2012 Annual Report (PDF)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Outdoor Fitness FAQ (Updated: 8/23/20)
Outdoor Fitness FAQ (Updated: 8/23/20) Outdoor Fitness FAQ Contents 1. What is the difference between small and large group fitness? .......................................................... 1 2. Can I apply for both the small group license and a large group permit?.............................................. 1 3. What is the fee for a small group license? ............................................................................................ 1 4. What certifications are required for a small group license? ................................................................ 2 5. What equipment can I bring to the workout and setup ....................................................................... 2 6. What is the fee for a large group permit? ............................................................................................ 2 7. Do all applicants for a large group permit, with and without studios, participate in the lottery? ....... 2 8. What locations are reservable under a large group permit? ................................................................ 2 9. What is a lottery slot? ........................................................................................................................... 2 10. How will the lottery for large group permits work? ............................................................................. 3 11. What is the cost for each slot? ............................................................................................................. 3 12. Are these classes still only -
2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 McLaren Bike Park Opening Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager, Recreation and Parks 415‐581‐2554, [email protected] Ananda Hirsch, Capital Manager, Port of San Francisco 415‐274‐0442, [email protected] 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Program Budget Project Revenues 2 Project Expenditures 4 Project Schedules 6 Project Status Summaries 8 Citywide Programs 2930 Citywide Parks 3334 Executive Summary San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Bond Program Budget $M Neighborhood Parks In November 2012, 71.6% of voters approved Proposition B for a Angelo J. Rossi Playground 8.2 $195 million General Obligation Bond, known as the 2012 San Balboa Park 7 Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond (the “bond”). Garfield Square 11 George Chri s topher Playground 2.8 This funding will continue a decade of investment in the aging Gilman Playground 1.8 infrastructure of our park system. Specifically, the bond Glen Ca nyon Park 12 allocates: Hyde & Turk Mini Park 1 Joe DiMaggio Playground 5.5 Margaret S. Hayward Playground 14 $99 million for Neighborhood Parks, selected based on Moscone Recreation Center 1.5 community feedback, their physical condition, the variety of Mountain Lake Park 2 amenities offered, -
Volunteer Groups 2017
4-H Arabella Advisors Bowers & Wilkins Christ Lutheran Church 7 Tepees Archaeology Lab and Boy Scouts of America Cisco Systems, Inc. AAA of Northern California, Stewardship Volunteers Branson School Citizen Schools Nevada, & Utah Arizona State University Brett Harte Elementary City College of San Francisco Access SFUSD Armanino Bridgemen CivicSpark Act-On Software Art in the Parks Brighton Jones Claire Lilienthal School AdRoll Aspect Foundation British Consulate General-San Clark Construction Group Advance English Academy Atlassian Francisco Clever Aim High Autodesk BSR Clif Bar Airbnb Avison Young Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. ClimateWorks Foundation Alamo Elementary School Bain & Company Bucknell University Alumni Cloudera Alcatraz Gardens Volunteers Bay Area Coffee Community California Coastal Commission Collective Health Alcatraz Interpretation and Bay Area Mountain Rescue Unit California Conservation Corps College of Marin Education Volunteers Bay Area Ridge Trail Council California State Parks Community Grows Alcatraz Waterbird Docents Bay Area Whaleboat Rowing California State University- Community Housing Alibaba Group Association Chico Partnership AllTrails Bay Model California State University- Community Initiatives Amazon.com, Inc. Bay School of San Francisco East Bay CommuniTyler American Conservation BDO Campaign Monitor Concrete Preservation Institute Experience Beach Program Volunteers CCI Greenheart CorePower Yoga American Hiking Society Cornerstone Research Berkeley City College Cedars of Marin AmeriCorps Cornerstone Trinity Baptist -
File No. 131042 Amended in Board 11/5/13 Resolution No
