>> you spent more time on the board of supervisorses than i did. you know it how long it may take to get 11 to agree. >> this is all academic unless it can happen by the 22nd and what do you need 48 hours of the public of the special meeting? >> commissioner, i am not certain on this. what i will say with absolute certainty if the measure donor disclosure is here. you have a majority co-sponsoring that and wanting to move on that quickly. there will be a desire to hold that meeting as soon as possible. >> i heard from the deputy city attorney we can't include that tonight. >> what we can do is amend that and continue it. they cannot approve it but they can continue to the next meeting which by the commissioner's motion would be a joint meeting between the ethics commission and board of supervisors for final action on that. >> mr. hepner, what is the support at the board of supervisors for this proposal. why are you rushing to have the commission approve it? >> the support for the account ability other dan nance. >> no, why are you coming here befor

are you gashting that the board of supervisors -- guaranteeing that the board of supervisors is going to pass this? >> i cannot speak on behalf of the board of supervisors, but a genuine effort on behalf of the board of supervisors to move this forward. an alternative you could use is to keep this on the november ballot with the same operative date of january 1, 2019, keep that over the heard of the board of supervisors to act meaningfully. you don't gain or lose anything because even if this is passed on the june ballot, until next year any way. let us prove to you that we can do the right thing and get this effective in effect long before the november election gets really up and going. >> commissioner kopp? >> i'll repeat. mr. peskin told me three weeks ago that we should delay this to the november 2018 election. today, mr. hepner, you represented that it should be on the june 5, 2018 election. i am confused, but i will consider your remarks accordingly with guidance from our fellow commissioners and staff. doesn't require any comment. >> commissioner chiu. >> mr. hepner, could you

it's a board member sitting on the board of -- an elected board member also sitting on the board of a nonprofit, and the board member wants to put up a water station at the nonprofit walk-a-anthony. >> >> -- walk-a-thon. >> or a shared -- does that consider? >> i think it would be arguably not a use of that person's public position. you'd have to look at if that person was acting as the official. this would still allow people to act in a private capacity. you'd have to look at are they using their office, i can imagine looking at facts like, did they use their city letterhead, did they call people into their office, did they try and use the office to obtain anything of value or were they just acting purely as a community member? those are the things you'd be looking at under this scenario. >> and with a water station, i think if a board sitting supervisor directed city funds, in whatever form to a nothinprt on which she was sitting as a board member, i think that's okay to prohibit. >> well, that, i understand. that, i understand. but what i still don't understand is when it comes to

board coordinator. we have 10nbct that have renewed certification and showed their ongoing commitment to the students. and to the professional. with the vigorous renewal process. the nbct, when i call you, please stand. when i read all the names, please come forward to receive your pin. and then move to the center for the group photo with the commissioners. names being read... [cheers and applause] please come forward and receive your pin. >> again congratulations. >> the 2018 and 2019 school year have been released. the candidates must attend the training session. and come on march 17th to give a short speech. for a meeting opportunity. 5:30 p.m. >> on the topic of 6145, extra curriculum and pro curricular activities. administrative regulation that provides opportunities for all students to participate in and attend extracurricular and co-curricular activities without compromising programs in place. we know the show must go on. the objective is to produce a system that has goals from both side in the b

when i ran, i did not have a board or a -- a board or a commission.i certainly ran flat out and quite frankly i ran against other previously elected folks and ran against and beat people who had a border commission. so i don't necessarily know if that is -- if there is any true validity to what he's saying. i also want to poke fun at mr. peskin for cherry picking brown rules. i wonder what is going to be next on what rule he is going to legislate from the brown administration. but -- so i just want to share these thoughts with you about my concerns. i'm going to be voting no. i recognize this is the first draft and i certainly reserve the right to change my opinion. i will come back and have a conversation with you about this. but i just wanted to plant this seed in your hearts and in your mind as we begin to think about what the future of san francisco is going to continue to look like. and certainly serving -- runing from a border commission is, i think, can be a competitive advantage if you are a star candidate and it could also be not an advantage

if you have a question about the board's rules, speak to board staff during a break or come to the office or give us a call. we're located at 1650 mission street in room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv and will be rebroadcast on friday at 4:00 on channel 26 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgovtv. we will now swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak without taking the oath under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify and have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand. raise your right hand and say i do when you have been sworn in or affirmed. you do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. thank you very much. commissioner, we have one housekeeping item, item 5. we received a withdrawal request for that item, and we will not hear it. this is the jurisdiction request regarding an alteration permit at 2101 mission street. item one is general public comment. is there anyone here wh

the board voted unanimously. our charter stated that cac would grow from 256 students to our current enrollment of 440 students. and each year since then using the prop 39 process, creative arts has very clearly communicated to the district that we are simply running out of space. as the district has not offered additional space to us, we have been actively and creatively looking at ways we can stay at the golden gate campus as we are proud to be part of the western addition community. over the last few years we partnered with the district to explore the possibility of expanding our current site. after multiple meetings with various people, we came to the conclusion that expansion would be possible if creative arts could secure the funds, and we have done exactly that. we have applied for and are on the cusp of approving a total of $14 million. we qualify for 7 million in funds from the state, with a matching loan of 7 million that we creative arts would take on. as part of this process, we were assured a commitm

the board of education.he board of education, unified school district for february 19th. 2018 is now called to order. thank you. >> mr. kirk. >> dr. morsi. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> here. >> mr. walters. miss min. thank you.

