infrastructure. we have a facilities resource renewal model something we implemented in the first year after the capital plan. when maintenance is not done in these facilities, it does show up on that model. basically it tracks all the systems and infrastructure. and we have the general obligation oversight committee and capital planning committee which is open to the public where we discuss these issues, we discuss the idea of using current replacement value. that's the forum where these discussions really take place. we are also developing, you know, a number of tools, one of them is a little bit more city asset management system that is called in for real estate and public works has really implemented this. this will be the primarily tools at the departments to track the levels and the replacement project which is going to allow us to better understand how staff time is spent and also to better allow us how to understand how capital projects are tracked and reported on. and then there is also a controllers audit we should mention that's going forward around facilities maintenance management. they have done some with the department and looking at the overall general fund program and overall city's program as well. there is a 5-year financial plan where we are tracking for the next 5 years not just the capital cost but the operating things. we are looking at it in a 5-year window going ahead. we are tracking that information. in the next slide, this is something we presented to the capital plan on a regular basis and talks about pay as you go program which is what we are really addressing. it talks about facility renewels as well as regular maintenance. i passed out a small handout that you may have there to give you more detailed definitions of these different items. but these are what's in our capital plans. these are the policies that we have. routine maintenance and some of you may recall that who were with the city at the time that general fund departments and other departments, when budget cuts came, they were reducing their routine maintenance. they didn't want to cut services, so they cut routine maintenance. these are typically things that would be covered in a regular operating budget, but because they were being cut, there is a request to put them in a central bucket so they would be preserved for maintenance. so while those are maintenance dollars, there is no in no way do we expect those to be the only maintenance dollars spent. i think some of the graph in the civil grand jury report suggest that that amount of money is all of it but there is other operating funds going towards maintenance. the next line there is ada facilities and work in the public right-of-way around accessibility. those have been required by various lawsuits and/or agreements, settlements. those are high priorities for us. so, we are required and we make sure that we do these and fully fund them. again, with ada, these are the amounts that we are doing for the complaint driven programs in response to the lopez and other lawsuits. we are also spending a lot of other money on ada improvements. street resurfacing moved over to the general fund program. we made a concerted effort with cops and go funds and contributing as well to the sales tax increase to the san francisco street resurfacing and committed to pavement conditions at 70 and we are on the way to hitting that in the next 2 years or so. we have a capital improvement for critical enhancement. we end up with the capital budget with the emergencies we had to fund, most notely with the landslides on telegraph hill. it's hard to plan for a landslide. so those are the types of things where we have to have funds available and we set aside $10 million a year to do that. and the variable allocation go to infrastructure renewels and facility renewels. i should mention there is talk about critical development go funds and now they are being paid through a revolving capital planning fund. that was actually a suggestion in the spur report years ago where we were not able to fund it until recently. again, constantly the capital planning committee and various folks at looking at ways to keep this pay as you go program whole and that means using go bonds and as supervisor peskin said as well as other sources and as well as finding different ways to get things off the program. so there is more for maintenance. the next slide san jose the maintenance renewal budget is actual. so the red line is what's recommended in the capital plan. and the bars below it are what is actually happened. you can see in some of the lean years, we had, you know, very small budgets. yeah, i think that was around 2009, 2010, 2011. during that crisis we had budget cuts. and we are aware that maintenance, you know, it is sort of the, that maintenance is not as sexy and means it's often on the cutting board early. we recognize sometimes that's appropriate, but it's something that we've been working to avoid and by using other sources as much as we can we think we have been successful. but you can also see in the last 3 years we have actually surpassed what we recommend in the capital plan. a lot of that is add vac. we have more detail which is combining the two but this is actually combining the budget. facilities routine maintenance is steadily. it's really an operating cost. we are going to hold onto this amount because we don't want to see it go to zero. but it's been a concerted policy to say, well increase it by 5% when we can, but for the most part we are going to hold the line on it and we are going to encourage those cost to come out through other programs, the rental rate program that the facilities is using and other operating cost. >> facilities, we had some bad years, only $2 million for facilities renewels. we are up to $27 million for facilities renewels. that's really one of the most significant assets of the capital plan. one of the most significant successes of the capital plan and i have to say the current administration and board for putting that level of funding aside. capital plan pay as you go on the backlog. this is the next slide here. it's a slide that's been in almost all of our capital plans. this is how we drive people to make decisions around backlogs and the impacts of levels of funding. the red line shows the level of funding recommended in the capital plan, the blue line shows the annual need that we are receiving. you can see they actually meet around 2025. and then it takes some time to catch up to the backlog where you can see the backlog grows close to $800 million. the current level of funding and growing that level of funding by 7%, we start reducing the backlog in 2031. i will just quickly mention the urban forest program. again, i think this is a discussion around expenditure. it was already brought up and nick is here to answer any questions you may have. again, the goal is to transfer maintenance over and this just shows that, you know, as resources decline, you know, that number and amount of time, the number of years between tree burning reduces. it makes the program more costly, and has an overall bad effect on our ability to maintain the tree program. workers' compensation, there was a mention about hazard logs. there is information about hazard logs is a good idea that goes to the controllers office. but workers' compensation is no fault. all claims are assessed. there is no objective way that determine that a workers com p case from deferred maintenance. having a log of making sure we keep things at a good repair. that's the entire presentation that we have. we are welcome to answer any questions and appreciate the opportunity to come and address you today. >> thank you, mr. strong. thank you for your many years of work on capital planning and deferred maintenance in san francisco. are there any questions for mr. strong or any other members of his team? from members of this panel, seeing none, thank you for that, brian. are there any members of the public who would like to speak to these items. the aforementioned dick morton, good morning. >> good morning. before i start my remarks i would like to acknowledge supervisors peskin's role. several years ago, he was instrumental in getting the pool built. i don't think it would have been built without his intervention. i greatly appreciate it. i got involved in capital planning when i got involved with the chamber of commerce. in 1983, we suggested they needed to do a survey. the late peter -- representing the mayor started work out of that and started to flow some bond measures. as a result of that, the management program did not continue. i was on go bot for 5-6 years and got a lesson on that and it was screwed up. that prompted me to work on the 2005 big fix report. it spru with greg wagner and ben rosen field sponsored the 10-year capital planning effort. brian strong has done a great job in implementing a new effort on behalf of the city.. and it sets real clear priorities. there is little political incentive to do deferred maintenance payments. there are too many demands as supervisor peskin talks about current programs. the board needs to consider a way to ensure the general annual fund allocation. the need for general obligations on routine maintenance projects. you pay for it twice, principal and interest when you do that. so make the routine deferred maintenance a very costly item if you defer work on it. maybe department budgets as brian talked about need to better reflect the true cost of capital maintenance. i will be glad to talk to you at some other times on points that were raised. >> thank you, mr. morton and have a great vacation. and also acknowledge the good work of then supervisor sean elseburn who is the author of the regiment of the capital plan we have now. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i know that supervisor yee has been spending a lot of time looking at the various recommendations and may have some suggestions as to how we should proceed. before we do that, mr. hoskins, would you like a brief. we have so much on the agenda. we have hours of hearings today. if you would like a brief rebuttal, the floor is yours. >> thank you, i have suggested in tab 8 of yellow folder proposed responses to the recommendations that are addressed to the board action and almost uniformly they require further analysis which i hope will keep those issues within the jurisdiction of this committee as events unfold. supervisor peskin, when i met last week with your aid, angelo, >>supervisor aaron peskin: she generally sets the strives high to meet them. >> yes. make it public, make it less abstract. bring it down to the district level. what it is the gap between the need and the funding, how does it relate to each individual general fund department that operates in your district and how there is this whole deferred maintenance backlog, how does that impact your district and the constituents in your district. i think that would get a lot more focus and hopefully generate more funds. but i know you can't make new money. you have to use what you have. this presentation that brian just gave, there is really nothing in there that i disagree with. it's all rational, but then you get to the bottom line. it's like the emperor has no clothes in that there is this huge backlog and when is it going to be dealt with? well, under this plan, it won't be dealt with until 2031. 15 years out in the future which i'm sure he's doing the best he can with what he has, but i think that exemplifies the problem, and i would hope, supervisor peskin, you can continue to hold hearings to try to speed that backlog down. >> i think we all have the same policy desires. your points are well-taken. why don't we hand this over to supervisor yee to make some recommendations. we will see to what extent they agree with or disagree with your findings in tab no. 8 and we will discuss whether or not we want to keep this matter within the jurisdiction of this committee. in any event we visit the grand jury reports from time to time on an on going basis. once again, i want to express our appreciation to you and your colleagues for this not sexy but very important piece of work. >> may i ask your indulgence for 30 seconds? >> 30 seconds. >> i left that baseball hypothetical hanging. >> there you go. >> it's not hypothetical. if you look at tab 7, i believe. it's a photograph that i took this spring in saint mary's park in the outer mission. that tree did fall. it did smash the backstop. fortunately it fell at night. this time we were lucky. but i would ask you, if you have that photograph, if you would look at their two figures in the middle background. on the left, a young man is pitching. i don't know his name, but i'm assuming that he has dreams of being the next madison bum garden. in the middle is a young man catching. i do know his name. we bear the same last name. that's my grandson. kenny hoskins. he wants to be the next buster posing. for all the parents, aunts, brothers, uncles and sisters, we thank you and the city government for providing these facilities so city kids can get to play and you learn teamwork, but we demand that these facilities be kept safe. and the trees in the parks are just examples of maintenance that people can see. there is a lot more that people can't see, but the true folks know about. