San Francisco County Grand Jury
2000-2001
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Parole Board appears to be in violation of the Brown Act. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a process or procedure be developed by the Sheriff's Office regarding the provisions of the Brown Act and their implementation as regards the County Parole Board. Required Response County Parole Board - 60 Days Sheriff - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finding: The Parole Board appears to be in violation of the Brown Act. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a process or procedure be developed by the Sheriff's Office regarding the provisions of the Brown Act and their implementation as regards the County Parole Board. Required Response County Parole Board - 60 Days Sheriff - 60 Days
F2:
As a county agency provided for in state law, the County Parole Board is not subject to any county laws regarding annual report requirements. Therefore, though there have been some worthy initiatives and positive outcomes for the County Parole Board, there is no method by which to tell the public about them. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the County Parole Board issue some type of statistical report on an annual basis. Required Response County Parole Board - 60 Days Sheriff - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Finding: As a county agency provided for in state law, the County Parole Board is not subject to any county laws regarding annual report requirements. Therefore, though there have been some worthy initiatives and positive outcomes for the County Parole Board, there is no method by which to tell the public about them. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the County Parole Board issue some type of statistical report on an annual basis. Required Response County Parole Board - 60 Days Sheriff - 60 Days
F3:
The vehicles used for warrant service are beginning to show their age. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that consideration be given to funding a new or more serviceable vehicle for the Alternative Programs Division. Required Response Sheriff - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY PAROLE BOARD RULES ATTACHMENT 2 SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ALTERNATE PROGRAMS DIVISION RESIDENTIAL COUNTY PAROLE ANNUAL REPORT YEAR 2000 ATTACHMENT 3 CITYWIDE CASE MANAGEMENT FORENSIC PROJECT FACT SHEET ATTACHMENT 4 ALTERNATE PROGRAMS DIVISION FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 SALARIES AND OVERTIME
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Finding: The vehicles used for warrant service are beginning to show their age. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that consideration be given to funding a new or more serviceable vehicle for the Alternative Programs Division. Required Response Sheriff - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY PAROLE BOARD RULES ATTACHMENT 2 SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ALTERNATE PROGRAMS DIVISION RESIDENTIAL COUNTY PAROLE ANNUAL REPORT YEAR 2000 ATTACHMENT 3 CITYWIDE CASE MANAGEMENT FORENSIC PROJECT FACT SHEET ATTACHMENT 4 ALTERNATE PROGRAMS DIVISION FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 SALARIES AND OVERTIME
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Many curb markings are faded and worn to a point where it is unclear if they are still active (see Attachment 2, Photo 1). In addition, yellow and white zones were observed in front of businesses that seem to have little need for them (see Attachment 2, Photo 2). Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that DPT have written procedures for an ongoing maintenance program to review, update and repaint curb markings, eliminating those no longer needed. This should be organized similarly to the DPW pothole program so that all areas are reviewed and adapted to the needs of the neighborhood. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finding: Many curb markings are faded and worn to a point where it is unclear if they are still active (see Attachment 2, Photo 1). In addition, yellow and white zones were observed in front of businesses that seem to have little need for them (see Attachment 2, Photo 2). Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that DPT have written procedures for an ongoing maintenance program to review, update and repaint curb markings, eliminating those no longer needed. This should be organized similarly to the DPW pothole program so that all areas are reviewed and adapted to the needs of the neighborhood. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
F2:
Many bus zones are sized for articulated and/or multi- bus use, when only a single bus size stop is required (see Attachment 2, Photo 3). In addition, several observations were made showing that the buses do not pull into spots designated, loading or unloading customers in street lanes. MUNI policy is that buses pull up to the curb where such space is provided. In some cases, this amount of space is no longer required. Recommendations: The CGJ recommends that DPT review bus zones and: Reduce the size of bus zones in order to free up needed parking spaces. Bus zones should be sized for only one bus unless they are terminal stops or service articulated or multi-bus use. Where possible, and in consultation with the Mayor's Office on Disability, increase the number of bulb and bar stops while reducing the size and number of painted bus zones. Evaluate the use of bus zones for car parking at the times when bus service has ceased (e.g. night and weekends), such as the #2 Clement and #53 Southern Heights bus routes. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days Municipal Railway - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Finding: Many bus zones are sized for articulated and/or multi- bus use, when only a single bus size stop is required (see Attachment 2, Photo 3). In addition, several observations were made showing that the buses do not pull into spots designated, loading or unloading customers in street lanes. MUNI policy is that buses pull up to the curb where such space is provided. In some cases, this amount of space is no longer required. Recommendations: The CGJ recommends that DPT review bus zones and: Reduce the size of bus zones in order to free up needed parking spaces. Bus zones should be sized for only one bus unless they are terminal stops or service articulated or multi-bus use. Where possible, and in consultation with the Mayor's Office on Disability, increase the number of bulb and bar stops while reducing the size and number of painted bus zones. Evaluate the use of bus zones for car parking at the times when bus service has ceased (e.g. night and weekends), such as the #2 Clement and #53 Southern Heights bus routes. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days Municipal Railway - 60 Days
F3:
Yellow and white zones are not being used properly. Many times delivery vehicles do not pull into open yellow zones and double-park while they unload, blocking traffic lanes (see Attachment 3, Photo 4). Recommendations: Regarding yellow and white zones, the CGJ recommends that DPT: Evaluate neighborhood commercial areas to determine which ones can be changed to early morning deliveries only (e.g. 6 a.m. to 12 noon) creating metered car parking from noon on. Concentrate enforcement effort on double-parked commercial vehicles. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Finding: Yellow and white zones are not being used properly. Many times delivery vehicles do not pull into open yellow zones and double-park while they unload, blocking traffic lanes (see Attachment 3, Photo 4). Recommendations: Regarding yellow and white zones, the CGJ recommends that DPT: Evaluate neighborhood commercial areas to determine which ones can be changed to early morning deliveries only (e.g. 6 a.m. to 12 noon) creating metered car parking from noon on. Concentrate enforcement effort on double-parked commercial vehicles. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
F4:
In many neighborhoods, angled parking can be accommodated (see Attachment 3, Photo 5). Recommendation: Expand and complete angled parking on streets where th appropriate. For example, the Noe Valley/24 Street Project was partially completed; the angled parking element remains incomplete. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Finding: In many neighborhoods, angled parking can be accommodated (see Attachment 3, Photo 5). Recommendation: Expand and complete angled parking on streets where th appropriate. For example, the Noe Valley/24 Street Project was partially completed; the angled parking element remains incomplete. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
F5:
Merchants associations have tried to work with DPT and the City to increase parking in their areas. However, not all these attempts have been successful. For example, there was tremendous effort on the part of the Noe Valley Merchants Association to get angled parking approved. However, after all this, the merchants association was told that angled parking could not be done. Recommendation: Establish a proactive ongoing program to meet with neighborhood merchants associations and residential groups to discuss parking and traffic concerns specific to individual areas. DPT should coordinate open forums to discuss solutions to commercial and residential parking problems. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Finding: Merchants associations have tried to work with DPT and the City to increase parking in their areas. However, not all these attempts have been successful. For example, there was tremendous effort on the part of the Noe Valley Merchants Association to get angled parking approved. However, after all this, the merchants association was told that angled parking could not be done. Recommendation: Establish a proactive ongoing program to meet with neighborhood merchants associations and residential groups to discuss parking and traffic concerns specific to individual areas. DPT should coordinate open forums to discuss solutions to commercial and residential parking problems. Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
F6:
In residential areas motorcycles sometimes park parallel to curbs, when, if parked perpendicular to curbs, more parking space would be made available. Recommendation: Where not already in place, develop regulations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors that motorcycles park perpendicular to the curb and make it illegal for motorcycles to parallel park (see Attachment 3, Photo 6). Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Finding: In residential areas motorcycles sometimes park parallel to curbs, when, if parked perpendicular to curbs, more parking space would be made available. Recommendation: Where not already in place, develop regulations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors that motorcycles park perpendicular to the curb and make it illegal for motorcycles to parallel park (see Attachment 3, Photo 6). Required Response Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days
F7:
Neighborhood parking could be alleviated to some extent by allowing partial driveway parking that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic. However, Section 22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code currently does not permit this option. Recommendation: Consider the Parking and Traffic Commission recommendation that the Board in turn recommend to the California State Legislature an amendment to the California Vehicle Code to allow local jurisdictions to set standards to allow parking in driveway areas, but which also considers the ADA and any health or safety risks. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days ATTACHMENT 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SAMPLE DATABASE FOR STREET POTHOLE MANAGEMENT ATTACHMENT 2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF CURB MARKING ISSUES 1. Northpoint and Broderick Streets, faded red zone. 2. Greenwich and Pierce Streets, questionable need for yellow zone. 3. Union Street, oversized red zone. 1 - Northpoint & Broderick 2 - Greenwich Street & Pierce 3 - Union / Stockton & Columbus ATTACHMENT 3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PARKING ISSUES 4. Stockton Street, truck double parked when open loading zone available. th 5. Castro and 24 Streets, street widened for angled parking, but never implemented. 6. Toledo and Avila Streets, motorcycle parallel parked. 4 - Stockton Street 5 - Widened at 24th & Castro 6 - Toledo & Avila
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Finding: Neighborhood parking could be alleviated to some extent by allowing partial driveway parking that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic. However, Section 22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code currently does not permit this option. Recommendation: Consider the Parking and Traffic Commission recommendation that the Board in turn recommend to the California State Legislature an amendment to the California Vehicle Code to allow local jurisdictions to set standards to allow parking in driveway areas, but which also considers the ADA and any health or safety risks. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days ATTACHMENT 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SAMPLE DATABASE FOR STREET POTHOLE MANAGEMENT ATTACHMENT 2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF CURB MARKING ISSUES
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City establish an annual certification process that enables a nonprofit organization to contract with the City. The CGJ further recommends that this certification should enable a nonprofit organization to have to submit required financial, insurance and legal forms once per year, and that a central location be established for commonly required documentation that can be shared by all City departments. Required Response Department of Administrative Services - 60 Days Purchasing Department - 60 Days
