Grand jury report. And of their findings. And their recommendations. What motivates me to come here today, yesterday morning, despite the best efforts of the station 15, two members of our community lost their lives in a fire on dellano avenue. Woodframe building, built in 1915, like so many woodframe buildings on the west side and southern sides of town, where theres a greater concentration of families and children. At present, we dont have a system that can handle the big one in those areas. I feel strongly that the city departments and the financing people need to focus on solving this question seriously. I thank the grand jury for their recommendations, for their effort and i thank mr. Dute and nancy werfell for having led so many people and explain this to them. Thank you. Mar thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning. My name is ellen lee chow. Im a resident in San Francisco for the last 33 year. I am a Public Employee. Around the former civic grand jury for two terms, 2014 and 2016. I am here to support item number 2 and item number 3. As you know, our citys budget is very high. The supervisors in here continue talking about building Homeless Navigation Centers through public money, that failed to allocate to help the people in item number 2 and 3. You and i know we have been told within the next 30 years, we will be facing a major earthquake. Which means the Fire Department needed every possible resources to protect all of the people in San Francisco. Not just to misuse and mismanage our puppet money, to attract nonsan franciscans to come to San Francisco. And also if we, the Fire Department, the staff, the public people, the Public Employees work so hard and try to protect the public money, im talking about the public resources. [bell dings] but board does not respond to the grand jury report, then you do not respect the people who spend 500 hours a year and put this report together, to protect the public through the Fire Department. And again my name is ellen. Thank you. Supervisor mar thank you. Next speaker, please. Regarding the presenters, how many pages of addendum and Supplemental Information do they anticipate adding to the back of the report on the documents . They state the department will be absent until 2021. It seems analysis may be being used to stall this civil safety projects development, rather than to further its development. 23 we are presently saving 700,000 gallons of water per day, due to pipe repair, why dont we aim to increase the rate beyond 1 of daily use by replacing the pipe, or those pipes most in need of continual repair. And seems like we have a budget that increases by 1 billion yearoveryear. I dont believe we need to issue a bond to complete the project. We simply need to properly apply the funds already collected. Any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I wanted to thank all of the neighborhood leaders and activists that spoke out at the hearing today and shared your perspectives on this really important issue. I know a number of you have really been champions of this issue and the need for the city to address the complete buildout of the auxiliary water supply system for many years. Thank you for all of your activism and really pushing us here in city hall to make this a higher priority. And thanks again to civil grand jury for your focus on this issue and youre really thoughtful and comprehensive report that you produced. It really is so helpful again in sort of pushing the discussion and pushing us here at city hall to address the, you know, this urgent issue. Which is literally a lifeordeath issue with hundreds of thousands of lives, you know, and billions of dollars of property really vulnerable. So, yeah. And supervisor brown, do you have any remarks . Supervisor brown well, i agree with supervisor and chair martha, yeah, we know something is going to happen in the future. We need to be prepared for it. And, you know, my district is, you know, looks pretty good. But when i look on the west side of the city, its something that we really have to concentrate on. I think the p. U. C. , the Fire Department, everyone knows that. And so i want to make sure we get it right. And if for me if it takes another year to make sure they come with a plan, make sure theyre talking to the community. And just making sure that they get it right, thats worth it. Because i think rushing a project, i have seen this happen before in the city, if you rush a project, if you dont get it right and youre not talking to the community, sometimes it just is wasted money. So i definitely feel that, you know, we should give them the time to get the project right. Supervisor mar thank you, supervisor brown. And actually again i just also wanted to thank the Mayors Office, the Public Utilities commission, the Fire Department and the Capital Planning committee for your work on this important issue. And also in developing the responses to this civil grand jury report. The departments responses are have already been presented and are part of the public record. We do have a resolution here that in committee today, that is the board of supervisors responses to the civil grand jury report, findings and recommendations. And that actually i have some amendments to the resolution. And its more just to ensure that you dont have a copy of it. Im going to verbally mention it. Its just to make sure were following the direction from the superior court and the clerk of the board on the proper language to use on the board responses. So for the in the resolution on page 4, in the resolve, part of the resolution that starts on line 4, page 16, were saying that we for finding number 4, finding 5, finding 6 and finding 11, the draft of the Resolution Says that we wholly agree with the findings, which i think we do. The instructions from the superior court and the clerks a office just said that we should state that we agree with the findings. So the amendment is to delete the word wholly. And then for the additionally clerk