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. hoskins, with that, supervisor yee. >>supervisor norman yee: i want to thank the members of the grand jury that have focused on this particular important item and particularly the deferred maintenance backlog. we all know about it and hopefully we can continue to take steps to fix that condition. i think what i have here are basically the response from us to this particular report and the way probably to do this is to have our madam clerk to read the recommendations. since the responses for the ones from r 1a, 1a, to r 2b 2b are the same. maybe you will read them all out and i will give that one response to all of them. >>clerk: you would like to read the recommendations first before the findings? >> yes. >> i'm sorry. what r? >> r 1a 1a asking the board to respond. >>clerk: recommendation r 1a 1a through what was the last number? >> it's through r 2b 2d. >>clerk: r 2b 1d. >> r 2b 2d. >>clerk: got it. okay. >> recommendation no. 1a 1a states to provide useful donation to the public for stewardship. the public access and capital administrators program to use the srm newer resource model to calculate the target need for general fund maintenance facilities as a percentage of current replacement value and dollar amounts and disclose that information to the public. after the review by the budget and legislative analyst office and the board of supervisors should approve the amount requested by the city administrator to accomplish this additional calculating in reporting in the approved budget for fiscal year 2017-2018. recommendation 1a 2d states, after review by the budget and analyst office, the board of supervisors should approve the amount requested by the controller for the compilation and disclosure and general maintenance for the general fund audit for fiscal year 2017-2018 and thereafter. recommendation no. 1a 3d. after review by the budgets and legislative office, the board of supervisors should approve the amount requested by the controller for the compilation and repair backlog general fund repair requirements for fiscal years 2017-2018. recommendation 1a 4d states, after review by the budget and legislative analyst office, going forward i'm going to use bla as the acronym. the board of supervisors should use the requested amount by controller for the budget fiscal year 2017-2018. recommendation 2 a 1c states: in order to achieve beneficial consequences and avoid the potential adverse consequences from under funding maintenance and repair for general fund departments facilities and infrastructure and to save money for the long-term after the bla, the board of supervisors should approve sufficient funding in a fiscal year in 2017-2018 for all general fund department high priority maintenance and repair projects. recommendation no. 2b 1d states, to assist city employees approved by the bla, the board of supervisors should approve this line item in the controllers budget request for an audit of workers' compensation division data gathering policies and procedures in the approved budget for fiscal years 2017-2018. and recommendation 2b 2d states.. to reduce the risk of injury to city employees, the board of supervisors should approve this item on the controllers budget developed for procedures of analysis of hazard logs to identify and quantify risks of injury created by deferred maintenance and repairs and include it in the repair budget ordinance for fiscal year 2017-2018. >> sorry, was that the last item that i asked you to read? >> yes, supervisor. >> okay. thank you, again, when you look at this talking about the 2017-2018 budget which hasn't happened yet. so the recommendation will not be implemented because the mayor has not proposed the budget for 2017-2018-fiscal year, and the bla has not received the request yet. the board of supervisors cannot commit to taking action on this recommendation, but urges the futsdz -- future board of supervisors to consider these requests at a future hearing after the budget season resumes. so that will be the response to all of those. could you continue to madam clerk, to read r 2c 11? >>clerk: yes. recommendation no. 2c 11 states: 19 urban forest trees perform viable and economical functions and make san francisco a better place to live and work. after review by the bla, the board of supervisors should approve funding sources for maintaining the urban forest. >>supervisor norman yee: and could you also read r 2c 1.2. >>clerk: recommendation r 2c 1.2 states: the department of public works will reduce tree maintenance cost as described in the urban forest plan after the bla's report the board of supervisors should approve funding for fiscal year 2017-2018 and thereafter to dpw for maintenance of all trees. >>supervisor norman yee: okay. so the response is similar to the others, the recommendation will not be implemented because the mayor has not proposed the budget for 2017-2018 -fiscal year and the bla has not received the request yet and the board of supervisors cannot commit to taking action on this recommendation, but urges the future for the board of supervisors to consider this question after the board budget season resumes. madam clerk, could you read 2c 1.3. >>clerk: yes. a recommendation 2c 1.3 states proposition 160381, the board of supervisors should approve street trees proposition i believe they are referring to file no. 1638 charter amendment code. the board of supervisors should approve that on the november 2016 ballot. >>supervisor norman yee: this is something that has happened about the parcel tax. the recommendation will not be implemented. parcel tax was removed from the charter amendment. >> next recommendation. r 2c 14cd. states the urban forest plan phase 2 because it will increase over all tree help in the city's parks and open spaces per street maintenance cost review by the bla, the board of supervisors should approve sufficient funding in the budget for fiscal year 2017-2018 and thereafter for the planning department to complete the forest plan. >>supervisor norman yee: this recommendation has been implemented as stated by the planning director, mayor's office and public policy and finance and planning department as currently scoping phase two. the planning department has including a line item in its budget to allow this to work and currently meeting it's tree planning to go through the existing budget. so, madam clerk, i think the next one is 2c 1-5. >>clerk: recommendation 2c 15 states recreation and parks because of the strategic -- by the city thereby improving the city and life of residents. after that, the board of supervisors should approve this in the coming year 2017-2018 and plant to trees for every tree removed. >>supervisor norman yee: this and a bunch of other items that is going to have similar responses. would you continue to read those? >>clerk: the remaining, supervisor? there is r 2c 16c, r 2c 17c, r 2c, 1c. >>supervisor norman yee: there is about ten more. >> read them off. >> there is quite a few recommendations in this report. >> yes. >> okay. >>clerk: r 2c 160 states recreation and parks cycle because of the over all tree will help reduce overall tree maintenance cost. after bla board of supervisors approves this for 2017-2018. and the same 15-year treatment cycle. >> recommendation 2c 1c recreation and parks assessment to increase safety for all park users. the board of supervisors should approve sufficient dedicated funding in the approve budget for fiscal year 2017-2018 and thereafter for recreational and parks department for completion of tree risk assessments and hazardous tree abatement. recommendation 2c 21c states, after the bla, the board of supervisors should approve adequate funding for the department of public works for maintenance and repairs for structurally deficient bridges. recommendation 2c 2d states to prevent unsafe conditions by the bla's office the board of supervisors should approve the budget request for maintenance repair for the richland avenue bridge but not structurally deficient bridges and include them in the adoptive period budget of fiscal year 2017-2018. recommendation 3a 1d states to focus the relationship on the general focus on the general maintenance and the deferred backlogs and after review by the bla to board of supervisors to fund the cost and deferred maintenance and backlogs included in the budget for fiscal year 2017-2018. recommendation 2d 1 the board shall approve the cost of capital request data for maintenance and repair backlogs separate from capital renewal and replacement cost in the 10-year capital plan. and to improve the cost in the adoptive fiscal year budget for 2017-2018. recommendation 3c 1f states the updated relevant information for basis and rational and form budget to review the budget and legislative analyst office. the board of supervisors should approve in the fiscal year 2017-2018 budget for the general fund department's responsible for maintaining capital plan assessment specifically for condition assessment surveys. excuse me. recommendation 3c 2c states, after review by the budget and legislative analyst office, the board of supervisors city hall approve the allocation from recreation and parks department for conducting assessment. >> recommendation 3c 3e states to provide useful information for the public in assessing the city's stewardship of public assets and budget review by the budget analyst office the board of supervisors shall approve this in the budget adopted in 2017-2018. >> for the sake of figures. should i read off the following recommendations that are left. because it's going to be the same answer? >> i would say stop at r 4.2. >> okay. >> that is a response and will give you a break. >> okay. >>clerk: recommendations 3d 12 states the nature of the true cost of program delivery visible after bla's review, the board of supervisors should approve an adjustments to general fund department budget sufficient for increases. recommendation 4.2 states in recognition. >>supervisor norman yee: you can stop. that's going to be a different response. take a break. >> okay. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you for your patience. we have to read this stuff into the record. so it will just take a little longer when it comes to recommendations. the recommendations that were just read off, the response are the same. the recommendation will not be implemented because the mayor has not proposed the 2017-fiscal year. the board of supervisors cannot commit to take actions on this recommendation. but the future board of supervisors will consider this request at a future hearing after the budget season resumes. madam clerk, can you read csr.2. >>clerk: yes, recommendation r.2 states in recognition of maintenance of facilities and infrastructure as an important component of stewardship in fulfillment of the stewardship obligations. the managers and staff of the general fund department should a, make their departmental maintenance need known vigorously throughout the budget process and b, advocate vigorously and indicate why they are not planning with capital staff and maybe insufficient and why it maybe required. and b. to make the unfunded high priority a need and to make a request when they find inadequate resources to support maintenance and repair operations through the end of the fiscal year. >>supervisor norman yee: okay, thank you. this recommendation will not be implemented and response text is although we agree the department should advocate vigorously for the funding needs, we can only urge them to do so but it is not within our purview to direct them to do so. madam clerk, there is about seven left that we'll also have a response. so can you read those? >> >>clerk:. recommendation 4.4 recommending facilities and infrastructure as a component stewardship for city access. the bla and the board should require the funds for allocated monies. recommendation 41b that shall result from pushing the backlog from 19 to 2025 and continue the budget of the restoration of the annual 10% growth to pay as you go program. recommendation 4.2a states in further of stewardship, the board shall describe what factors led to the maintenance in the departments. recommendation 62c states and in furtherance of good stewardship, the board should approve sufficient funding for the general fund department in fiscal year 2017-2018 to prevent backlog from growing larger. >> recommendation 6c. the board shall approve those line items entry in the budget controllers tracking general fund department maintenance budgeting and spending to assure that assets are not deteriorating through lack of maintenance and repair to the point where it's by general obligation bonds to be completed in the next year's budget. recommendation 7.1l: the board of supervisors after bla's review should complete the line item to accomplish the items in recommendations 1a-j and include them in their approved budget for next year. recommendation 74d states the board after review by the bla should approve these line items and complete an annual accurate data of the progress in the deferred maintenance to include these line items in next year's budget. