San Francisco County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Ranch has the potential to provide a nearby alternative to out-of-state placements and group homes. By strengthening core programs that equip the youth to pursue educational and vocational advancement, many of the young people sent to other counties or states could be sent to the Ranch.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1: Continue current efforts to develop Log Cabin Ranch as a viable disposition option for youthful offenders.
F2:
Long-term tracking of JPD youth would provide JPD and community support services with useful information by identifying programs that advance successful rehabilitation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Develop tracking systems for post-probationary youth that will provide data to evaluate programs both at the Ranch and after release. These efforts should be made in collaboration with the Adult Probation Department. 3. Development of a Master Plan for the Ranch The 2011 Juvenile Probation Commission Resolution 09-002 concludes, “Resolved, that the Juvenile Probation Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors advance the plan for the Log Cabin Ranch.” In March 2012, the Juvenile Probation Department addressed the Capital Planning Committee with a presentation outlining capital needs for Log Cabin and Hidden Valley.19 The JPD requested funding for a master plan to guide decisions around future programmatic and capital needs. The components of a master plan as outlined in the presentation include: ! Determination of the overall need for an expanded Log Cabin Ranch program; 14 o Which youths will most benefit from the Log Cabin Ranch program? o How many San Francisco youth could be served annually? o Where are those youth now? ! Assessment of programmatic needs and best practices that will best ensure positive outcomes for Log Cabin Ranch youth; ! Comprehensive assessment of existing Log Cabin Ranch facilities’ conditions, measuring functionality, feasibility, life expectancy and degree of obsolescence; ! Evaluate the potential for facility expansion suitable to attract revenue for services provided to neighboring counties; ! Assessment of building and space requirements that would best support the long term operational needs of Log Cabin Ranch’s new vision. Juvenile incarceration rates statewide have dwindled. The reduction is a welcome result of both a decline in lesser juvenile offenses and extensive diversion efforts by most counties for misdemeanor offenses. However, facilities are still necessary for the high- risk juvenile offenders. Jack Jacqua, co-founder of the Omega Boys Club, offered the previous Jury a vision of the Ranch at its highest potential: “Log Cabin Ranch, well first of all it is not a jail. It is not a prison, and was never intended to be. This is 600 acres that can be developed into an incredible recovery center…getting boys away from the inner city, coming out here in this beautiful country area, gives them new energy to live life….just like they’re somebody…and they have a future that’s real.”
F3:
1: Log Cabin Ranch has the potential to be a superior facility for San Francisco and regional juvenile commitments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Fund a master plan for Log Cabin to determine the programmatic and capital requirements for a viable facility. 4. Partnerships with Community Organizations and other Jurisdictions In March of this year, Mayor Ed Lee led a delegation of leaders from the City’s Real Estate, Capital Planning, and Juvenile Probation Departments and community-based organizations on a visit to Hidden Valley Ranch. The Jury understands that a similar group had toured the facility nearly a decade ago and that these organizations have an interest in finding a use for Hidden Valley. In our discussions with JPD staff, we learned 15 that JPD has discussed the possibility of utilizing Hidden Valley for development of programs that can support the objectives at the Log Cabin Ranch. Dialogue and collaboration with community organizations has the potential to be a positive for Ranch youth, and charitable foundations can provide needed resources for program enhancement. The development of Hidden Valley could provide vocational learning opportunities for the Log Cabin residents and support post-release career opportunities and successful rehabilitation.
F4:
Creating partnerships with community organizations, foundations and other jurisdictions to achieve efficiencies, increase programming, and share costs could benefit both San Francisco and the youth residing at Log Cabin Ranch.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1: Explore possibilities with community organizations and charitable foundations to further the development of Log Cabin Ranch and Hidden Valley Ranch, with the objective of supporting both high-risk and at-risk youth of San Francisco and their families.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
San Francisco is well-served by the San Francisco Bike Coalition bicycle safety education efforts. SFBC bicycle education materials and classes are comparable to bicycle education programs in other U.S. cities known for their safe streets. SFPD and SFMTA will launch a Bicycle Citation Diversion Education Program this year (2013); this satisfies the previous Jury recommendation to establish a Bicycle Court Traffic School option as a tool for education. In 2012, the San Francisco Bike Coalition educated 4,866 people in its Street Safety Education classes, or approximately .01 percent of San Francisco’s population. As the biking movement grows and evolves, more education will be needed. With the goal of a 20 percent mode share, efforts must be substantially increased to educate both bicyclists and motorists. The bicycle safety education programs of SFBC are on the right track to reduce confrontations between bicyclists and motorists. However, in order to accomplish the goal mode share, more will be needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1: Bicycle safety education should be continued, expanded and extended to non-cyclists and motorists.
F2:
While current SFPD training relative to bicycle safety and laws is included in classroom instruction where new recruit officers learn about California Vehicle Codes and accident investigation, more bicycle-specific training also needs to be part of continuing education for police officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1: SFPD should expand training related to bicycle safety and enforcement and implement the following:
F3:
SFPD citation forms do not include a specific category for bicycle traffic violation; this omission inhibits awareness, data collection and enforcement efforts by the department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
SPFD should update the citation form to include a category for bicycle infractions.
