>> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, our first committee of the new committee

structure of the new year. monday, january 28, 2019. i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined to my right by supervisor 5 hsha safai and shortly to be joined by supervisor and new committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. we are joined in the audience by planning commissioner dennis richards. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: do you have any other extraneous announcements that you would like to make, madam clerk? >> clerk: i do not. >> chair peskin: okay. i thought you wanted to make an

announcement about emergency evacuation procedures? >> clerk: that would be in the case of an emergency evacuation. >> chair peskin: thank you. madam clerk, i would like to welcome the counsel to this committee, counsel john give mer. welcome, mr. givner. madam clerk, the first item, please. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. and let me just start out by saying when i became the chair of this committee, i found out that there were actually a number of landmark designations that had been recommended by the historic reservation commission that were on the backlog of this committee's calendar, and i intend to bring them forward to this committee, including several at our next meeting on the 11th day of

february . and this measure has been sponsored by supervisor mandelman. and i see his representative today. sir, if you'd like to come back on behalf of supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, supervisors. i am here to speak in support of the historic landmark designation for the property at 22 beaver street, one of the oldest homes in the duboce triangle of district eight. the home originally built in the 1870's is one of the few structures in the neighborhood to survive the 1906 earthquake with minimal renovations to the italian style exterior. it is our belief that the duboce triangle neighborhood and san francisco at large would benefit from the designation of this property, and i ask that you support the

history torque designation. i thank you, supervisors for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. and on behalf of the planning department, miss ferguson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. janet ferguson, planning department staff. i'm here to present the historic preservation commission's finding. the department received a community sponsored landmark designation from the property owner in june 2018. the landmark designation report was prepared by the planning department preservation consulting, and the h.p.c. initiated designation on september 19, 2018 and unanimously recommended landmark designation on november 7, 2018. constructed circa 1870, it's architecturally significant as a very early and well preserved

italian villa within a garden setting. in contrast to the much more italian eight row houses, the house has italian detailing on three of its four destinations, indicating that it was meant to be appreciated in its garden setting. out buildings include a historic carriage house and nonhistoric garage. character defining features include the exterior as well as that landscape garden setting. the property owner is very supportive of landmark designation and also planning commissioner richards has been very involved in helping with the landmark designation. the department believes the building meeted the established eligibility status, and the designation is warranted.

this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. before i bring up mr. verplank who prepared the report, i'd like to bring forward our esteemed planning commissioner dennis richards, mr. richards. >> commissioner richards: thank you. dennis richards here as an individual citizen because the commission did not hear this item. this house was a special house. i see -- i live directly across the street and i've been looking at it ever since i've lived in my house. people walk up the street and marvel that this house survived. it was on an 80 foot lot, and a 20-foot section was cut in 1953 as per the case report. the palm tree on the next door lot is also going to be coming before you as a separate landmarking of the tree because it was original to the house --

i think it was built in 1869. people walk up the street. it's an amazing house, even on the inside. we have the owner of the house, miss geiling, who's been in the house since 1966, and against all odds, in the '60's and '70's, and the federal government came in, and we were supposed to be a redevelopment 2.0 area, she actually participated in the federally assisted code enforcement program known as face. it also created the landscape that we have in duboce triangle that many, many people including tour buses drive through the city and can't believe how lush it is. a couple of other things. this house, in its setting, plus most of the rest of duboce triangle is a california registered district. we had, as a planning department, determined in 200 #

when the market octavia program was passed, several of us are going to be getting duboce triangle on the historic register because if it's on the california register, it is exempt. and i'm also working with several other folks from several other neighborhoods that are also eligible districts to get them on the register. one last thing, if this esteemed committee or the board of supervisors can hold a hearing on s.b.-50 and its actual impact on san francisco because i've read the legislation and i've seen all the places where it points to, and you really need to understand it. it's -- it's going to rezone everything again, so thank you very much. i support this landmarking. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner richards, testifying in your capacity as a citizen of the city and county of san francisco and the

matter that you just brought up is not before us, so we, as you know, pursuant to the brown act, cannot discuss that, but thank you for edifying us on the history of this property. with that, mr. verplank, who wrote the case report on this, please come forward. >> thank you, chair peskin. justin sevplank. i want to thank the owner of the property, miss te tess geiling. without her effort and the effort of her husband, john, this property would be a stucco home or parking lot, no doubt about it. they painstakingly preserved 22 beaver street, but they've also put the personal touches on the