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you for all that reading. >> you're welcome. >> the response for the last few items would be the same. the recommendation will not be implemented because -- the response text. the mayor has not reviewed the budget but urges the future board of supervisors to consider this request at a future hearing after the budget season resumes. those are the responses to the recommendations that were asked of the board of supervisors. i will turn it back to chair peskin. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, supervisors yee, is there a comment from supervisor breed? >> can i ask something. >> the recommendation is different than the one read. recommendation 42-a. it states in good stewardship the board of supervisors shall consider described factors that led to the deferred maintenance in individual departments therefore we believe it requires a different response. >>supervisor norman yee: you are correct. so, let me take that response back. and this is for 4-2a. the recommendation will not be implemented, and the response text for this particular item. is the future of the board of supervisors can encourage the general fund departments to describe factors leading to accumulation of deferred maintenance at future hearings, but cannot require them to do so. thank you. >>supervisor aaron peskin: okay, we now have all of those recommendations on 14 pages of this resolution before us. i will take that as a motion from supervisor yee without objection we will adopt those amendments and send this item to the full board as amended with recommendation. thank you one and all. >> chair peskin. campbell. >> ms. campbell? >> you need to make a determination on finding of this. >> that's right. we have to agree wholly or partially with the four findings. supervisor yee, as to the findings? >>supervisor norman yee: as to the findings, i would like to make a motion we adopt all of them wholly. >>supervisor aaron peskin: all right. we agree with the findings wholly. and as further amended we will send this item to the full board with a recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, could you please read items 3 and four together? >>clerk: yes, item 3 and 4. 3. 160615 [hearing - civil grand jury - into the open: opportunities for more timely and transparent investigation of fatal san francisco police department officer-involved shootings >> 4. 160616 [board response - civil grand jury - into the open: opportunities for more timely and transparent investigations of fatal san francisco police department officer-involved shootings] >>supervisor aaron peskin: mr. cunningham on behalf of the civil grand jury. >> i would like to present -- esquire. >> counsel or, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, vice-chair yee and board president breed. good morning, i believe it's still morning. thank you for your attention today. i am proud to stand here before you today having been part of the 2015-2016 san francisco civil grand jury. i know our time is limited today but i would be remissed if i did not recognize our jurors for their work and persistence and for the reports and our local government. i also need to recognize civil grand jury coordinator steve for guidance. a number of our jurors are here today and i would like to acknowledge them and thank you for their support. now, i have been accused of speaking too quickly especially when i'm talking about something about which i'm passionate. >> president breed will not stop you from speaking quickly. >> i must say that an officer involved shooting is something that i'm very passionate about. if i'm speaking too quickly, please slow me down. i believe the discussions should be taken seriously even if i start speeding up a little bit. but i'm not the only one that's passionate about this topic. all 15 of us on the civil grand jury were in agreement that this topic is one that we have to investigate after all the topics of officer involved shootings has held this city in a grip for much of the past year. while much of the attention a related to reform on the front end of this issue, if you will. meaning reform related to the use of force in order to preserve the sanctity of live and reducing the number of officer involved shootings, we the civil grand jury think it's important to focus on the back end in other words after the investigation occurs after an officer involved shooting occurs. so why did we take this investigation on? the impetus for our investigation was the fact that none of us on the jury really knew exactly how the investigation of an officer involved shooting occurred. who was involved in that investigation or how long it took. we just knew that we heard an awful lot about the shootings when it occurred but we didn't hear much about it afterwards unless tenacious reporter's or community activist kept it in the public eye. during our inquiry, we learned that ois investigations are complicated and complex. and we realized that you can't determine if something is working properly if you don't know how it works to begin with and what it's supposed to accomplish. so we undertook this inquiry to determine just that. after determining it was complicated and complex and recognizing that, we sought to figure out exactly how the process worked and included in our report a comprehensive analysis of what we believe the state of affairs in regards to the process in an offer to educate the local government and ourselves and the citizens of san francisco. despite the fact that os investigation process is complicated and complex, our investigation caused us to reach two main conclusions. one that the investigation of fatal incidents take too long and two, they are no where near transparent. we concluded the citizens of san francisco are not provided enough information and in a timely manner to determine whether the current ois investigation process works properly or whether the investigations are fair and just. why is timeliness and transparency important? i know the investigations cannot take too long and we know that justice delayed is justice denied. the other end of the investigation provides closure for all the parties involved and especially an officer involved shootings, it provides closure for the families of the victim and provides closure for the officers involved and provides closure for the city and yet it opens up the opportunity to determine whether that process works properly in that given instance. we also know that transparency is one of the fundamental corner stones of democracy, that's why it's governed by the sunshine ordinance. that's why it's important that our presidential candidates be transparent from everything from their health to tax returns, but that's something for another day. we the civil grand jury have made an number of findings in order to make the investigations both timely and transparent. we believe that each of our recommendations are pragmatic and practical and reasonable. and it should be done with little disagreement and all investigations with officer involved shootings and subsequent investigations and ultimately will benefit every citizen of this city. frankly we are most in agreement and believe the city would agree with most of us. to each of the individuals who met with us, we thank each of the departments for responding to our findings and hopefully implementing each of our recommendations. i took the time to reply to the departments on our recommendations. i find short coming and miss readings and misunderstanding of the recommendations and the side stepping or their responses. more importantly is because i really hope we continue the dialogue that we have begun with this report that we can all continue to work together to achieve this report mainly to make ois investigations timely and transparent and a model for other cities to follow. this slide that i have provided to ms. major who i understand has provided to each of the committee members and enter into the public record. i also have hard copies for the department for those who want to take one today and eileen sure that a soft copy be given to our coordinator so it's available on the civil grand jury's website. really i had done it because i'm an attorney by profession and it's important to look at the recommendations and responses and to ensure that they are understood properly and then to provide a guide and road map to follow when they implement those recommendations they have agreed to implement. now, at this point, i have a number of comments regarding certain recommendations and responses that i have divided by the department involved and if the committee believes that it's proper, i can go through those quickly or at this time i can turn it back to chair peskin to handle as he see's fit. >> why don't we circle back around to you after we hear from the police department and the district attorney's office and from the occ if that would be acceptable? >> very good. >> thank you for that very thorough presentation, and with that, chief toney chaplin, please come forward. >> supervisor peskin, thank you, i would like to first start off with a quick introduction from the mayor's office and then turn it over to our acting chief police. >> sure. who you are? >> my name is rocha. i want to say good morning to all of you and all the members of the civil grand jury. i would like to thank the civil grand jury for an opportunity to respond and also working with us for such an historical investigation for officer responders to shootings. we would like to work with our public safety partners in order to ensure we work on reforming the san francisco police department that work on life, dignity and liberty. since december 2015, as you know we were confronted with a critical incident in our city with the loss of life of mario woods and other information in the media and quickly analyzed by the mayor's office. we work very closely with the san francisco police department and our police commission to actually implement a series amount of reforms and work closely with the police department to ensure we institutional i was the changes that are needed. some of the reforms are revising the principles and really considering certain options like time and distance used whenever engaging with anyone that law enforcement comes in contact with our streets and also looking to deploy a series of body cameras to increase the accountability within our police department and over all we continue to make sure that we are committed to embracing our 21-century principles that are implemented by our president and we want to ensure that our day-to-day responsibilities are implemented. and the u.s. department of justice office is working with san francisco and our police commission. as you know we have engaged in collaborative reform initiative and our review of our police department conduct and we are working closely and anticipating the report that will soon come out that will be highlighting specific areas that we need to consider and continue working on when it comes to practice and policies related to the ois shootings and investigations. and lastly we have agreed to work with the district attorney's office for $1.8 million to be able to hire new staff and we thank the staff for being able to work with us and which relates to oversight. today i will talk about the three entities that are here today. i appreciate any questions. i'm also an accompanied by the budget director in case you have any questions about budget and concerns. with that i will turn it over to our chief of police, toney chaplin. >> chief, welcome, good morning. >> good morning, supervisors. thanks for having us. first i want to start off by thanking the members of the civil grand jury. that was a robust investigation that they did and they did sit down with our personnel and got in depth defail of the investigation and they do point out how we interact and how the community views the department and there is times to these investigations. since i have taken over as the chief of police i have received other departments and i definitely agree with them that there is room for more improvement and i highlighted them and i will bring up those key