AMENDED IN BOARD 11/5/13 FILE NO. 131042 RESOLUTION NO. 391-13 1 [Park, Recreation, and Open Space Advisory Committee - Membership List] 2 3 Resolution approving and modifying the Recreation and Park Commission's list of 4 recommended organizations for membership in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space 5 Advisory Committee. 6 7 WHEREAS, San Francisco Park Code, Article 13, Section 13.01, established the Park, 8 Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee. That Ordinance provides that the 9 Recreation and Park Commission shall prepare, and the Board of Supervisors shall approve 1O or modify, a list of organizations qualified to nominate individuals for Park, Recreation and 11 Open Space Advisory Committee membership; now, therefore, be it 12 RESOLVED, That the list of recommended organizations qualified to nominate 13 individuals for Park Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee membership are: 14 California Native Plant Society- Verba Buena Chapter, Friends of Duboce Park, Friends of 15 Mountain Lake Park, Friends of Recreation and Parks, Golden Gate Audubon Society - San 16 Francisco Conservation Committee, People Organizing to Demand Environmental Rights, 17 Proposition E Implementation Committee, San Francisco Beautiful, Neighborhood Park 18 Council, Committee for Better Parks and Recreation in Chinatown, San Francisco Friends of 19 the Urban Forest, San Francisco Group of the Sierra Club, San Francisco League of 20 Conservation Voters, San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners, San Francisco Tomorrow, 21 Save the Redwoods League, -
Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan Environmental Assessment
1. Introduction The Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan and Environmental Assessment is a cooperative effort between the Presidio Trust (Trust), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Golden Gate National Parks Association (GGNPA). The Presidio Trust is a wholly- owned federal government corporation whose purposes are to preserve and enhance the Presidio as a national park, while at the same time ensuring that the Presidio becomes financially self-sufficient by 2013. The Trust assumed administrative jurisdiction over 80 percent of the Presidio on July 1, 1998, and the NPS retains jurisdiction over the coastal areas. The Trust is managed by a seven-person Board of Directors, on which a Department of Interior representative serves. NPS, in cooperation with the Trust, provides visitor services and interpretive and educational programs throughout the Presidio. The Trust is lead agency for environmental review and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). GGNPA is administering project funds and coordinating phase one of the project. The San Francisco International Airport has provided $500,000 to fund the first phase of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan under the terms and conditions outlined within the Cooperative Agreement for the Restoration of Mountain Lake, 24 July 1998. The overall goal of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan is to improve the health of the lake and adjacent shoreline and terrestrial environments within the 14.25-acre Project Area. This document analyzes three site plan alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) and a no action alternative. It is a project-level EA that is based upon the Presidio Trust Act and the 1994 General Management Plan Amendment for the Presidio of San Francisco (GMPA) prepared by the NPS, a planning document that provides guidelines regarding the management, use, and development of the Presidio. -
Striped Pedestrian Crossings Come to Geary Boulevard
The Richmond is Spring 2015 talking . Street-tree transfers from the city to private owners continues. Several city-maintained trees on California Street have notices on them informing property owners that tree mainte- Planning Association nance will be turned over to them. Maintenance costs on these large trees could run up to $1,000 a year. Dan Flanagan of Friends of the Urban for the Richmond Forest has a proposal for the city to maintain PAR the trees and stop the transfers. See fuf.org or contact Dan Flanagan at [email protected]. Striped pedestrian crossings Aquatic pet amnesty at Mountain Lake has begun. Unwanted aquatic pets can be left in a new amnesty box on the south shore of the come to Geary Boulevard lake. Recently, two red-eared slider turtles (one Over the past several months, However, even at light-controlled of the most popular pet turtles) deposited in the San Francisco Municipal Transit intersections, pedestrians should stay the box were taken to Sonoma County Reptile Authority has upgraded 33 intersections alert when crossing and look out for Rescue. Red-eared sliders can live up to 20 on Geary Boulevard with bolder, zebra- cars making left and right turns. years and will eat almost any aquatic vegeta- painted crosswalks that increase pedes- Drivers turning onto Geary tion. In November, more than 50,000 carp and trian visibility. Boulevard should be aware of pedes- 75 red-eared sliders were removed prior to the Geary Boulevard is on San trians and look for pedestrians before lake being poisoned with rotenone (a biological Francisco’s “High Injury Network.” This entering any intersection, even when agent derived from legumes). -
London Breed's Troll Patrol
