Posts Tagged ‘plan’

Germinator 2: Judgment Day – Interim Mayor Ed Lee Wants to Kill All These Street Trees on Masonic – Public Protests April 27th

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015

At first the notices were white.

The Public protested the white notices, so now the follow-up notices are here. They’re yellow:

P1210569 copy

One assumes that tree lovers will show up at this DPW meeting on April 27th and DPW will (sort of) listen to them for two minutes each and then most of the hundreds of sidewalk trees on this 3000-foot stretch of Masonic Avenue will get chipped later on this year.

One assumes.

Ironically, SFGov Plans to Remove This Actual Urban Tree Canopy from Masonic and Geary – Aesthetics vs. Safety, Again

Monday, April 13th, 2015

Now I say ironically because it’s standard practice for our local pols to talk about San Francisco’s “urban canopy” as if we were close to having one already IRL.

But here’s an actual canopy, on Masonic near Geary, that’s doomed for the chipper because of some bogus art project called “Points of Departure.”

P1200957 copy

One supposes it’ll be a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine of the big new federally-funded, state-funded “Streetscape” / pork-barrel project go down? (Our SFMTA is working, slowly but surely, on this gig what has turned out to be less “shovel-ready” than advertised…)

One local, beloved blogger has gone as far as calling this slow-motion disaster Arbor-Geddon 2015.

Now here’s a little history about how SFGov works, courtesy of San Francisco Mayor (1996-present) / local lobbyist Willie Brown:

“I wanted the trees gone, but knew I’d face stiff resistance both from homeless advocates and tree supporters. We brought in a tree expert and wouldn’t you know it, some of the trees had a blight. I issued an emergency order, and that night park workers moved in and dug up and bagged the trees. By the time the TV cameras arrived the next morning the trees were on their way to a tree hospital, never to return. So bless me, father, for I too have sinned. I just did it before everyone had a cell phone camera.”

Delightful story, Willie. Simply delightful.

Anyway, kiss this small grove, improbably near a big #38 MUNI stop, good-bye.

Appalling Corner Cutting from the Vaunted SFMTA: Newly-Installed Clean-Sheet Traffic Signal Poles on Masonic

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

[All right, a little background. Who’s been in charge of the crosswalk in front of City Hall on Polk? IDK, somebody in SFGov, like the SFMTA, or an agency from before the SFMTA, or DPW, or, no matter, somebody in SFGov, anyway, right? And these people know that driver compliance rates with whatever half-assed “smart” control scheme they installed is a lot lower than the compliance rate with simple red-yellow-green signals. But then, with regular dumb traffic lights, pedestrians would have to wait, at least part of the time, to cross the street to get to the Great Hall of The People and we can’t have that, right? So when a tour bus driver runs over an SFGov worker going back to the office, it’s all the tour bus driver’s fault, right? Well, yes and no. The BOS can vote 11-0 to regulate tour bus operators, but that ignores its responsibility, non? Oh what’s that, you were going to get around to installing a traffic signal there, but you just hadn’t gotten around to it? And what’s that, you can’t figure out how to do it with the money we already give you, so we need to give you more more more? All right, fine, but that means your a part of the safety problem, not the solution, SFTMA / SFGov, at least in this case. Moving on…]

What the Hell is this, this brand new aluminum(?) light pole above Masonic betwixt the Golden Gate and Turk “high injury* corridors.” Believe it or not, you’re looking at signal lights for northbound Masonic traffic at Golden Gate AND ALSO, on the other side, for southbound Masonic at Turk:

7J7C5083 copy

Here’s how things look up the hill heading southbound – no problems here:

7J7C5117 copy

But this is what you see going north, you see a red light on the left and green light on the right, and the farther away you are, the more it looks like one intersection with contradictory signals:

7J7C5082 copy

I’ve never seen anything like this anywhere in the world.

This is appallingly poor design, IMO.

So, what, give you more money and you’ll put in another pole, SFMTA? IDK, you can see that they spent money on three new poles, so why did they cheap out with this half-assed creation?

Tree branches? So, the SFMTADPW wants to cut down hundreds of “diseased” trees** on this 3000-foot stretch of Masonic, but it can’t trim a couple trees in the name of Safety?

OK fine.

