a general manager to execute three grand agreements with the duration of two years for amounts not to exceed $350,000 for hunters point family and 175,000 for old school cafe, and 175,000 for san francisco conservation core with an option to extend the agreements by one year each and by cumulative amount not to exceed $300,000. >> before we get the motion, we're going to approve the resolution with amendments. >> very minor. first of all, i want to applaud staff and obviously the prevailing parties, old school cafe, hunters point family and the san francisco conservation core. obviously their reputations pre seed them. but given the commission's action resolutions 160233, and the idea that we have workforce development kind of incapsulated in these grants, and i don't know to what extent each party is going to be required to

participate in any actual workforce development because there's other roles and responsibilities here. but also, one thing with respect to the process. i would like something from staff because we formed a committee. for purposes of reviewing the applications, six applications i guess it was, and on that committee was to staff from the p.c. former elected official and agriculture expert and someone else, when we do -- it would put me in a much happier place, if we're going to engage a conversation about folks that are trying to get grants support from the agency, and that conversation includes workforce development. it seems more appropriate to me to have someone reviewing those applications and engaging those individuals in workforce development techniques, best practices, lessons learned,

dos and don'ts, et cetera. i'm not sure we checked that box here. i don't know it matters given the nature of these grants. they're not that big, if you really think about it. but i would like staff to consider that when we move forward, if we are in that workforce development world, we have somebody there who understands our career pathway objectives and understands the necessity i think that we all agree on to linking career path ways, et cetera and so fourth. with that being said, i would like my colleagues to consider the following amendments to the resolution and this is at the fourth whereas on the second page. which starts with the selected grantees. after this semi colon, following related green sector industries. my amendment will include the

following -- grant use must maintain a regular presence at the secf by providing regular updates to the secf commission participating in cohort activities and pre apprentic apprenticeships. facilitated by the sfpoc and partners and ensuring all program participants are exposed to and may participate in pre-apprenticiship programs that provide career pathways to full-time union employment. even though i can't really see, based on the size of these grants, and the duration of these grants, that we're going to be dealing with young individuals who are going to be doing field work. i don't see how that fits. with this size and duration. when we talk about workforce

development grants, it's important to make sure we use consistent terminology and consistent approaches to career pathway administration and development and so that everybody's kind of has a fair shot next time around. when it's probably a little bit more significant. so, i hope i was clear about the amendments but they're nominal, right. they don't change? >> the only question for staff with the consistent with what was stated in the rrsp to perform the limitations. if the r.p.f. did not put them on notice they have to perform, it can't be included in the grant agreement itself. >> david grey, community benefits. i think the amendments stated are fine. which are alluding to clearly the language is what we've communicated to the grantees both in spirit o spirit of the d

the process. it doesn't significantly change the expectations that we've already established with potential grantees. >> i wouldn't think it would. we've been talking about this for years and years and years. back to the councilor's point, so i want to get into that a little more. am i supposed to believe that they have executed some kind of agreement that now i'm already bound to some other terms before we adopt this resolution? >> my understanding is the department issue and r.f.p. sets fourth the expectations of what they're looking for the grantees to say and if we are awarded the grant here are the things we will do. and so when you award the grant, it is in accordance with what they have proposed. and so to add on the new requirement outside of the scope of the r.f.p. would be a problem. it sounds like mr. grey says this is within the scope of the r.f.p. so it doesn't pose that problem. that's the general principal

that applies. >> which want to just really focus on the task at hand, right. because i think what we would want to hear from council is, whether this is within that scope or outside of that scope, not well if it is or if it didn't. >> we can certainly continue the item and i can look at it. i haven't seen it. so this is a new issue that just popped up. i don't know whether it's a material change for the grantees with what they have to propose. >> julie ellis, the r.s.p. did reference pre apprentice and commissioner courtney reviewed the r.p.f. before it was released so we had met with you and showed you drafts so you have eyeballed it before we released it. >> i think it would be a stretch. i think it would be extremely unwise for a grantee to suggest that changing apprenticiship to