R2:
Standard formats and reporting forms be used for all invoices, contracts, requests for proposals, budgets, and other similar documents, particularly for funds drawn from the City General Fund. Additionally, the CGJ recommends that nonprofit organizations be able to file reports electronically. Required Response Controller Department of Administrative Services - 60 Days Purchasing Department - 60 Days
R3:
Nonprofit organizations receive their funding within 30 days from submitting accurate invoices. Required Response Controller - 60 Days
R4:
The Department of Administrative Services develop a master list identifying each contract that is awarded to nonprofit organizations. The CGJ further recommends that the list be updated in real-time, but no later than quarterly. Required Response Department of Administrative Services - 60 Days Purchasing Department - 60 Days
R5:
The City re-establish and maintain the working group established to review contracting procedures for awarding and administering contracts with nonprofit organizations. Required Response Department of Administrative Services - 60 Days Purchasing Department - 60 Days
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
San Francisco is not receiving tax money due it from unregistered boats. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the Assessor's Office and SFPD reach an agreement on the best method to ensure that boats are registered and the appropriate tax paid. We further recommend that the Board of Supervisors request documentation of the solution adopted. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Assessor - 60 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finding: San Francisco is not receiving tax money due it from unregistered boats. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the Assessor's Office and SFPD reach an agreement on the best method to ensure that boats are registered and the appropriate tax paid. We further recommend that the Board of Supervisors request documentation of the solution adopted. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Assessor - 60 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days
F2:
A large number of boats have been known to congregate in McCovey Cove during events at PacBell Park. Not all boats observe safe boating laws at these times, which is cause for concern due to the number of boats in the area. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that SFPD management study the need for a police presence in McCovey Cove during these activities, possibly using 10-B program funds to assure appropriate coverage. Required Response San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Finding: A large number of boats have been known to congregate in McCovey Cove during events at PacBell Park. Not all boats observe safe boating laws at these times, which is cause for concern due to the number of boats in the area. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that SFPD management study the need for a police presence in McCovey Cove during these activities, possibly using 10-B program funds to assure appropriate coverage. Required Response San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days
F3:
There is a recent increase in development along the San Francisco waterfront, with more being planned. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that SFPD evaluate the Marine Unit in light of recent and planned port development to ensure that adequate staffing is provided. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Finding: There is a recent increase in development along the San Francisco waterfront, with more being planned. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that SFPD evaluate the Marine Unit in light of recent and planned port development to ensure that adequate staffing is provided. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
While planning appears to be in place to adequately determine repair and upgrade priorities, it is not yet clear how the City or the PUC intends to fund all necessary work. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the PUC develop a financial strategy for funding necessary infrastructure repairs and upgrade. Required Response: Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finding: While planning appears to be in place to adequately determine repair and upgrade priorities, it is not yet clear how the City or the PUC intends to fund all necessary work. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the PUC develop a financial strategy for funding necessary infrastructure repairs and upgrade. Required Response: Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
F2:
Phase 2 of the Reliability Study appears to not consider the Foothills faults or the Sierra Nevada frontal fault system. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the PUC review the Phase 2 Study to verify that these fault systems have been properly evaluated. Required Response: Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Finding: Phase 2 of the Reliability Study appears to not consider the Foothills faults or the Sierra Nevada frontal fault system. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the PUC review the Phase 2 Study to verify that these fault systems have been properly evaluated. Required Response: Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
F3:
Reservoir dam face inundation maps are not readily available and are very likely out-of-date. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that reservoir inundation maps be reviewed, revised, and distributed, with other actions taken as necessary in accordance with California Government Code 8589.5. Required Response: Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Finding: Reservoir dam face inundation maps are not readily available and are very likely out-of-date. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that reservoir inundation maps be reviewed, revised, and distributed, with other actions taken as necessary in accordance with California Government Code 8589.5. Required Response: Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
F4:
The OES Emergency Operations Plan, Annex A, , needs updating with respect to reservoir inundation maps and other aspects of Government Code 8589.5. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that Emergency Operations Plan, Annex A, be updated with reservoir inundation maps information, once available from the PUC and that other actions be taken as specified in Government Code 8589.5. Required Response: Office of Emergency Services - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Finding: The OES Emergency Operations Plan, Annex A, , needs updating with respect to reservoir inundation maps and other aspects of Government Code 8589.5. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that Emergency Operations Plan, Annex A, be updated with reservoir inundation maps information, once available from the PUC and that other actions be taken as specified in Government Code 8589.5. Required Response: Office of Emergency Services - 60 Days
F5:
Until such time as they are repaired, several City water tanks are at risk of overturn, with subsequent flooding, in the event of an earthquake. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the PUC notify persons living near the affected tanks of the possibility of overturn and subsequent flooding in the event of an earthquake. Required Response: Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Finding: Until such time as they are repaired, several City water tanks are at risk of overturn, with subsequent flooding, in the event of an earthquake. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the PUC notify persons living near the affected tanks of the possibility of overturn and subsequent flooding in the event of an earthquake. Required Response: Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days
F6:
Recreation on City reservoir roofs is problematic due to problems with contamination of water. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends the immediate cessation of the use of the City reservoirs for recreational purposes due to the potential for contamination and other potential adverse effects. An alternate use for the reservoir roofs would be to install solar panels. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days Recreation and Parks Department - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 DAMS, RESERVOIRS, AND SIGNIFICANT TANKS Division County Dam Reservoir Inundation Map Hetch Tuolumne O'Shaughnessy Hetch YES Hetchy Dam Hetchy Reservoir Hetch Upper Usually dry; N/A Hetchy Moccasin prevents Creek Dam debris intrusion. Hetch Moccasin Unknown - YES Hetchy Lower Dam Afterbay? Hetch Lake Eleanor Lake YES Hetchy Dam Eleanor Reservoir Hetch Early Intake Early Intake YES Hetchy Dam Reservoir Hetch Priest Dam Priest YES Hetchy Reservoir Hetch Cherry Valley Lake Lloyd YES Hetchy Dam Reservoir (a.k.a. Cherry Lake) Water Alameda James H. San YES Supply and Turner Dam Antonio Treatment Reservoir (WS&T) - South Bay WS&T - Calaveras Dam Calaveras YES South Bay Reservoir WS&T - San Mateo (Lower) Crystal Crystal YES Peninsula Springs Dam Springs Reservoir WS&T - Pilarcitos Dam Pilarcitos YES Peninsula Reservoir WS&T - San Andreas San YES Peninsula Dam Andreas Reservoir WS&T - Stone Dam Stone Dam N/A; dam Peninsula Reservoir mostly silted in City San Balboa Unfinished - Distribution Francisco Reservoir currently used Division for parking (CDD) CDD Sunset NO/but on South ABAG website Basin Reservoir CDD Sunset NO/but on North Basin ABAG website Reservoir CDD Sutro NO/but on Has Reservoir ABAG website recreation on roof CDD University NO/but on Mound ABAG website South Basin Reservoir CDD University NO/but on Mound ABAG website North Basin Reservoir CDD Stanford NO/but on Heights ABAG website Reservoir CDD College Hill Reservoir CDD Francisco not in service Reservoir CDD Lombard Has Reservoir recreation on roof CDD Potrero Heights Reservoir CDD Hunters Point Reservoir CDD Summit Reservoir CDD Merced Has Manor recreation Reservoir on roof CDD San Forest Hill Francisco (100,000 Tanks and 300,000 gal) CDD Forest Knolls CDD La Grande CDD Lincoln Park CDD McLaren Park CDD Mount Davidson CDD Potrero Heights ATTACHMENT 2 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 8589.3- 8589.5 8589.3. (a) A person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within a special flood hazard area (any type Zone "A" or "V") designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or the transferor if he or she is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a special flood hazard area. (b) Disclosure is required pursuant to this section only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The transferor, or the transferor's agent, has actual knowledge that the property is within a special flood hazard area. (2) The local jurisdiction has compiled a list, by parcel, of properties that are within the special flood hazard area and a notice has been posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the parcel list. (c) In all transactions that are subject to Section 1103 of the Civil Code, the disclosure required by subdivision (a) of this section shall be provided by either of the following means: (1) The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code. (2) The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code. (d) For purposes of the disclosure required by this section, the following persons shall not be deemed agents of the transferor: (1) Persons specified in Section 1103.11 of the Civil Code. (2) Persons acting under a power of sale regulated by Section 2924 of the Civil Code. (e) Section 1103.13 of the Civil Code shall apply to this section. (f) The specification of items for disclosure in this section does not limit or abridge any obligation for disclosure created by any other provision of law or that may exist in order to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer transaction. (g) A notice shall be posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the special flood hazard area map, any relevant Letters of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and any parcel list compiled by the local jurisdiction. 8589.4. (a) A person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within an area of potential flooding shown on an inundation map designated pursuant to Section 8589.5, or the transferor if he or she is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within an area of potential flooding. (b) Disclosure is required pursuant to this section only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The transferor, or the transferor's agent, has actual knowledge that the property is within an inundation area. (2) The local jurisdiction has compiled a list, by parcel, of properties that are within the inundation area and a notice has been posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the parcel list. (c) In all transactions that are subject to Section 1103 of the Civil Code, the disclosure required by subdivision (a) of this section shall be provided by either of the following means: (1) The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code. (2) The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code. (d) For purposes of the disclosure required by this section, the following persons shall not be deemed agents of the transferor: (1) Persons specified in Section 1103.11 of the Civil Code. (2) Persons acting under a power of sale regulated by Section 2924 of the Civil Code. (e) Section 1103.13 of the Civil Code shall apply to this section. (f) The specification of items for disclosure in this section does not limit or abridge any obligation for disclosure created by any other provision of law or that may exist in order to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer transaction. 