Gran Jurado del Condado de San Francisco

2021-2022

4 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: Published Hardscape feature R1.1 The Jury recommends the Controller’s scores for the City’s parks fail to Office create a Pathway Condition reflect the true surface feature from existing park scoring conditions of pathways for systems that specifically assesses pedestrian and wheelchair pathway surface conditions by traffic, thus providing misguided December 31, 2022. information to the RPD for setting maintenance priorities, and to the public about a park’s accessibility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: 2 The Jury recommends the RPD set a baseline for the Pathway Condition scores defined in R1.1 by March 31, 2023.
F2: The RPD doesn’t integrate the R2 The Jury recommends the RPD park scores into each park’s incorporate the most recent park feature description. scores under each park’s description on the RPD’s website by December 31, 2022.
F3: The RPD fails to provide park R3.1 The Jury recommends the RPD include accessibility information on accessibility information on the RPD’s RPD’s website and at all park website by July 1, 2023. entrances.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: 2 The Jury recommends the RPD post accessibility information at all park entrances by July 1, 2024.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: In the Hunters Point Shipyard, shallow groundwater rising with sea level rise and residual hazardous substances pose serious but poorly understood risks that should concern the City and County of San Francisco, the Navy, future developers, future property owners, and future residents.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: By September 1st, 2022, the Mayor and/or the City Administrator should direct the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning, in collaboration with the Department of Public Health, to commission and manage an independent, third-party study of Hunters Point Shipyard to predict the future shallow groundwater surface, groundwater flows, and potential interactions of groundwater with hazardous materials and planned modifications to the site under multiple sea level rise scenarios. (F1) 37
R2: The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should collaborate to provide funding for the study recommended in R1, in the Fiscal Year 22-23 budget, or by October 1st, 2022. (F1)
F2: The Federal Facility Agreement signatories have neglected to investigate how groundwater rise may lessen the effectiveness of the Navy’s cleanup at the Hunters Point Shipyard Superfund site.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R7: By March 1st, 2023, the Hunters Point Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee should prepare a report on its recommended requests for the Federal Facility Agreement signatories based on the groundwater study recommended in R1, and deliver that report to the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and the Department of Public Health. (F2) 38 REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES
R22-23: budget or by October 1st, 2022, and in future budgets. (F3) R6: From October 1st, 2022 and going forward, whenever there are outstanding questions and requests to the Federal Facility Agreement signatories, and especially during the lead-up to major cleanup document releases, a member of the management chain overseeing the Hunters Point Shipyard Program in the Department of Public Health should appear before the Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee at regular intervals to report on discussions with the Federal Facility Agreement signatories. (F6) R7: By March 1st, 2023, the Hunters Point Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee should prepare a report on its recommended requests for the Federal Facility Agreement signatories based on the groundwater study recommended in R1, and deliver that report to the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and the Department of Public Health. (F2) 38 REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES Required Responses Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Jury requests responses to the following Findings and Recommendations from these City institutions. From the Office of the Mayor within 60 days: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7 From the San Francisco Board of Supervisors within 90 days: F4, F5, F6 R2, R3, R7 Invited Responses The Jury requests responses to the following Recommendations from these City departments within 60 days. From the Office of the City Administrator: R1 From the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning: R1 From the Department of Public Health: R4, R6 39
F3: The process governing the cleanup at the Shipyard encompasses decisions and value judgments that matter to all San Franciscans, but the extremely technical nature of the process inhibits City leaders and citizens alike from understanding it, or even knowing what is at stake.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R3: By October 1st, 2022, the Board of Supervisors should pass an ordinance to create a permanent Hunters Point Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee that includes the Controller or their designee, relevant technical experts from the Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Public Works, and representatives from other relevant City departments, to perform due diligence on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco into the Federal Facility Agreement signatories’ decision-making, and to prepare an agenda of questions and requests to be communicated to the signatories by the Department of Public Health in advance of major cleanup document releases. (F4, F5,