ASSIGNMENT DESK: Why did the deciders decide on this half-assed design? This one will write itself.

*Are there any low injury corridors in San Francisco? No there are not. So the phrase “high-injury corridor,” as used over and over again, recently, in SF, is meaningless. Oh what’s that, there are no accidents on Willard Street North, for example. Except that WSN aint a corridor, it’s a just a little street. So “high injury corridor” simply means corridor, which simply means, of course, “a (generally linear) tract of land in which at least one main line for some mode of transport has been built.”

**This is how SFGov works:

I wanted the trees gone, but knew I’d face stiff resistance both from homeless advocates and tree supporters. We brought in a tree expert and wouldn’t you know it, some of the trees had a blight. I issued an emergency order, and that night park workers moved in and dug up and bagged the trees. By the time the TV cameras arrived the next morning the trees were on their way to a tree hospital, never to return.”

Arguably, this occurred a while ago, but, arguably, Willie Brown is still the Mayor, so there you go.

Oh My, It’s ARBOR-GEDDON 2015 – The SFMTA Wants to Kill Hundreds of Healthy Street Trees to Slow Down Traffic on Masonic

Thursday, February 5th, 2015

See this giant, healthy tree at Geary and Masonic? The DPW just put a death notice on it:

7J7C2969 copy

Around its waist, with clear packing tape.

And this sidewalk grove is doomed as well, at the western edge of the intersection above the Geary Tunnel:

P1190062 copy

Here’s what the notices look like:

P1190061 copy

And here are the smaller, run-of-the-mill trees street to south:

7J7C2973 copy

Chop chop, 300+ (300x, in SFGov parlance) trees, all gone.

7J7C2975 copy

Let’s see here, is the SFMTA’s Grand Unified Plan for the 3000 feet of Masonic betwixt Geary and Fell going to:

SPEED UP MUNI BUSES? Nope. In fact, the Plan will slow down MUNI buses, like part of the Plan is already doing that already, at Ewing Terrace, for example. (The nearby City Target had some mad money so it gave a quarter million to the SFMTA to put in a new light at Ewing in order to gain support for The Plan from a woman who lives on The Terrace.) This plan will slow down MUNI. Simply. Yet somehow, it will “increase access” to transit, by giving people the right to sit longer at bus stops?

SPEED UP THE REST OF TRAFFIC ON MASONIC, THE GREAT CONNECTOR WHAT LINKS THE PARKSIDE, THE SUNSET, AND THE RICHMOND WITH THE REST OF SAN FRANCISCO, CONNECTING BUSH PINE WITH LINCOLN, FULTON, OAK, FELL, TURK, BALBOA, AND GEARY? Oh, Hell no. Masonic will turn into a congested parking lot during the morning and evening drives, ala Oak Street, ala Octavia Boulevard. Buses will no longer pull over into stops – they’ll simply stop and block the slow lane, leaving the solitary remaining lane, the “fast” lane, to temporarily serve as the only way for motorized traffic to travel on Masonic.

INCREASE “ACCESS” TO MUNI? We’ll see. The SFMTA is claiming that rebuilt bus stops will be the big benefit to MUNI riders.

INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE AREA? Oh no. In fact, the Plan will remove 100-something 22-hour-a-day parking spaces from Masonic. (For some this is a feature and not a detriment.)

BENEFIT CYCLISTS? Perhaps. This, see below, is what people do these days, for the most part – they ride their bikes on the wide wide sidewalks, going uphill, for the most part, as I’ve been doing for a couple decades. SFGov is free to make this practice legal on Masonic, but it chooses not to. In fact, SFGov is sometimes reluctant to make piecemeal changes, for safety or whatever, because SFGov shuns so-called “chop-shop” projects – SFGov prefers giant pork-barrel projects paid for by, among others, people living in North Dakota. And then, if residents started to think that Masonic was then “fixed,” through small changes, that would lessen the pressure for a big pork barrel project using money from the Feds and Sacramento.  Anywho, most of the coming changes to Masonic appear to favor bike riders, so yes, we’ll be getting separated lanes up and down Masonic. And then, we’ll have less of this:

7J7C2977 copy

We did lose a bike rider to a severely drunk driver a few years back on Masonic. Such an accident would be less likely to occur after the coming changes. [UPDATE: IMO, that is. If you want to say that accidents can happen anyway even after the changes, I’ll agree, but this particular accident involved two people consuming 14(!) drinks at Kokkari restaurant on Jackson and then using Masonic to get to the Avenues out west, and I’ll tell you, the future Masonic would have been easier for this driver to navigate. I mean he made it all the way from 200 Jackson to the 94117 without hitting anything but his brain didn’t have the processing power to deal with the cyclist being where the cyclist was.]