8589.5. (a) Inundation maps showing the areas of potential flooding in the event of sudden or total failure of any dam, the partial or total failure of which the Office of Emergency Services determines, after consultation with the Department of Water Resources, would result in death or personal injury, shall be prepared and submitted as provided in this subdivision within six months after the effective date of this section, unless the time for submission of those maps is extended for reasonable cause by the Office of Emergency Services. The local governmental organization, utility, or other owner of any dam so designated shall submit to the Office of Emergency Services one map that shall delineate potential flood zones that could result in the event of dam failure when the reservoir is at full capacity, or if the local governmental organization, utility, or other owner of any dam shall determine it to be desirable, he or she shall submit three maps that shall delineate potential flood zones that could result in the event of dam failure when the reservoir is at full capacity, at median- storage level, and at normally low-storage level. After submission of copies of the map or maps, the Office of Emergency Services shall review the map or maps, and shall return any map or maps that do not meet the requirements of this subdivision, together with recommendations relative to conforming to the requirements. Maps rejected by the Office of Emergency Services shall be revised to conform to those recommendations and resubmitted. The Office of Emergency Services shall keep on file those maps that conform to the provisions of this subdivision. Maps approved pursuant to this subdivision shall also be kept on file with the Department of Water Resources. The owner of a dam shall submit final copies of those maps to the Office of Emergency Services that shall immediately submit identical copies to the appropriate public safety agency of any city, county, or city and county likely to be affected. (b) Based upon a review of inundation maps submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) or based upon information gained by an onsite inspection and consultation with the affected local jurisdiction when the requirement for an inundation map is waived pursuant to subdivision (d), the Office of Emergency Services shall designate areas within which death or personal injury would, in its determination, result from the partial or total failure of a dam. The appropriate public safety agencies of any city, county, or city and county, the territory of which includes any of those areas, shall adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation and control of populated areas below those dams. The Office of Emergency Services shall review the procedures to determine whether adequate public safety measures exist for the evacuation and control of populated areas below the dams, and shall make recommendations with regard to the adequacy of those procedures to the concerned public safety agency. In conducting the review, the Office of Emergency Services shall consult with appropriate state and local agencies. Emergency procedures specified in this subdivision shall conform to local needs, and may be required to include any of the following elements or any other appropriate element, in the discretion of the Office of Emergency Services: (1) delineation of the area to be evacuated; (2) routes to be used; (3) traffic control measures; (4) shelters to be activated for the care of the evacuees; (5) methods for the movement of people without their own transportation; (6) identification of particular areas or facilities in the flood zones that will not require evacuation because of their location on high ground or similar circumstances; (7) identification and development of special procedures for the evacuation and care of people from unique institutions; (8) procedures for the perimeter and interior security of the area, including such things as passes, identification requirements, and antilooting patrols; (9) procedures for the lifting of the evacuation and reentry of the area; and (10) details of which organizations are responsible for these functions and the material and personnel resources required. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage each agency that prepares emergency procedures to establish a procedure for their review every two years. (c) "Dam," as used in this section, has the same meaning as specified in Sections 6002, 6003, and 6004 of the Water Code. (d) Under certain exceptional conditions as follows, the Office of Emergency Services may waive the requirement for an inundation map: (1) Where the effects of potential inundation in terms of death or personal injury, as determined through onsite inspection by the Office of Emergency Services in consultation with the affected local jurisdictions, can be ascertained without an inundation map; and (2) Where adequate evacuation procedures can be developed without benefit of an inundation map. (e) If development should occur in any exempted area after a waiver has been granted, the local jurisdiction shall notify the Office of Emergency Services of that development. All waivers shall be reevaluated every two years by the Office of Emergency Services. (f) A notice shall be posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the map, and of any information received by the county subsequent to the receipt of the map regarding changes to inundation areas within the county. ATTACHMENT 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS WEBSITE INFORMATION San Francisco Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map NOTE: If multiple reservoirs are listed in the legend under one color, this indicates that the area shown with that color will be inundated if ANY of those reservoirs fail. It does NOT indicate that all of the reservoirs must fail at the same time in order to inundate the area. Directions to Access Inundation Maps in color on Internet: (1) Access the Association of Bay Area Governments website (www.abag.ca.gov). (2) Click on "Earthquakes" heading in left-hand column. (3) Click on "Dam Failure" heading in right-hand column. (4) Click on "View Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Maps". (5) Scroll to "San Francisco", then click "View Map". ATTACHMENT 4 SAN FRANCISCO EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN ANNEX A, , "RESERVOIR FAILURE" ATTACHMENT 5 LETTER DATED DECEMBER 13, 2000 FROM JOHN MULLANE, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION GENERAL MANAGER TO JOHN EVERETT, SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL GRAND JURY
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Finding: Recreation on City reservoir roofs is problematic due to problems with contamination of water. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends the immediate cessation of the use of the City reservoirs for recreational purposes due to the potential for contamination and other potential adverse effects. An alternate use for the reservoir roofs would be to install solar panels. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Public Utilities Commission - 60 Days Recreation and Parks Department - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 DAMS, RESERVOIRS, AND SIGNIFICANT TANKS Division County Dam Reservoir Inundation Map Hetch Tuolumne O'Shaughnessy Hetch YES Hetchy Dam Hetchy Reservoir Hetch Upper Usually dry; N/A Hetchy Moccasin prevents Creek Dam debris intrusion. Hetch Moccasin Unknown - YES Hetchy Lower Dam Afterbay? Hetch Lake Eleanor Lake YES Hetchy Dam Eleanor Reservoir Hetch Early Intake Early Intake YES Hetchy Dam Reservoir Hetch Priest Dam Priest YES Hetchy Reservoir Hetch Cherry Valley Lake Lloyd YES Hetchy Dam Reservoir (a.k.a. Cherry Lake) Water Alameda James H. San YES Supply and Turner Dam Antonio Treatment Reservoir (WS&T) - South Bay WS&T - Calaveras Dam Calaveras YES South Bay Reservoir WS&T - San Mateo (Lower) Crystal Crystal YES Peninsula Springs Dam Springs Reservoir WS&T - Pilarcitos Dam Pilarcitos YES Peninsula Reservoir WS&T - San Andreas San YES Peninsula Dam Andreas Reservoir WS&T - Stone Dam Stone Dam N/A; dam Peninsula Reservoir mostly silted in City San Balboa Unfinished - Distribution Francisco Reservoir currently used Division for parking (CDD) CDD Sunset NO/but on South ABAG website Basin Reservoir CDD Sunset NO/but on North Basin ABAG website Reservoir CDD Sutro NO/but on Has Reservoir ABAG website recreation on roof CDD University NO/but on Mound ABAG website South Basin Reservoir CDD University NO/but on Mound ABAG website North Basin Reservoir CDD Stanford NO/but on Heights ABAG website Reservoir CDD College Hill Reservoir CDD Francisco not in service Reservoir CDD Lombard Has Reservoir recreation on roof CDD Potrero Heights Reservoir CDD Hunters Point Reservoir CDD Summit Reservoir CDD Merced Has Manor recreation Reservoir on roof CDD San Forest Hill Francisco (100,000 Tanks and 300,000 gal) CDD Forest Knolls CDD La Grande CDD Lincoln Park CDD McLaren Park CDD Mount Davidson CDD Potrero Heights ATTACHMENT 2 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 8589.3- 8589.5 8589.3. (a) A person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within a special flood hazard area (any type Zone "A" or "V") designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or the transferor if he or she is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within a special flood hazard area. (b) Disclosure is required pursuant to this section only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The transferor, or the transferor's agent, has actual knowledge that the property is within a special flood hazard area. (2) The local jurisdiction has compiled a list, by parcel, of properties that are within the special flood hazard area and a notice has been posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the parcel list. (c) In all transactions that are subject to Section 1103 of the Civil Code, the disclosure required by subdivision (a) of this section shall be provided by either of the following means: (1) The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code. (2) The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code. (d) For purposes of the disclosure required by this section, the following persons shall not be deemed agents of the transferor: (1) Persons specified in Section 1103.11 of the Civil Code. (2) Persons acting under a power of sale regulated by Section 2924 of the Civil Code. (e) Section 1103.13 of the Civil Code shall apply to this section. (f) The specification of items for disclosure in this section does not limit or abridge any obligation for disclosure created by any other provision of law or that may exist in order to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer transaction. (g) A notice shall be posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the special flood hazard area map, any relevant Letters of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and any parcel list compiled by the local jurisdiction. 8589.4. (a) A person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within an area of potential flooding shown on an inundation map designated pursuant to Section 8589.5, or the transferor if he or she is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is located within an area of potential flooding. (b) Disclosure is required pursuant to this section only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The transferor, or the transferor's agent, has actual knowledge that the property is within an inundation area. (2) The local jurisdiction has compiled a list, by parcel, of properties that are within the inundation area and a notice has been posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the parcel list. (c) In all transactions that are subject to Section 1103 of the Civil Code, the disclosure required by subdivision (a) of this section shall be provided by either of the following means: (1) The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code. (2) The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code. (d) For purposes of the disclosure required by this section, the following persons shall not be deemed agents of the transferor: (1) Persons specified in Section 1103.11 of the Civil Code. (2) Persons acting under a power of sale regulated by Section 2924 of the Civil Code. (e) Section 1103.13 of the Civil Code shall apply to this section. (f) The specification of items for disclosure in this section does not limit or abridge any obligation for disclosure created by any other provision of law or that may exist in order to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer transaction. 