property in the time they've owned it, which is why we decided to call it the benedict-gieling house. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. verplank, and thank you for all the work you do on behalf of historic preservation. you do it scientifically. miss gieling, if you want to come forward, and if you don't, i see just want to thank you for stewarding the house since before i was born, but if you'd like to come forward, we'd like to hear from you. right there. there you go. miss gieling, the floor is yours. >> i'm jean gieling. i've owned beaver street, 22

beaver for more than 60 years, and i think i've seen it at its worst, and i'm beginning to see it at its best. in the beginning, the house was in such miserable condition, it was rumored that it would become motel. well, nobody on the street wanted that, and when we bought it, the neighbors came one by one to tell me how grateful they were that we would be able

to restore the house and to live there. i've been in restoration for more than 60 years, but i'm sure i can finish it. and the neighbors told me a great deal about the beginnings of the house. but what i've been seeing is the fact as i've worked on the house to bring it up to standard, the rest of the neighborhood came with me. beaver street had been left

more or less neglected because of the rumor that it would become a park, a -- well, it was to become something they did not want, either a motel or a nursing home. and as i've worked, the neighborhood has improved. everybody has painted his house and made it the street it is today, which i think is one of the best, most livable places

in the entire city. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss gieling, for your stewardship and for resisting the worst of development. and to my two new colleagues on this panel, that i've serve off and on on this panel for their part of a generation, i would like to see that we will see landmark designations come before us, some of them with the support of landowners, some of them with the vociferous opposition of landowners. of course, within our laws, we can landmark a building with or without support of property owner, but when a property owner like miss gieling comes forward and wants to do the right thing for the next seven generations, i personally want

to salute her and people like here. to people like dennis richards, thank you for making this happen, albeit, it probably ads value to your property across the street, but you're doing it in your personal capacity so you have no conflict. mr. givner has assured me of such. with that, is there any public comment on this matter? you already spoke. seeing no public comment, colleagues, would we like to allow commissioner richards to speak again? without objection, mr. richards, the floor is yours. >> commissioner richards: i just want to say one thing about mrs. gieling. she is a living part of san francisco history. she is a metallurgist.

some of her friends were imogene cunningham, who was a photographer of past, as well as ruth isawa, who helped her restore the house. >> chair peskin: thank you very much, commissioner richards. miss gieling, if we could preserve you, we would. colleagues, is there a motion to forward this to the full board? >> supervisor haney: so moved. >> chair peskin: motion made by supervisor haney. we'll take that without objection. thank you, one and all. madam clerk, next item please. >> thank you. [agenda item read].

>> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. colleagues, i do believe that supervisor vice chair safai is very familiar with what is a major encroachment permit, and i do not know, before i do not violate the brown act, whether supervisor haney knows what a major encroachment permit is. but over the last couple of years, my office has endeavored to make sense of a pellmell scheme around major encroachment schemes where in private parties have a license or right to the public right-of-way, and there are

many of these that have issued over the last 150-plus years in the city and county of san francisco. and i want to thank the number of interns who actually assembled a list of major encroachment permits that had issued. and there was no real clear way in our code as to how they should be revoked. and with the help of the city attorney, we actually created some changes to the major encroachment law which were unanimously passed. i believe supervisor safai was on the board and voted in favor of that. but as with all pieces of legislation, this is an evolving area of law, and akin to a piece of legislation i passed i think in 2002 or '03. the change that is scheduled

before the board of supervisors would allow us to schedule a hearing before the board regarding revocation of a permit when the director of public works has not timely scheduled and held a hearing or issued a decision regarding said revocation. i am happy to explain this. and before i do that, is there anybody here from the department of public works who would like to speak to this item? thank you for coming here this afternoon, and i do not know your name, so if you could tell me what it is, i would be happy to announce that. >> thank you. my name is jeremy spitz. i am in the director's office, and i work on legislative affairs. >> chair peskin: jeremy spitz, like as the swimmer, mark?