Start your summer here June events The Tablehopper says get ready for Merchant Roots p.14 June is festival time on Union Street, in North Beach, Lynette Majer has the perfect summer wine pairings p.15 at Stern Grove, at SF Jazz, Michael Snyder touts the can't-miss summer movies p.16 and in the local cinemas p.18 MARINATIMES.COM CELEBRATING OUR 34TH YEAR VOLUME 34 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2018 Reynolds Rap London Breed’s troll patrol Is the mayoral candidate the company she keeps? BY SUSAN DYER REYNOLDS ’ve lived in the haight-ashbury district for three decades, and watched as it went from Left to right: Charles Sheeler, Classic Landscape, 1931. IMAGE COURTESY OF THE FINE ARTS MUSEUMS OF SAN FRANCISCO grief-stricken hippies pouring into the streets upon Ithe death of Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia to her- oin being sold off the hoods of cars to felonious tran- sients beating people up for their iPhones. I was so frus- The Cult of the Machine: Precisionism trated by District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi’s lack of action that, in 2010, I penned an editorial for Northside San Francisco magazine titled, “The thugs who run and American Art at the de Young Haight Street.” In 2012, much to my dismay, Mirkarimi was elected sheriff, and Mayor Ed Lee appointed Chris- BY SHARON ANDERSON tion. Originating from Cubism and combined highly structured, geomet- tina Olague to fill the supervisor position; however, Futurism, primarily European paint- ric compositions with smooth surfac- Olague’s tenure was short-lived as a bright, tenacious he de young museum is ing movements, Precisionism mar- es. -
Leadership High School Charter Renewal Petition December 21, 2011 Page 1
Charter Renewal Petition Submitted to the San Francisco Unified School District, December 21, 2011 Revised, February 2 and 6, 2012 Approved unanimously by the Board of Education, February 14, 2012 Original Charter Petition submitted, October 22, 1996 Revised, December 4, 1996 Approved by the San Francisco Board of Education, December 10, 1996 Approved by the California State Board of Education, April 11, 1997 Designated Charter School #122 Expired August 18, 2002 First Charter Petition Renewal submitted March 15, 2002 Revised April 5, May 14, and May 28, 2002 Approved by the San Francisco Board of Education, June 11, 2002 Expired June 30, 2007 Second Charter Petition Renewal submitted March 2, 2007 Approved by the Board of Education, May 8, 2007 Expires June 30, 2012 Leadership High School Charter Renewal Petition December 21, 2011 Page 1 Contents Affirmations 4 A. Educational Program 5 Mission and Vision 5 Leadership’s Track Record and Program Highlights 5 1. Targeted School Populations 8 2. Attendance: Calendar, Schedule, and Requirements 15 3. What it Means to be an Educated Person in 21st Century 19 4. Description of How Learning Best Occurs 21 Overview of Academic Program 24 Strategies to Support Students Not Meeting Outcomes 30 Strategies to Support English Language Learners 33 Strategies to Support Students with Disabilities 35 IDEA 36 Section 504/ADA 36 5. Transferability of Courses 38 Accountability, API, and AYP 38 B. Measurable Student Outcomes 43 C. Methods to Assess Progress toward Meeting Outcomes 50 D. Governance Structure of School 53 E. Employee Qualifications 57 F. Health and Safety Procedures 58 G. -
Download Your Free Cheat Sheet on All Dog Friendly Things to Do in San
A COMPLETE DOG FRIENDLY GUIDE TO SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco is one of the top dog friendly cities in USA. As a resident dog mom, you can find all my favorite dog friendly things to do, see, eat and enjoy in this one handy cheat sheet. 1. Alta Plaza Park-has off leash play area 2. Alamo Square Park-home to the famous Painted Ladies S 3. Bernal heights park-get a fantastic view from Bernal Hill K 4. Grand View Park-the 16th Avenue Mosaic steps lead this park with great views R 5. Sutro Heights Park-right next to Ocean beach (dog friendly) A 6. Mountain Lake Park-has a tranquil lake 7. John Mclaren Park P 8. Buena Vista Park 9. Lincoln Park G 10. Strawberry Hill (Golden Gate Park)-waterfall and Chinese pagoda 11.Duboce Park O 12.Dolores Park D 13.Lafayette Park 14. Precita Park S 1. Grand View Park H W T E 2. Corona Heights Park I I W 3. Tank Hill Park V S 4. Billy Goat Hill C I K 5. Mt. Davidson Park R M A 6. Bernal Heights Park A P R 7. Buena Vista Park O G 8. Kite Hill N O A D 9. Ina Coolbrith Park P S 1. Sutro open space reserve Y L L I 2. Mt. Davidson D A N 3. Glen Canyon Park R E T I 4. Presidio of San Francisco-Ecology Trail, R G Batteries to Bluffs Trail, Lovers lane F N I 5. Coastal Trail at Land's End G K O I 6. -
Enrollment Guide 2019-2020