the board by 8 out of 11. typically, the way this works is the board will propose something or ethics will propose something and it will go to board committee. the board committee if they do not agree or wants to amend what ethics proposed, the board committee will make amendments and continue it to the call of the chair typically. the clerk will send the ordinants to commission. the ethics commission may pass it. they may offer something else. it will come back to committee. it could be a back and forth. ultimately, both bodies need to pass the same ordinance. >> what would happen if we had a joint meeting of both parties? >> that is an interesting idea. as far as i know, that has never happened. i don't think there would be a legal problem with that happening with each body making its own separate vote on the proposed ordinance. >> we see that. we see joint meetings between the planning commission on shadow issues. the commission secretaries they have and they have the vote and then they raise the shadow lim

is also on the retirement board. thank you both. i want to acknowledge sophie maxwell for her long time work to protect at-risk communities from polluting power plants and i want to thank labor. the members of sciu 10-1 and 350.org for your advocacy and staying on top of the issue and members of the commission of the environment for ongoing advocacy on this measure. san francisco has always been a national and global trail blazer for environmental practices. we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions 28% below 1990 levels, cleaning our air while our population was growing and our economy was booming. we have launched our clean power program, clean power sf, the single most important thing we can do to combat climate change and i was proud to lead that initiative here on the board of supervisors. with the enrollment of clean power sf, we're well on our way to achieving the 50% renewable target by 2020 and 100% by 2030. goals that even outpace the ambitious goals set by the state of california. and we're providing reliab

the board. i mean, there's all these different commissions, i was aware there were ongoing deliberations but not until a couple weeks ago, oh, it arrived at the board of supervisors. it didn't get a file number until early last month. i just wanted to put that on the record. i was going back through the conversation we had about you said the million dollar threshold is in there. it's not how i read it. if financial interest modifies the definition of land use matter, the way it reads it says financial interest shall mean an ownership interest of at least 10% or a million dollars. so the way that's written, if i have a financial ownership interest of more than 10% but i do a $5,000 project, it covers me. that's not what you want to do. i mean, i hope that's not what you want to do. i think it's just bad drafting. but -- i don't think you want toi implicate the $5,000 projec. you want to implicate the million dollar project but there is no dollar threshold and i see the deputy city attorney saying

to introduce to the board. i would like to clarify that for the record that it's a warm welcome and a duty and a privilege to introduce the incoming executive director. also, as i did review the minutes, i failed to include recognition of the work that had been provided by the department of human resources during the executive director's search. and i particularly call out the fine coop rage we had fro -- cooperation from the director, nicky callahan and two members of her staff that were assigned to work with us. christina brussa and shaunda akita. they provided a lot of staff and meetings and assisting the executive search firm during a various active ways during the process. i do thank them all for their hard work during that process. also in the minutes, there is a section regarding the discussion of the doctors, and i would like to highlight that commissioner fallensby will be talking directly to the medical director of best doctors, and we are hoping that those meetings will happen prior to our march meet

breed is committed to this and president of the board. she ought to be able to get enough votes to get it passed. the other matter is a question. why is the controller involved in whistleblower complaints? anybody give me the rationale? >> the charter designates the controller office with the authority to run the whistleblower hot line that is how it is set up. >> what is the rationale? >> i can't speak to that. it is versus 311 or the ethics commission. >> or the ethics commission. or the city attorney. >> my understanding from the whistleblower director because of the controller expertise in financial matters. most complaints allege fraud and waste of city resources in contracts or different financial capacities. their auditors have a special expertise. thathat is the rationale i have been given. >> that is a weak rationale why can't the city attorney do that or the ethics commission do that? >> but does the ethics commission have jurisdiction on those items that the control lawyer is deemed -- controller is deemed to be most knowledgea

the board of education. the board of education, unified school district for february 19th. 2018 is now called to order. thank you. >> mr. kirk. >> dr. morsi. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> here. >> mr. walters. miss min. thank you. >> the section a is accessible information for the public. open items. we have five tonight. number one, approval of board minutes. as announced. as it has been announced the past two meetings. the members of the public are reminded that if they wish to address the board of education, an individual can complete a speaker card for the item b column. and present it to the executive assistant. importantly, according to board rules and procedures, the speaker cards will not be expected for an item already before the board. superintendent mr. reid tonight. >> thank you, vice president. and everyone has gathered by now. standing in for dr. matthews on one of the rare occasions he is out of town for an educational conference. with the vice president and myself. good evening, everyone.