R4: By October 1st, 2022, the Mayor should direct the Department of Public Health to support the Cleanup Oversight Committee in its due diligence function by providing explanatory materials and briefings about cleanup governance documents and the discourse among Federal Facility Agreement signatories, as well as additional materials at the request of the Committee. (F3)
R5: By October 1st, 2022, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should collaborate to ensure that funding is available to generate the material specified in R4, in the Fiscal Year 22-23 budget or by October 1st, 2022, and in future budgets. (F3)
R22-23: budget or by October 1st, 2022, and in future budgets. (F3) R6: From October 1st, 2022 and going forward, whenever there are outstanding questions and requests to the Federal Facility Agreement signatories, and especially during the lead-up to major cleanup document releases, a member of the management chain overseeing the Hunters Point Shipyard Program in the Department of Public Health should appear before the Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee at regular intervals to report on discussions with the Federal Facility Agreement signatories. (F6) R7: By March 1st, 2023, the Hunters Point Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee should prepare a report on its recommended requests for the Federal Facility Agreement signatories based on the groundwater study recommended in R1, and deliver that report to the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and the Department of Public Health. (F2) 38 REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES Required Responses Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Jury requests responses to the following Findings and Recommendations from these City institutions. From the Office of the Mayor within 60 days: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7 From the San Francisco Board of Supervisors within 90 days: F4, F5, F6 R2, R3, R7 Invited Responses The Jury requests responses to the following Recommendations from these City departments within 60 days. From the Office of the City Administrator: R1 From the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning: R1 From the Department of Public Health: R4, R6 39
F4: Despite the enormous stakes of the process governing the Shipyard cleanup, there is little understanding of the process throughout the City, or even that the City can influence this process.
F5: The City and County of San Francisco is poorly prepared to discover new information pertinent to the Shipyard cleanup, to proactively look for risks and problems overlooked or under-prioritized by the Federal Facility Agreement signatories, or to develop responses to new information or problems..
F6: No proactive mechanism exists for the City and County of San Francisco to articulate its interests and concerns about the cleanup for the Federal Facility Agreement signatories, nor does a mechanism exist for the City to monitor progress towards obtaining satisfactory responses to such interests and concerns from the signatories.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R6: From October 1st, 2022 and going forward, whenever there are outstanding questions and requests to the Federal Facility Agreement signatories, and especially during the lead-up to major cleanup document releases, a member of the management chain overseeing the Hunters Point Shipyard Program in the Department of Public Health should appear before the Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee at regular intervals to report on discussions with the Federal Facility Agreement signatories. (F6)
R22-23: budget or by October 1st, 2022, and in future budgets. (F3) R6: From October 1st, 2022 and going forward, whenever there are outstanding questions and requests to the Federal Facility Agreement signatories, and especially during the lead-up to major cleanup document releases, a member of the management chain overseeing the Hunters Point Shipyard Program in the Department of Public Health should appear before the Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee at regular intervals to report on discussions with the Federal Facility Agreement signatories. (F6) R7: By March 1st, 2023, the Hunters Point Shipyard Cleanup Oversight Committee should prepare a report on its recommended requests for the Federal Facility Agreement signatories based on the groundwater study recommended in R1, and deliver that report to the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and the Department of Public Health. (F2) 38 REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES Required Responses Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Jury requests responses to the following Findings and Recommendations from these City institutions. From the Office of the Mayor within 60 days: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7 From the San Francisco Board of Supervisors within 90 days: F4, F5, F6 R2, R3, R7 Invited Responses The Jury requests responses to the following Recommendations from these City departments within 60 days. From the Office of the City Administrator: R1 From the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning: R1 From the Department of Public Health: R4, R6 39
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The PIT data do not capture the total number of homeless R.1 : The jury recommends that by December 15, people living in San Francisco over the course of a year. Use of 2022, the Department (HSH) develop strategies this metric results in an inaccurate determination of the actual and methods, including using other existing data size of the population of homeless people in the city, which is sets to better quantify and profile the population key information for HSH’s strategic planning and program of people who are homeless. design.
F2: Key data and metrics about homelessness are not easily R.2 : The jury recommends that by March 15, accessible on the HSH website. Data is scattered across 2023, the Department create a user-friendly numerous dashboards and websites. portal and navigation system.
