Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 12716  SFGTV  January 29, 2016 2:00am-6:01am PST

2:00 am
>>[gavel] >> good evening. welcome to the january good evening. welcome to the january 20, 2016 meeting of these san francisco board of appears. the presiding officer this evening is and lazarus and she joined tonight by commissioner frank fong commissioner swig and bobby wilson could expect bobby honda to be here any minute. at the controls is gary-the board legal assistant cynthia goldstein the executive director. russell joined by represents of the city department that of cases before the board this month. bob
2:01 am
sanchez is here. representing the planning department and commission along with jim purvis with the planning department. just step out of the room is senior building inspector on behalf of the department. the board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the holy. appellants, permit holders and barb in response feature given 7 min. to present their case and 3 min. for rebuttal. people affiliated with a party must include the comments within the 7 or 3 min. period. numbers of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 min. each to address the board and no rebuttal. be speaking to the end of the microphone. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speed. speaker cards are available on
2:02 am
the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. if you questions about a rehearing the boards schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting. or call our business board office that were located at 1650 mission st. in room 304 between s. venice ave. this meeting is broadcast live on speed tv channel 78 and is rebroadcast on friday at 4 pm on channel 26. dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov tv. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify in any tonight's hearing wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary right please stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed. the standout. raise your hand and
2:03 am
to use while solemnly affair that the testimony you give with the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. pres. lazarus we have one has item. item number 5 appeal number 15-183 at 1583 list all at 1583 list all ave. that item will has been withdrawn and will not be heard. willing to general public comment is there anyone like to address the board on an item with the board subject matter jurisdiction but is not on the calendar this evening? any general public comment. seeing none,, will move on i guess to item number 3 which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioner? seeing none,, will move on to item number 4, which is the board's consideration of the minutes for january 13, 2016.
2:04 am
>> any corrections or additions deletions to the minutes? if not deny the motion to approve the minutes? >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, may we have a motion by commissioner fung to adopt the minutes. on a motion lazarus aye, honda aye, wilson aye swig aye. that motion carries. and pres. lazarus will move to item number 2 if you wish. >> item number 2 is the election of officers and pursuant to article 2 section 1 of the board's rules, election of officers is countered after 15 january that is tonight's meeting. before we do move
2:05 am
forward with this if you want to take a moment to thank pres. lazarus for her service these last 2 years. it's been a pleasure to work with you and i do appreciate your leadership and your service both to my support of my work. >>[applause] . >> starting with the opposite of the president, are there any board members would like to nominate a colleague were themselves for this office the clicks >> i would nominate vp gerald honda >> it will take a vote but not a 2nd. is there any other nominee? is there any public comment on the nomination of honda for the office of president? seeing none,, we will take a vote on that motion by commissioner fung. lazarus aye, honda aye, wilson aye swig
2:06 am
aye. >> thank you and congratulations to pres. honda. >>[applause] . >> moving on to the office of vice president, other any nominations for this office? >> i would not like to nominate commissioner fung >> can i 2nd his? >> is there any nominations for that office? seeing none, is there any public comment. no public comment so we have a motion by honda to nominate commissioner fung as vice president. on a motion, commissioner fung aye, commissioner lazarus aye,
2:07 am
commissioner wilson aye, commissioner swig aye. congratulations. thank you both for your willingness to serve in these capacities. >>[applause] >> now will skip down to business given that we have 21 cases to start off with. so, item 5 has been withdrawn to move on to item 6. item 6a shall be heard together with 650. these were followed by contest promotions llc versus the department building inspection with plenty department disapproval. the address for these 1st 31 appeals are 250 divisadero st. 917 and 2001. street. 2001. street. 172 golden street ave.
2:08 am
699 3rd st. 65 65 6th st. 3 9782. 2101 11 street. 2050 21st. 2847 and 2040 24th. 449 portola st. 716 909 30 columbus ave. 2200 909 30 columbus ave. 2200 lane st. 745-751 market st. 1270, 2097, 3200, 3729 and 4701 mission st. 1101 oak st. and 300 sanchez st. these are all protesting issuance on october 21 processing the denial on october 14, 2015 apartment. starting with the attorney for the appellant. >> i have a disclosure. we should disclose i part grouping
2:09 am
angeles on a separate matter. his representation have appear before the court will not have any effect on my decision today. >> thank you. unless there's been a change i believe the parties have all agreed that they will have 20 min. to present arguments to the board and then 10 min. of rebuttal after public comment. so, if you can set the clock to 20 min.? >> congratulations resident honda and vice president fung. and with contest promotions in the appeal housekeeping matter 1st. yes, we're going to address all of these initially these 31. the next 4 are exactly the same and i don't want to scare you. i intend to simply incorporate my comments that were not going to separate hearings. despite the number of appeals before you the dispute
2:10 am
is relatively straightforward. i'm going to walk through the factual history and actions vis-à-vis the city's actions contest promotions. i actually don't think there's much difference in the factual procedural history, although expect you will hear a pretty different class from the city as to what the meaning of each of the actions that took place. the city will try to convince you that its actions were about clarifying existing law and had nothing to do with contest promotions. they will say this is a routine enforcement action . that's simply not the case. the city will refer to proposition g in 2002. the ordinance that is relevant here was the substance of amendments to proposition g is an emergency interim ordinance and followed by a final ordinance that short-circuited the city's
2:11 am
loss. if this amendment was a routine and nonsensitive as the city claims, why did he require an emergency ordinance introduced in 2014 on the same day the city approved the settlement agreement with contest promotions? don't be confused. this is not about proposition >>[call of the g. it's only that the city settled in a short contest promotions would continue to operate legal. the reality is this. after the city induced contest promotions to settle in its lawsuit in the same moment that it ratified the settlement agreement, the city introduce legislation targeted a contest promotions only, specifically designed to eradicate contest promotions business model and remedy, and
2:12 am
render the settlement agreement worthless. we ask that you give the settlement agreement meeting and not allow the city to break its promises required the planning department and the building department issued permits that have been denied., now i'm going to hopefully, help make sense of what i just said. here is the story. contest promotions at city permits for in science when it started doing business here in san francisco over a decade ago. beginning in 2007, the planning department began issuing notices of violations claiming for the 1st time contest promotions signs which had been up for years, were not business signs. is this signs are allowed commercial advertisements i think you know that from other hearings. contest promotions try to work with the city to explain that it signs were legal but eventually had to sue the city in federal court in 2009. in 2011, contest promotions won an injunction in the federal court preventing the city from
2:13 am
enforcing the notice is a violation. this was a major setback for the city. the federal court found the part of the city at issue is probably unconstitutional and that contest promotions was likely to ultimately win a judgment. the 2 parties, not surprisingly, then entered into settlement discussions and reached a verbal settlement put on the court record in 2013. that court record was then reduced to a writing after months and months of negotiations. that's the settlement agreement that's attached to our papers and i will refer to it regularly. in the settlement agreement, the city agreed contest promotions signs were legal under the code as long as they met the physical requirements such as size and location. those sorts of things that are also in the code. this opened the way for contest promotions to trade its existing permits for new permits
2:14 am
. contest promotions agreed to follow the new rules made that were in the settlement agreement to process sign applications for its contests and raffles. one rule was for contest promotions to file actually file new permit applications for business signs. this was exciting to contest promotions by the city's way for the city to more easily track and monitor these new signs under the settlement agreement. which, they were not new signs actually but new permits for the signs would give them a new record. when i say them among the city. contest promotions also agreed to pay the city $375,000 to settle alleged finds that this was explained to contest promotions as way to ensure the settlement would be approved by the board of supervisors and was a powerful payment for contest promotions to make in exchange for peace. but the board of supervisors or lease
2:15 am
some of its members, showed it had no intent other than 2 single contest promotions and render the settlement agreement meaningless and eradicate contest promotions business model. although contest promotions and the city negotiators signed the settlement agreement in january of 2014, the board of supervisors did not finally approved the settlement until july 15 although contest promotions and the city negotiators signed the settlement agreement in january of 2014, the board of supervisors did not finally approved the settlement until july 15, 2014 approximately 6 months later. on that same day, the day it was approved by the board of supervisors, 2 supervisors introduced emergency interim zoning controls, changing the definition of a business i'm so as to make contest promotions signs illegal. by the way, this is at the same moment in time the permit applications that were required under the settlement agreement were pending and being held by the planning department and
2:16 am
building department. the sole purpose of this tactic was to undermine the settlement agreement. interim controls are valid for 18 months and are supposed to be reserved for emergency situations. there was no legitimate emergency here. during the 18 months that allowed for interim controls, in january of 2015, so a year later, the same we definition of a business i'm targeting contest promotions was imported into a ordinance that have been introduced in may of 2011 and had been sitting dormant for approximately 3.5 years. this material we definition did not return to the planning commission for review as it should have. meanwhile, shortly after the settlement am a contest promotions did what was required under the settlement and paid the city $150,000. in august and september contest promotions filed@permit applications. just as promised. the planning department refused to group them relying on the still warm we definition of the business i'm that had just been changed in the code. in
2:17 am
october, 2015, the planning department directed ddi to formally disprove all the pending applications and now we are here. the city suggests this board does not have jurisdiction to consider the case. specifically the city claims to rule in contest promotions favor would be the equivalent of amending the code. we are not asking this board to legislate. were asking the board to force the city to stick by his word. this board has broad authority to overrule the planning and building department's denial of permit. you do it all the time. were not asking the board to take an exceptional or extraordinary legislative action. specific, were asking the board to find for planning department actions are against the public interest, which is exactly as it stated for your jurisdiction in the san francisco charter.
2:18 am
turning to some other merits, as i mentioned before, they are straightforward. 1st, facing the prospect of losing that lawsuit the city invited contest promotions to settle at the table. next after more than one year of hard negotiations, the city baited contest promotions into an agreement what is a business i'm and communicated that to contest promotions in a manner that would protect contest promotions existing inventory, which is still up ending the completion of the ministry to proceedings that are before you now. lying on this assurance, contest promotions dismiss the lawsuit it was winning could agree to summit new applications in a clear permit history and agreed to a 6 figure payment to the city to smooth the approval process with the board of supervisors. finally, the city pulled the switch by outlining outline its own method of what was a business i'm on the same diet approved the settlement. the
2:19 am
new definition of business i'm with design introduced and enacted for the sole and specific purpose of targeting contest promotions settlement agreement. it denied contest promotions the benefit negotiated in good faith with the city and performed good there is well settled law in california since the 1980s than enacting and amending the zoning ordinance in order to target and prevent existing or permitted use is simply not legal. in the case of orono versus costa mesa 126-330, i have a copy here if the attorney would like it, costa mesa approved the development of raymond. excuse me a development project. after approval, legislation resuming the was passed about presenting the project from being built just a few months later the city refused to issue permits for the development relying on the new legislation. the court explained that without any significant change in circumstances without considering appropriate planning criteria, rezoning the property for the sole purpose of temp defeating the project
2:20 am
was in doubt arbitrary and discriminatory. here on the exact same day that the city set and agreed method of determining what a business sign is, and start the process of outlined-outline this method it there was no change in circumstance. the city's ban on general advertising had been in effect since 2002. is the reason the substantive amendment could not come any time in the 12 years intervening between 2002 and 2014. certainly was not an emergency. except if you wanted to put contest promotions out of business. the city also did not follow its own rules to make sure the planning issues were considered at the planning commission as is required. it short-circuited the legislative process not once but twice. 1st by introducing the interim ordinance as emergency-how took 12 years to become an emergency is unclear-then it failed to refer a subset of amendment back to the planning commission as was a required. this
2:21 am
amendment was asked whether purpose than to kill contest operations and san francisco good it was arbitrary and discriminatory. as we noted the board of supervisors failed to follow its own procedures by not referring the final ordinance act of the planning commission for interview and recommendation. rather, in short, the city quietly put the new definition of business signs in a 350 page ordinance that been sitting around since 2011 and then allow the board of supervisors to push it through without it ever going back to the planning commission to review the changes that they had put in to defeat contest promotions. when a ordinance is proposed it would amend the planning code it must be referred to the planning commission or hearing. the
2:22 am
amended legislation that makes material modifications the same rule applies. the board of supervisors is prohibited from passing the legislation until the planning commission has a hearing. i'm sure you're familiar with the issue. in fact a 350 page ordinance was introduced in 2011 containing a whole host of code amendments. it was never sent back after this change was made. the city claims this was not material modification. that's not correct. the final version of the legislation added a requirement that the sign, any sign, any business i'm direct attention to the primary business on the site. it added a substantive definition for that term. and, it removed language into places allowing signs which directed attention to a business on the site so long as that business was more than incidental at the site. those are material amendments. the amendment substantively change the definition of
2:23 am
business signs in the city. the city's own actions demonstrate this is true despite what they claim. why propose a emergency ordinance to change a non-sub and of amendment to the planning code and on the same day the settlement is approved no less. in fact, the only reason why this matter is here before you today is the planning and building departments light on that new just one definition to deny the permit. in conclusion, after taking a beating in the court the city negotiated agreement with contest promotions allowing for contest promotions to continue its business to set up a process to track contest promotions sign inventory. all except-we relied on the agreement by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city and finally the applications as required. at the same moment, the city both approved the settlement agreement and introduced emergency board ordinance to fundamentally subvert that settlement agreement for the sole purpose of eradicating
2:24 am
contest promotions business in the city. as was the situation and are no versus costa mesa, this position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal. compounding the illegal bait and switch certain city decision-makers circumvented the legislative process by failing to referred the material changes back to the planning commission. this board should exercise its discretion taxes done many times in the past 2 reverse an unfair and improper denial of contest promotions permit applications and direct the planning and building department to issue those permits. i got a few minutes left. this is the 2nd 2016 is the 40th year since up in pakistan in san francisco, and although i've not been here recently, members of my office up it up into the board of appeals hundreds of times over those of you. never have i once were always on the same side. i
2:25 am
don't enjoy good i'm not happy about it. coincidentally it'll happen again next week which will complete my lifetime quota of having to come and overturn city permits. but, i've got to tell you, i was around for most of this. i could've commented. i was the one at the board of supervisors. i was the one talking to the board of supervisors. i was one getting the assurances and this was a bait and switch. as i said, we will need another presentation for the remaining signs a part of the recusal. so all come up and incorporate what i've said already. thank you. >> i have some questions. mr. rubin, you talk about contest promotions being induced into a settlement. doesn't take 2 to tango? it also sounded like you had the upper home based on what the court said >> the most important thing to sign companies who have been under siege ever since lady
2:26 am
bird johnson's clean highway act back in the 1960s, is to remain in business as best they can. they were winning the loss. winning the lawsuit was in the endgame. the endgame was keeping their inventory up and the city invited them to the table suggesting they would be able to keep that inventory up and they could settle the case. so, it was a prudent decision to make. you are right. they could've continued on the litigation spent a lot of money , and it would have happened already in that litigation was portending of the future they would have one. >> my 2nd question, it strikes me your premise is largely based on what you consider a legal action on the part of the city in terms of the emergency ordinance, etc. he cited a court case that supported that. why isn't the issue, then, with the city and not with the
2:27 am
permitting agency, which it seems was issuing permits under the current law? why would you not have gone after the city at the time to say we don't believe a lie was properly enacted? is that question make sense? >> are you talking about sending back to the planning commission- >> several parts were flawed and if you believe that it seems to me at the time you would pursue the city in the court to say this was a valid ordinance >> there are court proceedings percentage we need to complete the administrative rosset. we need to complete the board of appeals hearing and follow the board of appeals but i don't know what that could be but in order to actually follow the lawsuit but they will do that if they need to. >> i understand that. is that the premise you're basing this appeal? >> i believe, it's always been
2:28 am
in the 40 years i don't do litigation. i don't want to do litigation i believe everybody should try to avoid litigation if they can. so, we are here asking you to remedy the situation without the need for litigation. i believe that the courts, i believe this board has the power to do that. you could suck the city did not follow its own rules therefore, send back the material amendments to the planning commission, and therefore that the code sections are not valid and that these permits to be issued under the old code sections, before the amendment. 2, you could determine that contest promotions permit applications should be decided as the code was on the day that the board of supervisors approved the settlement agreement. that would get them there permits. 3, you could decide that portions of the
2:29 am
settlement agreement that require we permitting on not required. as we stand here right now, contest promotions has signs up in the city with permits. >> i was going to wait but i might as well ask the question in somewhat the same vein. that is that, if you would like to address the fact that i think i may start that over again. your office and your fellow representatives that have been before this board have innumerable times made the argument that the law, at the time that we hear a case, is the prevailing basis. how would you address that in terms of what we are faced with where the prevailing law is the ordinance that was passed.