BENEFIT PEDESTRIANS? Perhaps. The hundreds of healthy trees that the SFMTA is going to chop down will get replaced, one supposes, with new trees, planted in an unnecessary, unnecessarily-wide new median, which effectively widens the street, right? Why are we going to get the big median? For aesthetics. For oxygen, cause, you know, trees produce oxygen – did you know that!? I’ll tell you, this truth just blew me away when I found out about it, when I five freaking years old. But the SFMTA had some lady come to one of the meetings to talk about all the extra oxygen molecules that we’d have floating around, OK fine. Of course, the SFMTA didn’t talk about any of the concomitant downsides of spending all these tens of millions of pork barrel dollars from Uncle Sucker, the SFMTA didn’t mention ARBOR-GEDDEN 2015. Anyway, if peds prefer having new trees in a median over older trees closer to them, well, sure, I suppose that peds will benefit. And speaking of severely drunk drivers, we did lose a ped to a drunk driver within recent memory – I don’t think the recent changes would have affected that crime though. And we lost an architect just north of Geary on Masonic owing to her jaywalking to get to Trader Joe’s #100, a few years back. owing to a poorly planned parking situation courtesy of our Planning Department. But the grand mal Plan for Masonic stops at Geary, so the SFMTA doesn’t appear to even to pretend to care about safety on Masonic north of Geary, not at this time.

Oh what’s that, you have questions? Fire away:

ISN’T IT TRUE THAT “THE COMMUNITY” SUPPORTS THE PLAN?

No, not necessarily. Any public meeting that the SFMTA might refer to was packed with activists/urbanists who don’t live in the neighborhood. So a tally from some meeting made up 70% of activist members of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition isn’t an actual survey, right? If you want to say that a vote only made up of people who care enough to show up to all the meetings is what we should follow, then be my guest. But any SFMTA focus group meeting about which SFMTA plan attendees prefer doesn’t mean that The Plan is supported by the people who live, work and pass through Masonic, right?

WON’T ALL THE NEW CONGESTION, THE GREAT SLOWDOWN, INCREASE SAFETY? 

We’ll see. We’ll see what the unexamined effects will be, like, where will traffic go instead of Masonic? Will that new traffic in other areas cause new accidents in other areas? We’ll see.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS DIRECTLY ON MASONIC, DON’T MOST OF THEM SUPPORT THE PLAN? 

I don’t know, maybe. A lot of them aren’t looking forward to all the construction, so there goes a lot of support right there. I mean, what if there was going to be a pork barrel project that was going to “beautify” the area just outside your property and the govmint was going to spend $50K per parcel in your nabe – would you like that? Maybe. And I’ll tell you, there’s a parochial school what costs $30K per year per student that’s in favor of the Plan. I say parochial because people at the school think that way, they think that the school is so so special that of course everybody should come to a crawl when they pass by. The school is the center of the universe, in their eyes, so people traveling by shouldn’t just rush through. The problem with this attitude is that, for the vast majority, GOLDEN GATE, TURK AND MASONIC, the Great Crossroads is not a destination in itself. So, ideally, we’d balance a whole bunch of factors and concerns, we’d actually consult with the people who actually use Masonic now. Those at this rich kids school, those small individuals with parochial attitudes, just don’t care.

BUT WON’T THE PLAN INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY OVERALL AND HELP GET US TO VISION ZERO 2024?

We’ll see. But by then, it will be too late, and by then, the SFMTA will be more than happy to spend tens of millions of dollars to “tune up” the Big Project. And Vision Zero 2014-2024 is like two Soviet-style Five Year Plans strung together – nobody believes that transportation deaths in San Francisco will “whither away,” but everybody involved acts as if there’s a chance that this fantasy will come true. And you know, there are some countries that have had more success in reducing deaths than so-called Vision Zero countries, right? So what’s so special about that particular name? I don’t get it.

