New Bayfront Park in SF designed with sea level rise in mind
KALW Public Media / 91.7 FM Bay Area
By Wren Farrell
Published October 22, 2024 at 3:26 PM PDT
Rocks slope gently down from the sidewalk to the waterfront, a design developers say will help protect against flooding as sea levels rise
It’s been a big week for park lovers in San Francisco. On Saturday, India Basin Shoreline Park opened on the Southeastern waterfront. And on Tuesday morning, city and community leaders gathered on the Eastern waterfront to celebrate the opening of Bayfront Park.
“I've been waiting for this park for years and it is glorious,” declares Adam Ringel. He's a local Bay City Bikes tour guide and he says he’s excited to start taking his tours down to the park.
“I actually take people literally by Chase Center, so I'll be happily pointing it out. I literally make a turn right next to it over at 16th Street, so you're damn right, I will be, and I'll be pointing this out with legitimate pride.”
Bayfront Park was conceived of more than 20 years ago, as part of the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan. It will be owned and maintained by the Port of San Francisco, which has a mandate to deal with the effects of climate change.
Seth Hamalian is a developer who’s worked on the project for years. He says the park was designed with rising sea levels in mind: Where the sidewalk meets the water, rocks gradually slope down.
“So, you don't have a sharp sea wall, because that doesn't allow energy from wave action to dissipate. The second thing is you actually change elevation. You have the opportunity to do it subtly, where if I'm walking along here over time as I'm moving through this park, I'm actually at a higher elevation than kind of the standard elevation in the surrounding area.”
In 2021, the Mayor’s Office created something called ClimateSF, to coordinate and oversee existing and future climate resilience projects. But a 2024 Civil Grand Jury Report found that it was having trouble coordinating with other city departments and that it needed to be more proactive about communicating to residents the future impacts of climate change.
Some predictions say that the water will rise three to six feet — or more — by the end of the century. Groups throughout the Bay Area are doing their best to prepare for this. City officials are hopeful that Bayfront park’s design will hold up against this looming threat.
... See MoreSee Less
Civil Grand Jury’s Jail Report Contested by Board of Supes
JAIL FAIL Last June, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury released a report called “Marin County Justice Center: A Model for Change.”
The Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved its response to a recent Civil Grand Jury Report.
On Tuesday, Sept. 24, the supervisors made it official that they disagreed with all but one of the report’s findings on the county jail and juvenile hall.
Their six-page response follows the release of Marin County Civil Grand Jury’s June report called “Marin County Justice Center: A Model for Change,” which found both the Marin County Jail and the Marin County Juvenile Hall dated and ill-equipped to address the needs of the changing inmate populations.
The supervisors agreed with the finding that the small population of the Marin County Juvenile Hall “does not justify the extraordinary expense of maintaining the existing facility.” However, they “wholly or partially” disagreed with the remaining points:
• The jail is dated and doesn’t meet modern standards.
• A complex classification system and Assembly Bill 109, legislation that realigned placement for non-violent offenders and resulted in increased jail populations, have reduced programming capacity.
• The jail lacks adequate medical and mental health facilities.
• Additional programs are needed at the jail, but physical limitations make them unavailable.
• The jail’s subterranean location precludes its expansion.
• The juvenile hall is dated, and its prison-like facility doesn’t create a restorative justice atmosphere.
• The juvenile hall is inaccessible to many parents and guardians of youths held there.
The report by the Civil Grand Jury, a group of civilians who audit government practices, included several recommendations. Among them, it called for the board to initiate a study to consider the creation of a new justice center to accommodate those with low-level felonies and a space for juveniles in a separate facility on the same campus.
Before the supervisors’ decision, Gary Besser, strategic projects manager for the county, said staff disagreed with the overall finding that the extraordinary cost of a new and larger jail facility would add benefit to the criminal justice system in Marin.
“Furthermore, the legality of a single facility that houses both adults and minors is likely a violation of several state and federal statutes,” Besser said.
The supervisors’ response addressing each of the findings and the board’s reasons for agreeing, disagreeing or partially disagreeing can be found here: bit.ly/4ddgzRG. It further highlights plans to implement the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendation to remove furniture or objects that could be used to inflict harm.
A letter from Marin County Sheriff Jamie Scardina detailed his disagreement with several findings as well, specifically noting that the jail is only 30 years old; it has passed state inspections every year of its existence; any complexities brought on by AB 109 have been offset by an overage decrease in the jail’s average daily population, which has been trending downward over the last five years; and the mental health services provided meet and exceed industry standards.
“In summary, our services are not only adequate and aligned with industry standards but are also continually evolving and improving,” Scardina stated.