pre apprenticiship or one to the other or adding both, would materially change anything. >> i think the urgency around making a decision today versus conditioning the item is just in the spirit of us trying to put a temporary interim greenhouse plan in place while the greenhouses aren't operating. and so there's been a lot of interest in urgency around, we have a mitigation specifically around the southeast community center programming and the workforce development strategy died to the greenhouses and the greenhouses are now out of commission while they get rebuilt. >> this is a big step. this is a glorious moment in time for us, for the southeast, it's great work. i would be remiss if i didn't -- it's very clear in my mind but to the workers, what a pre apprenticiship, what an apprentice ship is and what a

journeyman is. i have to just say, right, ok, as long as we're cool then we're cool. >> that's my amendment. with the potential grantees in the conference we talked about this very issue we want to make sure they're connecting all of their trainees or at the least expos them to pre apprenticiship opportunities as well as apprenticiship opportunities because those lead to the long-term, stable living wage paying-jobs down the line. >> if you think about just the justice peace, you have a lot of workers with the conservation corps. they can stay there for a long time or they can move up, you know. and sometimes and i tell you i have the same problem. sometimes folks that have good folks working for them ain't really that motivated to move their good folks up, right.

so we got to -- we have a right to do it. we have to just give them a little push. >> yes, sir. >> ok so are we ok approving as amended as stated? >> ok. >> do i have a motion -- >> that's my motion. councilor, am i allowed to do that. >> the motion is to adopt the resolution with the throw amendments to the four clause on the second page that you read into the record. >> thank you. >> i'll second. >> any other discussion? >> i just -- just to make sure that there's no undue burden on on the staff it's one thing the grant agreement and i appreciate where commissioner courtney is going with this. but just to make sure that -- i think that's what you said but i just want to confirm that because of the timeliness of this and we all want to move this project forward that this isn't going to add a layer from the staffing perspective that might delay.

>> commissioner vietor, staff is prepared to execute on this and it will not add undue burden on. >> great, thank you. >> excellent. >> clarity. >> absolutely. >> you know me. [laughter] >> yeah, we know you. >> any discussion? any public comments on this item. >> ok, all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. congratulations. >> nicely done. >> exciting. >> item 15 is a work shop update on the power of business plan and affordable access to distribution. >> barbra hail assistant general manager for power. so today we're going to have a workshop discussion no action. the workshop is for us to discuss a key to our service and

gives us the ability to provide electric service to our customers. it was highlighted in our two business plans that we had in 2016, two business plan workshops in 2016. today we'll update that and that is affordable access to the power distribution grid. going over quickly here what the agenda will cover. we're going to cover background on hetchy power, some of the challenges to provide affordable access to distribution. benefits and lost opportunities and some examples of the impacts of the roadblocks we are currently experiencing. our customers include general fund departments. like muni. enterprises whose funded by revenue that they collect from services that they provide like

the airport, the water department. we're also expanding our customer base to include new green communities like pier 70 and the shipyard. all of these customers receive carbon-free electricity. we generate that power as we flow water from the see era to sasee air a.we connect it to bis operated by the california independent system operator to get the electricity into san francisco. pg and e will move power within san francisco and we deliver it to our customers. we meter and bill our customers. we pay pg and e $10 million each year for this wholesale distribution service. containing the costs associated with distribution service

ensuring it's affordable access is a strategy in our business plan. pg and he control and e providen service to san francisco and that's been the case since san francisco began providing electricity service in the early 1900s. here is a condensed summary of the efforts the city has undertaken to overcome the difficulties and accessing distribution services. the city attorney and p.u.c. have worked together on this effort. you can see that beginning in 1913, with the breaker act san francisco's been providing electricity service from the early 25 to 45 timeframe, we had

access to distribution, only through pg and e by selling our power and pge delivered it to our customers. we overcame that challenge after the u.s. supreme court said that that was not a lawful implementation of the rate rack s it took us a little bit but we did get together with pg and e and came seath as the inner sex agreement to make sure that pg and e provided that distribution service to us. >> in the 90s the law changed and there was a open access era to transmission and distribution services. when our inner connection agreement was scheduled to expire in 2015, we began work to

prepare for that regulatory regime where we would receive open access to the distribution service through a federally regulated tariff. as opposed to through a contract. we had difficulty securing that service as you are aware. we're currently receiving that service under the tariff but in the context of waiting for a federal decision on some of the implementation issues that we took exception to. so you can see that san francisco has had distribution system charges working with pg&e for almost a century. it's the benefits to the city that make it important to persist in our efforts to ensure affordable access to distribution. those benefits are summarized here along with lost opportunities if we don't