8589.5. (a) Inundation maps showing the areas of potential flooding in the event of sudden or total failure of any dam, the partial or total failure of which the Office of Emergency Services determines, after consultation with the Department of Water Resources, would result in death or personal injury, shall be prepared and submitted as provided in this subdivision within six months after the effective date of this section, unless the time for submission of those maps is extended for reasonable cause by the Office of Emergency Services. The local governmental organization, utility, or other owner of any dam so designated shall submit to the Office of Emergency Services one map that shall delineate potential flood zones that could result in the event of dam failure when the reservoir is at full capacity, or if the local governmental organization, utility, or other owner of any dam shall determine it to be desirable, he or she shall submit three maps that shall delineate potential flood zones that could result in the event of dam failure when the reservoir is at full capacity, at median- storage level, and at normally low-storage level. After submission of copies of the map or maps, the Office of Emergency Services shall review the map or maps, and shall return any map or maps that do not meet the requirements of this subdivision, together with recommendations relative to conforming to the requirements. Maps rejected by the Office of Emergency Services shall be revised to conform to those recommendations and resubmitted. The Office of Emergency Services shall keep on file those maps that conform to the provisions of this subdivision. Maps approved pursuant to this subdivision shall also be kept on file with the Department of Water Resources. The owner of a dam shall submit final copies of those maps to the Office of Emergency Services that shall immediately submit identical copies to the appropriate public safety agency of any city, county, or city and county likely to be affected. (b) Based upon a review of inundation maps submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) or based upon information gained by an onsite inspection and consultation with the affected local jurisdiction when the requirement for an inundation map is waived pursuant to subdivision (d), the Office of Emergency Services shall designate areas within which death or personal injury would, in its determination, result from the partial or total failure of a dam. The appropriate public safety agencies of any city, county, or city and county, the territory of which includes any of those areas, shall adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation and control of populated areas below those dams. The Office of Emergency Services shall review the procedures to determine whether adequate public safety measures exist for the evacuation and control of populated areas below the dams, and shall make recommendations with regard to the adequacy of those procedures to the concerned public safety agency. In conducting the review, the Office of Emergency Services shall consult with appropriate state and local agencies. Emergency procedures specified in this subdivision shall conform to local needs, and may be required to include any of the following elements or any other appropriate element, in the discretion of the Office of Emergency Services: (1) delineation of the area to be evacuated; (2) routes to be used; (3) traffic control measures; (4) shelters to be activated for the care of the evacuees; (5) methods for the movement of people without their own transportation; (6) identification of particular areas or facilities in the flood zones that will not require evacuation because of their location on high ground or similar circumstances; (7) identification and development of special procedures for the evacuation and care of people from unique institutions; (8) procedures for the perimeter and interior security of the area, including such things as passes, identification requirements, and antilooting patrols; (9) procedures for the lifting of the evacuation and reentry of the area; and (10) details of which organizations are responsible for these functions and the material and personnel resources required. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage each agency that prepares emergency procedures to establish a procedure for their review every two years. (c) "Dam," as used in this section, has the same meaning as specified in Sections 6002, 6003, and 6004 of the Water Code. (d) Under certain exceptional conditions as follows, the Office of Emergency Services may waive the requirement for an inundation map: (1) Where the effects of potential inundation in terms of death or personal injury, as determined through onsite inspection by the Office of Emergency Services in consultation with the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The number of Special Assistants and the related salary costs has grown rapidly with very little budgetary oversight. Reports from the City Controller's Office, Budget Analyst and the DHR show the growth of salaries from December 1995 from $15.6 million to approximately $48.2 million in April 2001. The number of Special Assistant positions has increased from 240 to 634 in the same time period. The current average salary is approximately $75,000 per year. Some Special Assistant salaries are in excess of $100,000. The CGJ recognizes that recently the Board of Supervisors has begun to address the issue of Special Assistants. The Board of Supervisors should take a more active role in the control of expenditures for Special Assistant categories during their budgetary review process. At the budget review time the Board of Supervisors should place a limit on the total number of Special Assistant jobs and a total budget limit for these jobs. Recommendations: a. For the 2002 budget, the Board of Supervisors place a limit for total Special Assistant salaries. Any budgetary overruns in this category would have to have Board of Supervisors approval on a case-by-case basis. b. The Board of Supervisors approve each request for Special Assistant positions with base salaries above $100,000 per year. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finding: The number of Special Assistants and the related salary costs has grown rapidly with very little budgetary oversight. Reports from the City Controller's Office, Budget Analyst and the DHR show the growth of salaries from December 1995 from $15.6 million to approximately $48.2 million in April 2001. The number of Special Assistant positions has increased from 240 to 634 in the same time period. The current average salary is approximately $75,000 per year. Some Special Assistant salaries are in excess of $100,000. The CGJ recognizes that recently the Board of Supervisors has begun to address the issue of Special Assistants. The Board of Supervisors should take a more active role in the control of expenditures for Special Assistant categories during their budgetary review process. At the budget review time the Board of Supervisors should place a limit on the total number of Special Assistant jobs and a total budget limit for these jobs. Recommendations: a. For the 2002 budget, the Board of Supervisors place a limit for total Special Assistant salaries. Any budgetary overruns in this category would have to have Board of Supervisors approval on a case-by-case basis. b. The Board of Supervisors approve each request for Special Assistant positions with base salaries above $100,000 per year. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
F2:
Newspaper articles (SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Independent), public testimony before the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors and other testimony and documents received by the CGJ show a public perception that the Special Assistant category is being used to provide "patronage and political pay back" jobs. There has also been public and private testimony that some Special Assistants have been pressured to campaign for elected officials. Recommendations: . The Ethics Commission review the policies governing political activities by city employees. The Commission should promulgate guidelines and conduct periodic reviews to insure there is neither coercion of employees nor improper political influence in the workplace and make recommendations to Board of Supervisors for consideration and adoption. a. The Board of Supervisors commission an independent audit of the Special Assistant hires employed in the last five years. The audit should focus its efforts on the request process (by department heads), the approval system (DHR and Civil Service Commission), hiring process (department heads), qualifications of hired personnel, job function and actual duties performed. The audit could concentrate its efforts on those jobs with salary levels above $75,000 per year. b. The Board of Supervisors also review the charters of similar size cities to evaluate how the hiring and administration of non- civil service employees are handled. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days (for Recommendations 2.b, 2.c.) Ethics Commission - 60 Days (for Recommendation 2.a.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Finding: Newspaper articles (SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Independent), public testimony before the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors and other testimony and documents received by the CGJ show a public perception that the Special Assistant category is being used to provide "patronage and political pay back" jobs. There has also been public and private testimony that some Special Assistants have been pressured to campaign for elected officials. Recommendations: . The Ethics Commission review the policies governing political activities by city employees. The Commission should promulgate guidelines and conduct periodic reviews to insure there is neither coercion of employees nor improper political influence in the workplace and make recommendations to Board of Supervisors for consideration and adoption. a. The Board of Supervisors commission an independent audit of the Special Assistant hires employed in the last five years. The audit should focus its efforts on the request process (by department heads), the approval system (DHR and Civil Service Commission), hiring process (department heads), qualifications of hired personnel, job function and actual duties performed. The audit could concentrate its efforts on those jobs with salary levels above $75,000 per year. b. The Board of Supervisors also review the charters of similar size cities to evaluate how the hiring and administration of non- civil service employees are handled. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days (for Recommendations 2.b, 2.c.) Ethics Commission - 60 Days (for Recommendation 2.a.)
F3:
City Charter Section 10.104 describes the 2% rule. This rule apparently establishes the number of employees exempt from civil service guidelines in relation to the total number of city employees. The language of this statute is ambiguous and is subject to misinterpretation The DHR, which processes exempt employee Special Assistant positions, and the Civil Service Commission, which approves them, treat the 2% rule as a minimum rather than a maximum. This is evident by statements made by and the actions of DHR management personnel that there is essentially a 2% floor on the hiring of exempt personnel. Charter Section 10.104, by its nature, should provide limits to expenditures and activities of city government. Section 10.104, by its implementation, does not achieve that end. The Civil Service Commission also interprets this Charter Section in such a manner that they must explicitly approve hires above the 2% cap after review. Key management personnel in DHR believe that if the requested job positions above the 2% level meet all the requirements of an exempt position then the Civil Service Commission must by Charter automatically approve the position. We found no evidence that the Civil Service Commission ever rejected a request for a Special Assistant position. The City Attorney provided us with an interpretation of Charter Section 10.104. It was vague and ambiguous (Attachment 3). Recommendations: . The Board of Supervisors prepare an amendment to Charter Section 10.104 to clarify it and present this amendment to the voters. The amendment should specifically provide a cap to Special Assistant hires. a. The Civil Service Commission modify Civil Service Rule 114.45.1 to require written approval by the Board of Supervisors for each Special Assistant hired above the 2% cap. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days (for Recommendation 3.a.) Civil Service Commission - 60 Days (for Recommendation 3.b.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Finding: City Charter Section 10.104 describes the 2% rule. This rule apparently establishes the number of employees exempt from civil service guidelines in relation to the total number of city employees. The language of this statute is ambiguous and is subject to misinterpretation The DHR, which processes exempt employee Special Assistant positions, and the Civil Service Commission, which approves them, treat the 2% rule as a minimum rather than a maximum. This is evident by statements made by and the actions of DHR management personnel that there is essentially a 2% floor on the hiring of exempt personnel. Charter Section 10.104, by its nature, should provide limits to expenditures and activities of city government. Section 10.104, by its implementation, does not achieve that end. The Civil Service Commission also interprets this Charter Section in such a manner that they must explicitly approve hires above the 2% cap after review. Key management personnel in DHR believe that if the requested job positions above the 2% level meet all the requirements of an exempt position then the Civil Service Commission must by Charter automatically approve the position. We found no evidence that the Civil Service Commission ever rejected a request for a Special Assistant position. The City Attorney provided us with an interpretation of Charter Section 10.104. It was vague and ambiguous (Attachment 3). Recommendations: . The Board of Supervisors prepare an amendment to Charter Section 10.104 to clarify it and present this amendment to the voters. The amendment should specifically provide a cap to Special Assistant hires. a. The Civil Service Commission modify Civil Service Rule 114.45.1 to require written approval by the Board of Supervisors for each Special Assistant hired above the 2% cap. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days (for Recommendation 3.a.) Civil Service Commission - 60 Days (for Recommendation 3.b.)