points. they quoted one of our retired assistant police chief stating there is no greater responsibility than the use of lethal force in the line of duty. this is one of the key points in all the reforms that you heard about in the past 24 months in the san francisco police department. with that, i'm going to introduce commander mckecker to respond to the grand jury's report and to also emphasize the point that the department of justice is doing their review and expected to be released fairly quickly here. we are looking at probably next month or 2-3 weeks actually for their report to be released when their report is released, i think it's going to highlight some of the areas that we have improved in and some that still need improvement. i think the discussion is on going. i don't think there is a period on the end of this sense by any metrics that anybody in this chambers is going to present today. will i think going forward our transparency is going to have to remain at the base level it's at and increase over time. as you will see there are some responses that need to be done and more to do. i introduce to you commander mckrek in. >> good to see you. i'm greg mckrek in of the san francisco police department. i'm happy to respond to the recommendations from the grand jury report for officer involved shootings. i want to echo what chief and diana said and thank you for the investigation. what the department saw in this report was that there were a number of improvements that we can make and are looking to make as we move forward in the officer involved investigations. it was also apparent that we agreed with a majority of the recommendations that the grand jury outline in their report. so, i'm going to speak to you about what our responses are and answer to any questions that you have. there were about 16 recommendations that we we responded to. i should be able the go through them quickly. there are a number of people to respond. including sergeant hill shaw regarding the police response and members of the administration who cover the administrative side when there is an officer involved shooting and director hicks from the office of complaints is here as well. i wanted to recognize her for her commitment to the police department and the occ and the response to this. i know that district attorney represented christina berry is here as well. so, as we start to this, there were about 16 recommendations that the department responded to for the grand jury. in each of the specific responses i will go through starting with the one where they talk about a comprehensive web page that they are looking for the department to implement. that is in response to r 1. what the department really wants to emphasize is that we are embracing best practices including transparency, accountability and access and we know it's important for the public to see that. currently as the chief said, we are awaiting a report in the collaborative review for the department of justice and there will be a number of recommendations that we expect will come out in that report that will have to do with not only this portion of a response, but a number of these responses that we are talking about today. in addition, we did look at the blue ribbon panel that has also given some quality recommendations and we are looking to implement a lot of those recommendations from both the grand jury and blue ribbon panel that we are expecting in a short time. what we found when we looked at the web page and the findings to implement in the future is we have to do a better job of data collection and dissemination to the public. as a department and as a whole whether it's department and department it to make sure we are accountable. with that, we are looking at a new web page redesign for the public and the city's structure to provide a web page for the public to access. we are also looking at public information sharing officer to provide through our web page information shared through the media. most importantly we are looking at additional avenues to promote the response of the police department through community outreach through our district station captain. it's extremely important to engage in a community especially where there is an officer involved shootings where citizens and stakeholders have questions and we have outreach through letters and community meetings. but quite frankly in some of the electronic access that needs to be provided to that community. the other thing that we will be doing when that cops out with a new web design is that we will have access language to diverse communities that is something the grand jury reported and we heard that wholly from the community and we know it's necessary to provide access to other languages. that will be implemented. recommendation r 2 was to stream line the officer involved process and to briefly speak about that, we agree that there is a timely need for the public and the department to be accountable and provide information to the public. as mentioned we are waiting the review of the department of justice collaborative report and we expect they will address some of the issues with that and how we can stream line our process. our recommendation when we get those findings from our department and grand jury's report that we will stream line our process for officer involved shootings. in response to r 2b, they are looking to having the revised order of officer involved descriptions. we are looking into that and waiting for the doj collaborative report. we have embraced the fact that we have many outdated policies some dating back to 1994. we are in the process completely redoing our use of force policy from 1994 and there are other policies that need to be addressed as well including our responses to officer involved shootings both administratively and it's our responsibility to look at where we are in the department's order of training and accountability and looking at those. we will embrace that and not only the officer involved shootings but other general orders. we have two general orders currently in the public eye. one being the use of force and the other being the body worn camera policies and those are two departments where there is a general agreement in needing to be more responsible and accountable. and the notification for other entities responsible for responding to officer involved shootings. we agree with the recommendation and we have made some partial implementations already with more to come and we have upgraded the operational centers with the contact with everything responding to an officer involved shooting. there is a direct contact with the captain to make sure that district investigators are responding to the scene so there isn't a question about the inability or a delay in notifications. and the last thing that we are currently look k at is a new program that the department of management has it's called ever bridge. they utilize it right now with the school district when there is an immediate notification when an emergency happens and it's within the department of emergency management and we are looking at that with the district attorney and for other possible responses should there about an immediate notification that is immediately logged and tracked so everyone responsible comes out and does. and in response to the notifications to confirm the notifications are made an we are working with that and a new program and a new command structure for investigators as they respond out. the in r 4, the recommendations that we have a direct mou to stream line oas investigations and as described from the mayor's office, that is in discussion and there is changes reported in the last day or so as we move forward towards an mou for the district attorney with that. that is very early in the process and we are looking at what recommendations to make. but we expect there will be recommendations on that and we will implement based on those recommendations. there is a couple more things to cover. there is more about the information release on the website. we are expecting to have that information available to the public. we will make the recommendations and take the department of justice and grand jury's report to the website. we will take that probably in 2017 and moving forward. i will move on related to department when we become aware of a shooting. basic facts of a shooting will be provided immediately to the public information officers and so the public is aware so you don't have instances where the media is out there around the public has questions and there is no response. we want to put the information out there so the public has information that there is no safety concern and basic information about the shooting without going to the extent of speaking about specifics of the incident so it appears that there may be a lack of transparency on the part of the department. we are certainly cognizant to that. we will continue to outreach after that initial press conference with press releases information that community stakeholders within 10 days of an incident and the weekly police commission meeting where information is provided to the public and updates on our web as we go through the it infrastructure changes. the next recommendation was limiting comments to fact that we are only aware of at a shooting. the department is extremely aware of the need to be transparent and accountable to the community. we will make sure we are giving accurate timely and reliable information to the public. we are aware of such technology as social media and vie and that is difficult to manage because sometimes there is video or other information out that we want to make sure that don't contribute to the public. we are looking at best practices of other departments. we do currently release information from data sets of our shooting from 2009-2015 on our website and we'll review other practices in a new robust website. lastly, we are talking about the response to officer involved shootings. the last meeting with the residents in the bayview district and we were able to have a very forthright and robust conversation about what happened and what they would like to see the department moving forward but information that we can provide to them. we found that they were able to take that information back to their community and others that had interest in it and it became a system that we saw that worked. obviously chief chaplain is looking, knock on wood, we never want to have another officer involved shooting, but we realize if we ever have one, it's important to provide the information to the community and we'll continue to provide that whether through a town hall meeting or stakeholders meeting with representatives of the community. the last thing we talked about is the department releasing information about an officer involved shooting. in the past it has been that we have released the names of the officers involved in a shooting unless there was a credible threat to them and we will continue to do that. in the past where it's been recommended or someone has asked for the names, we have released the names of the officers involved necessary shooting being no threat. you should expect that will continue to have the officers release of the names within the 10 days of the shooting happening. with that, that concludes my presentation as far as the recommendations. as i mentioned we have agreed with virtually all of the recommendations as we move forward to best practices in 21-century policing. i'm happening to answer any questions, if i'm not able because they have to do with another portion of our department, i will bring up the representatives to speak for that department. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, any questions for the police department, supervisors yee or breed? seeing none, i'm going to call the district attorney's office next, but mr. civil grand jury member. >> this maybe an appropriate time before we get too side track from the police department to their responses today. thank you for that. we see that san francisco police department in a number of it's responses says it will consider our recommendations and tends to look toward the doj and cri and other avenues and best practices and seems to put off the implementation as it occurs. i think it has to start today so it's not put off into the future and oftentimes it's put off into the future and we don't see any action today. the other thing the department implies it will implement the recommendation only if the doj or cri recommends as well and there is no way it should our recommendations should be discounted. we did take a lot of time and put in a lot of thought into these recommendations and i don't think they are mutually exclusive and should wait for implementation of ours to determine whether they are included through best practices or the doj recommendations. we encourage the police department not to wait in will the website infrastructure is developed next year. there are ways to start including the information on the website today. it may not be the most attractive but something that is as important to get the information out there as soon as possible. i saw the paper which included graphics and information about weapons used, the race of victims, etc that you cannot find on the police department website. it's unfortunate that we have to find out that information on the news when we should be looking to the department to provide that and not rely on reporter's to get that information to us and citizens. one other things, in a number of our recommendations we asked the department to include practices to policies including website updates, town hall meetings. i think the police department may have missed the point here. the current practice really provide nearly as a guide for future actions. that's something that can change depending on the direction of the wind or the police chief. official policy, written policy general as part of a bulletin recognize the importance of these practices so that continued transparency issen insured. this needs to be a general order that is directed in writing and provides a bench mark for which they need to respond. we also believe that providing information for stakeholders while good may not disseminate the information to the entire city of san francisco. although we know that some has been hijacked for information. i think we should find ways to provide the information to public and not rely on stakeholders to disseminate this information. i know the police department is really proud of the work it's done on the use of force. i think that's amazing but that is on the front end. we hope there are no more officer involved shootings that occur. we hope that in the days and weeks that follow that transparency after the fact is needed to be considered before the incident occurs. >> thank you, by way of background for members of the public, there are certain recommendations that are at the jurisdiction of the board and we are to respond to three of them and there are others that are within the jurisdiction of the mayor and the department. i think most of what you just addressed are really, and i will give commander mckrek on, that they are very well taken but not within the board's jurisdiction to agree or disagree with. >> i understand that and i appreciate the fact that you are having this hearing. it's one of the few opportunities to participate this this discussion. >> i suspect that we are inclined that we are actually to support urging and not be delayed for this doj's report and agreed to be implemented. >>supervisor london breed: think. i also want to acknowledge the comment regarding changing best practices into policy. i think that's a really good idea because it has been a best practice for the department to do certain things like town hall meetings and other things after an officer involved shooting, but that could change depending on who was in charge and who the new chief is. i think that point is well-taken and i hope that we can look at that as a possibility of a perfect example is a ballot measure we passed this june about an officer involved shooting where in the past, an officer involved shooting investigation would have to be requested. no -- now after prop g passed in june, all investigations must be completed. i do appreciate your comments and hopefully we can move forward in the right direction on those. thank you. >>supervisor aaron peskin: so, on behalf of the district attorney's office, attorney berry is here and maybe commander in chief, you can think about some of the grand jury's comments and maybe we can get you to respond to them. >> good morning, chair peskin, supervisors breed and yee, thank you for having us here today. i'm believed to respond on behalf of the district attorney's office on the civil grand jury report which we know is an exceptional topic which is on the minds of san franciscans and the use of force and the ultimate use of force that result in the loss of life. what is of interest to the grand jury, i hope to talk about what we plan to do moving forward. within san francisco, we are the eighth highest in terms of officer involved shootings of the large cities in this country. we average six officer involved shootings a year. it is a very significant incident and one that requires our best thinking and our best resources to make sure that we conduct a proper investigation and come to an appropriate conclusion at the end of that investigation. the thrust of the civil grand jury's concern for our office is twofold.. one to see more transparency with the public and we have made most of the changes recommended in the report to our website in advance of coming here today, and we will pursue the remainder in ernest and given ourselves timeline to complete those by the end of the calendar year. we want the public to know what we are doing and want to get feedback. the second one was regarding the timing of our work. we agree 100% that it takes too long for officers to complete the investigation. it is a resource for us. which is why in the last year we spent all of of our budget chips as you will call them in the mayor's office asking for funding to increase funding for investigation in officer involved shootings and scandals. that has been distributed to our office on an on call basis and ruld in resulted too many delays in the process. the district attorney's office has agreed to allow us to hire investigators to assist in the investigation clearly and as soon as possible. the mou for the police department to see leadership role in the investigation of those incidents and transfer that responsibility to us. we have shared the draft with mou with prior chief suhr and acting chief chaplain. we have had one meeting and hopeful indicating in our response to get a completion by september 30th, but because of delays in follow up meetings that may not be realistic. we are ready and eager to move forward with the mou to go forward with the hiring of the unit. that has seen challenges over previous investigations many of which were addressed in the civil grand jury of our office not being notified timely when the incident occurs as well as concerns around evidence, preservation and capture that we think need to be addressed and hopefully with the independent investigation bureau we can get a better handle of challenges. it's obviously both in the presidents 20-century policing and an agency investigating itself is not best practices. i can go through the recommendations if that's helpful to the board. the recommendation 1 was regarding a more comprehensive set up on our web page. we were hoping that we could complete negotiations of mou to compose an updated procedure regarding an officer involved shooting. if we could not get that completed timely we will go over what our response is and as we go forward. >> which you will do this month? >> we hope to. we have shared this draft. it has not changed since chief suhr was in office. it does require us talking about many details as to who will handle which portions of a scene. i think that can be done quickly if we work in ernest. i ask this board to hold that open so we can complete that negotiation and there will be other changes in responsibilities as well. the second was to conduct a comprehensive study. we would be happy the participate this that, however we do not have the resources but would participate if the city saw that fit. recommendation 4, regards to an mou, we would like to complete it by the end of this month. recommendation 5, to give information on the officer involved shootings because of the delays. we agree with that wholeheartedly. now that the mayor has released that funding, we hope to do that as soon as possible to have those funds released. we will immediately begin a robust search for the best investigators to start that united and we'll start in ernest on that work. recommendation 5, suggested that we seek appropriate resources to speed up the time which we have done investigations and we have done that obviously through the budget just terminated. recommendation, ask that we attend town halls. we have do that and will continue to do so. recommendation 14a. we have reported findings on our website but there is a request for an immediate release. we will do that if there is an officer involved shooting. we will address that. and recommendation 14b was to improve our website to make it easier to read, and which officer involved shooting and the victims name. it is quite hideous but all the information is on there. if anybody has trouble finding it, we will be happy to direct them to it. >> thank you. mr. vander pool, would you like to respond? go ahead. >> thank you, a number of the responses provided by the district attorney's office indicated that a lot of it's work was dependent on funds that have been approved, but placed in reserve. i know that's been discussed partially however as a general citizen i would like some clarification as to whether all the funds have been released or are there strings attached because the reason i ask, if you look at the response the money has been allocated, but they haven't been able to get that money. there is a disconnect there. i want to make sure there are no other strings attached that funds maybe in advance but not gotten from the department to use for their investigations into these and other serious incidents. in addition, we encourage the d. a. to continue to work with the san francisco police department regarding each department's roles and responsibilities. it sounds like some of those roles and responsibilities may change based on the information we read in today's paper and the fund for the investigation bureau. we believe that it's crucial whoever takes the lead and whoever has an active role in these investigations that the department's work together and there be no barriers between that. we are all in this together. we all look to the same finish line and we want a full and complete comprehensive transparent timely investigation and we need those to be top priorities and make sure that that occurs. we appreciate the fact that they are negotiating terms. we know that can be a little uncomfortable at times and we encourage them to make it happen. i have to say, it's gratifying to make the recommendations regarding the a. more accessible. there were no individuals names and you have to find it. that changing has already been implemented by the d. a.'s office and i thank you for that. there are still a couple of incidents where the dates of the charge of the individual was released and not the day of the incident. it's reassuring and gratifying to know that some of these recommendations are visibly taking place as we speak and we appreciate that. >> thank you. why don't we get a little clarification on the release of reserves and more importantly whether or not you are being given that magic thing which is requisitions. >> yes, thank you, i appreciate that question. we at the point of writing our response had not been given the funds off the reserve that happened this week. so we have about in constant conversation in urging these positions and the mayor's office sought to release those positions and they are in the budget dmeet committee and we are still looking to release that hurdle and the mayor's office is in the process of getting the funds released. and perhaps they will see fit to move quickly to move forward. the mayor's office has released those funds. >> i know that fund was priority for supervisor breed and for the district attorney. with -- what i suggest that we do and we can hear from you, ms. camel, and which is that i'm going to suggest to my colleagues that in addition to discharging our duty under the law to dispense our recommendations to the board of supervisors to continue this hearing to october so to make sure that we as supervisors make sure they have released those funds and we as mou so the district attorney's office and mayor's office and police department that this board wants you to conclude that mou by october so we can hear about it. >> we hope to see you in october and hope to complete the mou and hopefully have made significant progress to hire the critical staff that we need to do this work. >> thank you very much. ms. campbell? >> there is a hearing bending before the budget and finance committee requested on the reserves and it could be calendared anytime before the 8. >> it looks like money is on the way. ms. hicks, office of citizens complaints. >> good morning chair peskin, president breed and supervisor yee. i'm joy hicks of the office of citizens complaint. i want to thank we agree that occ provides information. again, transparency does not exist if the information that you are finding is contained within a stack of