>> yes. no relation. the director of public works has reviewed this legislation. there is no major change, and it is a policy direction to the board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. i look forward to getting to know you, and thank you for coming this afternoon. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. that's always music to supervisor peskin's ears, when he hears the director has no objection to his legislation. so i have a few questions. we worked on this last year. we moved forward, but i know we sent this back to committee to have further conversations. one of the things i wanted to talk about on page 3, line 23, when it talks about the director shall mail notice of this decision, i wanted to know if we could add language, by

certified mail just so -- >> chair peskin: upon filing of the notice -- no, line 21. >> supervisor safai: page 22 and 23. >> chair peskin: excuse me. >> supervisor safai: you're on the wrong page. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable -- this is the subsection b-1. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable period of time after the administrative hearing, this is for anybody who's watching, old language -- the director shall issue a written decision on the permittee's cure, if any, and the public revocation petition and fine based on the public interest that the director will reject the petition, approve the petition or initiate revocation of the permit on the grounds -- on grounds other than those identified in the petition. the director shall mail notice of this decision to the lead petitioner, the permit holder, and you are suggesting at line

22 that the director shall do this by certified mail? >> supervisor safai: yes, just based on problems that we've had in the past based on individuals not receiving. that's a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: i personally do not care. there are many notice provisions, and there are many definitions of notice, and i will ask deputy city attorney jon givner to opine about the definition of notice. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure whether in article 15 or elsewhere in the public works code, there's any requirement for the director of public works when providing mailed notice to do it by certified mail. i can check. you can certainly make this amendment next tuesday at the board. >> supervisor safai: yeah. i guess i started a little bit later through the chair. i started -- no longer a

question to you, deputy city attorney, but my question would be i sounded like you had interns do a lot of research. one of my questions was how many, if any, have ever been -- how many major encroachments have not been revoked? and i would imagine because we're talking about, when often times -- just for the public's edification, i know you're aware of this. often times when you're doing development, some of that development leads into or has a relationship in the public right-of-way, and that's what the minor and major encroachments are for. very often, it's required, not necessarily anticipated, but it's required by the planning department or those that are designing the projects on the frontage or on the side of the property, depending on where it lays in the alley and so on and so forth. one of the ways they often will solve for the problem is to ask

the folks that are developing something to -- they pretty much require a major encroachment. so it becomes part of the overall development. so my question was, in a lot of instances, this is essentially part of the design and part of the overall building or envelope and so on. so you don't have to answer this now, and i'm sure we would get that as part of this process. but i would imagine that we probably haven't ever revoked any major encroachment. i know that that authority is there, and it lies within the ability -- i know one of the projects that we worked on when i was at public works was a home, and it was in the san jose gulch, where they took, by eminent domain, many of the parcels, and then, they left some of the parcels adjacent to existing structures. and so one of them was a property that the actual yard or the open space, it seemed as though it was adjacent, but actually was a major

encroachment -- >> chair peskin: in the driveway. >> supervisor safai: no, this one was not. it was the entire yard, and at some point, d.p.w. was considering revoking it, but then, they formalized an agreement. but in that agreement always rested the authority if necessary in the future, the director of public works had the ability to revoke that. and that was understood and it was disclosed in the property. so i just wanted to make sure if we were going to go down this route, and i would imagine there would be a very few situations that we wouldn't get into -- adding that would be more like a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: sure. let's take the first and the second issue. the first, i think the director has the authority to send it by certified mail should the director desire, so we can let the city attorney drill down on that between now and next tuesday.

>> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: but with regard to revocation -- and this is related to the new member of this panel, the difference between minor and major encroachment permits, minor can be issued by the director, and major encroachment permits can only be issued by the body. there are tons of minor. if you would like to put a planter in front of your house or apartment building on the street, and you want to do it properly, you actually go and ask for a minor encroachment permit. a major encroachment is much more akin to a license or right, but the city retains in that instrument the ability to revoke it. and there actually -- and i would be misrepresenting if i told you the number of major

encroachments that would be revoked in my intern's research of 2.5 years ago, but there actually have been some that have been revoked by the city for a variety of reasons. but insofar as they are granted by the elected body, i want today make sure -- >> supervisor safai: we have the ability -- >> chair peskin: right. we have the ability to revoke them. in this particular amendment, the issue is a fine-tuning of what we voted for unanimously after some back and forth and rereferral to committee, and that is what i would call justice delayed is justice denied which is to the extent that the director, whoever he or she may be now and in the future does not issue a written decision or does not hold a hearing that five of us, as we do in the case of conditional use authorization appeals can bring that matter before this