IS IT TRUE THAT SOME PEOPLE ON AND NEAR MASONIC STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PLAN? 

Hell yes. People put homemade signs in their windows. It’s too late though – I can’t think of anything that would stop the SFMTA now.

BUT DIDN’T THE SFMTA SAY THAT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN?  

Yep. The SFMTA lied about that, when its employees filled out some necessary paperwork. I’ll tell you, there’s no way that the SFMTA isn’t going to spend any pork barrel money it can spend. That’s its purpose.

So that’s the update on Masonic.

I live very close by – we’ll have to wait and see if I personally benefit from all this spending. Somebody in the opposition one time asked me if I personally supported the project and I had to think about it. Perhaps it will benefit me, we’ll see. It seems selfish, to me, to dwell on the issue. In any event, the SFMTA gets excused for nothing. This project is a case study of how the SFMTA does what the SFMTA wants to do, which is to spend money and increase the size of … the SFMTA. If you want to get into how the SFMTA is all about safety, well, I disagree with that, but that would be something to debate. IMO, the SFMTA could “increase safety” without it getting any more money than it gets now.

IMO.

Enjoy the coming SFMTA Mass Arborcide – it should be a spectacle.

News Release: “Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Statement on the University of California’s Threat to Increase Tuition Fees”

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

It’s on. Here’s Gav’s reply to this recent effort from President Janet Napolitano

***News Release*** – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom statement on the University of California’s threat to increase tuition fees

Contact: Andrea Koskey, Communications Director

California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement on the University of California’s threat to increase tuition unless the state appropriates additional funds, thereby breaking its two-year old tuition-freeze agreement negotiated in 2013 in exchange for increased state funding:

The University of California cannot bestow pay raises on its top earners with one hand, while continually taking more from students and their families with the other and deflecting criticism by laying its solution at the door of taxpayers. New funding must be tied to earnest and innovative attempts to reduce the university’s cost structure and promote affordability and accessibility, not threats that reward the status quo.”

Background

The proposed increase to students comes just two months after the same board approved up to 20 percent increases to four chancellors and increased a base salary for a new chancellor by 23 percent of his predecessor. These decisions are not tied to performance or outcomes.

Lieutenant Governor Newsom believes that high-level solutions could be factored in to meet the growing costs.  For instance, UC facilities system-wide could save $500,000 per contract if in-house employment was used over outside contractors; another $160 million could be saved if UC offered an Associate Degree to Transfer Program from California Community Colleges, similar to existing program between community colleges and California State Universities; and millions could be saved if the failed IT implementation of UC Path was addressed. That program’s repayment costs have ballooned to $200 million over the next 20 years.

The University of California system has received numerous increases to financial resources including full funding of State’s Cal grant program; expansion of the middle-income fee grants covering one-half of tuition and fee increases for middle-income students from families earning up to $120,000; 20 percent increase in state funding as part of a multi-year stable funding plan; a 5 percent increase from the 2014-15 state budget contingent a tuition freeze through 2016-17; and $50 million to promote innovative models of higher education at the campus level that result in more bachelor’s degrees, improved four‑year completion rates, and more effective transfers between the community colleges and the universities.

Berkeley Contractor Randy Shaw’s Adoration for His Paymaster Has Gone Over the Moon – How Can Anyone Take Him Seriously?

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

Let’s see here, who in San Francisco takes Randy Shaw seriously?

1. CW Nevius (Maybe not a few years back, but these days, certainly)

2. San Francisco Magazine (Maybe not a few years back, but these days, certainly)

I think that’s it. (Nobody in SFGov takes him seriously, not really.)

Now here’s the latest:

And here’s part of it:

“Lee’s ‘Neptune Shot’ (a planet far further from earth than the moon) is off to a good start.”

So, let’s get this straight. Being appointed Mayor of San Francisco for nine years (effectively), by breaking a promise about being only an “interim Mayor,” is something similar, in some way, to sending a manned mission to planet Neptune, an ice giant?

OK fine.

Reader Notes:

Does Randy Shaw think that the moon is a planet? I don’t think so, but I can’t tell for sure.

Is BeyondChron really “The Voice Of The Rest?” No, it’s the voice of a white government contractor who lives in a large house in the Berkeley hills.