2:30 am
>> 1, i would hope you would take a very clear eyed look at how that law became the law. and find it to be an abuse of the city's discretion. because it was directly pointed at contest promotions. i believe, there are cases-i know there are cases that allow you to come to that conclusion to make that decision. which would then put you in this tuition will you be considering these permit applications under the law before themi'm sure we have that-commissioner fung also ongoing commitments to codes were perfectly fine that didn't go back to the planning commission for review. sometime over the last 30 years, but
2:31 am
this one isn't. this was a material change in the code, your code the city code requirement being reviewed in a public hearing at planning commission was not just the contest promotions the entire public has an opportunity to review it. and that did not happen. you could find that the codes that are being asked to use today-i'm sure with the city will tell you-are invalid. therefore, contest promotions permits could be approved under the codes as they were on the day that the settlement was approved. >> is there anything in the settlement agreement that prevents this whole thing? that prevents having that anticipates a possible change in the law and in some way you could be grandfathered in? >> no. he does say that-i'll find it for you and read it
2:32 am
because i think the precise language is important. when we started to get wind-and it was me that was in communiqué with the board of supervisors. and i wasn't called to be told you're making changes. i wasn't told the legislative ordinance had been submitted for changing anything during the period of time we were lobbying to have this approved which kind of surprised me because i do this a lot and i know the supervisors, a lot of them quite well. my clients would ask me and i said no, they would not do that. the settlement agreement says there will be new permit applications. the rationale, which made sense, was to allow
2:33 am
planning department to create a database, where they could track more easily are permit applications. in fact, there was a reporting requirement in the settlement agreement. they have to look at again but every year or two we are supposed to pay some money for that reporting and reviewing and all that kind of stuff. i know i cannot answer your question precisely. i sit down up up the settlement agreement and find the language. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the planning department now. >> good evening, commissioner of john purvis with the planning department. i'm here to talk about the background of the planning departments involvement with sign enforcement and the history with this company. i reviewed each of the permit applications that are subject to the appeal here for compliance with
2:34 am
planning code requirements for business signs. none of them could be approved because as representative of plans they cannot be defined as business signs. i don't need the planning code definition for what a business sign is. the planning code makes important distinction between business signs, which are allowed general advertising signs which are not allowed. the code defines a business sign is one that directs attention to the primary business on the premises. appellant signs focus on branding advertising. therefore, they're not business signs the general advertising signs. since 2002, san francisco voters approved a ban on general advertising in the city. we gave every opportunity to the appellant to review -revise the plans. we issued six notices over the course of about 10 months before sending them back to department of building inspection for disapproval. as you know, most
2:35 am
of the signs are under appeal do already exist. they been up for about 10-12 years. the appellant does business by mounting signs on building walls outside small businesses and filling them up with name brand advertising on pace to post. they touch upon it across the top with the name of the business along with an invitation to come into the business, enter contests and win prizes that are related to those ads. the appellant believes because contest prizes are related to the ads in signs and the contests are held inside the business, that makes those signs business sign. but do besides and the signs focus primarily on the brand-name advertisers. the appellant has been doing this type of advertising in san francisco since about 2002. then we came up with a contest id. once the planning department started
2:36 am
cracking down on illegal general advertising signs. to better understand as i like to go over some background explain how we got to where we are now. on march 5, 2015 opposition g and san francisco with a percent of support riveted on the general advertising signs in the city. it was only two days after that the appellant on march 7, filed the first of several sign permit applications to install signs. in your attachment one you can see the first comment which is for business sign on the northeast corner of attorney street. at at 353, 359 attorney st. at the time that
2:37 am
was a restaurant on the premises, but this photo on that sign that was installed is clearly not a restaurant sign could this was taken by staff in 27 did it shows a sign i do not harassment but advertising the gap. all the signs, all the son subject to appeal today have the same kind of history did it apply for a permit to put up a sign not identifying with advertisement, but just saying it's a sign or business sign and that what would be put up is an advertisement. a series of advertisements. this is typically what the sign would say. the permit would say is a new business signs. then, this is what would get installed. no business names on
2:38 am
the signs. no mention of contest or prizes. this is just a sampling. i have more. they are all like that. in 2007, because of the proliferation of illegal advertising in the city and the problems with tracking number was legislation in place that allowed in inventory enforcement program set up in the planning department. the #'s were surveyed in the field like this, and staff recognize them to be general advertising signs. at the time the code to find a business sign as a sign that directs attention to a
2:39 am
business commodity service industry or other activity which is sold offered were conducted other than incidentally on the premises upon which signs is located or affixed. does go on, where number of commodities with brand names or symbols are sold on the premises up to one third the area of the business sign or 25 ft.2, whichever is less. they be devoted to advertise. one or more of those commodities by brand name or symbol as an accessory to the business sign. the brand names advertised on the #'s were not available on the premise. not at all. not even incidentally.) name ads fill the entire sign area not just wondered. by 2008, the planning department issued notice of violation and once we started issuing notice of violation on the signs, placards began appearing about each sign reading, [inaudible]. details of the bid his an example of the kind of password we start seeing on the signs.
2:40 am
otherwise these advertisements were the same. planning staff went to these businesses and every time we asked about the prizes, store merchants were confused. what are you talking about? only when we refer to them to the sign out front for the contest, how do we win them? then they would show us, yes, some posters over. if you want a poster just take one. so there were no contest. even if there was, was at best incidental to the business. in some cases, it wasn't even an on-site business at all. in some cases the business with several doors down from where the sign was posted. nevertheless, appellant requested that the-planning
2:41 am
code section 62.3. appellant asserted signs meet the definition of a business sign because one, the signs direct attention to contests conducted inside the stores and two, the restriction on planning advertising applies only to products that are sold on the premises. he was arguing that the signs were advertising prices that were given away on the premise. they were not so. if they were sold they were sold elsewhere. the mr. law judge heard their arguments and upheld the nov and the approved penalties. they don't then filed a lawsuit against the city. the city agreed to save further enforcement action pending litigation. by this time it's about 20 to get the apartment had removed hundreds of general advertising signs in the city. contest promotions wasn't the only company that was questioning or disputing the definition of a business sign. for example, when the
2:42 am
king street. the owner of this building in the photo with the advertisement obtained permits for the left side of that building but instead use the permits to advertise the. it turned out the owner had in fact leased a small storefront in the ground floor for the as a marketing office. the merchandise advertising the sign was installed on the premises, the owner argue because the gap had a presence in the building however incidental, they should be able to advertise. well, printed, consider this illegal general advertising, issued a denial and as the penalties accrued the owner sought reconsideration after a lengthy hearing process the vacated the premises and the department agreed to forgo penalties if
2:43 am
you're just remove the sign. you would then have a right to a legal sign with a new permit that fully complied with the planning code. in 2010 the owners of the in 2010 the owners of the-this is another example-the owners of i'm sorry the owners of the embarcadero center wanted to advertise some other tenants including chase bank it each had a premise-a presence on summer on the presence on the embarcadero centered but the embarcadero center is about four block area . any individual business would have have to be incidental to the entire embarcadero center just the office would be incidental to the one ed king street building. the owners of attorney did not pursue this matter further. so, with these
2:44 am
kinds of situations, it's possible that proposition g and its enforcement was putting pressure on advertisers to find creative ways to stretch the definition of what a business sign is and always has been. this definition did use words such as premises and incidental , which were commonly understood , but not specifically defined in the planning food and meeting to misinterpretation at the definition of a business i would need to be more precise. on july 15, 2014, resolution was introduced to the board of supervisors to clarify the definition of a business sign to interim zoning controls. with this change of business sign without direct attention to the primary business. commodities, service industry or other activity which is sold off the conducted upon the premises upon which the sign is
2:45 am
located. it defines the primary business as they use which occupies the greatest area on the premises upon which the sign is located upon which it is affixed. so this definition is a lot more precise. it's not a redefinition but the clarification. the primary business is defined objectively by the size-by the size on the premises and the promises it defined by the location of the sign. all montgomery businesses and all main print advertising would be limited to the one otto. this is consistent with long-standing practice. provides language clarifies what a business sign has generally been understood to be at its most basic, all it does is replace other than incidentally, incidentally,with primary. on
2:46 am
july 16, 2014 litigationwitty comment was resolved with the settlement agreement visited by this time some asides have been in place in fine revenue for 10-12 years. under the agreement eats iraq to comply with all applicable provisions of the planning code in effect on the date of issuance. on august 8, 2014 don't begin reform of fine permit applications as the agreement record. nova science complied with planning code section 602.3 as it was updated. the plan showed each-let me see. i have an example. this is an example of
2:47 am
one of the 35 plans that was submitted. plan showed each primary business name will be splayed across the top. this is the layout of the sign. it shows the changeable adhesive copy. that would represent the attic area, advertising area. this is the detail what the sign would be. it shows the name of the business across the top. then, congress contest details across the bottom. in
2:48 am
the middle is changeable adhesive copy and obviously that's just advertising that they've always done. so, this is basically-and here is to confirm that, included a photo of what the site would look like with the plan and i don't know if you can see that but it's in your packets as attachment eight. the photo clearly shows the same kind of re-paste poster ads they been putting on the sign all along. so, to comply the planning code as business signs, the signs would only have to be slightly modified. so the primary business along with any generic information about the business including contest, comprises two thirds of the sign and a brand-name advertising would be limited to the one third portion. also limited considered sold on the premise.