documents that will take you years to get through. we really encourage the o krshgc to do what it can to navigate the user or the website to the information that they already provide. we also recognize that the occ believes it provides all the information it can within the confines the fact that we have a state law in california that is very restrictive with information regarding personnel records of officers. i challenge the the occ to review those laws to make sure their disclosure hits that limit. i know that there are certain departments including the city attorney's office here who really pushes the envelope on a lot of moral and ethical issues and we feel this is an issue that is outside the purview of the grand jury because it's a state law and not a local law. we encourage all departments within the city government here, all citizens of san francisco to really advocate for a more robust and more open and dissemination from this. i know there is going to be a push back from the police department, but there are other states that have other robust dissemination of force that they have on police officers. california is one of the most restrictive. i encourage occ and challenge them to see if there is any other information within the confines of that state law. >> thank you. commander or chief toney chaplin. >> just to respond to some of the things brought up. we are not waiting for the doj report. we are not sitting on our hands. we have posted information on the website to relay information about the events relating to the incident. to provide facts after the incident and allow the community to ask questions. we are looking to policies to standardize this. it's a long process and will not wait until the doj is done. we are making sure we are not doing it after they come up with best practices. also other data initiative to officer involved shootings from 2009-2015 and also on our website is a department of general order regarding shootings and subsequent investigations and how those are to be carried out. we do put this in a place that is accessible and easier to find. the information is a little scattered and bringing it together will help the public navigate the process. going back to the process, i love the process because the civil grand jury walks in as citizens and looks at this information as any citizens and notice all the encumbrances they are hitting with the information they are getting to. it's a road map for us to get this. by know means do we resist anything they say. it makes common sense to do it. some of the things that are best practices and they may recommend in a we do four things and the doj may come in and recommend we do 14 and four of those is including in that. that's why we are waiting for the doj report because we may have implemented their four things already but there may be additional things to add to that report. i don't want anyone to believe that we are not implementing things right now that do make sense, because we are. >> here is my thing, as september is half way over and in so far as as doj report is expected in the next few weeks, we will continue the hearing in the the end of the 20th so this report will be done and the funds will be released and we can look at what the doj said and come back to look through these things. >> that's a fantastic idea. going back to the mou, it may go back to the rank and file. those timelines may go out the window because you are talking about a new mou. there is one existing right now. the new mou are going to affect our officer involved shootings, firearms, discharge review and it will affect a lot of issues that will go through our rank and file and i do not anticipate that this is something the bargaining body for the rank and file officers, the poa would not want to obviously discuss and maybe litigate. >> well, i can't nor do i presume can speak for the bargaining unit that represents the rank and file, but i assume that the d. a. and the pd can enter into a draft mou subject to meet an confer and all the appropriate labor laws that can at least be the starting point of a public discussion. >> absolutely. >> all right. with that, are there members of the public who have patiently waited all of this time on this issue of utmost important at this moment in time, please come forward. public speaker: my name is claudia stevens. my daughter was murdered by mitchell. i have been to the police commission meetings for the last 5 months telling susie loftus asking what happened. who is responsible when the district attorney, the police do not respond and i get no answers, and now i find out that ms. loftus and mr. long worked for the d. a. at the time of her murder. they say we are so sorry for your loss, ms. stevens. i don't want anybody to be sorry for my loss. i want questions answered as to who is responsible. i have information on my hand that candy works in the office and the day after i got this report, i get a letter from the head of records that says, sorry, you are not going to have that report because it's confidential. i have it here in my hands right now, so you chief, acting chief or any police officer that is in this room or any of you that have been around to let me know what happened to my daughter. james mitchell is out. i came home to find my daughter with no head. i made threonine e -- 911 calls. there is no report on these 911 calls. i have gone to the committee meetings and they say, we are sorry for your loss. i saw you on tv today an i said, i will come down here and maybe someone will hear. nothing is going to bring my daughter back. i also gave this chief, i'm sorry, acting chief some information on a domestic violence program that is known to work. it came up from connecticut, and i asked officer candy did you get the information from your chief? and she said no, we have not seen it. i took the time to investigate all of this does. i'm a retired california highway patrol. i came home to find my daughter with no head. camille harris, she was off on a book tour. her assistant d. a.'s asked to have him put in jail. he's in prison now. but perhaps if he had been put in jail to the crimes that they found him guilty of, maybe he wouldn't be a murderer today and maybe my daughter would be alive today. i would like you to address this. >> thank you. i'm not familiar with the case, but i assume mr. mitchell was not of the law. >> he was a dancer. >> i am now familiar with the case. what we are dealing with the grand jury has to do with officer involved shootings. >> you might have just given an officer a gun to shoot my daughter. he came to our house over and over. we came here to san francisco to court and testified in the courtroom. we had to be escorted out and protected by these district attorneys and he just got a slap on the wrist. i don't know where to go. they say file a complaint with occ. i have filed a complaint. i haven't heard a work from them. >> i would be happy to meet with you personally about your case, but i need to conclude this hearing. >> that's fine. i just wanted someone to hear this. >> i hear you and i would like to personally meet with you and see what has occurred relative to the city's involvement in what is obviously a terrible terrible tragedy and loss. with that, are there other members of the public who would like to testify on these items? seeing none we'll close public comment. i need to get some recommendations which are going to be offered by president breed as to the resolution before us. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, i want to thank mr. vander pool for his great work on this and his thoughtful responses. thank you to commander mckrek in for being here and providing the information to the department and this you to christina berry. this is really a very important subject matter in the city and county of san francisco. ms. hicks, thank you for your work with occ. we have a lot of work to do before we feel this issue is addressed properly in this city. so these recommendations should definitely not wait, and i appreciate again the work and the thoughtfulness that went into them. my responsibility here today is to provide the board's response and with that, once i provide those and enter those into the record then we'll have comments if that's okay or did you have some quick follow up that you wanted to provide, mr. vand pool? >> i apologize for interrupting. there are a couple of other departments that we did not hear from. they are quick, they are 30 seconds i don't know if you want to take that into consideration. >>supervisor aaron peskin: here is what we'll do because president breed will have to leave in a few minutes. we'll keep the recommendations live and then hear from the office of the medical examiner which is what i assume you are referring to? >> more importantly the mayor's office which i was not able the address earlier. >> we will circle around president breed. >> if the we can pass my recommendations and then continue the hearing after that will be appreciated. madam clerk, can you please read the first recommendation. >>clerk: recommendation r 5d states the board should approve these additional resources requested by the district attorney's office including the mayor's and public policy finance in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2017-2018 and thereafter the officer involved shooting investigations should be contingent upon marked improvement by the d. a.'s office in the time it takes to present these measures in an officer involved shooting. >>supervisor london breed: my recommendation is going to change slightly in the one that i was going to recommend on the part of the presentation. this particular recommendation is going to require further analysis with the accompanying text included as reported by the mayor's budget office, the d. a.'s budget office for fiscal year 2016 -2017, and 2017-2018 includes $1 million each additional year for additional staff to expedite officer involved shooting investigations. however noted by the budget legislative analyst by the board of supervisors, funds have been placed on reserve, and currently the budget and finance committee will consider the release of those funds by october 1st. the board of supervisors agrees that future funding decisions and department oversight should evaluate the d. a.'s improvement and promptly completing criminal investigations and issuing charging decision letters and officer involved shooting cases. will and with that, madam clerk, please read the next recommendation. >>clerk: recommendation r 7d states the board should approve request for office of mayor's policy on finance for fiscal year 2017-2018 and for transcription services. >> the response is that the recommendations has been implemented. the increased funding for office of citizens complaint has been completed in the budget for 2016-2017 and 2018. all right. >>clerk: the last recommendation r 12b. the chief of police, the officer involved in the shooting, the d. a., all members of the police commission and all members of the newly formed officer involved shooting task force should attend the meeting to understand the seriousness the conference regarding autopsies. and to hold all the other department and not wait for the agency to read at their leisure but to be made part of the overall investigation. >>supervisor aaron peskin: okay, mr. vander pool, why don't we take them in the order. who is here on behalf of the mayor's office to address rb and r 15? >> thank you. rocha in response to the mayor's office. we would like to respond that we are still in partial agreement to that investigation. we are looking at all of our task force and we do anticipate that the discussion with the other public safety agencies when it comes to ois cases can impact our decision when it comes to looking more thoroughly on an adequate task force. we want to take time and also consult with the department of justice and look at a collaborative review to make sure we work on an approach. >> so it requires further analysis? >> yes. >> all right, can we hear from the chief medical examiner? good afternoon, with the medical examiner's office. in the report the chief should call on a meeting of the homicide detail d. a.'s office and office of citizens complaints to help those agencies interpret the highly technical findings of the autopsy report. this meeting should include reports from the crime lab on the results of the firearms and the d. a. analysis. our understanding upon a completion of an autopsy report is not necessarily completion of an on going investigation of those inter agencies. always the chief medical examiner would very much welcome to participate in that dialogue, our understanding was at that time the on going investigation would not have been completed. that's what prompted the response. >> so to interpret that, you agree with the recommendations, but not necessarily