prevail. when san francisco uses hetchy power it saves the city money and reduces greenhouse emission. the $40 million a year in savings to san francisco taxpayers. carbon' commission to 40,000 cars off the road each year. those savings occur throughout the city in every neighborhood and department. the yellow dots on this map represent the 2,500-metered customers we serve in san francisco. you see the geographic dis persion on the map, our service and benefits are everywhere in soon fran. the icons are current active department facilities hitting roadblocks, getting access to pg&e's grid as they implement maintenance and upgrades. the icon's map shows projects that are civic institutions, like museums, recreational

facilities like pools, swimming pools, health and safety facilities like the fire department's boat berthing project and the ambulance deployment facility. housing projects like our low income senior housing. infrastructure like our own water and wastewater pumps. these departments are facing roadblocks that would increase their project costs unnecessarily. most are connected at secondary or low voltage, with the facility maintenance and upgrade project, pg&e is requiring connection at primary or high voltage. this road block increases the cost of a project to connect. it's sex times more expensive for that equipment and the primary connection equipment takes up more space. that's another cost that takes up nine times more space than

secondary equipment and primary equipment to connect these customers isn't necessary for safety, reliability or legal reasons. >> so why are they requesting it? >> the two on file different the impression to implement the tariff and they are exercising that discretion to make this requirement. we don't have -- i can't explain why pg&e is requiring this. it's not needed for safety, reliability or technical reasons and you will see as i proceed that they don't require it for customers that they serve. >> we don't know why they're requesting it. >> correct. >> they're not requesting, they're requiring. >> yeah. >> so for other customers, pg&e

requires primary equipment when it's 3,000kve or more and for us that would be like zuckerberg general hospital takes service at primary because it's over 3,000k. v.a. private sector engineers hired to work on these city projects are told by pg&e secondary service is acceptable when it's clear the project is taking service from us then pg&e says primary services required if the project is 75 k. v.a. or more. >> the sfmta toilet, this is a toilet at the end of a bus line. it's a toilet for the use of bus drivers. pg&e required for that facility, which the electric draw is a

light, a hand dryer for that facility the city would need to conduct primary equipment. that primary equipment is about eight times the size of the toilet itself. and another example, balboa pool. so a swimming pool, going through renovations is part of the bond program that the park is implementing. that one made the newspaper so senior affordable housing at the jfk tower. everything there is constructed and waiting for the final approach from pg&e on how service will be provided at that service and north, you see it on the slide as well. pg&e stated that secondary service connection would be appropriate but subsequently these projects were all told that primary equipment was

required. and each of these projects is significantly impacted by the pg&e requirement. and providing city services for balboa pool, just to pick an example, that's over a year of no neighborhood pool for swim lessons and fun. given the size of the primary equipment, each faces the potential for loss of public benefits as scarce valuable square footage would be taken up by primary equipment. for pin u.n., the housing authority project the improved community room that was part of the project improvements, had to be forfeited in the dis agreement with pg&e. these trade offs are impactful to our residents. these negative impacts are

avoidable with a reasonable partner providing distribution services. and they're accumulating. effecting many san franciscoans with the lost and revenue, wasted city funds in trying to remove the roadblocks, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, slowing our affordable housing improvements and compromising health and safety improvements. hetchy power services is critical to reaching san francisco's goals and living our values. we will continue and persist in our efforts to overcome these roadblocks to ensure affordable access to distribution. with that i'm happy to take any questions. >> barbra, is it ok if i just kind of ask a few questions. >> absolutely. >> this is all the inner connection agreement, right?