Is BeyondChron really the “Best Local Website” per the SFBG? No.

Well then why has that tagline been displayed there for years and years? IDK

San Francisco Welcomes South Korean Navy – Gangam Style on Market Street – Shopping at Macy’s

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

Here they are:

Click to expand

[UPDATE: Upon further review, these aren’t Chinese naval uniforms after all:

At first I thought they could have been from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy.

And oh, look what’s on the PLAN’s to-do list:

See that? In addition to taking over Japanese islands (the Senkakus and others), the neo-Imperial Chinese Navy wants to take over Vietnamese, Malaysian, Filipino, and Bruneian islands as well. And don’t forget about Taiwan.

But we’re being visited by a South Korean ship so it’s all good.]

Are You Ready to Laugh? MUNI’s Latest Vision Statement is “San Francisco: Great City, Excellent Transportation Choices”

Monday, November 14th, 2011

[UPDATE: Akit weighs in with alternatives. A sample:

“We continue to suck, and the public knows it.”

“Proposition G saved us millions, and we used it to pay for the central subway.”

“There’s no such thing as a guarantee, except fare hikes and cuts in service.”

“We love cameras, including the malfunctioning ones operating on our entire fleet.”]

Look what just popped up this AM on MUNI’s section of Al Gore’s Information Superhighway (AGIS):

“Vision: San Francisco: Great City, Excellent Transportation Choices”*

What a fucking joke.

Leave there be no doubt, San Francisco will never ever have “excellent” transportation choices.

(To wit, what about the politically-motivated Central Subway boondoggle – is that an excellent choice or is it a terrible, political choice?)

Oh well.

But, as always, You Make the Call.

I wonder what the old “Vision” was. At least with the draft Mission Statement (see below) or the  TEP “Transit Effectiveness Project” (which was great on paper, but never really got off paper for the most part) we had realistic words.

Oh well.

Enjoy:

Draft SFMTA Strategic Plan

*Now what if it said, “Excellent City, Great Transportation Choices?” Wouldn’t that be better? Or how aboutExcellent City, So-So Transportation Choices?” I think we should strive to have a merely average transit system. That’s my Vision.

“Draft Vision
San Francisco: great city, excellent transportation choices
Draft Mission Statement
We work together to plan, build, operate, regulate and maintain the transportation network, with our partners, to connect communities

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Items for Discussion
• Does vision sound right in terms of where we want to be?
• Does mission capture what we do?
• Have we identified the right goals to achieve the vision?
• Have we identified the right objectives to achieve the goals?
• Will the performance indicators give a good picture of how we’re doing?
• Are the performance targets too timid or aggressive?
• Should we be more explicit (e.g., modal priority, maintenance & expansion)?
Next Steps
Revise and review the Strategic Plan (November 2011).
Present the Strategic Plan to MTA Board (January 2012).
Begin developing initiatives and actions (January 2012).
Coordinate the Capital and Operating Budget with the Strategic Plan (April 2012).
Each Division develops plans to implement the Strategic Plan (June 2012)

Mayor Ed Lee Acts to Alter Poorly-Negotiated America’s Cup Deal – Fewer Massive Yachts Berthed at Rincon Point

Friday, October 21st, 2011

Just as dog murder threatens the image of our wasteful Central Subway, the plan to berth massive yachts at the wet end of SoMA does the same for America’s Cup 2013.

So, as he did with the Tom Otterness case, Mayor Lee is taking measures, as this late, late Friday afternoon press release shows:

“MAYOR LEE SUPPORTS SAFEGUARDING OPEN BAY VIEWS ALONG WATERFRONT DURING 34TH AMERICA’S CUP – Port of San Francisco & America’s Cup Event Authority Seek Approval from Bay Conservation & Development Commission for Revised Temporary Berthing Plan During America’s Cup Events

San Francisco, CA— Mayor Edwin M. Lee today announced that the City, the Port of San Francisco and the America’s Cup Event Authority (Event Authority) reached an agreement on a revised plan for berthing America’s Cup spectator vessels along the waterfront that will safeguard San Francisco Bay views along the Embarcadero promenade. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will need to approve the plan to temporarily accommodate vessels expected for the 34th America’s Cup events.