2:49 am
this is the applicant-the signs were never revised. after several warnings, applicant applications were sent back to for disapproval. appellant claims that denying the permit subverts the settlement agreement as well as opponents rights to its existing son. the settlement agreement, which both parties signed requires the appellant apply for new permits for their existing signs and requires the planning department to approve them only if they satisfy all agreements of the planning code. period. planning code is always subject to revision or to sponsor new issues and this is an issue that an ongoing notch as it doesn't contest promotions with other entities that were disputing this very issue, business signed versus advertising. the settlement
2:50 am
agreement basically obligates the planning department to deny the permits. the claimant is a new definition for business i'm resigned to the sole purpose for the settlement division this is just a commonsense clarification to ensure the business i'm permits are not used by property owners and advertisers to circumvent proposition g and the will of the voters. to avoid confusion expense but other signed companies regarding the difference between a business sign and a general advertising sign. the appellants propose i'm failed to comply with both versions of what a business on his. neither the earlier
2:51 am
version or this version. they say denying the permits will extinguish contest promotions business operations. but all they need to do is revise the layout. that's all were asking. that's all we've ever asked to revise the layout of the signs to focus on the primary business on premise rather than general advertising. they can attract customers with just a brand-name advertising beyond the long-standing one third. they say the ordinance violets of the poet's rights to due process. well, administrative agency, this court of appeals lacks the authority-this woman told by the city attorney's office, lacks the authority to declare a statute invalid or views to enforce it. the court of appeals is not a lawmaking body has no power to disregard or mandy ordinance is which define its authority. again, the memo 2602.3 merely clarify laws any distinctions between business signs and general
2:52 am
advertising signs. the legislation, therefore did maturely modify statutory definition of what a business sign. to the contrary just a minor clarification to ensure a business signs are indeed business signs. that's all i have. i can answer the questions if you have them. >> two questions mr. berger. when you make the statement that it did not conform, that statement is reflecting it did not conform to be interim controls. is that correct? >> i would say they don't conform to the previous or the interim. which are now permanent. >> during the course of your correspondence with them that it did not conform, was anytime made by the permit applicant to submit revised documentation or
2:53 am
additional argument at that point? >> no. they did make some revisions what was told the signs, for example was too big or there were too many. they made did make some obligations for some other sons. we are talking about the ones under appeal.? >> yes >> yes they made a few revisions in regard to that but none that would satisfy the definition of a business sign. >> how many of those were those applications was modified? >> probably 10 or 12. i don't know offhand. >> out of the 30? >> yes. but not all the more modified to the satisfaction of the planning department. to be consistent with the planning code with respect to other issues such as size, location. there are nine with respect to other issues such as size, location. there are 9-9 of these 35 that even if we disregard the definition of a business sign their nine that
2:54 am
can't be approved anyway. because of those locational size issues. >> i just need some help with timing here. he said it was just a clarification of language. not kind of minor. is that with you- >> yes >> when was the square petitioner? >> it was done through interim controls >> when? >> when? july 15, 2014. that's when it was introduced to the board of supervisors >> user proposition littered golf was passed- >> march 5 22. >> why did it take to so long to clarify, 12 year >> >> first of all, okay, we can have a program for enforcement until 2007. we have a legislation in place to inventory the signs. so it didn't start until 2007 the couple ordinance to pass allowing us to set up an
2:55 am
inventory and to enforce against illegal signs. that got undergoing in 2007, 2008. so is more recent than that. some of these issues, every situation was unique. there were other issues similar to this like i said with a chase signs. other signs on the embarcadero center and 188 king st. we were able to solve them little by little over time. but, this interim controls, which i'm saying isn't really-well it solves all of those problems if they were to ever come up again. >> but they had signs up all this time, right? >> contest promotions >> yes >> yes. >> so they're doing business and then someone gets around to
2:56 am
join them but their signs on proper >> telling them what >> not conform. >> no, no, no. we have always-these have been targeted as violations since the beginning. the enforcement has been on stage. i'm sorry. i should've said that when they litigated, part of that agreement i think it was the judge that for one reason or another, we agreed to stay the enforcement. so they're still open violations, were not acting on those. they're sort of on hold until it could be settled. that's when the settlement agreement came into being and get to this point >> the settlement agreement was negotiated at the time, right >> it took a while >> i'm sure i wasn't part of that but i do believe- >> you know whether during the settlement of those visions it was discussion about the
2:57 am
degradation. >> i can't speak to what was talked about. ultimately, without approved is what got approved, witches they have to comply with what is in place at the time the permit is issued. >> the time in the permit is issued. interesting. thank you. >> to the issue that this is a planning department ordinance, usually discussion on this serious issue like this is what the planning commission for some level of discussion information, whatever, to the appellants point, that this was not. can you comment on that >>. i'm going to let the city attorney's office. >> thank you. >> for president honda and other members of the board of appeals, deputies and the
2:58 am
attorney thomas-. i worked on the litigation in the settlement agreement. to the point that commissioners, swig are asking about the amendment that happen. it was first as an interim control in 2014 and then permanent in 2015. the key timeframe is that in 2011 supervisors speech you and another supervisor sponsored amendments to the planning code over a number of different sections. they went to the commission. it went to the planning commission clause may have a hearing in 2012 and pass that-past the moment in front of them out of their commission back to the board of
2:59 am
supervisor. picking back to the board of supervisors, as it into for reasons which i'm not aware of only took a portion of what had gone to the commission to the full board for approval. so, in-what year-in 2012, the board adopted a chunk of the legislation that had been reviewed and approved by the planning commission. the other part stayed in committee. in 2015, that legislation went back in front of the board of supervisors and included a definition and included section 602.3. the portion adopted by the board in 2015 was not
3:00 am
substantially different than the session that the planning commission approved in 2012. so, that's the distinction. that is what is at issue. the appellants are saying that with the board adopted in 2015 should've gone back to the planning commission because it was substantially different than what they approved in 2012. and the department's position is that is not the case. that was a technical change. it was a clarification of what the commission had previously approved in the 20 12th. >> so what you are saying, there was not enough material change to have an additional public hearing? >> there was no material change
3:01 am
so there was no need for it to go back to the commission. >> does that satisfy commissioner swig because >> yes, thank you very much. >> if no other questions for planning, i assume ddi-any public comment on items 6a-six 6e? >> hi. i'm wendy-i live about for residential houses between myself and 300 sanchez st. which is one of the locations. i found out about this meeting at 430 today. i'm not prepared. but the resident in my
3:02 am
neighborhood, like myself many are long-term did i been there for over 20 years. we've had been protesting the so-called sign, which is really a billboard in a residential area since it appeared. we been told it's not legal. in many different ways but there's no way to enforce. so, i want to say i'm grateful that if there was clarification of what already existed, that made make it possible for this to be removed. i would like to maybe -i like to show your picture i staff right before i came. if it's okay? >> overhead, please. >> you can leave it there. we can bring it close. >> this is up picture in view of sanchez at school. sanchez school serves a lot of children on the same block as everett scott. there's two schools in the block that is directly across the street from 300
3:03 am
sanchez st. i'm only-it doesn't show well enough but i'm trying to show this because the is one thing but what's on this board regularly is a whole different thing than the. >> explain it over we might be able to slide it over maybe >> which way should i slide it? >> there you go >> this is 50 shades of black. this is the review of the crotch of an african-american woman holding a whip. my child walks by this every day. it's not the gap. this is if i view of the six-year-olds as they go disappeared it says feel the love, valentine's day. here is
3:04 am
the top of that same sign that says good will. it is the same figure in the heart shape in front of his heart, his eyes show [inaudible] antiviolence image similar to those that show sexes, right racist and violent images on this board billboard rented. at the top it says coming. there's a promotion for come into the center studio which is a very small business on the corner that provides pilates. i spoke with the owner who said sunday, this week, i contacted him to complain for the numerous times, and he told me that he's called and asked this company to remove his name from the top of the sign that he does not agree with many many tempted his business is not wanting to be advertised or be associated with the images on this. thank you. >> thank you. any other
3:05 am
public comment? >> mimes greg stevens. as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that it's the will of the people and sort of like having all this advertising of we the city and appears to me that contest promotions is the one that did the true bait and switch coming up with a way to create 11 years of profits that they should not have had. in a way, they party got their money from the past of getting away with something that they should have done that they will hold around. looking at it it seems obvious that it's the way of doing advertisement and getting ready. i think that contest promotions is acting like a bully and a pushing their way through abusing the judicial system and i don't think-i knew
3:06 am
they did think about getting rid of the ugly newsstands and all these things all these advertising's really kind of make the city not what it's supposed to be. i think the people, when we voted for that initiative, we wanted those things to go way. they're just finding ways to subvert the law and come up with reasoning that is not about. that's oh i see it as an outsider. i don't believe that they should approve anything from contest promotes good they've made enough money in the past. they should be glad they got to keep that money from the past. that's how i see it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. good evening, commissioned by ms. john nelson. i'm here to talk
3:07 am
about signs in the open market neighborhood. i am showing here the picture of 172 golden gate. the location is at 2 converging st. so it can be seen by both streets, going down. >> mr. nolte, could you adjust the picture? we cannot see it >> maybe you can zoom back out again? >> i been doing with the signs for over 10 years. this is the second commission in which i've spoken in front of. the voters passed san francisco approved proposition k with 70.4% approval. bob san francisco must protect the character and dignity of the city appearance property open space,
3:08 am
thoroughfares, skylines, and architectural features for both residents and visitors. this is in proposition g. for 12 years the company made national promotions and advertising plays advertising signs on properties façades. in february, 2009, the uptown historical district was formed and the sign is inside at this district. i respectfully request the board of appeals denied the appeal of the above- of these permits, and disapprove each of the sites permits. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> my name is larry home and on the provider of the center
3:09 am
studio to studio 300 center st. and i wish to express my experience as being the primary business owner where one of the signs stands. sign creates a great deal of confusion. as i'm appearing as the owner of the sun. i'm not. i've get nothing from them. i do have communication with contest promotions and whenever i have indicated to concerned neighbors to contact contest promotions about their concerns, they come back to me and say they will not respond. i feel these signs are a disturbance. it's an attractive nuisance. every day there's graffiti on these signs, which adds to the problem with these signs. it just very unsightly to all the passerby including, as wendy said, the school across the street where children are going back and forth. i have not
3:10 am
allowed the promotions to be run in my studio. so, when people have come in isa people don't carry this promotion within the contest within my studio. i need that to get off my chest. >> thank you, sir. >> sir, is yours the only commercial space in that building? >> yes >> you do not own the building >> i do not. >> the lease of the signers with the building owner? >> i do not know who carries the lease with the site. i've tried to ask >> what is the property of address >> 300 center street >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, will take rebuttal started with mr. rubin. >>10 min. of rebuttal.
3:11 am
>> i want to need time. i want to address a couple of things that occurred after i sat down and questions the commission asked. one, if this was in fact this change to the planning code that redefines business signs was routine, it could've been down any time from 2002 forward instead, he was introduced on the same day, exactly the same day, as the settlement agreement was approved at the board of supervisors. on that day, supervisor wiener introduce legislation to undermine the settlement agreement he also approved on the same day. not only that, but was not even
3:12 am
introduced in a routine way. was introduced as emergency interim legislation. had it been introduced in routine way, it would have taken the routine process and a year later or so it would've been back of the board of supervisors in the normal course to amend the planning code. had that been the case, and had it been done in a routine way, our permits would have been approved. work, the planning department and the building permit would've had to hold them for a year or more waiting for this change in the code. so, i'm just saying, it's not credible to tell you that. that's not what happened. supervisor wiener was also the single supervisor-and he is a friend or least he was-maybe after he sees as he won't be-but with a single supervisor taken most interest in this
3:13 am
agreement, he called me 10 times at night when i was at dinner with my family about that sign on center street and i told him we would take it down. he was the one that was more interested in the settlement than anyone else and he's the one that introduced the interim legislation on emergency basis on the same day he voted, along with the rest of the supervisors, to approve the settlement. supervisor wilson, you asked-excuse me. i elevated you. or demoted speech of or demoted speech of >> no, there was no discussion. my name i just looked at that settlement agreement. i look through it in response to questions that i signed it. so at no time during the negotiations of that settlement agreement did anyone say to me was any thought, even a dream
3:14 am
of changing the definition of a business sign. zero. of course, if they had we would not have entered into the settlement agreement. and paid three and earned $50,000. and spent a lot of money. what you saw in terms of permit applications were not easy to put together. they spent a lot of money all that in compliance with our obligations under the settlement agreement. commissioner swig and whoever asked about the materiality of the change, since 2011, there has been a cleanup efforts undertaken by the planning department and there are a lot of anomalies and aberrations and problems in the planning code. it's a very long code. there were 350 pages of changes
3:15 am
that were being suggested. some of them passed earlier. others have languished for 2-3 years but what wasn't in any of them was a material change to the definition of a business side. that was imported and stuck in that legislation at the last minute so when it went to the board of supervisors it would be passed in the change would become not interim and emergency anymore but permanence. that's how it happened that were not suggesting that any of the other stuff-i don't know what was in the rest of it-was material were not material or whether it needed to go to the planning commission, but that piece that they put in at the last minute and then put it through the system, was material. that needed to go back to the planning commission. i know people are not fond of signs in san francisco. i understand the revelatory process. my firm is mostly interaction with the city. that's what we do. we follow the rules. i think the city needs to follow the rules as well. and new sign
3:16 am
applications, down the road, with this change, maybe they won't be approved, that's not the way to do was contest promotions after reaching a settlement. >> quick question. what about the argument the settlement agreement requires you to get a permit under the definition that exists? in other words, is that a >> it's in your package, 10 b is on page 6. there's a lot of stuff here. it'll see a lot of requirements for us to pay some money for monitoring our signs down the road. we assumed we would have an inventory of
3:17 am
signs based on the settlement agreement but what it says precisely, permitting of existing inventory within 270 days of the operative date meaning the day the settlement agreement was signed, contest promotions ultimate all documents in any of the permits of the city necessary to erect a business sign in compliance with city laws. they all applicable application fees and thereafter diligently seek approval of the permit. normal stock it does nothing in there that would suggest on the same day that the board of supervisors ashley proves the settlement they are going to change the city's laws on an emergency basis. that's what happened. >> it says in compliance with city law >> does say in compliance with city law. thank you. >> i have a few questions. >> getting back to 300 sanchez, the only commercial business came up and testified that he's not a part of the
3:18 am
company. would you apply for the contest? on a particular obligation >> i don't know the details of each one of the sons. i just remember when he spoke, i remembered that was assigned that supervisors sanchez and i have been talking for a long period of time and, frankly, he was reluctant to approve the settlement because of that sign. i was responding >> that's not the question. >> i don't know >> the other question is, some else in the public that the slide earlier dagon in with apartment had gone in and asked where do i sign up and where do i win these prizes. the operator the store had no idea. what type of prizes of a offering? >> there on the sons. i don't know the details. the contest
3:19 am
itself, is a legitimate contest. the businesses themselves have signed up to be a part of that contest. and they are actually, most of them interested in being a part of it because it draws people >> i and or stand but from the public is tonight there's only one commercial establishment on the ground floor but yet it says that you enter within. there's no other commercial establishments. try to figure out where would you get this information? >> i will have to ask and get back to because i don't have an answer. >> thank you. >> we can take rebuttal from planning. >> yes, okay. first of all, i would like to say as i said before, the signs that exist on the streets now for contest promotions, they're not legally
3:20 am
installed anyway. they have permits not legitimate permits. the permits were for business signs. he saw what was installed is actually nothing but general advertising signs. copy. was only later they added a placard announcing a contest and came up with a contest idea. meanwhile, the copy changing. business signs don't normally, religion but they never change copy and lesser designed to change copy have authorization to change copy like a theater marquee announcing movies. those change record. an ordinary wall sign for business isn't authorized to change copy unless that's part of its approval. so those funds were not legal. i would also like to point out language. i the language in the settlement agreement the on the overhead.