board. this is really a due process issue. >> supervisor safai: right, but. >> chair peskin: and with that, i hand it back to you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. that is almost 100% of the story, but it also -- if members of the board don't agree with the decision, you give us the ability to appeal. so that is one step beyond. so we have that -- >> chair peskin: the court of last resort, the people's court. >> supervisor safai: the people -- for the people. >> chair peskin: i'm not running for president of the united states, i'm just chair of the land use committee. >> supervisor safai: in same section, right above that section on page three, section 2-a-ii. >> chair peskin: got it. >> supervisor safai: begins with if the director accepts the petition, the director shall schedule an administrative hearing no earlier than 60 days and no later than 90 days after the date of the petition acceptance in order to provide the permit holder with an opportunity to

cure the problems associated with the permit as identified in the petition. at the administrative hearing, the director shall provide the petitioner with a chance to provide proof that the problems have been cured in the petition. in the next section, prior to any administrative hearing in the petition, the director shall develop an estimate of the cost -- [inaudible] >> supervisor safai: -- shall shall bear the cost. it is a party other than the permittee. i just wanted to ask mr. spitz to come back up. through the chair, i wanted to ensure that 60 to 90 days on this situation -- if the director was going to be making this decision because his decision is based on two

factors that we then have the opportunity to move past, one of which is determination of successful cure or whether or not engineering design is factored in. those are the two factors of which the director has the ability to deny the petition or determine. and i just wanted to know, in your opinion -- and it makes me a little wary that 60 to 90 days might not be enough time to develop a cost estimate. so i wanted to be sure that there could be some language that there would be an additional period of time -- a small amount of time to determine whether or not this is a right time frame to give a cost estimate on who the -- who the responsible party, the permittee, the cost estimate associated with the revokation and restoration of this major encroachment. so first, i'm happy to hear what the chair has to say, but i also wanted to give an opportunity to public works -- but if you'd like to go first.

>> chair peskin: i'd very like to hear mr. spitz. in that no less than 60 and no more than 90 days, what the department has to do is develop a cost estimate of the cost of revocation and number two, identify the responsible party. >> supervisor safai: and associated restoration. >> chair peskin: yes, costs and -- well, that's the costs. revocation and restoration is the costs, so if you have to remove the driveway, that's the cost, so same thing. so we're kind of replowing old ground here, which is that insofar as when this first came before earlier incarnation of this committee and went to the board and came back to this committee and went back to the full board, all of these issues were settled. what is really before this panel today is really a due process matter.

so the department, which ultimately supported the legislation, which this part is not actually before us, was in support of the 60 to 90 days. the funny thing about this is this is mostly a theoretical conversation because as we both stipulated to, very few of these happen, and the department is respectfully well resourced. but thus far, i have not heard any issues or complaints relative to the 60 or 90 days. but with that, mr. spitz, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai, 60 to 90 days should be sufficient. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. and then lastly -- so -- well, i guess that's -- i guess my

last question was just -- just maybe for the city attorney through the chair, on page four, just the first reference on -- in section -- in section 2-b, bullet number 2-biii, if the director rejects the petition based solely on engineering design, is that defined somewhere in the code, engineering design? >> chair peskin: ah, i remember these conversations. mr. givner? >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the -- under state law, the city engineer, which is housed in -- works for d.p.w. has exclusive authority to determine engineering design issues. i believe that the -- that the term is -- i don't know if that specific term is defined, but

the scope of the city engineer's authority is defined in state law rather than this ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to clarify. that was it. thank you, mr. peskin. it seems, mr. chair, that the only thing we'll hear back on is the issue of certified mail. >> chair peskin: well i said in the beginning, i'm okay with it, but i could careless. okay. if there's any member of the public that would like to testify on item 2, please come forward. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, if there are no amendments, i would entertain a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation, we can handle that on tuesday. >> supervisor safai: move. >> chair peskin: so moved by supervisor safai, and with that, we are adjourned.