mr. Chair, you can just mention the motion that youre making to add the recommendations that you wish to have added. So, for instance, im hearing now you make a motion to recommend that findings f4, f5, f6 and f11 that the board of supervisors agree with the findings, as presented in the report, is that correct . Supervisor mar , yes, thats correct. And then for recommendation number 1 and recommendation number 2, i i would move that we amend to say the board of supervisors reports that recommendations number 1 and number 2 have not been implemented, but they will be implemented. Im sorry, we should take those separately because theres different dates. Recommendation number 1, it should state that the board that it has not recommendation number 1 has not been implemented, but will be implemented no later than december 31st, 2021. For recommendation number 2, it has not been implemented, but will be implemented by december 31st, 2021. Those were the only amendments. There are still responses for recommendations number r3, r4, r6, r7, and r8. They are blank on the resolution, as presented. Do you have proposed amendments to fill in those . Mar re. For recommendation number 3, that should say recommendation number 3 has not been implemented, but will be implemented. And supervisor gordon mar will a report no later than december 31st, 2019. And well direct the budget and legislative analyst to issue the completed report no later than december 31st, 2020. For recommendation number 4, the amendment says that it will not be implemented, because while funding for five host tender was allocated for fiscal year 2019 to 2020, both local and state level actions implementation of the recommendation in its entirety will depend on the appropriation actions of a future mayor and board of supervisors. And for recommendation number 6, it should state that it has not been implemented, but it will be implemented. And urge and the board urges the completion of a study for adding a saltwater pump station to be presented to the board of supervisors by no later than june 30th, 2021. For recommendation number 7, it has not been implemented, but it will be implemented and the board urges that a completed analysis be presented to the board of supervisors by no later than june 30th, 2020. For recommendation number 8, it has not been implemented, but it will be implemented and will analyze by june 30th, 2022, in coordination with the mayor, whether to propose a separate bond for the development of a high pressure, multisource seismically safe water system for those parts of the city that dont currently have one, a target date of completing construction by no later than june 30th, 2034. So those are the amendments. So i supervisor brown, i dont know if you have any questions . Supervisor brown no. Supervisor mar i would like to make a motion to adopt the the resolution as amended to the full board. And we file the hearing on this item. Clerk mr. Chair, because some of these response types for the recommendations indicate that there may be need for future reanalysis or evaluation of the implementation of the recommendations, it is the recommendation that the hearing file remain open or appropriate motion will be to continue it to the call of the chair, so agendaized in the future in order for the board and the committee to review the updates. Supervisor mar thank you for that. Yeah, so again i would move that we adopt the amendments. We recommend the resolution, as amended, to the full board. And that we continue the hearing to the call of the chair, so that we can we can have followup on these items, you know, as theyre being as progress is being made and theyre completed. So if we can take that without objection. Great. Thank you, everyone, for being here for this. And ill and all of your work on this important issue. [gavel] mr. Clerk, please call items 4 and 5 together. Clerk thank you, mr. Chair. Agenda item number 4, a hearing on the 20182019 civil garage work entitled improving continuity review for increased accountability. The 20182019 San Francisco civil grand jury continuity report. Agenda item number 5, a draft resolution on the finding and recommendations in the report. Supervisor mar thank you. So for this item, actually, mr. Harvey, i dont know if you had youre good . Yeah. Id like to invite back mr. Harvey , the floor person for the jury to provide opening remarks. Thank you, chair mar. 20182019 civil grand jury. Just want to briefly introduce this agenda item. So this item is about improving continuity review for increase being public accountability. So the goal here is to strengthen the watchdog function of the civil grand jury, by having proper systems in place. So youll see the language of a database to monitor findings and recommendations across terms. Really we want to make sure that the civil grand jury is serving every san franciscan and make sure its effective across terms as well. With that said, i would like to call up nona, russell, who is the chair for this report. Chairman mar, members of the board of supervisors. My name is nona russell and im here to present the 20182019 San Francisco civil grand jury continuity report on improving review for increased public accountability. Now as you know, california state law requires that all 58 counties impanel a civil grand jury to serve during each fiscal year. The civil grand jury investigates and reports on one or mores aspects of the citys departments where a group of citizen volunteers, most of whom have no prior grand jury experience. Fortunately for us, trainee sessions are arranged for us under a the auspices of the superior court and the assistance of the california and San Francisco grand grand ju association. Among the concepts that are presented to us, during our training, is the importance of a Continuity Committee in verifying verifying that the recommendations of prior grand juries receive appropriate responses. By the way, responses to the first presentation here i thought were rather good. This is a particularly important concept, since each grand jury term is one year. We have only one year which to select topics, complete research, interview the appropriate government officials and experts and make recommendations. Each published report includes a list of the elected officials or departments that are required to submit the responses to the findings and recommendations of the civil grand jury. And these are sent to the presiding judges of the superior court within 60 to 90 days, after the issuance of the reports. Now under section penal code 93. 