3:21 am
what it says is, under number three, compliance with applicable codes, breed sign erected by contest promotions within the city, contest promotions shall comply with all applicable provisions of the city's charter ordinance administrative bulletins, and other big regulations in effect at the time the permit for the sign is issued. that was signed by both parties and planning department can't approve applications that fail to meet the planning code provisions for business signs. objective, fundamental standards. so, the planning department requests the board of appeals denied the appeal and a bold the disapproval's. thank you. >> mr. purvis, if you want to
3:22 am
continue this- >> yes i think mr.-has additional >> i decide one quick point. deputy city attorney thomas. it's a small point but but every was commissioner lazarus mentioned it in terms or the dynamic was at the time the parties were entering into a settlement agreement. as i understood the appellant's papers and presentation, today was a characterization that city had been enjoined that the federal court had in fact issued a injunction. that is not the case. contest promotions did seek a temporary restraining order. they did seek a primary injunction. it was hotly and heavily opposed.
3:23 am
there was a hearing in front of a federal judge and ultimately the judge did not enjoin this city, but what the judge did was to water the parties, both the city and contest promotions, to abide by the state agreement that had been entered into by the parties prior to litigation. the effect of that was, was that penalties would not accrue on the already issued notices of violation. i brought a copy of the order from the court if you want to see it but i can put it on the overhead. it's actually contained in the settlement agreement on page 2. this is on the overhead. there is a description of the order that says whereas, on november
3:24 am
12, 2010, the court issued an order and adjust said requiring the parties to continue to abide by the state agreement until the lawsuit is resolved. that is the water that came out of their requests, their motion for a tro and injunction. was not an injunctive it was just an order for the parties to continue to agree, or to comply with the state agreement that the parties had previously entered into. that's just a response about what the dynamic was at the time that the parties did ultimately agree on summary agreement. >> any idea what the charge for the contest posters? >> i'm sorry, chart? >> yes, what is the fee they charge >> charge to whom? i'm sorry >> the gap is one of the has a
3:25 am
poster of their product. on one of the sons. what do they charge? >> that's probably a question best directed to the appellant. were not privy to the day-to-day operations of contest promotions. or there or other sign companies. >> thank you. >> let me ask a question relating to-it's a timing question. in 2002, was the time that the proposition g was passed, correct? >> yes, march 5, 2002 >> okay. 2007 seems to be the time, that would be five years, that it took for the city to implement a procedure to hold
3:26 am
sign presenters, or whatever you want to refer that to them as, told him accountable for potentially a mrs. d. >> welcome it was legislation that helped enable that process by requiring inventories be submitted by the sign companies. we could have enforced them all along and had been against illegal signs but without an inventory it became with the inventory it became a lot quicker >> i see. so, proposition g made it clear what the law was going to be. but then like many laws-i'm not being facetious were sarcastic in any way-it's just a matter of fact, there often laws that are passed at the ballot box, and by the board of supervisors, were city government agency suddenly say,
3:27 am
how are we going to enforce this. so, basically, for five years it was an experience or shall we call it where you were trying to enforce this proposition g but was cumbersome and i guess deemed impossible. all make an assumption. you can clarify this. then, somebody in city government came up with the idea were not going to be able to do this until we get a inventory of everything and then we can hold folks accountable. >> i think scott sanchez can address that. >> scott sanchez planning to him. that's absolutely correct. there was the learning curve after proposition g. using existing enforcement tools which turned out not to be terribly effective and supervisor peskin initial be legislation for the sign imagery as well as both a separate set of rules for
3:28 am
general advertising them. packing effective in 2006-27 and john purvis got the program up and running and started the citywide signed survey at that point. imagery program has two parts. one, all the sign, is providing all their signs to the city as well as the city independently doing a signed survey of all signed throughout the city, which found that many, about half were actually illegal measures of those are now down because of john purvis's enforcement effort. >> mr. purvis, thank you. so, mr. purvis, as a result of that work, it became clear that the appellants, many of the appellant signs in fact were a legal and to-and they try to mitigate that situation by putting up the strips that's a contest inside. but that's still really, in the eyes of
3:29 am
the city, did not comply to proposition g and subsequent legislation by supervisor peskin which went to the litigation and then we heard from their. everybody's interpretation of that. so, the board of supervisors, from my reading, and i like clarification from you or the city attorney, the board of supervisors are elected to protect the public's interests. and the board of supervisors are there to create laws in that interest in a cold things like the propositions the golf with the public has really spoken. so, in the case of clarifying language which seem to be in place from proposition g this is their job
3:30 am
for protecting public interest. >> yes, absolutely. >> and the intent of what the public had voted for? betook yes, proposition or golf. >> thanks. >> commissioners if there's no further questions the matters are submitted. >> the standard is whether the department aired or abuse their discretion and whether we see any other type of- >> i would just like to [inaudible did the noble review. you are reviewing this a new under the laws. my advice would be under the laws that existed.
3:31 am
>> he said that exist today? betook yes >> >> let me strike that and restated. we stated. i will state that the prevailing law at this point is the ordinance that was enacted both on interim and on the permanent basis. i am not prepared deal with all of the other issues, the over arching ones, as raised by the permit applicant that may have impacted the particular action. therefore, it's my intent to vote to hold the denial to allow the permit applicant to exhaust its administrative remedy. >> i would support the
3:32 am
direction of commissioner fung, especially with the evidence that there are signs out there that absolutely, the sanchez sign, even though it was called to everyone's attention is still up. they're still collecting rent on it and therefore it they are breaching the law. so, i would find with that example is similar direction. >> i also agree that there's no further comments, would you like me, your motion commissioner fung >> move to deny the appeal of old apartment on the permit denials. >> that they conform to the prevailing law. >> on a motion, vice president
3:33 am
fung lazarus aye swig aye wilson aye honda aye. that motion is upheld. we will move on then to item 7a and 7b. >> ashley dr. i have to recuse myself because i seem to have a conflict of interest. >> think you commissioner swig. appeal number seven think you commissioner swig. appeal number 7a item 7a 15 170 and 7b appeal number 15 171 whether filed by contest promotions versus department of building inspections. the first is that 2011. the street. the second at 5353-59 kearny st.
3:34 am
postevent protesting the denial of and erected the sun. vote again the parties have stipulated prior cases of item numbers 6a and six 6a and 6a will apply to agenda items number 7a and 7b. the cases identified as agenda item number 7a and 7b and the board of appeals shall consider such cases a new without being influenced by discussions were deliberations the prior cases identified as agenda items numbers 6a through 6ee. that statement made, we can start with the appellants. i don't know if there's more you would like to say mr. rubin but you have time to say it if you wish? >> i have-for contest
3:35 am
promotions have i have nothing to add and incorporate all the comments that i made already under appeal number 15-183. is that right? or no, >> you might want to refer to the item numbers instead of the appeal numbers. >> excuse me. that i've made under item 5 undercounted >> item 6 >> excuse me. i hereby incorporate all of the comments that i made under earlier on items 6a through 6e rocco have nothing to add >> printed by mr. purvis >> john purvis plenitude, staff and i too would like to incorporate the comments made from 6a 6a through 6ee appeal
3:36 am
numbers case 7a and 7b. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on items 7a and 7b? seeing none,, assume there's no rebuttal from the parties? so, commissioners these matters are submitted. >> moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit denial on the basis that the denial was appropriately done under the prevailing law. >> thank you vp. on that motion, lazarus aye honda aye wilson aye. with commissioner
3:37 am
swig recuse that motion does carry with a vote 04-0. >> i the financial conflict from eight so i will be recused >> >> commissioner swig will return by call 8a. appeal number 15 15146 and 50 156 properties located at 326 eddie st. and 360-street. contest promotions versus building inspections with planning department disapproval protesting the denial of a permit to erect a sign. and briefly all signed the parties have stipulated agreements made in the prior cases agenda item number 6a through six 6a through 6ee will apply to agenda item number 8a and 8b.
3:38 am
the cases is identified as agenda item number 8a and 8b should we heard de novo and the board of appeals shall consider the evidence for such cases a new. without being influenced by discussions were deliberations for the prior cases identified as agenda items numbers 6a-6ee. again, we'll start with the appellants. >> jim rubin again. hon. members of the board, i hereby incorporate in appeal in appeal number 8a and 8b all that i said and presented to you in items 6a-6ee i don't have anything more to add. thank you. >> mr. purvis. >> john purvis penney department. i too would like to incorporate everything i said under item 6a-six graco e onto the record for item 8a and 8b. nothing else to add.
3:39 am
>> tang. any public comment on item 8a and 8b? >> good evening commissioners. i have a couple more things to add since you're doing physically with these two projects. this first picture is the historical district that was formed in 2009 after the opposition was passed. it's discussed about historical districts being inflicted by the signs. second, it shows that i took of signs at 360 hi. hi street. that was done in 2005 and again the problem is this is next to a half a block
3:40 am
away from a playgroundagain, this picture was taken in 2006 four 326 eddy st. and the barbershop good that is on the façade, the side of the building, and where it's a parking lot.that's been that way for years. the second thing i want to add the record, i want to incorporate for my
3:41 am
comments i want to incorporate for my comments for 6a-66ee. and i want to add these two signs in the north of market, where they are located or newer . so they're adding to the cluttering of the area. to go into these businesses for prizes they may be giving out. as was explained that are not even part of the business in the commercial space. so thank you for your time. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> i think this has
3:42 am
sidetracked a lot of people [inaudible]. if i could right now [inaudible].
3:43 am
3:44 am
>> in your public comment?