[gavel] [♪]

>> my family's starts in mexico in a small town. my parents are from a very, very small town. so small, that my dad's brother is married to one of my mom's sisters. it's that small. a lot of folks from that town are here in the city. like most immigrant families, my parents wanted a better life for us. my dad came out here first. i think i was almost two-years-old when he sent for us.

my mom and myself came out here. we moved to san francisco early on. in the mission district and moved out to daily city and bounced back to san francisco. we lived across the street from the ups building. for me, when my earliest memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the street keeping us awake at night. when i was seven-years-old and i'm in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. i have to make sure that we do our homework. it's a lot of responsibility for a kid. the weekends were always for family. we used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new mission theater and then afterwards going to kentucky fried chicken. that was big for us. we get kentucky fried chicken on sunday. whoa! go crazy! so for me, home is having something where you are all together. whether it's just together for dinner or whether it's together for breakfast or sharing a

special moment at the holidays. whether it's thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. that is home. being so close to berkley and oakland and san francisco, there's a line. here you don't see a line. even though you see someone that's different from you, they're equal. you've always seen that. a rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. when you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. they have dreams. they have aspirations. they have goals. and you are take that away from them. right now, the price is a hard fight. they're determined. i mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. their heart is in the right place. there's hope. i mean, out here with the things changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right.

right now there's a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. the only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who can't speak. >> dy mind motion. >> even though we have a lot of fighters, there's a lot of voice less folks and their voiceless because they're scared. >> the hon. london breed: hello, everyone. aren't we excited today? [applause] first of all, i want to thank all of you for being here today. this is a really special occasion to celebrate someone who has been working in education and improving the

lives of so many children throughout san francisco for more than 20 years. jennie lamb is my choice for the board of education. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and we all know that making decisions like this are very difficult, but we know that the board of education is an important institution, one that former members of the board of supervisors, like shamann walton and matt haney have served on. i want to thank matt heaney or feedback that you provided on filling the term of your seat. i think we have someone that may not be able to fit in your h shoes but will fill your shoes. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so i want to thank susan solomon and ken tray and others from uesf.

really appreciate you all being here as well as members of the school board who i see, my deer friend, rachel norton, thank you so much. and one of the newest members of the board of educations, allison collins. i see city college member ivy lee, thank you so much for being here, as well as members of the board of supervisors, gordon mar and ahsha safai for an individual we know is going to do a great job on the board of education, supporting or children, supporting our teachers and doing what's necessary to close the achievement gap to make sure that no student is left behind.

now let's start with the most important qualifications that brings us here today. jennie lamb is a parent, and she has two children, two beautiful children, jackson and simone -- am i saying their names right? okay. i just want to make sure i have the names right, jackson and simone, who actually are in our public schools here. in fact, jackson, this is your school, roosevelt, right? are your friends jealous? a little bit. in fact, it's critical that the board of education as we know are represented by parents serving on this body. parents are the ones who know firsthand the impacts of decisions that get made. she knows too often that parents are too busy struggling with some of the challenges that i know a lot of parents here are dealing with with trying to get their kids ready, trying to get them to listen, looking at their report cards, looking at their homework.

a lot of times, we forget that just because parents are not showing up to the board of education meeting, doesn't necessarily mean they don't care. so they need someone, she need an advocate, they need a voice. i just realized, dr. vince matthews, who is the superintendent of our public schools is here today. thank you, dr. matthews, for being here today. ultimately, i want to make sure what we do here in san francisco is push for equity, push for closing the achievement gap. as a parent, she understands firsthand, but not just as a parent. her whole life, her whole career, and what she's done as

someone who has pushed to change for education. working with affirmative action, working with education super highway making sure schools have access to high speed internet services in states across this country. her work is local, her work is on a national level in trying to advocate for kids who, again, too often get left behind. so i am really excited, and i'm also really glad that our board of trusties commissioners here, ivy lee, you remember the work his lamb has done around fighting to make sure that city college is supported, the advocacy she will continue to do as someone who will work collaboratively with her colleagues on the board of education. she will focus on making the best decisions, and they will be her decisions ultimately as it relates to anything that she chooses to do because i trust her judgment. so many of you who have worked

with her over the years in the world of education, you know her, you trust her judgment, as well, and you know that our kids and our schools will be at the forefront of her thoughts in any decision that she makes moving us forward. so with that, i want to take this opportunity -- oh, and also recognize jennie's dad, mr. lamb. thank you so much for being here with us today. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: with that, i am going to swear in our new commissioner for the san francisco school board. are we ready? all right. please raise your right hand and repeat after me with your

name. i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california. that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to

enter. and during such time as i hold the office of member of the board of education for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: ladies and gentlemen, your newest commissioner for the board of education.