F4:
SFPD needs the support of the City’s leaders to enforce roadway laws effectively.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1: The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should support SFPD efforts to successfully enforce roadway laws by adopting a San Francisco Bicycle Enforcement Safety Agreement that would pursue the goals of zero bicycle fatalities and a 50% annual reduction in bicycle collisions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Inadequate readily-accessible public information on publicly-owned real estate is part of the reason some properties have been allowed to languish and deteriorate, at a loss to the City. A more rational approach to handling under-utilized or surplus property requires that a comprehensive, detailed list of public properties is available on an ongoing basis. The Fleishhacker Pool House is a perfect example of a situation where being “out of sight, out of mind” allowed a property to become so neglected that it eventually was destroyed by fire, resulting in a real loss for the City. A more transparent property database will make such occurrences less likely in future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1: The web-based San Francisco Property Information Map currently used to display Planning and Building Inspection Department information should be integrated with and further developed by other departments to convey complete information about City properties. The Department of Technology and the Planning Department should work with and provide database access to all City departments enabling them to maintain the information on their properties.
F2:
Lack of transparent public debate contributes to suboptimal use of City real estate assets. The Kirkland Property is a perfect case in point. SFMTA may have a good case for retaining the property as a bus maintenance yard as recommended by its consultant. However, allowing SFMTA to abandon stated plans for converting the property to commercial and/or residential use without public debate prevents possibly better, more economically efficient alternatives from being considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City and SFUSD should activate their respective Surplus Property Advisory Committees because the meetings of these committees provide a public forum in which to discuss best uses of publicly-owned real estate and each committee should be charged with monitoring uses of public property and making sure that there is ongoing accountability with respect to surplus and underutilized properties.
F3:
The purposes for which the Surplus Property Ordinance was adopted are too narrow to effectively motivate City departments to identify surplus and underutilized properties for other uses or disposition. Further, the ordinance does not provide a department with any incentive to dispose of surplus or underutilized property.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should amend Chapter 23A of the Administrative Code to include an incentive for City Departments to identify and dispose of surplus and underutilized properties and to broaden the purposes for which surplus and underutilized properties may be used.
F4:
Current practice allows City Departments and SFUSD to keep property on their surplus lists indefinitely without any consequence. The concern for a more rational approach to handling under-utilized or surplus property requires that a time limit be imposed on how long property may remain on these lists. If, after a pre-determined period, property which is identified as surplus or underutilized has not been put into use or fully-utilized or no plans have been adopted for its use or full-utilization, there should be specified consequences for the failure to act. 31
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors and the SF Board of Education should each adopt rules which limit the length of time property may remain on their respective surplus list without action and which address consequences for such inaction.
F5:
Passive management of publicly-owned real estate leads to valuable properties lying fallow for years. The City and SFUSD leadership must be charged and empowered to develop plans for utilization of surplus / under-utilized parcels, including public-private partnerships where feasible and desirable. Very valuable properties owned by City departments and SFUSD have been underutilized for decades and present prime opportunities to be repurposed or sold to create value for the City and SFUSD. The properties at 155/165 Grove Street, the Fire Chief’s House at 870 Bush Street, the lot at 7th Avenue and Lawton Street, and 1950 Mission Street are a few examples of properties that have been passively managed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
1: The SFUSD needs to designate someone who is given appropriate authority and whose time and energy is devoted to optimizing the use of surplus and under-utilized real estate through its development or disposition. That person should work with the Capital Planning Policy Committee and Surplus Property Advisory Committee to incorporate surplus and underutilized property into SFUSD’s 10-year rolling Capital Plan.
F6:
Given the location of 135 Van Ness Avenue and 170 Fell Street in the heart of the City’s cultural center, and the historic nature of the structures, their current status is far from the highest and best use of these unique properties. Plans by SFUSD to convert the properties into the School of the Arts have not moved forward because of, among other reasons, a lack of needed funding. Yet, at the time, and now, SFUSD owned and continues to own, sufficient surplus and underutilized property that if sold could fund the entire project. Other alternative and better uses of this complex may be possible. 32
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The entire complex of historic buildings at 135 Van Ness / 170 Fell Street, including Nourse Auditorium, should be put to productive use by, for example, converting the complex into the School for the Arts. Response Matrix
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
City agencies lack specific data on the characteristics of GGP dwellers, which prevents accurate profiling of individual problems and needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City should formalize a system to gather information on the characteristics of GGP dwellers and why they live in the Park.
F2:
With better information about GGP dwellers, their histories, and their needs, the City would be better able to move these individuals out of the Park, into a more stable situation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Information about GGP dwellers should be used to tailor support services to specific populations, whose age and circumstances affect their needs and acceptance of services. 2. Outreach and Enforcement Efforts Contact with dwellers in Golden Gate Park is currently a combined enforcement and outreach effort led by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and Park Patrol. Two Park Codes directly relate to GGP dwellers (See
F3:
Because the City does not track individual park dwellers and their interactions with social services, it is difficult to determine the efficiency and success of outreach efforts in reducing the park population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City should establish a system to track its outreach efforts among park dwellers and use the information to evaluate effectiveness in reducing the number of park dwellers. 15
F4:
Limitations on outreach efforts by EST, SFPD, and Park Patrol to GGP encampments has an inhibiting effect on positive results.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Engagement Specialist Team (EST) should conduct in-person, proactive outreach to park dwellers at different times of the day and night in order to maximize their efforts.
F5:
The current system of issuing citations for nighttime sleeping and camping in the Park is not effective in reducing the current number of park dwellers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The SFPD and Park Patrol should expand their outreach to GGP encampments to more areas of the Park and should vary the time.
F6:
Signs and public information about the Park closure time are inconsistent and confusing.
F7:
Shopping carts facilitate moving personal items into the Park and setting up an encampment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The San Francisco Park Code should ban shopping carts in GGP in order to discourage living in the Park and to reduce litter. Response Matrix