3:45 am
any rebuttal? commissioners, these matters are submitted. >> moved to deny the appeal and uphold the departments permit denial on the basis that the acted appropriately with the prevailing ordinance that is in place. >> on emotion than to deny both of these appeals, lazarus aye, wilson aye swig aye. the motion carried. vice president there is no further business before the board. >> this meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel]
3:46 am
(shouting.). >> more and more city's high san francisco is committing to dislocate to end all traffic death that means improving safety for people walking and driving and safety on our streets is everyone's responsibility people can make
3:47 am
mistakes but not result in injury or death all traffic collisions are preventable as drivers you play a large role that will give you the tools to drive safely on streets a recent survey asks hundreds of drivers about save city introduce driving what did they say watch for distracted behavior and slow down and be patient and check for people before you turn the facts about city driving shows how important to be alert most collisions happen in good weather allowance even at 25 mile-per-hour it takes a vehicle 85 feet to stop this is almost 7 car lengths slowing down makes collisions
3:48 am
less savior when a person is hit by a passerby vehicle 25 minor the chance of death is 25 percent 40 percent that increases inform 85 percent slowing down didn't cost much time driving behind a person takes 9 extra semiautomatic and stopping at the yellow light takes only 30 seconds by hitting someone costs you hours and weeks of our time and maybe a life take a deep breath and take you're time cities cross america are being safely for walking and driving some streets are confusing here's what you need to know all intersection kroukz of novelist
3:49 am
marked some are marked to make them more visible other crosswalks and intersections are raised to the level of sidewalk to actress as speed bump and people are maybe crossing be cautious and watch for people when you approach any intersection advanced limit lines and pedestrian yield signs show drivers where people walk and stop behind the lines at stop signs and for people crossing bulb outs where the sidewalks extends into the street make that tease easy to see pedestrians and remember to slow down whether making reasons and watch for people on sidewalk estimations extensions that maybe closer than you expect and
3:50 am
bicyclists may motive to the left to get around bulb outs this gives people a head start allowing pedestrians to enter the crosswalk before transfer starts moving makes them more visible pedestrian scrimmage and stop the vehicles in all directions allow people to cross including department of building inspection scrambles are paired with no light restriction and rapid beacons you turn bright whether the pedestrians are there or the center is activated precede slowly as you approach the beacons especially, if their activated a pedestrian crossing light turns yellow before turning sold red back to flash red procedure after making a full stop as long as the
3:51 am
sidewalk is empty and, of course, stop whenever the light is red traffic circles reduce conflicts you must stop at the strewn and precede around the raise your right hand of the circle watch for people in crosswalks and people in bikes ming around the circle arrows indicate where people with bikes share the intersections and people have ride to people on bikes have the right to use the lane whether or not in the sharing bike lanes are for people protected by parks e.r. parked cars and stay out of separated bike lanes unless an emergency dashed bike
3:52 am
lanes are a shared zone four for vehicles to change lanes slow bike lanes allow the circles their unusually sprayed before me from other traffic some bike lanes are built to the level higher than the street but lower than the sidewalk they provide a safe separated space sponsor cyclists are around vehicles the box areas are marked with the stencil at intersections act as advanced limit lines for people to garter at a red light this increases the 1r0ir7b9 to drivers people will ride past stopped vehicles at the fronltd of the intersection give them room and stop short of limit line behind the bike without objection and cross only after
3:53 am
the green light and people cleared the bike box bicycle traffic lights allow people on bikes to proceed while vehicles are stopped be unaware aware of those bike san francisco general hospital but stay alert and only skrans when the vehicle is cleared the intersection let's take a quiz to see what all of learned here we go number one when do month collisions happen did you say in daytime you're correct question two if an intersection is not marched is it still a crosswalk yes did you get it right great job one more before we go on what's one of the best things to do to avoid collisions?
3:54 am
you can it take a breath pay attention and slow down city streets are crowded and chaotic so seeing everyone every single everything is difficult here's a test how many times did the white team pass the ball? if you answered 11 you're correct but did you notice anything else also be aware ever you're surrounded and remember that is easy 0 miss something if you're not looking for it here's some basic principles driving near peep e people from you're driver's seat it is difficult address our mirrors to
3:55 am
reduce blind spots people on bicycles maybe be in our blind spot give yourselves plenty of time to react look out stay on the road from building to building not just curve to curve check driveways and behind parked vehicles for people that enter our path turning vehicles are especially dangerous important people walking and collisions often occur when vehicles are making tunnels when you turn remember check for people using the crosswalk before starting you're turn watch for people on bikes traveling in the ongoing direction always check our mirrors and blind spots patience pays off take a moment to make
3:56 am
sure you're clear while it might feel you'll save time by driving fast or turning without checking you won't save driving only adds a few semiautomatic to our trip a collision can cost you, your job or someone's live here's important things to remember all crosswalks are legal and pedestrian have the right-of-way people cross the street anywhere children and seniors and people with disabilities are the most vulnerable think city strits give buses and streetcars a lot of the space or people returning to catch a train don't block the box this creates dangerous situation for people walking how are forced into moving traffic and people bicycling out of the
3:57 am
bike lane and people on bikes most city streets are legal for bicyclists even without signs people biking can fall in front of you provide a safe amount of space when passing someone on a bike a minimum of 3 feet is required by law in california and people on bikes prefer to be in the bike lane in for the this is often to avoid accidents give them room people on bikes will stay away from the traffic or watch out for open doors whoops that was a close one expect people to go to the front of the light and pass on the right a tap of the horn maybe useful to make you're preservation
3:58 am
known but avoid using the horn it may saturday night be someone vehicles anybody right turns are especially dangerous important biking always approach right turns properly signal early and wait for people biking through the intersection move as far to the right to people on bikes can pass on the left let's try a few more questions who are the most vulnerable people on city streets? children? seniors, and people with disabilities why do people on bikes ride close to travel there to avoid car doors what is one of the most dangerous situations for people walking and riding bikes?
3:59 am
turning vehicles and what can you do to make sure that everyone is safe in any situation? thartsz stay patient and alert and, of course, slow down parking and loading a vehicle on accredit city streets is a challenge weather parking and unloading always check for people in our mirrors and blind spots and on the driver's side with our right turn right hand this causes you to look 40 on your left for bicyclists when passersby exiting the vehicle make sure about opening the door know where loading zones are if not
4:00 am
loading zones available use side streets never stop in bike lanes or traffic lanes. >> bad weathering and visible rain and fog or low lighting make it hard to see you're vehicle is likely to slide or loss control in eye i didn't controls and create issues for people walking and biking they tried try to avoid pulled and umbrellas and construction get slippery for people the safety thing to do in conditions whether wet or icy or dark slow down and drive more carefully remember going fast may on this save you a few semiautomatic but
4:01 am
speeding may cause you a life or you're job people walking and biking are vulnerable people can be distracted or make unsafe decisions as a driver the responsibility for safety lies with you a collision could mean the loss of our life or you're job and dealing with the legal implementations could take years or an emotional toll if someone is killed in a crash help us achieve vision zero and everyone can use the streets safely. >> thank you for watch and following the important driving tests your remember we're counting on you
4:02 am
ms. casco roll call thank you ms. fewer mr. haney marry mentioning dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton ms. wynns ms. chin and mr. totiano thank you. >> please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> happy new year everyone as a point privilege privilege i'll take a come up of minutes this is my final meeting as president i'll reflect that on the past year in january
4:03 am
recognized a natural board national teachers with the exceptional teachers in thai state in february we reaffirmed the commitment to vision 2025 as a strategy plan in march we begin the process of overhauling district policies for district action in april the board adopted a plan to fight abate and the success of all african-american in the san francisco unified school district in june the board adopted the computer science pre k to telephone grade we have a new nonprofit in support of implementation of vision 2025 strategic plan together with our philanthropic partners then in august the board took a stand to
4:04 am
grant dilemmas to students that are denied the opportunity to take the high school exiting exam and paved the way for other district to change the policies in september the board has internship and fire board education in october the board adopted a landmark policy to train all educators to recognize human trafficking and educate students about more than day slavery in san francisco in november by the preempted to honor the contributions of the chinese-american leader of whom our city council's schools are named and we supported the sustainable student transportation it is been a very busy and regarding year i want to thank all my colleagues the superintendent and the dedicated sfusd staff for supporting me
4:05 am
thank you. >> we will now move to special order of business as stipulated in series 9 thousand the board shall readopt the board meeting the year may i have a motion and a second and second for a readoption of the procedures series 9 thousand. >> so moved and second. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, oh, let's see i'll take public comment public comment is closed. comments from my colleagues sxhinlz. >> you know it is interesting we changed the rules to do this reround of applause on the series we'll pay attention and since is it so become a performa we should think about when we discuss our rules and how if we want to you read most of them in
4:06 am
preparation and want to say i want to suggest that by the plan that both this year and do summary exclamation i found a few things kind of on the very itself second page the first page two items a student erupt shall be at board and the board has two student members correct but both kind of should be fixed i think this is an example i want to make a request we'll plan to do this sometime this year and at sometime we should discuss if we want to talk about them you know, i support it and still support this idea at the beginning of the year those are
4:07 am
the rules and any affirm them but it would be better if they were substantive and real. >> i believe the appropriate committee to examine is the rules committee any other comments if not roll call vote. >> thank you ms. chin mr. totiano ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns. >> 7 i's. >> thank you very much the next item is the election of officers of the board of education as a reminder to the board and the public this type of election is by voice vote a second is not needed for nominations and permissible for a member minus nominate to vote for he or she
4:08 am
board members if more than one nomination only one nomination you'll be saying yay or nay i declare it the open for the president of the board of education for the year 2016 are there any nominations? ms. fewer >> thank you 2kru78 i would be honored colleagues i'm honored to recommend commissioner vice president haney for the position of president. >> are there any other nominations? seeing none, i declare the nomination closed so commissioner vice president haney has been nominated to be president ms. casco roll call vote on the anatomies. >> ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase
4:09 am
thank you ms. norton mr. walton ms. wynns matt haney has been elected budget & finance committee for 2016 congratulations i they're nomination for the vice president of the board of education for the year 2016 any nominations ms. mendoza-mcdonnell thank you it's my profoundly to nominate shamann walton a good friend shamann walton our vice president of the board of education any other nominations for the office of vice president seeing none, i declare nominations closed commissioner shamann walton is nominate for the office of vice president ms. casco roll call. >> ms. fewer
4:10 am
mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns that's 7 i's (clapping.) shamann walton has been nominated vice president of the board of education (clapping.) (clapping.)
4:11 am
>> pack our things fourth the big move i want to say something quickly the most sacred responsibility the board moves quickly and smoothly i want to first thank president murase her calendar was a busy year and left lead the board with grace and encourage (clapping.) and i want to say thank you to the entire board fewer support and trust i'm looking forward to leading this board at that moment when i think there is a tremendous amount we can do incredible amount of shared vision and unity i want to congratulate any good friend and have the privilege of serving
4:12 am
with president shamann walton and also recognize you saw when i ran up here my family my mom and sister and brother thank you for coming and the entire staff and students and city and county of san francisco for putting your trust and faith in me and the entire board to serve the students of our district thank you and let's continue with the meeting so approval the board minutes the regular meeting of the december 8th can i have a motion and a second? >> moved second and corrections? seeing none roll call vote >> ms. chin mr. totiano ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton
4:13 am
and ms. wynns 7 i's. >> okay. so for members of the public if you wish to address the board of education you can complete a speaker card prior to the item being called and presented to the ms. casco according to board reels and procedures speaker cards will not be accepted for items before the board and item b superintendant report. >> thank you commissioner vice president haney this is an honor on behalf of the entire staff to congratulate i an the presidency of the board of education we look forward to working with i in san francisco and i'd like to say congratulate vice president wul walton and look forward to working with you as we move our equality agenda forward congratulations to both of you
4:14 am
i'd like to say congratulations to everyone for a second semester it started smoothly school is in session for over a walk wish you all for a happy new year we look forward to continuing our important work in the year 2016 a couple of announcements to the community this week the mission high school along with supervisor wiener will unveil their tap system to the foundation they've been installed since snooifl but students get a free new water bottle the initiative in san francisco is a partnership between san francisco unified school district, the san francisco public utilities commission are department of the environment and the self-department of public health this is one of the ways we promote 9 sustainable habits among the district students to date an comprehensive to date 32
4:15 am
tap foundations in the school your goal to have withholding to congratulations mission high school i'd like to announce that bret heart elementary school get a installed successor field part of largest 110 thousand square feet it was built by our very good friends america scores a program that helps to have team based soccer programs and learning thank you to the american score for the field and building and for major league and wells fargo for the funding this past saturday had an opportunity to have any my brother's keeper san francisco host the black cradle to school
4:16 am
and this is held at mission high school this is the second event of its kind this school year specifically for sfusd black students and families the day was an enforcement fair the students had an opportunity to sign up for engrossment and attendees had the opportunity to enroll in camps and apply for jobs and attend workshops on topics of interests to parents and team thank you to everyone when that was involved our own african-american chuchltd and leadership initiative under the leadership of special assistant landon dickey our community-based organization the alliance of black school educators and the black educators for youth and mo' magic it was aimed as supporting our african-american students in san francisco
4:17 am
also as previously mentioned a deadline is fast approaching january 15th for the first round enrollment forever the 2016-2017 the march placement period if you're applying for kindergarten or high school or middle school by january 15th applications can be turned in at the education and placement center at 5 franklin street and if you're children that sfusd students you can turn in the applications at their schools any questions whatsoever you can come to talk to a placement council or e-mail at immoral in school enr o l l e n at i'll encourage a topic of my article get our application in by the january 15th deadline for those
4:18 am
families 80 percent of the families get top 2 choices and one pace of late break news last semester we announced how our students did on the assessment in go san francisco and at that time, we announced the large urban school sfusd were about 20 points higher in terms of their proficiency than students across the state of california our assessment shared more of detailed information and ladies and gentlemen, this is something to be proud of san francisco is part of core acholic beverage of district the 10 systems or some of the largest school districts collectively we serve over would this million students in the state of california so of the
4:19 am
core districts i'm very proud to report that the top two over all in the elementary school of all elementary in the core districts the top two schools from san francisco unified school district that means our two elementary schools are the highest 5 of the top 10 schools the elementary category owe are in the top 10 and 20 in the top 10 percent those are well, for you who say should i send my children to public school so it gets better at the middle school 5 of the top 10 top performing in the consortium are if san francisco unified school district and 6 of the top 10 from san francisco unified school district at the high school level one of the top 10 and 5 of the top 10 percent of
4:20 am
high schools in the core acholic beverage are from san francisco unified school district so i want to send a huge congratulations to all our hard working paraprofessionals our teachers and administrators i want to thank our parents and students for taking these seriously and over academics seriously a great hand to our school to present this evaluated vision should look like in san francisco so congratulations to everyone give yourselves a round of applause. >> thank you, sir and in recognitions of rumbles and accommodations nun tonight and student delegate report thank you president matt haney and congratulations for our position iowa's wells vice president
4:21 am
spault sea thank you suspend the advisory committee update just last night our conditioner engagement started with dr. laurie and the s ac met with her and provided the student input for oc o f project the doctor going over the logistics we're glad to take part to provide the student button exit as the the el cap we presented our el cap student voice and this thursday january 14th at 4:00 p.m. our team will be present 80 preventing to the entire el cap feedback pr we are hopefully, the entire team will be happy
4:22 am
with the team and move forward as for the san francisco police department memorandum of understanding or mou just last night our student leaders took part of police mou and they started to create this mou committee in 19 of the residents signed up to be part of the committee has part of the decision making panel our team stakeholders had an opportunity to provide real student input in all matters occurring on the campus thank you to the san francisco police department litigant colleen for an excellent presentation and willingness to have our student leaders involved in the memorandum of understanding or mou. >> as the skaft control krgd program is in full swing we
4:23 am
managed to incorporate jose elementary school to join our highly successful program as older student leaders we hold the responsibility to help over peers and most of us walk to school we focus on educating them and public safety and traffic awareness a good example of the student san francisco police department partnership programs happening everyday in our community we would like to thank the police department sergeant phil for his dedication and training he provides for younger youth and the 19 annual submit on march 18 through april and located at the fort mason at marina boulevard working on a poster i would also lastly like to welcome everyone to the new year
4:24 am
a workshop for our nonprofit sour students represents in the homeless shelter we gave toys and goodies for kids in the year it ended happily we have rock star in the room it depended upon $500 we'll to thank deputy myong leigh for your donation. >> very nice sounds like a challenge (laughter). >> deputy superintendant. (laughter). >> a rock star. >> rocking it. >> the s ac meeting on monday
4:25 am
january 25th at 5:00 p.m. the s a credit is a public council and as an added incentive outline dinner will be provided if you like to attend or make a presentation or a copy of our upcoming agenda go contact our are you point person and congratulations to men and women. >> appreciate it so alright our next item is the parents advisory committee report reporting is indicating lien and georgia sprat.