and commissions, not including the board of supervisors. previously, it had a clause that says including a member of the board of supervisors. you wi you'll see on page 72 of the packet, the lined version, that that has been struck. an additional amendment is to add a notification procedure, and this language is taken from the municipal code in los angeles, so the notification procedure formalizes a way for a board or commission who are reaccusing him or herself to formally notify the ethics commission, and you can see there are certain requirements. they have to state their name, their board or commission that they serve on, where this recusal happens, and there's a 15 day period to accept that. and then, we changed the recusal language again. also, take it from los angeles because the language, after we reviewed it, we found it to are more precise, and also it would benefit from some interpretation that they've done in the language to help clarify that process. and then, you'll see subsection d was added at the city attorney's languaadvic

this is for any member of the public to speak to the board on anything within the board's subject matter jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there any public comment? please step forward. >> good evening. my name is jerry dradler. 1919 arabell kendall lives across from me and she acquired two lots and merged it into a double lot. there are three written references to the lot merger in the report that's on the slide. all sales of the merged lot after 1919 included a lot description for a single lot that is 50 feet wide. if the lots were never merged, there would be two separate lot descriptions. on january 7th, 2017, the chief city surveyor issued a certificate of compliance dividing the merges lots into two lots. 26 days later, on february 2nd, tim brown submitted their final certificates for certificate of compliance application, contending there never has a formal merger of the two lots 97 years ago. a second odd thing happened in 2017. i filed a sunshine request at dpw for this project file on november 29th, and five days later, the developer's surveyor who prepared the

what the current status of the ordinance is at the board, yesterday, the file was duplicated, so there are now two files that are pending before the budget and finance committee. the first one is being called the ethics version, and that's essentially what is attached here as attachment one. that's the version you approved in november with the amendment. the other version, which is being called the committee version, has certain amendmented that were proposed by supervisor's peskin and tang. some of those overlap with staff's proposed amendments, some are the same. some are different, and they go further, and we can go over that, but not in this presentation. and then, also, the committee version of the acao does have supervisor peskin's major donor financial disclosures piece. that has been amended into the committee version of the acao. so before i go through the changes that are in the new staff's recommended amended version, i'll just mention that our recommendation due today is to accept this amended version, to vote to approve those changes, and additionally, to vote to place thi

that will be subject to board approval. the city does have a first right of purchase should healthright decide to sell the property during the term. under the lease, the city will be paying 7700 per hospital but total of 93,000 a year. and base rent will escalate at 3% per year, the norm. in addition the city will be responsible for its pro rataa share of operating expenses and utilities that cannot exceed 4.2% and are estimated to be $2215 per month. and finally there will be tenant improvements that the land will be putting in, up to $38,000 reimbursable by the city. if you have questions about the programming, lisa is here and i can answer questions about the lease. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the item? seeing none, comment is closed. colleagues, a motion on the item? >> supervisor stefani: i'd like to make a motion to forward this to the full board with recommendations. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection? passed without objection

>> move with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> can you send the item to the full board as committee report? >> supervisor cohen: not only with a positive recommendation but also a report. item four please. >> resolution for modification -- >> supervisor cohen: sorry, items four and five together. >> resolution approving modification two of the lease between american airlines and the city for the recapture of certain land at plot 40 of the superbay hangar for parking at the san francisco airport annual recent of 4.6 million to be effective on the first day following board approval. and item five modification two of the lease between united airline and certain land of plot 40 at superbay hangar for the parking at the san francisco international airport and adjust annual rent to commence on the first day of the month following board approvals. >> supervisor cohen: we have two resolutions for lease modifications for the hangar space used by american and united airlines. the square footage is being leased and will be diminished to make space for construction contractors so t

that variance decision was appealed to the board. the board of appeals held a hearing in november of 2016 which was a de nova hearing. you took the appeal and made some amendments to the variance decision. i'll just read those quickly. one is that reconstruction of the existing stair along the north be along the north side property line. two, expansion of the ground floor under the area of the existing deck. three, reconstruction of the decks above the ground floor level. four, construction of any necessary firewalls. five, removal of the expansion at the second floor. my understanding from reviewing the case and watching that hearing today is that the original proposal on what was approved under the variance originally the entire stair structure to access both levels of the deck was on the north side, near the northern property line. the original proposal and the original variance approval moved that all to the south property line. and because this was basically a complete demolition and reconstruction of these rear stair, the new c