... See MoreSee Less
Jefferson District Responds, Generally Agrees with [San Mateo] Grand Jury
Coastside News, by Peter Tokofsky, Oct 3, 2024
Last June the San Mateo County civil grand jury released a report on the benefits of partnerships between schools and businesses and the importance of career technical education. “Education is Everyone’s Business: School-Business Partnerships Make an Impact in County’s High Schools,” identified various ways that these partnerships enhance the educational experience, improve college readiness and increase career prospects for students.
The grand jury report highlighted successful partnerships between South San Francisco Unified School District and Genentech and between Design Tech charter high school in Redwood City and Oracle. Research by the panel found that a spirit of partnership on both sides of these collaborations along with focused and well-designed programs created the environment for success in these two cases.
Funding helped as well. Genentech donated $7.8 million in initial funding and provides about $200,000 each year for ongoing programs. The Design Tech partnership benefited from $51 million in funding and thousands of volunteer hours from Oracle employees.
The grand jury requested that Jefferson Union High School District, among several others in the county that do not have such robust career technical education programs, respond to specific findings and recommendations in the report. Districts are required by law to respond.
At its most recent meeting, the Jefferson Union board approved and released the response from the district. The district indicated general agreement with the findings in the report, affirming the view that students benefit greatly from exposure to specialized work environments and from experiencing project-based instruction.
The district also concurred that businesses can provide resources, equipment and facilities to support curricula and instructors and that schools should leverage relationships with local networks to connect with business leaders.
Jefferson Union also supported the finding that low pay and credentialing hurdles inhibit the ability of school districts to recruit qualified career and technical education instructors.
Many of the findings and recommendations made by the panel fall outside the scope of a single school district, prompting the repeated response that “the district lacks information to fully agree or disagree.” For example, the grand jury recommended that the San Mateo County Office of Education “should consider sponsoring regular conferences to review and discuss ongoing and planned future school-business partnerships in the County.”
In response, Jefferson Union stated that “the district cannot respond to whether SMCOE will implement this recommendation.”
Several other findings by the grand jury included information beyond the purview of the district. The panel reported that “evaluation of students’ results from CTE pathway courses and school-business partnerships after graduation is complete, inconsistent and … anecdotal among San Mateo County high schools.”
“The district lacks information to fully agree or disagree with this finding,” Jefferson Union replied.
... See MoreSee Less
SFUSD review finds nearly 350 teachers without active teaching credentials
September 27, 2024
San Francisco Unified School District officials said Friday that they have discovered about 350 teachers in the district who do not have active teaching credentials.
The district said the discovery of the uncredentialed teachers was "a symptom of the ongoing challenges" related to the payroll system EMPowerSF implemented in 2022 that has been riddled with problems since then, with many teachers and district employees reporting receiving inaccurate paychecks or nothing at all.
SFUSD is moving to a new system to replace EMPowerSF and reviewed over 7,000 credentials issued by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The district began sending letters earlier this month to teachers who may not have an active credential on file with the commission.
"SFUSD cannot allow teachers whose credentials are not in compliance to remain in the classroom," Superintendent Matt Wayne said in a statement. "We are doing everything possible to support our employees in securing some type of credential or permit for an employee to remain in their assignment."
The district said it has a "robust pool of substitutes" on hand to cover classes that may be impacted by the problem.
The issue is not a new one for SFUSD and was the topic of a report last year by a civil grand jury—a panel convened in each county around the state annually to investigate and report on local government operations.
The June 2023 report titled "Not Making the Grade: San Francisco's Shortage of Credentialed Teachers" said that recruitment and retention of credentialed teachers may be harmed by starting salaries the civil grand jury found were lower than most in the Bay Area as well as the payroll system problems that led to a "sleep-in" by educators at district offices.
The civil grand jury also reported that district administrators were frequently non-responsive during their investigation, which led to delays and required repeated intervention from the office of the San Francisco city attorney.
SFUSD's statement Friday said the credential issue is part of "systemic operational issues that have existed for years" but that the district is under new Human Resources leadership that is "taking immediate steps to identify and mitigate critical, long-standing issues."
Last weekend, Mayor London Breed announced a School Stabilization Team made up of managers from other city departments to address issues in the district, which is also considering the closures of various schools amid a decrease of enrollment by more than 4,000 students since the 2017-18 school year.
The team will be able to use $8.4 million in unallocated funds to help the district and its schools, Breed's office said.
""With so many questions around SFUSD's fiscal situation, potential school closures, and outlook for families, I'm deploying top city leaders and expert staff to help the School Board and District leadership navigate the coming months," Breed said in a statement.
SFUSD review finds nearly 350 teachers without active teaching credentials
San Francisco Unified School District officials said Friday that they have discovered about 350 teachers in the district who do not have active teaching credentials.
... See MoreSee Less
A Database of Dangerous Dogs: San Diego County Should Publish Biters’ Addresses, Grand Jury Says
If a pet dog has a history of biting, does the public have a right to know?