it's timeframe. >> there you go. correct. it's our understanding that the autopsy report would he -- be completed in a timely fashion. >> just a suggestion that perhaps you want to reword that in such a way. >> correct. >> the other recommendation was r 6b. so the recommendation was when the new office of the chief medical examiner building with the office investigation is completed, the chief examiner should invite investigators and d. a. and office of citizens complaint investigators to observe autopsies in all fatal officer involved incidents so they can be answered quickly and in teamwork with cooperation on the investigation can begin as early as possible. we have a building that is being erected as we speak by the planning committee's full support. currently we don't have the facility to entertain this type of collaboration. but we will be moving into this new facility in 11 1/2 months. it's something that we'll definitely consider and definitely be able to support this recommendation fully. the chief medical examiner, dr. michael hunter, he appreciates transparency and he feels that this particular recommendation very well could assist those on going investigations. >> so perhaps that should be reworded to say that you agree with it, but it has not yet been implemented? >> correct. we did say the chief medical examiner, the design of the new facility with the autopsy operation will allow investigators with more information and multiparty information sharing. we will encourage investigators to encourage investigation in all homicide and suspicious circumstances. >> thank you. i very much appreciate it. so, mr. vander pool, here, this is your last opportunity until october 20. th. >> i can't thank you enough for having this dialogue today. we encourage the civil grand jury's report to try to put their shoes in the place of an average citizen to find out information not only about the general ois investigation generally but all the information in the investigation. that it's easy to understand. we also encourage each department to ask whether from an average citizen perspective and the timeframe involved in that aspect of investigation is reasonable and makes sense. finally, we challenge each department to move away from the mind-set that only little information is disclosed and all information disclosed. this fundamental change in point of view throws the ideas of time limits in transparency into a new light. a light that i believe will result and will prove useful in all aspects of the investigation more transparent and more timely. >> thanks to you and your colleagues again. i think the report has been very well received as others stated your timing is impeccable and with that, why don't we continue this item. the hearing portion of the item to october 20th, and while we are at it, why don't we file item no. 1. supervisor yee, are we okay with that? without objection, that will be the order. and madam clerk, if you could please read items 5 and 6 together. >>clerk: items no. 5 and 6. 5. 160617 [hearing - civil grand jury - san francisco homeless health and housing: a crisis unfolding on our streets] , 6. 160618 [board response - civil grand jury - san francisco homeless health and housing: a crisis unfolding on our streets] >>supervisor aaron peskin: mr. cunningham. >> on behalf of the 15 and 16th civil grand jury, i will like to ask ms. gene boogagda to speak on behalf of the grand jury >> so i guess it's good afternoon, supervisor peskin and supervisor yee. our committee wanted, i will be reading if you don't mind other than speaking directly to you. our committee wanted to understand why in a city where so much money is spent on "the homeless problem" our neighbors still see the situation getting worse. we live in an economic system built on competition and we compete for grades, for jobs, for grants, for elected officers, for romantic partners, etc. a system like this can be looked at as having the property of a normal curve. a number of people on the top, small number of people on the top get the top stuff. a lot of people in the middle get the middle stuff and a small number of people at the bottom don't get very much stuff at all. it's a system that we humans created and we humans can adjust. if we want everyone to be served by this system, we are capable of making sure that all sides of the curve are served. the current homeless problem in san francisco was not this bad in 1975 but grew for many reasons perhaps including lack of building of affordable housing, lack of low skilled jobs, availability of drugs, clothing of mental health services and so on. members of this committee spent years talking with employees who are working into the service programs as well as the san francisco police, attending meetings of the local homeless coordinating board, fsich and talking to people who are homeless. we saw that homeless services evolved from different agencies and many programs were paid for by city fund. additionally the u.s. funding three of them won't be implemented because they are unnecessary and unreasonable. i would like to give you a little background on the reasons that some of the investigations will not be implemented and will require further analysis. regarding the first responders. we recommended that the hot team be the first responders when it's safe, and that sfp, police department a county when necessary. we heard that police presence can be threatening but interaction with sf hot can be helpful and more knowledgeable to services with health information. their response to help with triage and move folks to a better place. we heard that police ticketing is very minimally effective and the cost in processing tickets etc is very excessive when it's compared to the good that it does. we recommend that the police have access to health and substance abuse data and told that was unreasonable because of hippa. and instead of being told the city to be responders, it was a job they didn't sign up for. information with a data base should let the people know about what they are working with. when folks are entered into the data base, they should be encouraged to share more. the hippa boundary should be pushed a little bit in order to help the homeless client. this also goes for access to this data in the jails. the other topic we talked about was outcome performance measures and monitoring. we were very impressed with the relationship between the controllers office and the first navigation center. the while they were monitoring, the controllers office, they were working with the navigation center center personnel to improve the program. at least during the beginning of the a set up of a new facility, this expensive relationship could be beneficial. additionally being monitored by the people you work with can be less effective by monitoring by an outsider. a person can be biased in one direction or another. we had also information about shelters and housing. that shelters should not be considered permanent housing and we were told that wouldn't be implemented. we recommendation the city increase the stock of very low income housing and these two recommendations go together. we are told that many shelters are not safe and not stable environments. temporary shelters live the navigation center set triage and with a single destination, with a bathroom and rehab house with four individuals. we think that additional low income stock need to be available. that's about what i want to say so far. so i was trying to take five minutes. 5 minutes. >> extraordinary. thank you. >> why did you take that report? >> this reports were made as they were made out. supervisors, good afternoon, we are glad to be had -- here to talk to you about the civil grand jury's report. i have a presentation but i know you have been here for some time so we'll be happy to go through this report. >> don't worry, it's a 30 item calendar and we are on item 6. so take your time. >> all right. then i shall. first of all i want to let you know that the department of homelessness and supportive housing hih has been working very closely with the civil grand jury and has implemented many of the recommendations they have laid out. as you know we are going through a strategic planning process which will roll out many of these investigations. office office has been open since may 14, we ask for your patience, we should have this done by early november which will help budgeting for the next year and our budget for the department. we want to make sure that we proceed in a deliberate and intentional and intelligent way and we are still in the process of that data and have additional report with the consultants we are working with but still much to do. a little bit about the departments. as you know there is currently about 6200 single adults facing homelessness on our streets as of our last count. that count under counts the number of families as there are in the san francisco unified school district. about 2090 are currently homeless and not seen and most of them not picked up by the homeless count. but i believe in the fidelity of that data and that's another problem we are working on. and the issue that is more public is the fact that 3500 of the homeless count were unsheltered which is an increasing number and this problem is becoming more and more visible. we'll talk about some of our response to that in just a bit. despite problems that we have in this city and the fact that we needed to do better and the mayor created this department to do better. a lot of the programs being used around the country including salt lake and houston were from san francisco. a lot of them focused on getting homeless into housing was pioneered here in san francisco in the late 80s or 90s. the project home connect and the first lgbtq shelter were all pioneered here in san francisco and as a result we've had some great successes. since 2004, over 23,000 people who are homeless in san francisco have ended their homelessness through supportive housing through the homeward bound program and through rent subsidies and through self resolving. approximately 7,000 people are homeless. it does not make san francisco no. 1 or two of the homeless. often we get compared to counties similar to los angeles county is not a comparison. we are about in the middle, we can certainly be doing better but we should be proud of the successes we have had. many cities have doubled and san francisco has done quite well. we know there is a dramatic increase in visible street homeless and there is a conflict in neighborhoods, not a conflict. it just that it creates challenges with quality of life in many of our neighborhoods and something we need to address. it's important to understand why some of this is happening and the fact that most of our services are concentrated in one part of the city in the eastern part of san francisco. the increase in development in certain parts of the city has pushed individuals in mission bay and moving into other neighborhoods and important to knows that there has been a growth in heroin problems in the united states that has led to homeless that we are seeing as well. the good news is that i think the mayor's creation of this new department is going to consolidate programs and funding into one department to increase accountability to one department, well allow us to develop this unified strategy as opposed to multiple strategies as to how we are going to address this and also what the civil grand jury talked about coordinating a data system. it's not the data system, but the idea that clients will be assessed once in the system and they will know where they are going to be sent to and get services. service providers will be able to track someone through the system and we'll have a better idea around accountability about service providers, about our outcomes and most importantly clients will get the services they need. people with the highest needs and people that are mentally ill, they are going to get the access first. that will make a big difference in what we are seeing happening on the streets. i'm going to skip a couple slides.. this is the idea and this is whenever -- where we are getting in terms of where our goals are. we are intend to end veterans homelessness by the end of 2017. we hope to increase shelters. by 2019 we are on a path to end family homelessness by 2020. as mayor lee committed that he will end homelessness for 8,000 individuals ks adults and children by january 2020. let me jump ahead to the civil grand jury recommendations and we'll start with the recommendations around the hot team. we are not going to at this point implement the recommendation that hot team act as first responders. i would like the talk a little bit about what we are planning to do around the hot team. the hot team needs to be reorganized. it's been done so before multiple times. the staff in the field, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude and they deserve more recognition. we are in the process of figuring out what they need to do and respond to this crisis on our streets. but i think there is a confliction between the problems on the street and homelessness. most homeless people are not criminals. most criminal people are not homeless and being asked to respond to violations of police code or other rules or regulations is not necessarily the job of the hot team. their job is to go out to find people who are not in our system, people who are not an availing themselves to services and bringing them to case management and get them to get into stabilization beds and ultimately into housing. i do think we need to have a better response to complaints that citizens make, and i think we are trying to figure out what the hot team 's role should be and the hot team's focus in responding to complaints and letting the other hot team members work neighborhoods and understand who is out there and develop relationships with people and not keep constantly responding because if we don't mark our resources towards a strategy of ending homelessness, they are we are just playing with the problem and not solving it. that being said, we are working with 311 to talk about calls as they come in are dispatched and want to add to their staff so they have the resources so they will be able to dispatch the right people to the right problem and expanded the hours of the hot team is something that needs to be done. but we are still having this open discussion as to the hot team and the planning. >> performing the system and software which we are implementing this year. we are in negotiations right now. so i don't want to announce who the vendor will be but rer -- we are hoping to roll that out and hopefully functioning within 2 years of doing that and also to respond to recommendation b 2 about having a consistent intake system for sharing information. that will be accomplished through this system and also will again do this single assessment using a tool or something like what's called a service provider's decision allocation tool which is a data tested algorithm to determine the base from a client and what it is best resource for them. rb 3 is going to be addressed by the creation of this new department and is something we will be implementing in terms of coordinating our funding recommendation for it. again it's something that requires further analysis in terms of our first responders will get access to this data, but in general we do agree that there needs to be a way that people outside of our department have access to information. if a police officer or paramedic picks up somebody who they suspect as homeless to be able to look them up it in the system to understand who is the homeless provider, that will be a valuable tool. and around contracting and creating more performance base around contracting is something we are going to do. until we have our data system up and running, we can't really measure the performance of non-profits the way we need to implement this, but it's certainly in planning to implementing. rc 2 talking the about navigation model and expanding the navigation model. we are in the process, we really want to bring the navigation centers into the system which was developed outside the shelter system which was a stand-alone gem. it's as it should be. we want it to be part of the system and we will be integrating the navigation centers into the system and bring all the shelters look like the navigation center. recommendations 3, rc 3, generating an annual report showing -- an outcome is what we plan to do. we are going to provide a dashboard daily to see the successes and not successes and rather than not creating false expectations. this is to let them know what is going to happen next and so people understand and that will go a long way for addressing some of the public's concerns. around removing the structure system towards a navigation system. that's the navigation center again which is a great model for what we should be doing and we'll be taking the lessons from that. the issue around natural disasters. is something that's and what our reaction is going to be. the department feels like we are not in a position, we are not big enough and don't have the expertise to deal with natural disasters from a citywide perspective. fha and the city department manager is responsible for dealing with that. our job is when there is a lot of rain to make sure that pop-up shelters are available as well as in the event of a natural disaster, that 50,000 supportive housing for tennants and people on the streets get the service they need in the event of a natural disaster that occurs in the city. rd 2 is already being implemented around exploring additional navigation centers. my department is charged with and we are happy to be charged with at least six navigation centers in the city. hopefully we'll have some news about those very soon. actually i should say, the dog patch facility is moving forward which will be on 25th street and the dog patch and two sites in addition to that. the idea that the mayor should insure that the department provide enough staff at the center to deal with the physical and emotional conditions at the sites. we are already doing. you will be amazed at the quality of level of service. increasing housing stock for low income housing to meet the current need. i absolutely agree with that, but i think we need to not only look at the homeless population but the entire affordable housing in the city. we have swung back and forth the pendulum and we need to look at what is exactly needed for the category for low income families and -- census workers and how many sites for the various populations we think are needed in the city. but moe is working now to meet without doing much analysis we need more housing and we are trying to move forward on that. the recommendation to 311, i already spoke to. we need to work with our department and how it works better with 311 and how to handle a call. we will be moving forward with that. that's in both recommendations around 311 are critical and we preach -- appreciate them and we'll be following up on them. that is a quick version of our presentation. i will be happy to take any questions. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you. any questions, supervisor yee, seeing none, why don't we open to the public. are there any members of the public who would like to talk about this vexing issue. seeing none, we'll close public comment. i have read the report. i have handful of recommendations, supervisor yee, as to the board grand jury reports specifically around the two findings. the first 484 which is police ticket face the response for service to have the best outcome for calls they do not take it because it's not productive in finding fd 2 centers reports on pilot navigation requiring intake data and connecting people to services and monitoring exits for recidivism to have innovative office for the controllers outcomes. i would agree with those two findings. as to the three recommendations, i think the first one ra 1.1, which states the number of sf hot as in homeless personnel should be increased to be available to respond. i think that will not be implemented per the mayor's response as to ra 4. i believe that has been implemented through the creation of supportive housing in the overall network of city departments supportive services for homeless residents and as to rd 2, which states, the mayor should explore and acquire new sites where additional navigation centers should be opened. the board of supervisors should urge the mayor the fund these additional sites as mr. kazinsky said with the implementation of the passage of supervisor campos legislation file no. 160278. i believe that has been implemented and will continue to be implemented through the department of homelessness and supportive housing to maintain centers throughout the sites. i would move those changes to the resolution, those amendments. can we do those without objection. and on that item, send that to the full board with a recommendation. without objection that will be the order. i would like to thank the civil grand jury for this also timely report which mr. kazinsky said, yes, you are welcome to come back up and already informed public policy and you are welcome to make any closing statements that you would like. >> mr. chairman, for clarity, for the hearing for this matter. >>supervisor aaron peskin: we will file item no. 5 without objection. there are going to be continued discussions from these committees which is to talk about something that is of great and legitimate concern for those that are housed or not house. >> thank you for this. the statement in the letter that we got from the board of supervisors, say that recommendations requiring further analysis the grand jury expects a progress report within 6 months. is this something that can happen? can we continue this dialogue for these things that have been suggested that there is further analysis, can we see what's happened? >> yes, and because there are so many hearings and we are joined by supervisor wiener who was in the hearing about homelessness. it will be a form to visit recommendations in the grand jury's report and incorporate new data and policies that are currently being considered. so to that end. i think we can file item no. 5 because you will have plenty of opportunities to continue to dialogue with this board about the on going vexing issue of homelessness. >> and just a couple of quick comments about some of the things that jeff kazinsky said, thank you for all the things he said. on the identified strategy is what we require, and part of that strategy should be really the acceptance that this is a problem that is fixable, that is not the human condition to have a certain number of homelessness that is going to always exist. i think the board and the whole government needs to accept that as how they are going to stand. homelessness is not part of the way we want to run our government. one thing living in the eastern part of the neighborhood, we have homeless people that we are interacting with all the time that have been around for 5 years and some of them are constantly on drugs or doing damaging things. some of them are just sick, but we have no one to really interact with. that's where the hot team or someone in the neighborhood so these folks can be helped. that's something i have not seen anybody talk about too much. i want to see the idea of radical transparency is wonderful and we are looking forward to seeing it. the other thing said about the natural taking care of the disasters, we didn't really mean that hsh should be taking care of the disasters, but that temporary shelter should not be a way for someone to live forever. they should move into something more stable. thank you very much. >> thank you, i think without putting words in my colleagues mouths, we agree with all of those policy desires. so without objection, we will file item no. 5 and we have already dispensed with item no. 6. madam clerk, can you please call item 30 out of order. i apologize, mr. kern, but supervisor wiener gets to go first. >>clerk: item no. 30. 30. 160425 [administrative code - ban on city-funded travel to and city contracts involving states with anti-lgbt laws] sponsors: wiener; campos and farrell >>supervisor aaron peskin: supervisor wiener has brought this hearing to us. >> good afternoon, supervisor wiener. thank you for joining us. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you for taking this out of order. i very much appreciate it. colleagues, before you today is legislation that would prohibit city funded travel that the state has enacted laws that discriminate against the lgbt community. for example, the recently enacted law in north carolina that prohibits all lgbt civil rights protection and that requires transgender people to use the restroom of the gender assigned to them at birth as opposed to their gender identity. this ( closed session ) >> >> >> >> city of san francisco >> government audit and oversight committee >> ( closed session ) >> please stand by... >>

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Salt Lake , Texas , Germany , North Carolina , Mission Bay , California , Honolulu , Hawaii , Washington Square Park , Bayview District , London , City Of , United Kingdom , San Francisco , Connecticut , Brussel , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , San Bruno , Hungary , Houston , Los Angeles County , Telegraph Hill , Germans , Hungarian , Greg Wagner , Hill Shaw , Kenny Hoskins , James Cunningham , Richard Baker , Scott Weiner , Susie Loftus , Jose Sacramento , Dick Morton , Libby Dodd , David Stein , Camille Harris , Norman Yee , Christina Berry , Toney Chaplin , Claudia Stevens , James Mitchell , Shannon Baca ,