Enrollment Guide 2019-2020 Apply by January 11, 2019 ENGLISH Welcome to San Francisco Public Schools Superintendent’s Message Mission Statement Dear parents, families and students: Every day we provide each and every student with the Thank you for choosing San Francisco public schools. quality instruction and equitable support required to thrive Here at SFUSD, we are motivated every day by the goal of fostering in the 21st century. engaged and joyful learners. We pride ourselves on our diverse school offerings, and our staff is dedicated to developing each student’s creativity, Vision of Student Success critical thinking and collaboration skills, no matter which school your child attends. Every student who attends SFUSD schools will discover his or her spark, along with a strong sense of self and purpose. Each Our district has talented teachers who believe in providing all students with engaging learning experiences that build strong thinking habits and and every student will graduate from high school ready for support mastery of skills to prepare them for lifelong success. college and career and equipped with the skills, capacities and dispositions outlined in SFUSD’s Graduate Profile. We value diversity and are committed to supporting students from all backgrounds and learning styles. Every school offers students opportunities to cultivate their academic growth, creativity and well being through: • Math and English courses aligned to rigorous state standards; • Visual and performing arts and music programs; • Comprehensive physical education each week; • Social and emotional learning, like communicating feelings and resolving conflicts; • Support for student health and wellbeing from school nurses and social workers; • Healthy school breakfasts and lunch; • Enhanced learning through libraries and technology; and • Out-of-school learning opportunities. -
Park Maintenance Standards Annual Report 2017
Park Maintenance Standards Annual Report 2017 Hilltop Park Park Maintenance Standards Annual Report 2017 December 5, 2017 City & County of San Francisco Office of the Controller CITY PERFORMANCE City Services Auditor About City Performance The City Services Auditor (CSA) was created in the Office of the Controller through an amendment to the San Francisco City Charter that was approved by voters in November 2003. Within CSA, City Performance ensures the City’s financial integrity and promotes efficient, effective, and accountable government. City Performance Goals: • City departments make transparent, data-driven decisions in policy development and operational management. • City departments align programming with resources for greater efficiency and impact. • City departments have the tools they need to innovate, test, and learn. City Performance Team Peg Stevenson, Director Joe Lapka, Project Manager Alice Kassinger, Performance Analyst Emily Vontsolos, San Francisco Fellow San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department Project Sponsors Denny Kern, Director of Operations Lydia Zaverukha, Asset Manager For more information please contact: Joe Lapka Office of the Controller City and County of San Francisco (415) 554-7528 | [email protected] | http://sfcontroller.org/ Summary Under an amendment approved by voters in 2003, Appendix F of the City Charter requires the City Services Auditor Division (CSA) of the Controller’s Office to work in cooperation with the Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) to establish objective and measurable park maintenance standards, and to assess on an annual basis the extent to which the City’s parks meet those standards. In fiscal year 2016-2017 (FY17), the park evaluation program reached an important milestone with the development of a new database system, which enables evaluators to complete evaluations using a mobile device rather than a paper form. -
ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SAN Franciscoa
ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SAN FRANCISCOa View of San Francisco, formerly Yerba Buena, in 1846-7, before the discovery of gold (Library of Congress) Third Edition June 2021 Compiled by Mike Wood, Co-Chairman, Rare Plants Committee California Native Plant Society - Yerba Buena Chapter ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SAN FRANCISCO FOOTNOTES This Checklist covers the extirpated and extant native and non-native plants reported from natural and naturalistic areas within the City and County of San Francisco. These areas include lands falling under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco (e.g., the Recreation and Parks Department, the Real Estate Division, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the a Department of Public Works, and the San Francisco Unified School District); the National Park Service (e.g., the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Presidio Trust); the California Department of Parks and Recreation; the University of California, San Francisco; the University of San Francisco; and privately owned parcels. References and data sources are listed in APPENDIX 1. b FAMILY: Family codes, family names and all genera mentioned in the Checklist are listed in APPENDIX 3. SCIENTIFIC NAME: Scientific names and taxonomy conform to the Jepson Flora Project (JFP, 2021). Taxa in BOLD TYPE are listed as endangered, threatened or rare (federal / state / CNPS). Nomenclature used in Howell, et al. (1958) is UNDERLINED. c Taxa highlighted in GRAY are indigenous to San Francisco, but which are presumed extirpated (i.e., those which have not been reported here since 1980, other than those that have been reintroduced).