4:26 am
>> >> (speaking spanish.) >> good evening, commissioners aim indicating less than and we have three children attending hechil happy new year to all superintendent and commissioners my name is a georgia sprat the corridor for the advisory committee the mission of the parents advisory committee to bring apartment voices to inform board of education decisions and decision-making process our report is sharing the finding and recommends out of community
4:27 am
art council ex-we carried identity in november and through those conversations we reach over 200 and 50 participant in 20 conversations 5 were conducted in spanish or chinese and an additional languages we provided the conversation 2, 3, 4 chinese or spanish we were strategic and intentional how we engaged in the conversations we gave the opportunity to reach out to families that are experiencing some of the challenges and i think equalityn our city as identified in the report our children, our council and later on in 2015 this louse allowed us to reach families in systems of consider care and support such a families needing the transmission and youth and
4:28 am
foster care and children that are reaching special addition addition and immigrants in our city we also had an opportunity to reach out to families that experiences some of the disparity in our institution our system and our society as a whole the majority of our residents were african-american and latino followed by chinese, white, samoan and american indian and others 72 percent of the children quality for reduced lunch 76 percent of children receive special education and 38 that speak other than english at home and fosters parents themselves are providers work with students in foster care we're share a few of the finding we had that comes to a larger
4:29 am
report we provided to the our children, our council at&t's on the website and listed on the pat website once in spanish and chinese. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> quality schools engaged and connected students and parents competence that cloormentsdz are two larger and impacted by the various needs of student and their diversifies learning needs as s and their diversifies learning needs as well.
4:30 am
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> parents want schools to have quality teachers who can build on their students strength that are culturally incentive and trained to work with our children. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> paternities emphasis the need for greater support for
4:31 am
parents to advocate for their children especially those who are new arrivals to the country and being able to navigate the i e p process for those who have limited literacy skills or children's that are falling through the cracks. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> they requested for support for their children's needs and basically a well-rounded education that include the arts and music and stem program both in and out of school.
4:32 am
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> in nearly each conversation the behavorial issues were a concern within the classroom. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> for example, the so moan don't have an education they feel their children are passed over or fall through the cracks. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the parents of newcomer
4:33 am
students felt disoriented in trying to interact in the transition that their children are going through and felt disconnected within that school community. >> so another thing we've heard in numerous conversations concerns about transportation and parents emphasized the fact that transportation impacts the students attendance and school choice and access to after-school programs and felt their transportation impacted their children's ability to participate in after-school programs and sports and that had an impact on their students ability to connect with the community an issue of safety two
4:34 am
or more school families with children of disability wanted more support on the school buses to and from school. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> work force and development plans and paternity identified for skill development program for both youth and adults so that if this way they'll have greater opportunities. >> (speaking foreign language. >>n
4:35 am
>> many highlighted the need for more student internships that is local technical compani companies. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> african-american apartment in the bayview voice their frustration their children are not benefiting from the interims and jobs with technically companies growing in their own backyard. >> the other thing we've heard was access to technology and the internet many patients highlight the fact not a universal access
4:36 am
to computers or the internet and how this impacts their students ability to extensively complete their assignment and projects and wonder how this might impact their assessments on the new computerized system they also talked about not all schools are computer labs or adequate computer onsite for the same reasons not being able to have adequate access to prepare for their projects and assignment and parents talked about i think vertically included from school and digital communication as a result of the compute
4:37 am
assess. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> recognized bans what we're heard quality school quality engaged and connected students places the teacher in under performing schools and lower the class size for the meeting of students needs and providing the teacher see with support in classroom management. >> okay. >> okay.
4:38 am
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> increase the port for discipline and behavorial issues no schools help the newcomers students and in their families understand the u.s. culture and navigate the agricultural system and provide the support as they transition into larger schools
4:39 am
and expand the workforce programs improve the supports for the asian pacific islanders students to prevent them from failing through the cracks are you. >> the recommendation of transportation families like the board and district to revisit impact transportation service has on student attendance and engagement to determine whether there is it warrant increasing the transportation services also, they suggest it providing central drop off and pick up zones for district schools and they'd like to see the transportation to insure school
4:40 am
stability. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> internship workforce sediment and employment the recommendation is to increase the number of summer jobs interning and workforce development programs available to youth. >> so regarding the access to technology and internet families ask that the district help them seeing greater access to use of computers to help bridge the digital divide and irregular the tech companies to provide for internship and even quote adopt a school or two unquote and create for mentoringship and
4:41 am
support the transfer for folds for foster youth to increase expedite the report system for the classes using the schools we know that the district is doing a lot of actions to address many of the concerns raised in the report and many of them are not new at the same time, we feel there is needed to be a level of responsiveness to acknowledge that families have been heard as noted from one parent's from the african-american community we want to prove we've been heard many parents participated with the hope there is empower outcomes for the children and families and we pack feels a responsibility without communicating with how their input has an impact and increasing the outcomes for the
4:42 am
students and families and to that end we really this is one of the key pieces of the community engagement to be able to circle back and let people know how their input made a difference to this end the pack wants to partner with the district make sure we create the chaunlz of communication where the families had a policy change and complete the actions that as a result of what they share in taking their time to come to give input to to the decisions especially we're enter into the whole budget process to think about what they've shared and what their identifying as the areas we'll be looking at with additional support we're interested in coming up with something we can circle back to folks and let them know what is happening and this transparent
4:43 am
to increase that accountability. >> i saw ms. fewer and simulating. >> it's your fault. >> so i really want to thank the pack this is fabulous work it is really, really good work i'm astounded the population you interviewed that you got so many parents to talk honestly and openly about their experience i think also the idea that was we're in entirely in the parents primary language is not what we do often and we know that is the best practice and know that is important to get real true
4:44 am
honest feedback so i want to say also that the majority of participant their african-american and latino their fabulous and also that you engaged the asian pacific islanders community should be commended i want to say thank you and i think this is such this information you're bringing to us today and tonight is so important and really, really valuable so i want to comment on a few things one is that i think that talking about salmmoan populati it is smaller population hello, however, it is a very population that needs to be looked at and to be actually called out so i'm
4:45 am
going to recommend when we are doing our analysis around our achievement gap or achievement we definitely i've seen we used to track the achievement of ooulder children and in the reports i've not seen it i'll request we formally look at it how they keep an eye on on the population to see how well, they're doing and also not a lot of islander staff statistics 60 percent of samoan kids are raised by their grandparents i be understand loud and clear about the gap in the committee i asked the specific question i
4:46 am
asked what is the disparity continue what school hazard ipads and computers and schools that don't and give us a number because we know that actually a lot of our families to they have this not a laptop or a device like this this is what the students were take on; right? their b be at disadvantaged definitely i saw something that was wonderful at the chinese-american ymca i saw a group of about was it about maybe about looks like thirty parents going for computer class and it was fabulous and it was conducted in their native language with ipads just as their children in the elementary and this was a fabulous thing i want to duplicate that you're
4:47 am
absolutely right for the communication with their parents and we go more digital to log onto get fox about the success and lack of success our patent need the access to assess the information you're absolutely right the transportation issue is a huge one i like the ideas of shuttle and love the idea of providing a pickup truck and drop off zones i do think our choice system is a flailed we're not given equal access if you have resources you have choice but no resources very little choice in particular for those parents you've interviewed is a really important aspect you bring up about the lack of transportation really for the choices you have for our own children but absolutely then i think it is really so the
4:48 am
pack has brought to us original equality report and well done i think there absolutely right they've demonstrated in some way they've been heard and what are we're going to do about it i'll open to the colleagues about ideas how we can more than that and the superintendant and deputy superintendant how to incorporate some of the recommendations we have a document that actually has great thifth so colleagues what's our idea who to incorporate those recommendations and what we've heard here tonight. >> are you asking how to incorporate into the oc f document. >> really what the pack is
4:49 am
looking for some sort of system change; is that correct is not just an explicit report but they note that they have presented many reports so what is the impact i think of what they've presented to us today and there is such value this snapshot of the conversations i think give us a real true voice about what parents are feeling and how we can often not hear from what do you sawing well, we'll have commissioner norton and commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell. >> i wanted to ask another question i'll wait for the we are to commissioner fewers question. >> thank you. i agree? an amazing document and appreciate all the effort in reaching out to the families this submitted i
4:50 am
presume into lauery and jennifer from oc i f this is a much large document with finding that pardon or pertain to housing and outside the things not necessarily related to the district what we included was the work of the district that impacts student learn and access to opportunity but the leaguer report is on the website i sent in yesterday ahead of time a larger document but, yeah dr. has it on the so for the framework 13 of our department heads on the school district sat on the board and into the framework that is crafted gone out to the
4:51 am
community and survey information based on all this information that's being devised and going to the council on the 28 for review and for vote so this framework will actually help to set the tone for the 5 year plan in july and that will be utilized to help us determine how allocations for fund can go out so i think all the departments head have been part of council and been briefed on the 69 page document or, however, 62 is laura in the audience 62 pages this is what it is going from it was great you presented it here that's an opportunity for all the folks to hear so as we're going to the
4:52 am
framework you guys can you all can pull out the pieces of that are critical to the framework and be sure those are plugged in whether measurements or, however, you want to frame them this is helpful so this is it will all of this information commissioner fewer will get incorporated into the framework. >> can i suggest that we each of us who are a committee head of whatever committee we take one of those topics and we agendize it and let the pack know we'll be discussing it i know that you know i'm the chair of the labor committee meeting i'll look at a topic of
4:53 am
whether the themes and let you know what if so on the committee so we'll thoroughly discuss it i'll suggest the budget committee and the and billings and grounldz take up those concerns and deeper dive into a solution what do you think colleagues? commissioner norton and commissioner wynns >> so i have some thoughts about what i suggested i wanted to ask actually, i was really and he completely agree doing an amazing job reaching the families hard to reach and a we struggle to communicate with the recommendation about developing our condominium conversion that is something i've been interested in for a long time
4:54 am
i'm wondering what that looks like or you had confuses with staff about what that modesty look like if you haven't i'd like to explore that because we sit up here and the day it is hard to hear so often families saying we never heard that we don't know about that feeling are disconnected and not having the information about the work of district i feel that is a game-changer for us if we engage more the families and engage the families how they can be involved and how to find out more and we're good a reaching some families but need more strategies i don't know if you have any strategies or talk about that later.