F4:
The DHR testifies that it does not have the responsibility to maintain centralized records about employee performance evaluations. It is a recognized good business practice to have centralized records of performance reviews and evaluations of employees. The DHR has not established procedures, files or data documentation systems for the collection and maintenance of these records. Employee reviews, evaluations and record keeping are left to the discretion of individual department heads without any apparent oversight by DHR. Only limited DHR systems are in place to track job classification and status of exempt employees after initial hiring. DHR's records show inconsistencies in the level of documentation accompanying requests for Special Assistants. The amount of documentation submitted and accepted as adequate by DHR varies by department. Written and verbal presentation by the DHR management affirms their belief that Charter Section 10.104 provides a floor of 2% for exempt hires and not a ceiling. By administering the Charter Section in this manner the city will almost always be above that level. Recommendations: . The DHR treat Section 10.104, in the City Charter as a limitation to the number of Special Assistants authorized. a. The DHR establish oversight and maintain records of written reviews and evaluations for all exempt personnel. b. The DHR maintain personnel files containing all job reclassification documentation. c. The DHR review and update its presently used guidelines for exempt personnel to assure that all position requests are equally evaluated. d. A written procedure and database needs to be established to track and control the movement of exempt employees from job to job and the duration of an approved position. Required Response Department of Human Resources - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Finding: The DHR testifies that it does not have the responsibility to maintain centralized records about employee performance evaluations. It is a recognized good business practice to have centralized records of performance reviews and evaluations of employees. The DHR has not established procedures, files or data documentation systems for the collection and maintenance of these records. Employee reviews, evaluations and record keeping are left to the discretion of individual department heads without any apparent oversight by DHR. Only limited DHR systems are in place to track job classification and status of exempt employees after initial hiring. DHR's records show inconsistencies in the level of documentation accompanying requests for Special Assistants. The amount of documentation submitted and accepted as adequate by DHR varies by department. Written and verbal presentation by the DHR management affirms their belief that Charter Section 10.104 provides a floor of 2% for exempt hires and not a ceiling. By administering the Charter Section in this manner the city will almost always be above that level. Recommendations: . The DHR treat Section 10.104, in the City Charter as a limitation to the number of Special Assistants authorized. a. The DHR establish oversight and maintain records of written reviews and evaluations for all exempt personnel. b. The DHR maintain personnel files containing all job reclassification documentation. c. The DHR review and update its presently used guidelines for exempt personnel to assure that all position requests are equally evaluated. d. A written procedure and database needs to be established to track and control the movement of exempt employees from job to job and the duration of an approved position. Required Response Department of Human Resources - 60 Days
F5:
We interviewed a small number of Special Assistants. One purpose of these interviews was to get the employees' perspectives of job description, performance standards, the work evaluation process and promotion procedures. All witnesses were clear on the scope of their respective jobs and most could articulate general performance goals. Those participating in the pay for performance program were clear in the area of goals. Most stated that they received job evaluations from their supervisors although one did not know the name of the supervisor. Answers were mixed to questions of how individuals applied for their jobs. It was unclear if the witnesses actually went through an application process. Some were not sure how they received promotions. Based on information received by the CGJ that some Special Assistants were used in political campaigns, witnesses were also asked about their involvement in elections. All witnesses admitted to some campaigning but all stated it was not on public time. Some of the subpoenaed witnesses testified that the mayor's letter had influenced them to decline our informal invitation. One witness stated he did not initially appear in response to our letter because he "didn't feel like it". One witness refused to answer some questions. All but one of the witnesses stated they had consulted a Deputy City Attorney about our original informal request to appear as a witness. All but one testified that a Deputy City Attorney advised them that it was their option to appear. It should be noted that all witnesses were sworn and admonished (Attachment 4) not to discuss the questions presented them in the hearing. This is done to preserve the integrity of CGJ investigations. Later a news article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle discussing privileged matters from the hearing. The article referenced witnesses as the source of the information. Recommendation: The City Attorney issue a letter to all city employees advising openness and cooperation in all legal inquiries and reviews of city systems and offices. Required Response City Attorney - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 E-MAIL DATED MAY 8, 2001 FROM KRISTEN HOLLAND TO MAYOR'S STAFF ATTACHMENT 2 LETTER DATED MAY 8, 2001 FROM WILLIE BROWN, MAYOR, TO ALAN NICHOLSON, FOREMAN, 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY ATTACHMENT 3 SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY OPINION DATED MAY 18, 2001 "EXEMPT APPOINTMENTS UNDER CHARTER SECTION 10.104" FROM LINDA ROSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY AND CHIEF LABOR ATTORNEY TO ALAN NICHOLSON, FOREMAN, 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY ATTACHMENT 4 Oath to Witness: You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this investigation now pending before this Grand Jury shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Admonition to Witness Not to Discuss Testimony: You are admonished not to discuss or impart at any time, outside of this jury room, the questions that have been asked of you in regard to this matter, or your answers, until authorized by this grand jury or the Court to discuss or impart such matters. You will understand that a violation of these instructions on your part may be the basis for a charge against you of contempt of court. This admonition, of course, does not preclude you from discussing your legal rights with any legally employed attorney, should you feel that your own personal rights are in any way in jeopardy
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Finding: We interviewed a small number of Special Assistants. One purpose of these interviews was to get the employees' perspectives of job description, performance standards, the work evaluation process and promotion procedures. All witnesses were clear on the scope of their respective jobs and most could articulate general performance goals. Those participating in the pay for performance program were clear in the area of goals. Most stated that they received job evaluations from their supervisors although one did not know the name of the supervisor. Answers were mixed to questions of how individuals applied for their jobs. It was unclear if the witnesses actually went through an application process. Some were not sure how they received promotions. Based on information received by the CGJ that some Special Assistants were used in political campaigns, witnesses were also asked about their involvement in elections. All witnesses admitted to some campaigning but all stated it was not on public time. Some of the subpoenaed witnesses testified that the mayor's letter had influenced them to decline our informal invitation. One witness stated he did not initially appear in response to our letter because he "didn't feel like it". One witness refused to answer some questions. All but one of the witnesses stated they had consulted a Deputy City Attorney about our original informal request to appear as a witness. All but one testified that a Deputy City Attorney advised them that it was their option to appear. It should be noted that all witnesses were sworn and admonished (Attachment 4) not to discuss the questions presented them in the hearing. This is done to preserve the integrity of CGJ investigations. Later a news article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle discussing privileged matters from the hearing. The article referenced witnesses as the source of the information. Recommendation: The City Attorney issue a letter to all city employees advising openness and cooperation in all legal inquiries and reviews of city systems and offices. Required Response City Attorney - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 E-MAIL DATED MAY 8, 2001 FROM KRISTEN HOLLAND TO MAYOR'S STAFF ATTACHMENT 2 LETTER DATED MAY 8, 2001 FROM WILLIE BROWN, MAYOR, TO ALAN NICHOLSON, FOREMAN, 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY ATTACHMENT 3 SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY OPINION DATED MAY 18, 2001 "EXEMPT APPOINTMENTS UNDER CHARTER SECTION 10.104" FROM LINDA ROSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY AND CHIEF LABOR ATTORNEY TO ALAN NICHOLSON, FOREMAN, 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY ATTACHMENT 4 Oath to Witness: You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this investigation now pending before this Grand Jury shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Admonition to Witness Not to Discuss Testimony: You are admonished not to discuss or impart at any time, outside of this jury room, the questions that have been asked of you in regard to this matter, or your answers, until authorized by this grand jury or the Court to discuss or impart such matters. You will understand that a violation of these instructions on your part may be the basis for a charge against you of contempt of court. This admonition, of course, does not preclude you from discussing your legal rights with any legally employed attorney, should you feel that your own personal rights are in any way in jeopardy
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Section 3.100 of the San Francisco City and County Charter states that "the Mayor shall enforce all laws relating to the City and County." To force the expenditure of over $22 million of public funds per year for graffiti removal, sidewalk cleanup, garbage and trash removal caused by illegal dumping is not an example of bold and effective leadership. To reach a state of affairs where private citizens find it necessary to sue in court to force elected and appointed officials to perform those duties which they are being paid to perform is not an example of bold and effective leadership. During its investigations, the CGJ has seen several good initiatives taken by the City in response to the problems of graffiti, litter and illegal dumping (see Attachment 2). However, if San Francisco is to resolve these problems, both the Mayor and Board of Supervisors must additionally assume a highly vocal leadership position.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CGJ recommends that the Mayor adopt an aggressive and highly visible leadership role in the war against graffiti, litter and illegal dumping. The Mayor must insist on mandatory enforcement of existing laws. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days
F2:
Enforcement of litter laws is inadequate. New police officers cannot be expected to enforce litter laws if they have not been adequately introduced to their existence. Until the establishment of the Graffiti Abatement Team, the only class of City employees who appeared to consistently enforce litter laws was the ECOs. Adding the approximately 300 Traffic Control Officers to the pool of personnel issuing citations and placing increased emphasis on police enforcement of litter laws should produce a significant improvement in the City's appearance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CGJ recommends that the curriculum for the Police Academy be revised to add sufficient time to acquaint new police officers with the local Municipal Police Code regarding graffiti, litter and illegal dumping. Required Response San Francisco Police Department- 60 Days
F3:
The monetary penalties imposed on violators (if apprehended) of the litter laws are totally inadequate to deter such crimes. The low level of such fines borders on making it economically feasible to illegally dump. The maximum penalty of $76 is an improbable deterrent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CGJ recommends that the SFPD provide in-service training for existing officers on the contents of the Police Code regarding litter. Required Response San Francisco Police Department- 60 Days
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The CGJ recommends that the word "may" in Police Code, Section 38 of Article 1 mentioned above be changed to "shall." Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
R5:
The CGJ recommends that Police Officers, Traffic Control Officers and ECOs increase their enforcement activities. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days Department of Public Works - 60 Days
R6:
The CGJ recommends that monetary penalties contained in the litter laws be increased as indicated above. The CGJ supports this proposed increase, and additionally urges that the minimum penalty for illegal dumping be increased to $750 for first-time offenders and $1000 for repeat offenders. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Department of Public Works - 60 Days
R7:
The CGJ recommends that a reward system be instituted wherein citizens reporting graffiti, litter, or illegal dumping should be awarded a substantial portion of the penalty imposed on the convicted violator reported by them. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
R8:
The CGJ recommends that the field communication system used by the ECOs be upgraded to permit more efficient performance of their duties and to increase their safety. Required Response Department of Public Works - 60 Days
R9:
The CGJ recommends that that funding be provided for juvenile counseling as a part of the Graffiti Abatement Team. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 LETTERS IN MAY 2001 FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS, GROCERY STORE OWNERS/MANAGERS FAST FOOD OWNERS/MANAGERS NEWSPAPER DISTRIBUTORS ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACTIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING CLEAN CITY SUMMIT (FEBRUARY 1, 2001) ATTACHMENT 3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEWSRACKS FROM ANOTHER CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY AND SAN FRANCISCO Example of newsracks from a California municipality Example of San Francisco newsracks Example of newsracks from a California municipality Example of San Francisco newsracks