F3: Engaging City residents neighboring those sites where R.3 : The jury recommends that HSH both HSH plans to locate new shelters, drop-in centers, navigation communicate and collaborate with residents in centers, or safe sleeping sites early on in the development and those San Francisco neighborhoods where it siting process could promote more community acceptance and intends to establish facilities serving the endorsement of establishing those facilities, a prerequisite for unhoused. HSH should expand its staff and all development, especially projects serving homeless people. administrative capacities focused on community outreach and engagement to meet this recommendation.
F5: Despite compelling data showing that homelessness poses R.5a : The jury recommends that by September special challenges for older adults, HSH has failed to recognize 30, 2022, the Department incorporate older adults as a unique sub-population in its work to date. age-specific information into its baseline dataset of homeless demographic characteristics from the PIT, identifying that portion of the population that is over 50 years of age in particular.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R4: Invited Responses The Jury invites response from the following other entities within 60 days.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F2: R2 We recommend that by 9/30/22, the 6 departments failed to implement the database project manager specified in R1 database in a timely manner, delaying complete implementation, training sessions and "go live" workshops with all Chapter 6 the benefits it could provide in improving construction quality, meeting departments. budgets and timelines, and improving contractor relationships.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: We recommend that by 9/30/22, the 6 departments failed to implement the database project manager specified in R1 database in a timely manner, delaying complete implementation, training sessions and "go live" workshops with all Chapter 6 the benefits it could provide in improving construction quality, meeting departments. budgets and timelines, and improving contractor relationships.
F3: Chapter 6 departments failed to enter
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: We recommend that by 12/31/2022, the performance evaluations into the Mayor require all Chapter 6 departments to database, thus negating its value. begin submitting evaluations into the database. See the Glossary for more information. Shovel Ready: Best Practices and Collaboration to Improve San Francisco's Capital Construction Program
F4: Prior updates to Section 6.26 of the
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: We recommend that by 12/31/2022, the Mayor explicitly directs all Chapter 6 Administrative Code excluded language that the database must be used to departments to consult the database when evaluate contractors going forward. selecting contractors. We recommend that by 6/30/2023 the
F5: In designing and developing the
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: database, the project team neglected to project manager update the database add the technical capability to see who technology to include the capability to hold consults the database, making it evaluators accountable by observing who is difficult to hold departments using the database and when. accountable for using the database. When evaluators omit "Lessons
F6: R6 We recommend that by 6/30/2023, the Learned" entries in that data field, the project manager update the database evaluations lack the most critical technology to require the "Lessons Learned" data field be filled out before an evaluation information to help inform future contractor selections. can be marked "complete."
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: We recommend that by 6/30/2023, the Learned" entries in that data field, the project manager update the database evaluations lack the most critical technology to require the "Lessons Learned" data field be filled out before an evaluation information to help inform future contractor selections. can be marked "complete."
F7: The Controller's Office inadvertently
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: We recommend that by 6/30/2023, the complicated matters by recommending project manager include sections in the the creation of a second performance database to cover contractor compliance evaluation database to note how well with the SIP program. PUC contractors comply with its Social Impact Partnership ("SIP") program.
F8: The database fails to provide a way for
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: We recommend that by 6/30/2023, the non-Chapter 6 departments to provide project manager expand the database to include input from non-Chapter 6 feedback on both contractors and Shovel Ready: Best Practices and Collaboration to Improve San Francisco's Capital Construction Program
F9: Construction audit reports are a helpful
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: We recommend that starting in FY way to provide oversight of the City's 2022-2023, the City Services Auditor Department within the Controller's Office capital construction program. conduct performance audits of the City construction program every two years focusing on use of best practices, collaboration, and other successes and challenges. The Controller's report from 2014 can serve as a template. Shovel Ready: Best Practices and Collaboration to Improve San Francisco's Capital Construction Program Required and Invited Responses Required Responses: Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Jury requests the following responses from these City agencies. From the Office of the Mayor within 60 days:
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: full responsibility and authority, the specify which department shall manage and contractor performance evaluation have responsibility and authority for the contractor performance evaluation database database project lacked sufficient to improve compliance, monitoring and momentum to be completed, fully consistent use. We further recommend that adopted and used. the director of the specified department appoint the project manager by 6/30/22. The existing project team20 and Chapter

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.