>> it's our inner connection agreement and the replacement for it now that the inner agreement approach is not consistent with federal law. >> the replacement for it includes the super conductor approach they're putting on us. >> primary service. >> is there any other example of an outside utility doing the same to municipals, do they have anything they're showing us that they've done before? >> no. >> is it a can we join them from continuing to require the additional resources. >> we did file a complaint with firk when we saw the approach that they were taking in the tariff itself.

the issue of primary service at 75 k.v.a. we're confronting today and daily practice with pg&e isn't in their tariff, so we didn't include that particular issue in the complaint we filed. however, as we connect customers, pg&e submits quarterly filings at the federal energy regulatory commission describing the approach that was taken for each customer and that gives us an opportunity to flag that issue to the federal energy regulatory commission and we've been doing that routinely. so we're filing protests there. and that is currently the sort of the legal tools we have available to us. and we are using them. >> when you talk about -- i'm sorry. when you talk about the continuing losses that we're

suffering, right, the bus drivers can't use the rest room and the kids can't use the pool, right, and we can't house people that need to be housed -- >> correct. >> we've prohibited from getting federal declar tory relief? because we know it would come, right. and we knee this was the response and this is the beginning of it. are we prohibited from going to get like an injunction? >> now you are asking me the answer a legal question and i'm not an attorney. i will tell you that it's my understanding that we need to pursue legal remedies with the federal energy regulatory commission first before we can go outside of that venue. >> got it, ok. >> we're on the road pursuing it but that's the only -- that's where we need to start. >> that was what i didn't understand. but i get it now.

i also would say that our customers are you know, our city family that we're providing services, they feel the impact and not the p.u.c., you know, they feel the impact. they've been very concerned and passionate as well as the supervisors because they're loosing services in their communities and so there have been a lot of conversations with pg&e like why. why are you holding a pool hostage on this game that you have against the p.u.c. you are costing the rec and park pools and you close down a pool for a year that's 1/6 of a sid's summer life enjoying the pool. i think we are really motivated to try to deal and solve this because it's really impacting a lot of projects and a lot of

customers. i think that the thing that really, there's a lot of stuff troubling about this but it's just that when they go to the customers and say if you take power from us, you can do secondary. and it's unfair. the departments may want to move forward on this project because they don't want the delay but their cost of paying pg&e they will lose that 40 million-dollar low cost of power and so that's been one of our conversations with the department is that, yeah, you want to go to pg&e you have to pay a higher cost. that's one of the ways we've been keeping the city family together is just explain that to them. >> and the over all g.h.g. benefits as well have been a compelling part of the conversation with the city departments. i'm really just -- as the general manager says, these are impacts to the p.u.c. but

they're really impacts to the customers we're trying to serve so we're just trying to give voice and daylight for you what the customer experience is as well. >> yeah and i want to speak up for the planet too and some of the goals that we're trying to achieve as a municipality with climate change. just to follow-up on this thread. the game plan, because it sounds like the federal and the legal recourse route could take some time? >> it has already. >> and it could additionally. i am wondering if there's additional actions that could be taken, what the game bla plan i? do you need to way until firk or some ruling before taking any other action. not necessarily legal? >> yeah, first of all, you know, we're pursuing at firk and pg&e

is there and we have all these meetings to help try and resolve this. but i would say one of the reasons we wanted to update you here is because the board of supervisors is calling a hearing on this and we wanted to make sure that we present what some of the challenges have been because they've been involved firsthand. we've been called to the office of some of the supervisors along with pg&e to explain why you are not hooking this up and balboa pool, they're modifying, renovating and requiring primary service which will take up a large portion of their facility space. it seems like they're willing to work on certain projects and for us it becomes like ok, you know, we got to come to you and every project and wait for the delay

and we just feel that you know, that's just -- inappropriate. so hopefully we're hoping things get better. we just wanted to make sure that you were informed because we're going to hearing has been upon. >> i'm trying to figure out how to get through these log jams. >> constant conversations with our customers and pg&e until we pursue all of the legal courses before we can do another maneuver. >> we are hoping that as we find solutions for individual

locations, we can convince pg&e can be replicated in other locations so that is an effort we have been pursuing. weather it will prevail i can't predict. we've tried to kept dialogue open to make sure we can identify early when conflicts are coming up and how we can overcome them constructively. so that the pool doesn't stay closed too long or the affordable housing facility doesn't stay empty waiting for folks to move back in while this dispute continues. you did mention commissioner, when you asked your question about how long do we have to wait for this to be resolved. part of the challenge we're facing is we can't wait. even though we have this uncertainty, even though we have this disagreement, we're still having to connect customers, right. and keep the city moving. so that has been part of the

challenge is the lack of clarity and rules and the rationality and rules has made it different for us but we are going forward and connecting customers and making sure that we do get the services opened. >> all right. >> thank you. >> excuse me. i have been working in this area it seems like too much of my life. and it is confounding in that the relationship with pg&e. you laid out some of the timeline. during that time, the relationship has not always been sour. there have been ups and downs. my observation is that it seems as though those ups and downs are driven by corporate policy. and corporal policy changes overtime and the relationship changes overtime.