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The SFFVAC spends a large part of their business day helping individuals obtain permits or giving out general information on how to obtain permits for potential projects in San Francisco. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the permit process be moved out of the SFFVAC to the Planning or Police Department. Both of these departments spend enormous resources serving neighborhood processes. By moving this time consuming process, valuable SFFVAC resources could be redirected to bring new business into San Francisco. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finding: The SFFVAC spends a large part of their business day helping individuals obtain permits or giving out general information on how to obtain permits for potential projects in San Francisco. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the permit process be moved out of the SFFVAC to the Planning or Police Department. Both of these departments spend enormous resources serving neighborhood processes. By moving this time consuming process, valuable SFFVAC resources could be redirected to bring new business into San Francisco. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days
F2:
Four supervisorial districts (Districts 1, 2, 3, and 6) are the SFFVAC largest customers with approximately 84% of all production shoots. Two districts (Districts 3 and 6) contain approximately 63% of all production shoots. These San Francisco neighborhoods and their corresponding associations are valuable business partners for the City. The City needs their cooperation and property to insure successful film projects. The neighborhoods understand the importance of the SFFVAC business, as many are successful business owners in the City. They respect the need for outside revenue to underwrite or maintain City services. Currently, they do not receive a proper voice in the film production process. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a minimum of three positions out of the current eleven SFFVAC commissioners be appointed neighborhood association representatives. Neighborhood representation on the SFFVAC will educate all parties and encourage ideas for new business. It will make these valuable taxpayers part of the process and make them accountable for the projects' success. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Finding: Four supervisorial districts (Districts 1, 2, 3, and 6) are the SFFVAC largest customers with approximately 84% of all production shoots. Two districts (Districts 3 and 6) contain approximately 63% of all production shoots. These San Francisco neighborhoods and their corresponding associations are valuable business partners for the City. The City needs their cooperation and property to insure successful film projects. The neighborhoods understand the importance of the SFFVAC business, as many are successful business owners in the City. They respect the need for outside revenue to underwrite or maintain City services. Currently, they do not receive a proper voice in the film production process. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a minimum of three positions out of the current eleven SFFVAC commissioners be appointed neighborhood association representatives. Neighborhood representation on the SFFVAC will educate all parties and encourage ideas for new business. It will make these valuable taxpayers part of the process and make them accountable for the projects' success. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
F3:
The current SFFVAC website does not contain all the information needed by customers. For instance, many small production companies complained about not getting accurate information or complete explanations of the SFFVAC permit process. At a minimum, the site should afford the smallest customer information on how to obtain permits and begin the process for their projects. Over 65% of the SFFVAC's 558 customers in 2000 were small offices with one-day shoots (see Attachment 2) who could make efficient use of an online system for their needs. The website should be updated regularly and educate its users on the availability of neighborhoods and permit process for video and film production projects. There is an enormous amount of web design talent in the Bay Area. Given the interest in and the importance of the business of the SFFVAC, and the downturn in business in San Francisco's "Multimedia Gulch," many internet/website professionals are available to design website enhancements. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the SFFVAC website be updated to include more pertinent information for small business. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Finding: The current SFFVAC website does not contain all the information needed by customers. For instance, many small production companies complained about not getting accurate information or complete explanations of the SFFVAC permit process. At a minimum, the site should afford the smallest customer information on how to obtain permits and begin the process for their projects. Over 65% of the SFFVAC's 558 customers in 2000 were small offices with one-day shoots (see Attachment 2) who could make efficient use of an online system for their needs. The website should be updated regularly and educate its users on the availability of neighborhoods and permit process for video and film production projects. There is an enormous amount of web design talent in the Bay Area. Given the interest in and the importance of the business of the SFFVAC, and the downturn in business in San Francisco's "Multimedia Gulch," many internet/website professionals are available to design website enhancements. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the SFFVAC website be updated to include more pertinent information for small business. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days
F4:
A business plan needs to be developed to restructure costs for large production companies and contingency planning developed to address business and jobs leaving the City. The plan should address new business and target large-budget productions. A section of the plan should address the numerous small business requests, how this business can be maintained and served more efficiently. As another part of the business plan, the SFFVAC should look into enhancing the use of the City's other seven districts. A marketing project for these districts could be one part of the business plan with associated incentives for their use. The neighborhoods are very interested in enhancing the film business for the City and are sophisticated in terms of their business understanding. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a formal business plan be developed to provide increased revenue and visibility for the City and County of San Francisco. The CGJ recommends that the plan address new business and target large-budget productions as well as the practices used by other film commissions, including aggressive outreach. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Finding: A business plan needs to be developed to restructure costs for large production companies and contingency planning developed to address business and jobs leaving the City. The plan should address new business and target large-budget productions. A section of the plan should address the numerous small business requests, how this business can be maintained and served more efficiently. As another part of the business plan, the SFFVAC should look into enhancing the use of the City's other seven districts. A marketing project for these districts could be one part of the business plan with associated incentives for their use. The neighborhoods are very interested in enhancing the film business for the City and are sophisticated in terms of their business understanding. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a formal business plan be developed to provide increased revenue and visibility for the City and County of San Francisco. The CGJ recommends that the plan address new business and target large-budget productions as well as the practices used by other film commissions, including aggressive outreach. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days
F5:
The database printouts provided by SFFVAC (Attachments 1 and 2) appear to have multiple irregularities. As a result, it is not clear from these data that all appropriate fees have been charged or collected. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the Controller perform an audit of the SFFVAC fund (Administrative Code Section 10.100-297) and the associated production permit records to verify that fees have been appropriately assessed and collected. Required Response Controller - 60 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Finding: The database printouts provided by SFFVAC (Attachments 1 and 2) appear to have multiple irregularities. As a result, it is not clear from these data that all appropriate fees have been charged or collected. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the Controller perform an audit of the SFFVAC fund (Administrative Code Section 10.100-297) and the associated production permit records to verify that fees have been appropriately assessed and collected. Required Response Controller - 60 Days
F6:
Production of reports by the SFFVAC appears to be cumbersome. It is possible that these issues could be resolved by an upgrade to the database, allowing for the entry of more types of useful data, such as production location and dates. The SFFVAC should review how best to use its valuable data to produce useful reports for business planning. Accuracy of information for its users and the SFFVAC will help for future planning as well as verify their business plan findings. Recommendation The CGJ recommends that the SFFVAC revise its database parameters to include location and date of production, and possibly other information in order to provide more useful business development tools and aid in their relationships with neighborhood associations. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION LIST 2000 (Production Companies, with Dates and Locations) January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 "AGREEMENT ISSUED AND FEE COLLECTED" FROM 1/1/2000 TO 12/31/2000 ATTACHMENT 3 DATA FROM LOCATION LIST 2000 (ATTACHMENT 1) PLOTTED ONTO SAN FRANCISCO MAP January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 4 DATA FROM LOCATION LIST 2000 (ATTACHMENT 1) TABULATED BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD January 1 to July 31, 2000 TOTALS January February March April May June July Totals DISTRICT 1 Jake McGoldrick Clement St./Inner Richmond 1 1 1 3 Golden Gate Park 7 8 12 9 9 7 9 61 Lincoln Park Golf Course 1 1 2 Richmond/Outer Richmond 3 9 3 1 1 5 22 TOTALS 11 17 16 11 10 8 15 88 DISTRICT 2 Gavin Newsom Laurel Heights 1 1 Marina 7 5 3 4 3 9 31 Pacific Heights 4 2 4 9 3 5 27 Russian Hill 7 3 8 2 2 5 3 30 Seacliff 1 1 TOTALS 11 14 17 14 6 11 17 90 DISTRICT 3 Aaron Peskin Chinatown 5 2 8 6 9 2 5 37 Financial District 17 8 22 17 15 24 16 119 Fisherman's Wharf 3 3 5 1 3 5 20 Nob Hill 3 3 10 3 4 3 26 North Beach 9 7 7 6 4 3 25 61 Telegraph Hill 5 2 4 1 2 1 15 TOTALS 42 25 56 34 34 32 55 278 DISTRICT 4 Leland Yee Sunset 1 2 1 4 TOTALS 1 2 1 4 DISTRICT 5 Matt Gonzalez Alamo Square 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 11 Haight-Ashbury/Panhandle 1 2 6 1 1 1 3 15 Hayes Valley 1 1 1 3 Japantown 1 1 Inner Sunset 1 1 Western Addition 1 1 1 1 4 2 10 TOTALS 4 5 10 4 8 4 6 41 DISTRICT 6 Chris Daly Civic Center 1 3 6 13 1 2 26 Embarcadero 8 2 6 9 5 5 6 41 Mission 1 3 3 6 5 2 5 25 Mission Bay 1 1 South Beach/China Basin 1 2 8 4 7 22 South of Market 9 9 27 6 9 15 11 86 Tenderloin 1 5 5 3 1 3 18 Union Square 7 6 6 3 3 3 5 33 27 27 53 50 30 26 39 252 DISTRICT 7 Tony Hall Forest Hill 1 1 Lake Merced 1 1 Saint Francis Wood 1 1 2 West Portal 1 1 TOTALS 1 2 2 5 DISTRICT 8 Mark Leno Castro/Upper Market 3 3 3 3 6 2 1 21 Diamond Heights 1 1 Glen Park 3 1 4 Noe Valley 1 1 Twin Peaks 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 13 TOTALS 7 4 8 4 7 7 3 40 DISTRICT 9 Tom Ammiano Bernal Heights 1 1 1 1 4 TOTALS 1 1 1 1 4 DISTRICT 10 Sophie Maxwell Bayview/Hunters Point 2 2 1 1 6 Potrero Hill 3 6 1 7 4 1 3 25 3Com Park 2 2 Visitacion Valley 2 1 3 1 7 TOTALS 7 9 4 10 5 2 3 40 DISTRICT 11 Gerardo Sandoval Excelsior 1 1 2 Ingleside 1 1 TOTALS 1 1 1 3 ATTACHMENT 5 DATA FROM ATTACHMENT 4 GRAPHED TO INDICATE TOTAL PRODUCTION DAYS BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 6 DATA FROM ATTACHMENT 1 TOTAL PRODUCTION DAYS BY TYPE January 1 to July 31, 2000
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Finding: Production of reports by the SFFVAC appears to be cumbersome. It is possible that these issues could be resolved by an upgrade to the database, allowing for the entry of more types of useful data, such as production location and dates. The SFFVAC should review how best to use its valuable data to produce useful reports for business planning. Accuracy of information for its users and the SFFVAC will help for future planning as well as verify their business plan findings. Recommendation The CGJ recommends that the SFFVAC revise its database parameters to include location and date of production, and possibly other information in order to provide more useful business development tools and aid in their relationships with neighborhood associations. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION LIST 2000 (Production Companies, with Dates and Locations) January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 "AGREEMENT ISSUED AND FEE COLLECTED" FROM 1/1/2000 TO 12/31/2000 ATTACHMENT 3 DATA FROM LOCATION LIST 2000 (ATTACHMENT 1) PLOTTED ONTO SAN FRANCISCO MAP January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 4 DATA FROM LOCATION LIST 2000 (ATTACHMENT 1) TABULATED BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD January 1 to July 31, 2000 TOTALS January February March April May June July Totals DISTRICT 1 Jake McGoldrick Clement St./Inner Richmond 1 1 1 3 Golden Gate Park 7 8 12 9 9 7 9 61 Lincoln Park Golf Course 1 1 2 Richmond/Outer Richmond 3 9 3 1 1 5 22 TOTALS 11 17 16 11 10 8 15 88 DISTRICT 2 Gavin Newsom Laurel Heights 1 1 Marina 7 5 3 4 3 9 31 Pacific Heights 4 2 4 9 3 5 27 Russian Hill 7 3 8 2 2 5 3 30 Seacliff 1 1 TOTALS 11 14 17 14 6 11 17 90 DISTRICT 3 Aaron Peskin Chinatown 5 2 8 6 9 2 5 37 Financial District 17 8 22 17 15 24 16 119 Fisherman's Wharf 3 3 5 1 3 5 20 Nob Hill 3 3 10 3 4 3 26 North Beach 9 7 7 6 4 3 25 61 Telegraph Hill 5 2 4 1 2 1 15 TOTALS 42 25 56 34 34 32 55 278 DISTRICT 4 Leland Yee Sunset 1 2 1 4 TOTALS 1 2 1 4 DISTRICT 5 Matt Gonzalez Alamo Square 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 11 Haight-Ashbury/Panhandle 1 2 6 1 1 1 3 15 Hayes Valley 1 1 1 3 Japantown 1 1 Inner Sunset 1 1 Western Addition 1 1 1 1 4 2 10 TOTALS 4 5 10 4 8 4 6 41 DISTRICT 6 Chris Daly Civic Center 1 3 6 13 1 2 26 Embarcadero 8 2 6 9 5 5 6 41 Mission 1 3 3 6 5 2 5 25 Mission Bay 1 1 South Beach/China Basin 1 2 8 4 7 22 South of Market 9 9 27 6 9 15 11 86 Tenderloin 1 5 5 3 1 3 18 Union Square 7 6 6 3 3 3 5 33 27 27 53 50 30 26 39 252 DISTRICT 7 Tony Hall Forest Hill 1 1 Lake Merced 1 1 Saint Francis Wood 1 1 2 West Portal 1 1 TOTALS 1 2 2 5 DISTRICT 8 Mark Leno Castro/Upper Market 3 3 3 3 6 2 1 21 Diamond Heights 1 1 Glen Park 3 1 4 Noe Valley 1 1 Twin Peaks 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 13 TOTALS 7 4 8 4 7 7 3 40 DISTRICT 9 Tom Ammiano Bernal Heights 1 1 1 1 4 TOTALS 1 1 1 1 4 DISTRICT 10 Sophie Maxwell Bayview/Hunters Point 2 2 1 1 6 Potrero Hill 3 6 1 7 4 1 3 25 3Com Park 2 2 Visitacion Valley 2 1 3 1 7 TOTALS 7 9 4 10 5 2 3 40 DISTRICT 11 Gerardo Sandoval Excelsior 1 1 2 Ingleside 1 1 TOTALS 1 1 1 3 ATTACHMENT 5 DATA FROM ATTACHMENT 4 GRAPHED TO INDICATE TOTAL PRODUCTION DAYS BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 6 DATA FROM ATTACHMENT 1 TOTAL PRODUCTION DAYS BY TYPE January 1 to July 31, 2000
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Finding: After meeting with individual members of the Board of Supervisors, the CGJ has yet to receive a written response to the 1999-2000 CGJ reports from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
F2:
Finding: The Board of Supervisors has not held hearings regarding many of the 1999- 2000 CGJ reports, contrary to the Administrative Code, Section 2.10(a), requirement to do so.