“We are working together with BCDC and the Event Authority to refine our plans, so that the America’s Cup special events enhance the waterfront in a way that balances the excitement of the races with the picturesque Bay views that are so important to our residents and visitors,” said Mayor Lee. “This temporary berthing proposal is another step in collaborating with our event partners and the residents of San Francisco to reach a consensus.”

The area is known under the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SAP) as the Rincon Point Open Water Basin. The Port of San Francisco and the America’s Cup Event Authority are seeking approval from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to amend the SAP.

In discussing the concerns raised by BCDC and the public over the last several months with the Port, the City and the Event Authority, the space sought for the temporary docks for these private vessels has been reduced from the entire Rincon Point basin to an area that begins at the northern boundary of Rincon Park and stretches northward to Pier 14, leaving the area in front of the park unobstructed by vessels. To free up these open water views, the event partners identified additional berthing locations for these vessels along the Port’s waterfront, including at Pier 9, the water area north of Pier 14 and the water area between Piers 32 and 36 where the America’s Cup racing vessels will also be moored.

“Because our goal for the 34th America’s Cup is creating a great experience for those both on land and on the water, we really appreciate the opportunity we’ve had to hear directly from San Franciscans about what is important to them,” said Tom Huston, Chief Operating Officer of the Event Authority. “We are very pleased that our work with the City, the Port and BCDC has resulted in a proposal that will preserve waterfront views while enabling the City to benefit from the economic impact that comes with these vessels.”

These revised proposals reflect the City and the Event Authority’s commitment to listening to the concerns raised through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) comment process and other public meetings about balancing the event activities with the needs of San Francisco residents and the environment.

If the vessel berthing proposals for the Rincon Point Open Water Basin and the Brannan Street Open Water Basin between Piers 32 and 36 are approved and implemented, the terms of the City’s Host and Venue Agreement for the 34th America’s Cup provide the Event Authority with the right to negotiate for a future long-term lease for the development of recreational marinas at these locations.

Any long-term marina proposal of this kind would require further amendments to the SAP before any lease could become effective, and are not directly contemplated under the current proposal. Any further SAP amendments would require a separate public review and planning process for the City, Port and Event Authority working in concert with BCDC.

BCDC will consider the issuance of a brief descriptive notice for the SAP amendments relating to this temporary berthing plan at its public meeting on November 3, 2011.”

O.K. fine.

Larry Ellison giving the finger to the people of the City and County of San Francisco with one hand whilst steering his boat with the other:

Click to expand

Mayoral Candidate Leland Yee Announces Plan for Public Schools – Wants Free Muni Rides for Students

Friday, September 16th, 2011

Here’s the whole megillah from Leland Yee.

Board of Education Commissioner Kim-Shree Maufas, City College Board Trustee John Rizzo, and President of the United Educators of San Francisco Dennis Kelly with Senator Yee before yesterday’s presser in Chinatown:

Click to expand

The highlights of Yee’s plan include:

PUT STUDENTS FIRST

  1. Increase student success with wrap-around “community school” services
  2. Prioritize underperforming schools for community school reforms
  3. Reduce truancy and dropout rates, and expand programs for at-risk youth
  4. Free Muni for public school kids
  5. Promote school-based healthcare services for the entire family
  6. Expand nutrition education to improve healthy eating at home
  7. Bridge the digital divide
  8. Make college a goal for every student
  9. Make the Dream Act a reality
  10. Improve language proficiency for all students

RESPECT AND REWARD TEACHERS

  1. Expand teacher recognition and incentive programs
  2. Teacher Power: appoint educators to city boards and commissions
  3. Develop the best future educators by recruiting the best college graduates
  4. Real affordable housing for educators
  5. Help teachers pay for classroom materials

PROMOTE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

  1. Create network of community partners to expand reach of wrap-around services
  2. Expand and formalize partnerships with universities to share space, service-learning opportunities, and align strategic plans
  3. Expand partnerships with businesses to ensure college and career connectivity
  4. Create alliance of school and parent advocacy groups to improve connectivity and collaboration

ENCOURAGE PARENT PARTICIPATION

  1. Time off to attend school functions and parent-teacher conferences
  2. Support and promote the SFUSD Parent Engagement and Partnership Plan
  3. Community school wrap-around services for parents”