and i find it unfortunate in regretable that the a parent policy at this point in time was to make life difficult in ways that are difficult or impossible to explain. and i would hope that pg&e has a long history in this city and there are a lot of constructive and good things that they do in this city. i think it's regretable that in this particular area that they have chosen, i think an indefenseable and impugn tive approach and i hope they see it clear approach. this is also in the closed session, after this meeting so we'll have a chance to discuss it further. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> all right. any public comments on this

item? so with that we're going to enter closed session. item 18. can you talk about that? >> i'll read the closed session items and call for public comment. >> ok. >> item 18 litigation city and council tee of san francisco versus county of alameda. 19, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 20, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 21 existing grid laying pacific gas and electric. item 22, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. 23 exiting litigation pacific gas and electric. and item 24, existing litigation, city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas and electric. >> do we have any public comments on items that will be

heard during closed session? ok. >> we need a motion. >> i will move to assert. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> t time.

>> all right. any other new business, commissioners? all right. this meeting is adjourned; thank you for your time.

>> so what brought you out here for the bike ride today? >> i grew up in san francisco but i have been living in new york. i wanted to see what san francisco is doing with infrastructure. >> cities are where people are living these days. the bay area is doing a lot with construction and the way to change the world starts here. >> we are about to take a bike ride. we have 30 cyclist. i'm really excited to hit the road and see what the city has in

store. >> i definitely recommend it to people. it's a fun afternoon and you learn so many things. >> this is so much fun. i go to parts of the city that i don't come to. this will make the city a more sus

volunteers. >> my name is mark a proud grand date i didn't all over san francisco residents are adopt rains to keep our sewer system healthy i'm adopted a grain draining i thought of a simple illusion to a big problem it will help out the neighborhood and be responsible for the places we live i want or apparent to the web site and

hello, everyone, i'm elaine forbes. it's great to see you here today. we're celebrating a 10-year endeavor, 12 years by some count, that has brought us here today to a historic day to celebrate the work that the city has performed with our partner, the san francisco giants, to bring a new mixed income neighborhood to the waterfront. we've also had the helpful support of many, many people from the community. we all know that the late mayor lee would have enjoyed being here today. he was the biggest supporter of the city. he was an advocate for the

project. and i believe there bear, he may have been one of the giants number one fans, so we reflect on mayor lee and his legacy and he would have been proud. this ace project that will help build a water front for everyone and deliver benefits to our residents for years to come. the residents of san francisco and the state will enjoy eight new acres of open space. the rehabilitation of pier 48. thousands of new affordable homes, 40% of which are affordable along our waterfront and much more. the project has created these benefits while recognizing the future challenge of sea level rise. it's adaptable to the rise and for us, it provides an ongoing source of revenue to adapt other areas for the waterfront and the shoreline tax. this was done the san francisco way as a team effort.

and we are not surprised about how many port tenants and three-time world champions san francisco giants led our team. thank you to the giants, to larry bear, to jack bear, to fran weld, to john and so many others from the hometown team for leading a gold standard community project. the giants are in the long game in this community and it showed. it promises a diverse community and in planning we heard from many voices on how the future of the waterfront should be prepared. that included the central waterfront advisory group. the mission bay advisory group. the south beach neighborhood association, they participated in every step of the plan. i see many of our resident stakeholders here today, including ms. katy la del, alice rogers, bruce and so many others that participated.