4:55 am
>> i'll invite you to come to the pack members above heard consistent that the communications that families don't get enough communication and channels though how to get the information and the communicate with the district about various initiatives happening it is clear there's need to be a structure to facilitate that communication and it is amazing i get you know, i have the privilege and access to hear about things take place their fantastic bull families don't know about them and not necessarily seeing the changes not equivalent on the ground there are responses to the concerns their raising but don't know their efforts put forward so change takes time and in the meanwhile to be aware
4:56 am
those things are take place so offline we sit down and talk about what that might look like and . >> so respond to the suggestion it is a great suggestion to dig deeper i'll maybe kick it back to the leadership to talk about what to talk about those topics a number of them are more they don't fit like they don't fit in a particular committee or two committees depending on how you talk about them maybe in the topic for some but dig deeper into the thoughts and recommendation are important but i think the way to do that i'll defer to the issue that superintendent wanted to get do you still maybe speak to some of our comments and
4:57 am
commissioner wynns. >> great, thank you wanting hastening i want to thank the pack for the engagement. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it is greatly articulated what you presented we appreciate that i also want to join commissioner fewer and recognition we have you have been able to engage voices of community that not always are affirmed i appreciate that as well. to the questions that have been asked how this will be used we actually talked about as part of our budget development process and part of el cap we'll be communicating back out to the constituencies around the suggestions made and some of the ideas expressed we want to clearly keep this kind of input what the input from the various
4:58 am
stakeholders groups xhugsd how students at another lens which we'll process the budget recommendations this year one of the things i think we should be proud of if san francisco is that for a number of years we've done is keep the equality at a lens for the budget allocation in the darkest times of the district we've always readily peaked we've keep kept the fund where their needed the most and we now we have an opportunity to actually add robust programming we want to make sure it is going to where we feel the community needs it the most and the second thing to mention quickly we have a tradition in our school district of having to decentralized approach to funding we have absolutely hold ourselves
4:59 am
accountable at the district level but the parents to be paternity in their school relapse many of the decisions are made around the expenditure of funds are made at the school site level as i see the recommendations here those are things that should be robustly articulated in the balanced scorecards at the schools it is also a great place to make sure that what you have articulated a absolutely big deal being seen in the balance scorecards at the school site levels that's in my second recommendation and dr. carr in a taught me 3 the third thing this is really for us the board and senior leadership some of the things that are being asked for i'll i want to put that out there for example, access to technology and internet absolutely correct
5:00 am
there is a digital divide in san francisco in san francisco mind you a digital divide homes that don't have access to internet i'll bring forward to partner with an organization that gives very, very discounted rates to have collection this their homes no one else is oh, the program this whether follow with our anti commercialization policy noefrj is offering we need to do something to connect our parents right now as we talk about the policy issues and make those decisions parents and kids in homes in san francisco that don't have the basic connection activated activity if we are looking at vision 2025 it is important they have the tools to be able to do it i'll challenge us to look at the equality lens around some the provision for
5:01 am
the potential solutions for what our parents have brought to us in a articulate way thank you very much for what you've done >> science and president walton. >> thank you for the work it is extreme helpful i had a few things to bring up and one is what the superintendent discussed because we've had a lot of discussion in the past about facilitating access for parents providing devices, etc. and so i was going to ask if we could have an update on the efforts how they work and other things like the superintendents
5:02 am
referred we might need to make that more comprehendible or effective at all and this is the first thing although the second the first one is transportation because we've mentioned it several times in our discussions about assignment we've not examined the issue of whether you know when we cut back a lot in the transportation as part of our bickering budget cuts but part of the redesign the transportation one of the things we've found a lot of transportation providing was kind of the know of helping our assess equality we were providing transportation for middle-income families and we couldn't afford so we kit just get rid of of the general ed transportation which maybe didn't have such a big ferry building effect on the lives of
5:03 am
middle-income families but highly challenged families we've asked a few minutes and not gotten to that i'm hoping this is a impetus to do this is important we follow through and many of the other things mentioned i'd like to see how they what happened in the city's plan where we need to fold those into our own policy discussions like like the two things we were aligned and have for a long time thought we needed to follow up on the implementation things i hope we can kind of breakdown and get a feedback and report from the staff about how we're responding to all of these things. >> thank you again. >> president walton.
5:04 am
>> thank you commissioner vice president haney definitely thank you to the pack for our focus work i love the fact we're hearing from families to focus on equality and internships to internet i love the feedback about careers and opportunities particularly families that are surrounding prosperity and also want to commend the families for working together and being inclusive in terms of the communication with the families i want to guarantee that you'll see is continue work and more support focusing on foster youth as well as a lot of the students in the district that are suffer from the gases that in the district and one the answers to provide to commissioner fewer one is that we'll definitely have a report and curriculum
5:05 am
program about african-american initiative what is going on and take place they've hired a great person to work with the families in the district for years i know she'll do a wonderful job in this work i'm excited but one the things the superintendent go said we're pay attention is the fact that we in terms of how we prioritize our resources in the budget circle and put the dollars to impact the work but aside from the resources allocation how we spend how time aside from being this this room so are we listening to parents and one of the things that needs to happen to the educators are we working with the leadership and spending time learning what is happening in our district and improvements need to be at the grassroots level so we'll be
5:06 am
prioritizing a lot of what you see and pushing for that to be a priority to make an impact but thank you for coming in today and doing the work and working together with a larger group thank you. >> commission. >> thank you. i want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work going down to a 4 page document i understand many, many meetings and quite a bit of cooperation i support of suggestions of any colleagues how to segregate this on an ongoing basis i want to share responses to it so in terms of celebrity connectivity i've done with work the african-american programs this offers $10 a month internet for people that quality
5:07 am
for reduced lunch and the superintendent will offer additional information about that, and, secondly, on workforce development programs i know commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell can be a resource the city as many many programs for workforce development and we should talk about the best way to get that information out to families that might took advantage of and i love the idea of central pick up and drop off zones i like that in terms of transportation that is worthy exploring additional in terms of summer jobs the city departments are asked to project a number of positions to summer jobs plus website is europe and running in a couple of months a central clearing house for summer jobs and interning and
5:08 am
mayor ed lee has made a huge commitment over 7 thousand positions for youth and again commissioner mendosa-mcdonnell a resource on that and finally on the idea of adopting the schools i wanted to make folks aware that the san francisco education fund as rolled out circling the schools they've put care into match companies with individual schools and seen tremendous contributions hopefully in that relationship, however, they haven't gotten to all the schools only about half under half of the schools that are adopted so there is additional work that needs to be done and i know that laura moran and anthony gary's have a lot of information about the schools and so i wanted to give you that immediate reaction but thank you
5:09 am
for this tremendous work. >> any other comments from the board seen i also wanted to share my gratitude and appreciation for this i think in terms of how folks participated in this saw the impact i hope that was demonstrated tonight to effected the commissioners and how much we will continue to use this report as a guide as we go through the budget process and think about our priorities over the years i hope this is something that we see again and again in the coming months we know we can bring up and let's look back at the report we received and see what we're adopting whether a budget or policy is reflected in this thing i think this is will be a part of how we see the impact of it i also agree specific things we should either hear in committee
5:10 am
or deeper diveer he agree that transportation is important we started to talk about we need to dive in with a lens it is reflected here i also think this is some and wanting walton some specific pieces around foster youth i'd like to see us bring that conversation to our committee and have a deeper look at the recommendations that relate to the foster youth i think this as group of our students we don't always talk about in terms of meeting their needs i hope that if there are any tech companies that are listening i think there's a theme that comes up a lot if this report this is profound there is a lot of innovation and
5:11 am
process and economic opportunity that took place in our city mclaren park technologies that are not shared with the large group of the part of our city and families and students in our continentals in particular i hope we take that as a mandate as the leadership of the city in our own leadership to continue to push on that and do a lot more thank you for this i know it is going to be an ongoing conversation i hope you'll tells you what we need to do to hold ourselves accountable to everyone that participated in this and be doing everything we can if we're not doing enough you'll remind us i know you will thank you for your work appreciate it. >> all right. so the next is public comment on content items
5:12 am
i have none signed up item g the consent calendar do we have a motion and second and second air quality any items withdrawn or corrected by the superintendant. >> yes. carmen we have a few underbuilding go down and services on page 202 in the description changes the rules to gordon elementary school under the k items on page 276 credit in amount excuse me. should be a credit amount in brackets thus 26 hundred plus and k-27 the original and amended dates of service the ending should reflect 2016 not 2015 one 51 on page 314 to the name
5:13 am
of consultant delete the wrptd to the education services d.b.a. learning center. >> all right. thank you. >> any items removed for first reading by the board? any items severed by the board and superintendent for vote nun roll call vote will take place under section o item h proposals nun and i board members proposals nun and public comment on general matters i still think this is the first none >> wow. >> is it something i did wrong or people afraid of me or (laughter) don't get used to it something tells me it will not happen like this ever night so no public comment on general matters how about that that is a first
5:14 am
item k special order of business i now call for another motion and second on the review and adoption of annual and 5 year report to the election and expenditure of developer fees. >> so moved. >> second. >> and we don't have any speakers i believe that mr. gotten will read the recommendation into the record. >> good evening commissioners i'll david the chief facilitates officer first, i too want to congratulate president hastening and vice president walton and congratulate emily murase for a wonderful year of services and certainly together was president
5:15 am
obama my wife texted me gave quite a speech too this is an annual event the review and adoption of the one in 5 year developer fee report it is basically required by the government and education codes for the district to make zabl to the public ifthdz relative to the collection of developer impact fees as a condition of collecting such fees i want to read the requested action and give you a brief summary of the report the requested action together is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district review and adopt the developer impact fee annuity year report for the
5:16 am
fiscal year ending june 30, 2015, the report dated december 8, 2015, and given to you basically under separate coffer relates to the collection and expenditure of developer fees that was prepared for the district by the consultant with expertise in preparation of such reports i have mr. laurie from the group and briefly i want to remind that you last year, we commissioned it the group to do a developer fee justification study at the end of this study the board of education reviewed the report which termed determined we were allowed to increase our commercial and residential rates to the highest amount loud by allow this report didn't reflect not effect those
5:17 am
rates they didn't go into effect in july and so the report is based on the old rates but this year, the election collection of rates for example, under residential is $3 and plus square feet and given the active and aggressive market in san francisco this is a really positive thing for us so we had a really good year as developer fee collection go last year, we collected about $8.4 million of developer impact fees that will go to offset the impacts of growth within the district you may remember during the revision in 2008, 4 we collected a million dollars and a half and maybe in the highest $9 million so the trending seems to be positive we'll be collecting certainly on the residential
5:18 am
side fairly reasonable rates for the next few years a positive indication for us so we collected $8.4 million and made 200 and $50,000 in interest and a security balance in the account of $35.9 million one of the things the report does not talk about are candidates made on the funds we have a high balance $9 million sits in the one 35 van ness reserve fund a restricted fund about $8 million is going for the construction of new classroom this and 2 and a half dedicated to the building and $57 million is already allocated to other projects for growth and early learning special ed and
5:19 am
the deaf and hard of hearing and programs that are requiring immediate expenditures so down the road the 5 year report indicates those funds are expected to be used to augment future funding for the potential of new schools both at motorbike, commented and the shipyard and potentially for the morris auditorium so there is a wide range of projects that we have the potential to allocate those funds for so with that, i will that's the ends of my report my colleague is here so thank you very much. >> thank you for the summary i want to make sure i'm reading is
5:20 am
correctly i appreciate lowell and the $9 million if i said to go through and see all the funds committed what would i look at table 5 to see which projects are noted as fund available and go back and add up the amount of table four. >> yes and no table 5 it the list of projects we potentially could fund the pc we're spebt to the world and state we have a need to collect fees we have to have a reason to assess the developers we actually have growth whether all the projects are funded by developer fees or bond funds we've listed all the
5:21 am
funds if you want to specific accounting of how projects i'll have to provide that. >> could you provide that, please thank you. >> commissioner wynns and commissioner fewer. >> could you - so i want to ask you a question about some the projects listed as school expansions do we replace the portable buildings with classrooms. >> yes. we have effected the developer fees to replace over one hundred modular buildings. >> where you have this where that says 6 classroom building and later it says elementary school expansion the difference is that the difference is about to be done.
5:22 am
>> correct. >> and the money is allocated already the things that we catalystries are the same thing but not designated that is what we want to do in the future. >> and in almost every case at sunny side and lowell if we're replacing 10 mod last year's we're building over 12 mod last year's building the building with 14 classrooms or 8 because a actual expansion. >> - >> we have pragmatic needs with special needs and early learning with the programs require us to have the spaces. >> since i mentioned this this is the new funds we use to build the new buildings at sunset. >> no monroe.
5:23 am
>> that was a great one thank you. >> commissioner fewer. >> yes. so mr. golgd if i heard you right we could use the money towards new school construction mission bay. >> we could commit all but that which is allocated for the one 35 haven the restricted fund those funds can be used for any growth in the district this is solely and inclusively new schools. >> so the money for the arts at one 35 phase one e van ness this fund is before in a bond; is that correct you collected those fees or only deliverable fees.