5 a. For each finding, the response must agree with the finding or disagree with it wholly or partially and explain why. Similarly under the penal code, for each recommendation, the responding party must report one of four things. Number one, the recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the implemented action. Number two, the recommendation has not been implemented, but will be within a set timeframe. Number three, the recommendation requires further analysis with an explanation of what that analysis is, in preparation of suitable materials for discussion. That timeframe needs to be set and may not exceed six months from the date of publication of the civil grand jury report. Or the final option, number four, the recommendation will not be implemented because its not warranted or reasonable with an explanation. Our initial finding, first of all, was there was no continuity report published in the prior year. As a matter of fact, theres been no continuity report published since 20142015. Consequently, we reviewed the San Francisco civil grand jury reports that are published online. These date back to 1995 and 1996. Continuity reports were published in only 14 of the past 23 years. In one of those reports, 19971998, it was noted that many recommendations are either never commented upon or answered it or are answered incompletely. This observation has been made by multiple grand juries, including the current one. There have been several recommendations that Continuity Committee be named a Standing Committee that receives the initial responses to the prioryears recommendations. This hasnt happened. There have also been multiple attempts to set up a tracking system to verify that recommendations have received complete responses within the timeframe designated by the statute. Among the tracking recommendations that have been made was that the Mayors Office should develop a standardized protocol that responds to grand jury reports and requires its use by all city departments, offices and agencies. We havent identified a standardized process. Another recommendation has been the controller should provide the mayor and board of supervisors an ongoing, annual status report of the agreedtoen had been implemented civil grand jury recommendations and by San Francisco administrative code section 2410, this is required for fiscal manners beginning one year after the board of supervisors meeting. This has evolved in an audit of the responses of the previously three years only. It does not evaluate the appropriateness or the completeness of the responses. And finally, there was a recommendation of the board of supervisors should hold an annual hearing on all Outstanding Civil grand jury recommendations where the implementation was pending. This does not happen. So these problems are not limited to San Francisco, but followup problems are found in other counties. We were particularly interested in San Diego County, since its been conveyed to us, that they followup with the california past jurors association. We found that that particular review committee actually is chartered by the county. No such thing exists in our county. However, interestingly enough, it only looks up follows up on recommendations made by the county. And whether you know it or not, San Diego County includes multiple municipalities, besides the city of san diego. And this committee does not follow up on those for implementation. This history brings us to our current report. For the most part, responses to the civil grand jury findings and recommendations are submitted to the presiding judge, within the guidelines set by the penal code, thats within 60 or 90 days. The board of supervisors has frequently laid by one or two weeks. However, they have the additional requirement, as was mentioned, to hold public hearings and they generally submit their responses after those public hearings. In contrast, with the agencys performances with respect to initial responses, the civil grand jury found that many responses to recommendations lack an explanation or a stated timeframe for implementation or analysis or they have a stated timeframe that has expired. For instance, you mentioned timeframes for all of the additional analysis that the board of supervisors are going to make. Well, nobody follows up to see if you really did do that. Just wanted to point that out. Now the civil grand jury actually, in our review of the past three years, we found 72 such responses actually in the past four years. Thats 11. 9 of the total, a number of recommendations. 37 of them did not specify a timeframe for the implementation of the recommendation of the completion and analysis. And an additional 35 listed an expected implementation date that had expired. As of the most recent controller review. Its noteworthy that neither the california penal code nor the San Francisco administrative code mandate any followup after the initial receipt of the responses by the superior court. And after the public hearings by the board of supervisors, until subsequent followup is performed by the controller, 12 to 15 months after the initial recommendations are made. This gap is a significant period without documented activity on the recommendations. That gap, the turnover of civil grand juries, the irregularity of continuity reporting all contribute to inefficiency and diminished effectiveness of the civil grand jury. So were making some recommendations. Actually o