sonny schwartz is here today. there were many city agencies that collaborated. i need to say thank you first and story most to oawd, to ken rich, todd and adam. and we also will remember today jennifer, she had big vision for the waterfront and enthusiasm for the site. today, we recognize her work effort and can-do attitude. the mayor's office played an integral role in the project to support the benefits of housing, the housing program, the transportation program, and on ward. i really think that this project is emblematic of what with can achieved through a public-private partnership. when we have supervisor jane kim. you were very dedicated to this project throughout and you

challenged our team to deliver more affordable housing and we have done so. with a decade in the making, this project had the support of the mayor and now mayor newsom, the late mayor lee, acting mayor breed who helped us finalize, and now mayor farrell. mayor farrell has supported this project for two terms while on the board of supervisors. we're celebrating many years of hard work and welcome our mayor, mayor farrell. [applause] >> thank you, elaine. and congratulations to you. so, i'm excited to be here to celebrate the signing of this legislation. let's be clear, we all want to talk about the world series coming up here to san francisco. i know, it isn't here, but i'm here to say congratulations.

first of all, elaine, congratulations to you and the port team for all your hard work and to larry, you and your team for all of the hard work. this is emblematic of the best of a collective planning process we have here in the san francisco. this is a city agency willing to be creative with a ton of support and a willing and engaged local partner in the giants. to really come here to celebrate this today. but it's because of the port and the giants and their hard work that we are really here today celebrating what is going to be an amazing project. as you think about the project itself, 21 acres is going to be redone. 1500 new housing units, 40% that are affordable. congratulations to supervisor kim on her hard work on making that happen. [applause] eight acres of new open space. we're going to have teachers and nurses and firefighters and police officers living there, transition age youth is going to be living there. this is a big deal for the city

of san francisco and a huge part of what mayor lee was pushing for in the housing units, that he has been pushing for as mayor. and transportation improvements. you think about the t third line, the $40 million, the new mission bay ferry terminal, which is an amazing resource for the neighborhood and million dollars for workforce development to make sure the children we have growing up in the neighborhoods, they can work in the neighborhoods and they're ready with the job skills they need moving forward. i'm here just to say congratulations to everybody. a number of people to additionally thank. mentioned the giants and the port. i want to thank the entire board of supervisors and president breed for all their work. david chiu for his hard work in legislation that he pushed forward that allowed it to happen. other city departments, todd, where are you? to john ram and planning, ed riskin and the mta.

that was a collective effort from the city family. as elaine mentioned, huge thanks to lieutenant-governor, alan and especially thank in closing to our late mayor ed lee who worked very, very hard on this for his entire time in office. and i just think he would be proud of being here today. congratulations, everyone. [applause] >> thank you, elaine, and thank you, mayor farrell. i'm larry bear from the giants and i have to say this is truly an exciting day for the organization. it has been mentioned, it was a decade in the making. i think maybe a little north, 1, 12 years, i was just sitting here thinking nobody on the giants roster right now was

actually on the roster when we started this project. i believe bruce was a rookie manager at the time for the giants. but really valuable, important projects are worth taking the time and being very carefully done. i have to -- there is a number of people we want to thank because they led with their hearts in making this project happen. they understood the vision, saw the vision and led with their hearts. it's a profound statement when a mixed project can garner 74% of the voters' support in this community, which was the case in the election two years ago. and unanimous support from every commission and every board. many of you we will talk about were part of that, of garnering that support and leading. without the folks we're going to mention today, this would not

have happened, it would not have been possible, come together. what we're really most proud of is the creation taking a surface parking lot, what we used to characterize as a wind swept surface parking lot and creating a new dynamic neighborhood from the parking lot which will serve as a central gathering place, a hub for the surrounding community, for the mission bay community. it grew on the expertise of thousands of created people, dedicated people in this planning process, including our neighbors. which we'll talk about. so leading off the thanks, i would like to thank the project team who worked hard, diligently, long, long hours, lending their expertise in urban planning, engineering, architecture, finance, legal work to create this topnotch

project that meets the values of our community. mention the neighbors and the community based organizations, many are here in the audience today. they've been a voice for the project from the beginning. now the city departments. the city departments have been quite amazing led by the port of san francisco, the mayor's office, economic and workforce development, the city attorney office, the planning department, dpw, mta, all unbelievably collaborative in their work with us through this long process. i want to specifically acknowledge port direct elaine forbes for her amazing work. commission president kim brandon. where is kim? so kim brandon -- [applause]