F933:
(a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the county clerk. The county clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
DOE does not have adequate guidelines in place regarding how groups are permitted to observe vote counting processes, nor which types of groups have what levels of access. o Identified by CGJ during November 2000 election o Also a concern noted in the June 2000 CACE Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CGJ recommends that DOE prepare written departmental guidelines regarding how groups are permitted to observe vote counting processes, and which types of groups have what levels of access. Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days
F2:
DOE needs to review secrecy envelope provisions to ensure ballot privacy for the larger Eagle system ballots. o Identified by CGJ during November 2000 election o Citizen complaint, November 2000 election o Identified by CGJ during December 2000 runoff o Also a concern noted in the 1998 Secretary of State Report
F3:
DPH is not meeting its commitment to send monthly voter roll updates to DOE. o Identified by this CGJ (as follow-up item) o Also a concern noted in the 1997-1998 CGJ Report o Also a concern noted in the June 2000 CACE Report o Also a concern noted in the 1998 Secretary of State Report o Also a concern noted in the Fair Vote Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CGJ recommends that DPH recommit to monthly transmittal to DOE of voter roll updates. The CGJ acknowledges that budget restrictions may impact the ability to meet this previous commitment. However, maintenance of the voter rolls is an important function. Therefore, we encourage DPH and DOE to work together towards a solution. Possible methods for resolution of this recommendation might include: o DPH and DOE jointly hiring a temporary or full- time information specialist, who would be responsible for database update and maintenance in both departments: o DPH hiring temporary workers to handle data update o DOE staff review daily obituary notices to flag names in the voter rolls, until such time as the next data transmittal from DPH is received. Required Response Department of Public Health - 60 Days Department of Elections - 60 Days
F4:
Currently, DOE only records the name of the campaign associated with electioneering. However, in order to pursue any cases of electioneering, the Secretary of State must have definitive evidence identifying violators. o Identified by this CGJ in analysis of election database statistics section Also a concern noted in the 1998 Secretary of State Report o 5. Pollworker training needs to be updated
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CGJ recommends that DOE initiate an electioneering policy or procedure by which both the names of persons and the campaigns are recorded such that there is definitive evidence identifying violators. Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days
F5:
Pollworker training did not prevent potential ballot secrecy issues o Supervisorial District 7 Recount indicated problem with incorrectly processed provisional ballots by pollworkers o Possible problem with voters signing rosters noted in Board of Supervisors hearing o Potential loss of rosters noted in Board of Supervisors hearing o Pre-election checklist could avoid many problems in the election database (pollworker manual has detailed post-election checklist, but pre-election material is spread across several paragraphs).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CGJ recommends that pollworker training needs to be updated regarding the following issues identified in this report: o potential ballot secrecy issues o incorrectly processed provisional ballots by pollworkers o proper methods for voters to sign rosters o traceable control of election materials, including rosters o pre-election checklist Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days
F6:
The Board of Supervisors should move forward with legislation to remedy potentially costly runoff elections. o Observation from December 2000 runoff election
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The CGJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors move forward with legislation to remedy potentially costly runoff elections. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Department of Elections - 60 Days
F7:
DOE staff training needs to be updated o Identified by CGJ during December 2000 runoff o Supervisorial District 7 Recount, see Attachment 3, Table 2 o Board of Supervisors Hearing, wanding and roster handling o Also a concern noted in the June 2000 CACE Report o Potential loss of rosters noted in Board of Supervisors hearing
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The CGJ recommends that DOE staff training be updated regarding the following issues identified in this report: o Guidelines for preparation of duplicate ballots o Handling of ballots o Wanding of rosters o Positive traceability of election materials, including rosters o Handling of Eagle memory packs during upload process Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days
F8:
DOE election database statistics appear to be potentially useful data by which to identify further areas for review for possible improvement o Database apparently does not allow for automatic summation of data o DOE staff sometimes make duplicate or inaccurate data entries
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The CGJ recommends that DOE continue to use the election problem database, and analyze statistics. Personnel updating the database should be given guidance as to avoiding duplicate or inaccurate information. The PAIR codes should be reviewed and updated (e.g., Eagle codes used during elections do not appear on current PAIR form). Items currently logged as "other" under each major subcategory should be reviewed to see if new categories are advisable. Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days
F9:
Voter instructions appear to be inadequate o Supervisorial District 7 Recount, see Attachment 3, Table 2 o Board of Supervisors Hearing, roster signing
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The CGJ recommends that voter instructions be reviewed for possible update regarding the following issues identified in this report: o More warnings regarding the consequences of overvoting. o Actions to avoid when filling out absentee ballots (do not sign, cut in half, etc.). o Reminder to have current signature on file at DOE, or absentee ballot could possibly be rejected for signature mismatch. o How to properly sign precinct roster. Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days
F10:
Some DOE printed materials do not have revision dates on them (for instance, the PAIR form). o CGJ finding o Also a concern noted in the Fair Vote Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The CGJ recommends that DOE printed materials have revision dates on them (for instance, the PAIR form). Required Response Department of Elections - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE 335.5 The "official canvass" is the public process of processing and tallying all ballots received in an election, including, but not limited to, provisional ballots and absentee ballots not included in the semifinal official canvass. The official canvass also includes the process of reconciling ballots, attempting to prohibit duplicate voting by absentee and provisional voters, and performance of the manual tally of 1 percent of all precincts. 353.5 The "semifinal official canvass" is the public process of collecting, processing, and tallying ballots and, for state or statewide elections, reporting results to the Secretary of State on election night. The semifinal official canvass may include some or all of the absentee and provisional vote totals.
F15204:
All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any ballot container. Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections official.
F15302:
The official canvass shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks: (a) An inspection of all materials and supplies returned by poll workers. (b) A reconciliation of the number of signatures on the roster with the number of ballots recorded on the ballot statement. (c) In the event of a discrepancy in the reconciliation required by subdivision (b), the number of ballots received from each polling place shall be reconciled with the number of ballots cast, as indicated on the ballot statement. (d) A reconciliation of the number of ballots counted, spoiled, canceled, or invalidated due to identifying marks, overvotes, or as otherwise provided by statute, with the number of votes recorded, including absentee and provisional ballots, by the vote counting system. (e) Processing and counting any valid absentee and provisional ballots not included in the semifinal official canvass. (f) Counting any valid write-in votes. (g) Reproducing any damaged ballots, if necessary. (h) Reporting final results to the governing board and the Secretary of State, as required.