The grand jury in San Diego County considered this question and answered in the affirmative.
In an investigation prompted by a complaint from a dog bite victim who found the official response inadequate, the watchdog group recommended that San Diego County publish the addresses of dog owners whose pets have been determined to be dangerous.
“Dog bites can cause physical and psychological harm and spread disease,” the grand jury said in a report to the Board of Supervisors last week. “About 2,500 dog bites are reported annually by San Diego County to the California Department of Public Health, although the true number is larger as not all cities make the required report.”
The supervisors sent the report to the county’s Animal Services Department for review.
The county has a dog bite page on its website giving tips on how owners can keep their dogs from biting and how others can avoid being bitten.
It instructs those bitten on how to report the incident and provides a link to a dog bite report. But it provides no information on where dangerous dogs may be encountered.
Citing examples of dangerous-dog databases maintained by the state of Virginia; Volusia County in Florida; and Minneapolis, the grand jury recommended the county “develop a plan for collecting information about the location of a declared dangerous dog within the county and posting this information, so it is readily available to the public.”
The report found several deficiencies in how the county, and cities in the county, handle dog bite incidents. Not all cities pass on dog bite reports to the county, and some lack regulations allowing animal control officers to fine owners of dogs that are dangerous.
The grand jury recommended that all cities that don’t already have them develop regulations allowing officers to cite and fine owners for violating animal control ordinances, and that all dog bites be reported annually.
Dogs that have been declared to be dangerous must be muzzled in public, and the owner is required to post warning signs and maintain liability insurance of at least $100,000.
But in recommending a database of dogs that have been declared dangerous, the watchdog group acknowledged a hurdle.
The procedure for designating dogs as dangerous requires the victim to testify in a court hearing. Victims interviewed by the grand jury described testifying as “a daunting experience” and one of the primary reasons hearings seldom occur.
“In the San Diego Humane Society reports for the last 3 fiscal years, 9 to 18 Dangerous Dog hearings a year took place, with 78% to 90% of those hearings resulting in the declaration that the dog was dangerous,” the report said.
Although not recommending any changes to make the process more accessible, the grand jury commended cities that levy fines of up to $500 for multiple violations of dog ordinances as a way of encouraging responsible ownership.
... See MoreSee Less
September 20, 2024
A recent report by the San Diego County Grand Jury commended the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) for the resources and guidance they provide county school districts and charter schools, as well as their leadership at the local and national levels in addressing cybersecurity challenges in K-12 education.
The report noted that while SDCOE has no oversight on what school districts do around cybersecurity, they “exert influence by providing a broad set of products and services to help them improve their cybersecurity readiness.”
SDCOE technology services include vulnerability assessments and remediation, setup and configuration guidance for critical security controls, cybersecurity best-practices, and post-incident review. SDCOE also offers San Diego County districts the Red Herring software solution for free to provide phishing awareness training, and risk management and insurance products are offered through the Joint Powers Authority.
“While cybersecurity attacks in K-12 have increased in both frequency and complexity over the last decade, SDCOE and its ITS Cybersecurity team have been leading the effort to meet these challenges,” said Terry Loftus, assistant superintendent and chief information officer. “It's affirming for SDCOE to receive positive recognition in this report.”
The grand jury interviewed seven districts and determined these districts are at varying stages of cybersecurity preparedness. Collectively, it rated the group of districts at a moderate level of cybersecurity readiness.
The grand jury’s findings were presented in general terms to avoid exposing any security vulnerabilities, examining human readiness, technical readiness, and organizational readiness as it relates to cybersecurity.
Human readiness refers to how prepared employees and students are to notice potential phishing attacks through suspicious emails or other means. The grand jury recommended that all employees and students, with a particular focus on new hires, receive annual cybersecurity training and implement a phishing awareness solution such as Red Herring.
Technical readiness factors they examined at each district included multi-factor authentication (MFA) and password management, patch management procedures, backup management procedures and disaster recovery, distribute denial of service protection, and vulnerability scanning.
The report noted that MFA “is one of the most critical tools in defending against cyberattacks,” and recommended all districts in the county implement these measures for all staff members.
Organizational readiness looked at the districts’ staffing around cybersecurity and technical expertise, the importance leadership placed on cybersecurity, and cyber insurance. Experience varied widely based on the district’s size. While the grand jury found there is no one-size-fits-all solution, they determined one best practice is clear: “there should be one individual who is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity readiness in the district.”
To ensure all districts in San Diego County are prepared for cyberattacks, the Grand Jury encouraged all districts to review and implement recommendations highlighted in the report.
The report concluded with recommendations for training, MFA, and cyber insurance, and recommended SDCOE continue supporting school districts and charter schools with their cybersecurity efforts.
... See MoreSee Less