-- kim brandon unlike any of the giants players or bruce, did precede this project. i did a fact check, because i don't want fake news, 20 years on the san francisco port commission, looking at the progress and what happened to the port through her two decades of service. thank you, kim. and and finally the city leadership. a heart felt thank you to jane kim who authored the legislation and has taken a personal interest in this project from day one. huge thanks to board president london breed for her long time support of mission rock and keeping us on track during crucial moments. thank you to david chiu for spear heading the state legislation that allowed us to do the project. and finally, i want to

acknowledge our friend, our late mayor ed lee. very bittersweet here without him. one of the project's biggest supporters, with us from day one. we are eternally grateful for his leadership and support and we miss him every day. thank you, mayor farrell for making this historic moment for mission rock come true. we're thrilled to move closer to the ground breaking and realizing the vision of all of us here for this project, a decade in the making and now the fun beginsment thank you so much. [applause] >> hello, everybody, my name is london breed, i'm president of the san francisco board of supervisors and i am so excited to be here today. as a former san francisco redevelopment agency commissioner, i know how long these projects, these major

infill projects can take. i mean, but looking at mission bay and what we're doing with the shipyard and watching as this entire neighborhood change and provide more businesses, more housing, more parks, this is really a crown jewel for this particular area. i want to thank the giants for investing in this project, for working with the city, for working with the port. elaine, you're an amazing leader and i've got to thank kimberley brandon and the members of the port commission who spent countless hours listening to public comment, arguing over the details, getting the criticism and look at what we have here today. an amazing project that is doing something we need to do all over the city and county of san francisco. provide 40% affordable housing for low, moderate income families in san francisco. how exciting is that?

people who make up to 150% ami. when we think about it, that's a lot of money and it's not a lot of money here in san francisco. those families still can't afford market rate housing in san francisco. it includes some of the city employees. some of the ballpark workers. i want to see the ballpark workers walking across from their housing in that parking lot into the ballpark. is that a promise? yes. the members of local 2 and the folks who make san francisco such a great place. this is a wonderful day, i'm excited and grateful to my colleagues on the board of supervisors, including mayor farrell and i see supervisor yee and supervisor kim who will be speaking and supervisor jeff sheehy. we all care about making san francisco a wonderful place for each and every one of us, providing more housing, providing spaces like this on the waterfront that are going to be beautiful and accessible to

so many with parks and everything else, it's going to be amazing for city and county of san francisco. i know sonny schwartz has been a part of the project from day one, here we are, ten years later, let's make sure that the future projects don't take this long. thank you all so much. [applause] >> good afternoon, it is really incredibly exciting to be here today after the years as larry and mayor mark farrell have mentioned that have gone into making the project a reality. the portion of the project that i'm the proudest of, this is the first project in san francisco that has committed to a record percentage of 40% affordable and middle income housing.

[applause] and i really want to thank the giants for stepping up and being a leader for san francisco. this is our home team. and they've demonstrated their commitment to san franciscans by saying we're going make sure san franciscans get to live by our ballpark and root for us as we make it to the championship. i want to say that a lot of work went into the process. i should ask someone this, this is really one of the first projects that didn't use redevelopment, that built such a large percentage of units. households that make between $80-150,000 a year. i want to recognize the teachers union, the council community housings or organization, that helped us literally, number by number, over hours in the course of the night, craft a compromise that would pencil out. and i want to recognize the port

and the city for sharing the value that would generate the land that would allow more housing. this is a partnership between the city and the giants. i want to take a moment to thank our community residents who are also here. who have worked on the sidelines of this. to ensure this is a neighborhood that they want to be a part of. i see corrin woods, the chair of mission woods advisory committee. sonny schwartz. alice rogers. part of the south beach rincon. bruce, also a member of the organization. and katy who is not here, chairs the organization as well. i talked a lot about the affordable housing, but this is a mixed use development project that is going to provide retail and small businesses, amenity,

open space. the type of neighborhood that is inkredably excite -- incredibly exciting, providing amenities we need for the mission bay neighborhood. finally, i want to thank the city for all of your work. and the hard work begins now. we have to make sure we get the infrastructure in the ground so the thousands of units of the housing can get built. thank you, everyone, for making this a home run for san francisco. >> thank you to everyone. i understand now we have the honor of signing the legislation. mr. mayor and larry bear, president breed.

ready to roll. all right.

congratulations, everyone. [cheers and applause] the san francisco historic preservation hearing for