[applause] >> the hon. london breed: it's official. [applause] >> thank you, mayor breed. i am truly humbled with this opportunity to serve on the board of education. good morning. it's wonderful to see colleagues, community members, and dear friends. first, i want to thank and acknowledge my parents. my dad and mom emigrated to the u.s. from hong kong, settling in oakland, with little money, but with a dream, a chance to strive for a better life. they've dedicated their lives to my sister and me, taught us the important of family, hard

work, strong values, and resiliency. dad, please stand and be recognized. [applause] >> my first memories of school, of formal learning, started the first day of kindergarten. i still remember that day. i didn't understand what my teacher, ms. williams was saying because i didn't speak english. my first language was cantonnese, but it didn't matter. i was in a safe place and i was eager to learn. i am a product of public education, kindergarten through my studies at u.c. santa barbara. my professor and mentor, dr. sue chang chan, encouraged me to explore possibilities, including working for social good. san francisco has been my home for over 20 years. the city where i landed my

first job out of college in chinatown, working with early care educators, education teachers and providers, and years later, started a family and committed to raising two kids in san francisco. there were long days and sleepless nights, right, keith, when we asked how are we going to handle all of this? can we make it happen? then our daughter started kindergarten which confirmed our commitment to public schools. and during this time as a new sf unified parent, i started working at the san francisco civil rights bay organization. they have a history of fighting for the most marginalized communities. i want to send them thanks.

and through my profession life from running youth and family programs in oakland public schools to managing nonprofit organizations to nurturing leadership of immigrant parents across the city. all these experiences have taught me humility and compassion. san francisco is passionate about the power of public education. i'm honored to be part of the mission to give the best public education for our students regardless of neighborhood, income, or immigration status. this moment is for our values, for democracy. it's for the students, the parents, and guardians, the teachers and staff, and for our communities. and i want our students, every young person, to feel we care about their well-being, and we will do everything possible to help them succeed. and some of the issues that i'm

excited to work on, because i know we're going to get straight to work, is address the achievement and opportunity gap. and we must continue to strive for excellence for every student. increasing support for english language learners. third, support health and well-being so our students can thrive, and support our educators. professional learning for our teachers, recruit and retain them, and really show our value for our teachers and educators. integrate technology and innovation, not only in the classroom for teachers, but district wide. before i close, i want to thank my family, my husband, keith, and my kids, simone and jackson. thank you for supporting me. i know there will be sacrifices, and i hope to make you proud. mayor breed, thank you again, for seeing my passion and believing in my abilities.

i'm excited to join my colleagues on the san francisco board of education. and superintendent matthews, thank you for your partnership and being real and sharing our work together. now it's time to take our hopes, our vision into action together. thank you. [applause] >> the mayor will be available for questions after, as will commissioner lamb, but that's the end of the press conference. better.

san francisco department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. we know that we don't have all the answers. we need to support our local champions, our local community to find creative solutions and innovations that help us get to zero waste. >> zero waste is sending nothing to landfill or incineration, using reuse and recovery and prevention as ways to achieve

zero waste. the grant program is a grant program specifically for nonprofits in san francisco to divert material from landfill. it's important to find the san francisco produce market because there's a lot of edible food that can be diverted and they need positions to capture that food and focus on food recovery. >> san francisco produce market is a resource that connects farmers and their produce with businesses in the bay area. i think it's a basic human right to have access to healthy foods, and all of this food here is available. it's a matter of creating the infrastructure, creating jobs, and the system whereby none of this goes to waste. since the beginning of our

program in july 2016 to date, we've donated over 1 million pounds of produce to our community partners, and that's resulted in over 900,000 meals to people in our community, which we're very proud of. >> carolyn at the san francisco produce market texts with old produce that's available. the produce is always excellent. we get things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, bell peppers. everything that we use is nice and fresh, so when our clients get it, they really enjoy it, and it's important to me to feel good about what i do, and working in programs such as this really provides that for me. it's helping people. that's what it's really about, and i really enjoy that. >> the work at the produce market for me representing the

intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the people, nothing gets better than

>> good afternoon. the commission will please come to order and the secretary will call the roll. >> clerk: [roll call] the second item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the health commission meeting of january 8, 2019. >> the minutes are briefed for the commission a motion for acceptance in order. >> so moved. >> second. >> any corrections? if not, all those in favor please say aye. all opposed? and the minutes have been adopted. next, please. >> >> clerk: item three is the director's report. >> good afternoon, greg wagner acting