5:24 am
>> a convoluted history but collected money that was is designated in a restrictive fund for the reserve fund and has been for a number of years and designated in a restricted manner solely to be used at the one 35 van ness site. >> okay at the one 35 van ness at any rate site not necessarily at the school but at the one 35 van ness site. >> okay. that's a distinct clarification thank you very much so how would we go about assessing the rest of the funds to the new school construction like mission bay. >> it is a question of deciding the funding sources for each school whether typically most of our new school
5:25 am
constructions have been a composite and a funding from multiple sources how we fund betsey carmichael and dianne feinstein and willie brown, jr. was fund out go bonds so if a 2016 bond measure a lot of money to fund the new school construction at places we'll assume growth this is potentially in the bayview and mission bay these funds the developer fee funds by themselves is insufficient. >> right. >> to fund multiple schools and we actually have many other projects that are small in nature this funding source is a
5:26 am
valuable way to do things for the early learning they have growth school sites u sites this is a fund i can tap into i would be redundant to put that into one bucket i'm anticipating and telling people i'm expecting we'll be funding new construction for multiple school buckets including in the statewide facility bonds passed in november we'll go over he whatever is available. >> so nothing prohibits us from using the money it is convenient to have the fund to draw if for smaller projects no funding for; is that correct. >> correct. >> it is clear it is sort of would be up to the board will use of those funds and we would look at the other funds we have
5:27 am
so we don't have a lot of funding for the little jobs i'm hearing is that a go bond; is that correct. >> the state is more if i didn't the governor is tomato not supporting but, yes we're looking primarily to fund the construction of new schools through local go bonds if the residential market continues to be strong we continue to collect $8 million a year i think there is a potential to fund an augment funding at a number of the new construction school sites up to the board for facilities to present a fund scheme and program so the board can decide that's the way to go. >> okay. thank you very much i appreciate that.
5:28 am
>> comments or questions from the board? >> superintendant. >> i'm sorry, i have one more clarification you said the rates we adopted go into - the developers if start paying the new rates until july one ever 2015 in the report it said we made that change in 2013 i'm wondering is that - >> yes. >> we did it twice. >> yes. in fact, if the gentleman it is rather an expensive and lengthy process to do the justification study i don't think we want to do it to raise the fees $0.05 but this year we're allowed to raise it significantly again, because we go through the experience and prove we have enough demand so we did it in 2013 in 2015 and we
5:29 am
need to be careful because developers and cupboards to san francisco are paying a heavy fee across the board which our piece is very small if you look at the total amount of fees at any one project we're all part of same team and be mindful of what is going on in the industry wide basis but so for we're collecting $0.30 per square feet. >> what is the down side i mean, you you said that cost a lot of money to go the report but what's the less say we raise them again this year we decide we can justify it what happens if you raise the fees taken the economy tanks or i know do they come back and say
5:30 am
you can't do those fees do other justification study how do they push back. >> if the - when the economy tanked in 2009, 2008 did entire world grasped the big short in the movie to learn how this happened the rates didn't dial back the developers didn't move forward with the projects and not only not pay our fees they were not paying million dollars delores of other fees to the city over fees are 5 percent of the total fees the developer will pay on any project in san francisco it is our going to collect as responsibly as possible our fair share for what we feel we are due
5:31 am
so we just did that last whatever april and if it looks like we - we have a just it an comparisons you go it has to do with with the demographics and there is a substantial one in delta we'll do this this year. >> i'm asking what is to stop us from jack it up assuming we justify we're growing what is the down side of super high. >> we can only jake them up we're me maximum now i'm not sure the gentleman has raised their rate a little bit. >> it will be later the allocation board will look at this. >> so the stated sets the
5:32 am
levels we're lout we're at the current stouty level but if the rates are raised we can raise our rates again. >> correct. >> oh, oh jack them up in raise the rates superintendent and then commissioner shamann walton. >> thank you for this report, sir and one thing i want to say rents are increasing and developers are benefiting so should the district. >> right on i think any more comments or questions none. >> one more. >> one to commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell there was a public comment commissioner
5:33 am
mendoza-mcdonnell i'm wondering if the grounds committee can track those issues if there is the ceiling gets raised and perhaps we want to raise that and track that. >> thank you. >> maybe looking jack them up thank you for the presentation and report we'll take a vote yeah roll call vote. >> thank you ms. chin mr. totiano ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns 7 i's. >> thank you all right. discussion of other educational issue none tonight and m consent calendar resolutions there are none tonight and look on consent calendar move and second under section o roll call vote.
5:34 am
>> ms. chin mr. totiano mr. duffy mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell except for o except for case of. >> thank you dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton except i had to abstain on item 61 starts on page 272 the contract was collected impacts because the thought intraushths. >> chin thank you ms. wynns thank you. >> all right. item o consent calendar resolutions up for the board discussion none item p introduction of assignments to the committee we have an introduction and assignment of superintendents proposals according to the
5:35 am
board's rules i'll introduce to the superintendant and board members for first reading and ask for a motion and second and assign them to committee one of is dash 12 sp one for immunizations and deposition of boards policy students availability of condoms and adoption of board policy business and non-structural district records and next authorization to grants on the alternative or deny the petition for thomas and charter academic and next adoption of bylaws and sp one and open space two are referred to the curriculum committee and one of is open
5:36 am
space 5 referred to rules and sp 4 to the curriculum and advisory committee introduction of board members and committees proposals there are two first is expanding assess to the mandarin for commissioner fewer and ms. norton and for the curriculum services in the needs of usf with incarcerated parents and board members resolution are assigned to the budget committee i've read all the proposals is there a motion and second on all of these. >> second. >> all right. one public comment on this jamie gerber if you want to come up to the mike here. >> you'll have 2 minutes.
5:37 am
>> wonderful thank you and good evening. i'm jam i didn't the program coordinator for project one stand for the 2.7 million children in the united states i united states that have parents with children that are incarcerated i want to thank commissioner vice president haney and commissioner shamann walton for their hard work you have deny i encourage you to read it unfortunately, i was not able to bring any youth with me because of the time they were just in program with us from 5 to 7 and have homework to do i encouraged them to do that as you can see in the resolution on any given day approximately 18 thousand young people in the city of san francisco which means that are 18 thousand young people in the schools that have a parent incarcerated and young people needs the additional
5:38 am
services and teachers and guidance counselor that are koala trained to help them excel i've been privileged in any position to work with some of the most resilient youth and i definitely on a population that has been overlooked an incredible first step in supporting the youth and special thank you to matthew he spent a time with the youth read over the resolution and made comments they were the experts with their experienced and know we have projects that are existed about this resolution thank you. >> all right. item q introduction for proposals or immediate action i notice of suspension of board rules we have a motion and a
5:39 am
second on suspensions of the rules to hear the first reading adaptation of the board policies instruction criteria education and 4211 personnel remunerate >> move for suspensions of the rules. >> thank you ms. chin. >> mr. totiano ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell commissioner president murase ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns 7 i's motion and a second for formal introduction of the resolution. >> so moved. >> second. >> mrntd if you'll read the resolution thank you, president hastening i'll ask our consul general to
5:40 am
read it into the record. >> with the permission i'll read the requested action for the policy career technical education and policies recruitment and selection to update the sfusd to conform to the resolution pathways to san francisco unified school district crazy assessor and interim programrazy assessor an interim progrinterim programy assessor and interim programc assessor and interim programa assessor and interim progrr assessor and interim programe assessor and interim progre assessor and interim programr assessor and interim programs assessor and interim program. >> i'm curious why the suspension. >> it is not necessarily urgent but conforming to the resolution that was discussed and voted on it didn't need a
5:41 am
second reading. >> other comments thank you ms. chin mr. totiano ms. fewer dr. murase ms. mendoza-mcdonnell ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns 7 i's and motion and second on stipulation of rules to hear first reading adoption of board policy students child abuse preservation and reporting move both do a motion move suspension of the rules. >> second. >> ms. chin mr. totiano ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell
5:42 am
dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns 7 i's. >> motion and sector the introduction of the resolution. >> thank you carmen i'll ask general council. >> offering only moved. >> sorry. >> carried away by echo please record to approve the adaptation child abuse preservation to update the policy to conform to the resolution of in support of countering human trafficking and commercial sexual expiation of children. >> ms. chin mr. totiano
5:43 am
ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns 7 i's. >> all right. item r board members reports let me start with the standing committees report from the curriculum and program committee. >> thank you commissioner haney thank you to the commissioners having faith in me supporting our president and thank you dr. murase for leadership i'm hujd to be able to serve in that capacity a report if curriculum and program committee on meeting on january 4th and we approved the authorization of the 3 charters one was the authorization to grant the or deny the charter
5:44 am
schools authorization to grant or in the alternative entrants the petition for intensity high and charter school and to grant or the alternative remove the petition for adult charter school they've received a positive recommendation for renewal and the new teacher project that was our application monitoring the outreach and also a report on the developments for the task force for the raw soda task force that was the jest of our meeting on january 4th. >> thank you commissioner walton and report from the services committee commissioner norton. >> yes. so the budget committee met on january 6,
5:45 am
2015, we unanimously recommended the key charters and we had a very interesting and very lengthy discussion on the department budget review for the it department i think it was great to hear the progress that we've made in upgrading many of of our it systems and see how much further we have to go the issues were discussed here but this is something that the board will need to keep an eye on on and a lot of their projects that are funded and progress and others projects that no funding a identified for so definitely something that needs to be part of our budget ongoing budget priorities we have a short
5:46 am
discussion and a lot of public comment on our future budget priorities for the 2016-2017 school year there were a number of parents that attended that wanted to talk about map and common core and math additionally we did heard a lot of the testimony and the board members that were in attendance identified the priorities for the next year the purpose of that item really was to get that discussion going earlier than it has been in the past and to have it be more transparent than in the past because board members have complained that you know budgeted priorities appeared after a commission said oh, i think we should fund it with the confusion with staff the idea was to collect some
5:47 am
ideas early on and have the staff think about and incorporate them into sort of a larger list of priorities and do analysis about ongoing work and what resources that ongoing work with consume so superintendent got ideas around the high schooly design around you know additional investment that some of us think we should make in the common core curriculum we also know a lot of ongoing work that is happening and we don't really actually, i guess the governor come out with his budget proposal that is go for k through 12 i've seen this for us i know the rules committee will talk about that technique and we'll talk about it in the first week of february i want to urge the commissioners, if you have a
5:48 am
particular interest you think be parrot of the budget discussion please communicate as we begin the budget development proposals next week month we'll look at holistically in context of ongoing work that needs to continue fund to be realized thank you. >> thank you commissioner norton we have a number of announcements of committees coming up people have individual board reports and reports board delegates we'll do it altogether. >> commissioner. >> the rules committee is meeting on the 21st not our usual evening wednesday not thursday our advocates from sacramento will be here and
5:49 am
they're going around the states beginning their forecast kind of conventions and not able to come on that evening we switched to this is the time whether all the bills are being introduced excuse me. and in the coming next month or two probable not only will be hearing about the bills introduced but talking to the commission about the district on in the legislative proposa proposals. >> (inaudible). >> we haven't set the date yet. >> this is not a monthly meeting so we checked we could meet that evening. >> committee on student assignment will meet in february
5:50 am
other dr. murase. >> i wanted to congratulate you are elected are reelected members of the city family including mayor ed lee and george gascon and sheriff vicki hennessey many of us attended the swearing in a congratulations and congratulation also to the congratulates of the charter high schools there was a ceremony wednesday january 20th anothers 11:00 a.m. at st. mary's cathedral for the student celebration and thursday january 28th at the hall of justice for the celebration. >> thank you commissioner norton. >> i forgot to say the budget committee will be february 3rdrd. >> other reports from board members
5:51 am
updates no one okay as i mention the ad hoc committee will be meeting in february we're working on setting a date i want to announce the ad hoc committee an city college joint committee will be meeting in february we're working 0 on setting a date as well and post 6 members two different bodies to be able to get if to work sometime in february and seeing no other reports item s informational items. >> offering commissioner vice president haney matt haney. >> i want to take a moment to congratulate dennis barry tell the executive director of the x tomorrow's an exceptional partner after 10 years stepping down and interims if his place
5:52 am
thank you dennis for all our incredible efforts. >> thank you supervisor. >> other informational item is the staff report on informational notice of personnel tracks we have a memorial adjournment i'll call on science to read that adjournment. >> i'm scald so annunciation that patty the nations admonish influential and pioneer advocate for child programs died american people christmas morning in her home died of the rare blood disease her name was the best of getting children to succeed and nancy pelosi said adding that who's just patty was an early champion that everywhere else
5:53 am
benefits and she changed childcare in america hundreds and hundreds of bills have gone to the protective and patty there born 1945 in oakland and graced with a degree in french after her first child she embarked in improving childcare services and started a coach in 1972 after having twins later become one of the first childcare resource for all agencies in 1980 founded and became the executive director of childcare resource and network the agencies advocated for more chair wiener providers and provide greater than transparent and had an impact at the federal
5:54 am
level one of the biggest achievement the passing the legislation creating the childcare and development block grants that provides subsidies and retired in 2012 to help her greater than and survived by her children and combrarn i want to mention ore husband a long time math teacher at lincoln high school died labor but that for patty and him have a profound loss and dedicated their lives to the children of san francisco so the board of education expressed their condolences to patty and her family. >> thank you commissioner wynns no closed session a report
5:55 am
of closed session actions a special meeting of january 5th in the matter of james versus sfusd the board by a vote of 6 i's gave the authority of district to pay up to a stipulated amount and the board by a vote of 6 votes absent commissioner vice president haney and the board by the vote of 6 absent hastening what a group of one classified employee and one absent hastening had an agreement of certificate of employee by and vote of 6 i's one absent hastening the agreement with the enforcement dowry the second semester to one
5:56 am
hopefully student in the district the meeting is adjourned thank you. >>
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on