F15360:
During the official canvass of every election in which a voting system is used, the official conducting the election shall conduct a public manual tally of the ballots tabulated by those devices cast in 1 percent of the precincts chosen at random by the elections official. If 1 percent of the precincts should be less than one whole precinct, the tally shall be conducted in one precinct chosen at random by the elections official. In addition to the 1 percent count, the elections official shall, for each race not included in the initial group of precincts, count one additional precinct. The manual tally shall apply only to the race not previously counted. Additional precincts for the manual tally may be selected at the discretion of the elections official. ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS PROBLEM AND INCIDENT REPORTING (PAIR) FORM ATTACHMENT 3, TABLE 1 STATISTICS DERIVED FROM ELECTION PROBLEM REPORTS Problem Type Problem and November December Incident 2000 2000 Reporting Form Code POLLWORKER Need Inspector 11 30 33 Need Clerks 12 68 94 Need Bi-lingual Pollworker 13 9 8 Other 14 46 61 Subtotal 153 196 POLLING PLACE/EQUIPMENT Polling Place Locked 21 21 20 Can't Locate Booths/Equipment 22 28 7 Port-a-Potty Issue 23 3 2 Electricity Off 24 2 3 Other 25 37 18 Subtotal 91 50 EAGLE Eagle Trouble 26 165 70 Ballot Jam 26.1 57 - na - Tape Out/Tape Won't Print 26.2 4 - na - Memory Pack 26.3 5 - na - Memory Pack 26.4 1 - na - Subtotal 232 70 SUPPLIES No Ballots 31 22 9 Wrong Ballot-type 32 4 1 Running Out of Ballots 33 29 1 No Roster 34 11 3 No Provisional Envelopes 35 10 1 No VIP (voter information pamphlet) 36 1 1 Stationary Supplies 37 14 2 Need PM Pick-up 38 77 35 Other 39 3 42 Subtotal 171 95 ELECTIONEERING/OTHER Electioneering 41 3 9 Media/Pollster Interference 42 0 1 Parked Car 43 1 0 Campaign Signs 44 24 15 Other 45 36 6 Subtotal 64 31 MEMORY PACK Pack Not Read 53 - na - 1 Pack at Wrong Uplink Sit 54 - na - 1 "Fried" Pac 62 - na - 7 Late Pac 63 - na - 1 Subtotal 10 ATTACHMENT 3, TABLE 2 ISSUES FROM THE SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 7 RECOUNT ISSUE FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION DOE STAFF TRAINING ISSUES A duplicate ballot is made whenever the Eagle unit FINDING: It is possible that better or cannot read a ballot. DOE does this for absentee clearer instructions to people voting by ballots; the voter can rectify ballots voted on Election absentee ballot could reduce the types of Day. Absentee ballot problems caused by voter problems seen. include: RECOMMENDATION: Instructions to Ripped/torn ballots voter need to be reviewed for possible Stains (coffee, other) improvement. Ballots cut in half, then either left that way or stapled back together Use of red/blue ink, or pencil Creases/folds Ballot signed by voter Candidate name circled rather than arrow filled in, or hole punched in ballot to indicate preference One remade duplicate by DOE staff clearly should FINDING: There were several DOE staff not have been made. The original ballot was an errors regarding duplicate ballots. undervote (no vote for either candidate), and RECOMMENDATION: Instructions to furthermore had been signed by the voter. DOE staff DOE staff need to be reviewed for remade a duplicate and assigned the vote to Teng. A possible improvement, or prepared second duplicate had not been stamped where none are written. "DUPLICATE" as required. On a third, the original ballot looked OK and it was not obvious why the duplicate had been made. Evidently, one precinct listed one more vote for Teng FINDING: A ballot was misfiled. in the original certification than had been found RECOMMENDATION: Instructions to during the recount. DOE stated that they were sure DOE staff need to be reviewed for the vote was good since they had documentation that possible improvement, or prepared if DOE had received the ballot; the ballot probably was none are written. misfiled. DOE would continue to look for the misfiled ballot, and in any case would credit it toward the Teng vote total. There was substantial organization of ballots by DOE FINDING: There was substantial staff. During the recount, for several precincts, there organization of ballots by DOE staff. were long runs of ballots for each candidate, much RECOMMENDATION: Instructions to more than would be accounted for by statistical DOE staff need to be reviewed for variation. possible improvement, or prepared if none are written. VOTER GUIDANCE ISSUES There were a fair number of absentee ballot FINDING: There are a fair number of overvotes (an overvote is when a voter votes for two absentee ballot overvotes. or more candidates in the same race).
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Board of Supervisors Hearing, May 31, 2001 Close to the end of this Grand Jury's term of service, DOE Acting Director Dr. Phillip Paris sent a letter dated May 17, 2001, to City Attorney Louise Renne in which several allegations were made regarding DOE. The allegations were: Signing of fraudulent time sheets. Unauthorized commitment of fund expenditures in excess of $1.6 million. Improper certification of the November 2000 election results. Inability to account for approximately 3,600 ballots from the November 2000 election. The CGJ attended a Board of Supervisors committee hearing on May 31, 2001, at which the issue of the vote discrepancy was discussed. The Supervisors noted that further hearings would be held to obtain information as necessary about the votes and the other allegations. The following discussion summarizes testimony presented at the hearing. The vote discrepancy arises from a mismatch between what is termed the "voter/voted" number and total number of ballots cast. The voter/voted number is developed by reviewing precinct rosters, documenting the number of persons signed in to vote at each precinct, then adding up the various precinct data. The final voter/voted tally is apparently not used in any official manner; however, the roster data are used to update DOE files that document individual voting histories. The total number of ballots cast is acquired from the Eagle data and is published in the final DOE Statement of Vote. In January 2001, a citizen requested the voter/voted and ballots cast numbers from DOE, compared them, and identified a mismatch of 9,007 votes (324,031 ballots cast, and 315,024 voters as derived from roster data). This discrepancy was brought to the attention of DOE management, who asked DOE staff to investigate. In simple terms, it appeared that there were 9,007 more ballots cast than persons who voted. The number of ballots cast, as determined by the Eagle system, has a high degree of reliability, as demonstrated during the recount process. In contrast, DOE staff investigation determined that there were several problems related to the voter/voted data obtained from the rosters. The method by which roster data are obtained is as follows. After the election, the rosters are brought back to DOE offices. There is a bar code next to each name on the roster, and for each roster signature the appropriate bar code is scanned by a hand-held device ("wanded"), which is then downloaded to a larger machine. Temporary workers are used to perform this scanning process. There are apparently a number of things that can possibly go wrong during this process, including: Failure of voter to sign roster, or failure of pollworker to have voter sign roster. Failure of voter to sign in manner that clearly documents intent to vote (e.g., some voters apparently use an "x" or just a simple line), thus making it difficult for DOE staff to later determine if the mark is random or if the voter actually voted. Loss of a roster (during the hearing, DOE staff noted that two rosters from the November election may have been lost and, therefore, not scanned). A voter signs the roster, but leaves before actually voting. Rosters placed in the wrong bin at DOE offices (and thus assumed to have already been scanned). Failure of temporary workers to appropriately scan rosters, perhaps due to inattention or fatigue. Failure to appropriately download roster from hand-held device. Data for provisional voters, who by definition cannot sign the precinct roster, must be input by hand (with the attendant possibility of human error). A DOE staffperson investigated and resolved several of these issues and reduced the voter/voted tally and Statement of Vote difference to 3,496 ballots. (This apparently is the source of the number used in Dr. Paris' letter, though mis-stated there as "approximately 3,600 ballots"). The staffperson also noted that some precincts showed more voters than ballots, and some less voters than ballots. If one takes the absolute value of these differences, rather than sums the positive and negative differences, the overall discrepancy is on the order of 8,700 ballots. These results were discussed with DOE management in early February. Apparently, DOE management did not request this staffperson to perform any further analysis for this issue following the early February
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The SF Civil Grand Jury recommends the priority funding of a reliable vehicle outfitted for canine transport to the SFSD K-9 Unit. Further, the CGJ recommends that this vehicle should have the capability to lower its "profile" when off duty either through a plain "unmarked" paint job or through the inclusion of SFSD logo removable magnetic signs to an "unmarked" vehicle so as to prevent acts of retaliation and ensure the safety of the SFSD K-9 Unit when the Unit is both outside of San Francisco and/or off duty. Required Response Sheriff - 60 Days
R2:
Recognizing that the recording and maintaining of data regarding the activities of the SFSD K-9 Unit are vital to the effective operation of this unit, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury recommends that a "laptop" computer with both spreadsheet and multiple database capability be made available to the Unit immediately. Required Response Sheriff - 60 Days 3 The effectiveness of the initial SFSD K-9 Unit has demonstrated the value in its expansion. The value of the Unit relies upon the performance level set by the deputy in charge of the Unit, and any expansion should be undertaken with his supervision and approval. With those caveats, the CGJ recommends that the existing SFSD K-9 Unit be expanded at those levels deemed proper by the deputy currently in charge of the Unit. Required Response Sheriff - 60 Days
R4:
In the course of this investigation it was pointed out that a large degree of contraband is smuggled in during visiting hours. The canine officer assigned to the SFSD K-9 Unit is an "aggressive response" canine. Therefore, unacceptable levels of liability are inherent in use of the Unit to search visitors. It is apparent to the CGJ that this is an area in need of attention. The CGJ recommends that the SFSD examine the possibility of augmenting the "aggressive response" canine in the SFSD K-9 Unit with a "passive response" canine, to be used in parking lots and in entry areas prior to allowing visitation. Required Response Sheriff - 60 Days
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
No self-evaluation and transition plans are completed and in place for ADA compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CGJ recommends that the MOD complete and publish the self-evaluation and transition plans. Required Response Mayor's Office on Disability - 60 Days
F2:
Because it serves an advisory function, the MOD has no legislative authority to enforce ADA compliance. While its mission is clear, its jurisdiction is limited. There is no controlling body to oversee enforcement of ADA compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CGJ recommends that a permanent Commission on the Disabled be established with the authority to oversee full and complete compliance with the ADA and to attend to the continuing maintenance and improvement of such compliance to meet the needs of the disabled. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
F3:
A majority of the MOD staff are special assistants. Because special assistants serve at the pleasure of the mayor, there is no guarantee that they will continue beyond the current administration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CGJ recommends that the Mayor's Office on Disability be converted to a permanent department and be accountable to the Commission. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
F4:
The MDC has no oversight of the MOD and its staff. Therefore, the MDC is restricted to a forum of public comment and resource referral.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CGJ recommends that the Commissioners serve staggered terms of office. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
F5:
Without a centralized mechanism through which ADA compliance is monitored, San Francisco remains vulnerable to further legal action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CGJ recommends that a method be developed to ensure departmental history across mayoral administrations. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Mayor's Office on Disability - 60 Days
F6:
The ADA coordinators roster for city departments is incomplete. Departmental ADA coordinators would appreciate more training and a list of expectations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The CGJ recommends that a complete roster of ADA representatives in city departments be developed and published on the MOD website. Required Response Mayor's Office on Disability - 60 Days
F7:
The MOD complaint log is incomplete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The CGJ recommends that training and a list of expectations for ADA department coordinators be provided. Required Response Mayor's Office on Disability - 60 Days
F8:
The current MOD complaint procedure is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The CGJ recommends that a complete complaint log be maintained. Required Response Mayor's Office on Disability - 60 Days
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
The CGJ recommends that a new MOD complaint procedure be finalized. Required Response Mayor's Office on Disability - 60 Days