what a club is being a good citizen when a club is a bad citizen. we both know this commission can shut down a bad operator. in terms of coming up with metrics to measure that by, i don't believe that any numairca coefficient is going to do that. we have a hear anything six months. you are going to hear testimony that suggests that we have been a bad citizen and let things get out of control in some way. we are not arguing against that really. you will hear us say we have done -- the security measures we pro posed if they are not working they are not working. that is what you are going to hear. that is when we will cease going to 4:00 a.m. i am confident that is not going to happen. as far as coming up with metrics to measure that by, there isn't

a standard to go by with this particular club's status in that neighborhood. i am willing to go on police calls as general rule. really what happens from 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. at that end of broadway is different than what happens further down. i think we have a good effect on the whole thing, but what happens here is going to be apparent to this commission when you re-review in six months. >> when i walk into the club, do you scan my driver's license? you. >> someone checks your id. if i smash somebody's window and somebody catches me can we tie that back to the club? this is what we are looking for? >> yes, we wouldn't argue with that. >> do you keep a record of each

individual entering and leaving the club? you do? that is what i am looking for on the metrics. some standard way to look at this. >> in the castro it was that patron, not your club's patron that knocked in the door. he said and she said stuff. i am not convinced right now. >> i don't think that will happen here because of level of responsibility we take for that portion of broadway. there is no other club that is busy at that end. there are dance clubs as you move further towards columbus, and they shut down at 2:00 a.m. we don't want the patrons on the sidewalk at 2:00 a.m. when the busy dance crowds are coming out. that is what this is about for us. i think in six months you will come back and not see a change. >> i will be honest.

i heard mr. allen say i don't make money selling water. between 2:00 and 4:00 is it a service to the clients? how are you making money during those two hour us? >> it is simple. we have a cover and entertainment. it is good for the entertainers and workers and patrons sobering up. >> thank you. i think, commissioners, i understand the challenge of the data. what you are really if i hear what the commissioners are saying correctly, it is comparing data when they closed at 2:00 a.m. to when they closed at 4:00 a.m. frankly, it is hard based on what mr. paul said, it is hard to establish any accurate data other than police reports. there are all sorts of things that don't get reported to the police that you don't have good data on. how do you have date -- data

without a record. do it six months or a year. schedule a hear something a year to see how it is working and compare the police records. if i hear correctly you can tie it to people, specific individuals. you can tie specific reports to specific individuals and the club to compare that data from today to when they close at 4:00 a.m. then schedule a hearing with an understanding the commission would have the ability to resend the condition use if it is moving in the wrong direction? >> i would like you to speak to the criteria. be specific about what, where we are documenting. i think there might be issues of privacy. that is my concern. you would have to have people. >> without specific names.

correct me if i'm wrong city tore's office. you can say -- city attorney's office. you can do it without identifying that person by name. >> we need to be very careful. the city has a obligation to protect personal identification information. >> i worry about calls not reported or the neighbors call on everything. i birp and they call the police. >> commissioner johnson. >> we had another case not the same use at all as these issues that we are bringing up, but a case where the community was really concerned about the impact that a local business would have, and that local business appointed a communitily a son to regularly check in with the community to hear concerns and kind of be kind of the point

of contact. i think one thing that i am worried about in doing a year long trial is that we have to if things are going south, that the community has to wait a year before they, now, before they have another hearing. something that i would just be interested in seeing as part of this. it feels clear that way more community liaison, engagement work will need to be done whether we come up with a certain set of metrics or not. it would be hoove everyone to be clear how folks are engaging everyone during the process. >> the one year look back would be the minimum period with which they have the opportunity to

operate without coming back to revoke the permit. at any point in time if staff or the commission receives enough complaints the commission can direct the didn't to bring this -- direct the department to bring this back. you are not limited to one year. >> i appreciate that. i would like to make the barrier lower, not higher for the community. that is why i am making that suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner johnson. among the ideas we had in managing this were setting out a notice to our neighbors with a phone number to call in that the security chief on duty at all times will have. if anybody in the neighborhood has an event happening, if somebody is yelling and if there is a trash can rolling, they have somebody on the block to deal with it right away. we are going to do that. i like the idea of being open

for meetings on a regular basis. we could easily schedule something like that, check ins with the community. we want this to work. we don't want things bad to go on in the neighborhood. we want to be good neighbors. this can work in that way. we will take that suggestion and make it happen. >> maybe one -- just come talk for one minute. >> we have a lot of experience and talent within our community. paul and i have done big community engaged studies. there the other metrics besides what you have been talking about. we are prepared to participate in that. there is no incentive for the

community for the owners to engage us. we would like some help with that. it is not just complaints. we want to be part of the process of measuring and developing the metrics. >> i think one thing we are struggling with with the cannabis club us there are bad acting cannabis clubs. it is hard to, you know, it is hard to define that. if we define 30 calls, violent calls, do they not get the permit revoked if there is 29? it gets to be what are the nature of the calls if it is the business calling about somebody who didn't pay the tab or snuck in alcohol, are we saying that is not a call? we would spend the rest of our

lives figuring out those metrics. i love the idea of having, you know, you sending out the notice of who the community liaison is. you have to have two community meetings in six months. i say it is terminated and it has to be reuped. if the city attorney doesn't allow us to do that, it sounds like they don't. we schedule revocation hearing in six months. the bar is not -- the bar is you convincing us that it is the neighbors convincing us it is a problem. we get the feedback from two community meetings to see where this goes. >> commissioner richards. >> i want the community to sit down with the project sponsor and come up with something. mr. paul when we have problem was the cafe in the castro. there was a liaison, the folks

from hancock street. we went over things once a month. it was a great dialogue and the cafe has never been a problem since. i see that on both sides. to rush this to get through today. work with us. it is premature. i would love to give you guys another couple weeks. >> i am still in favor of approving today with whatever look backs or re-hearings. i am not trying to step on the community toes. i value the neighborhood and understand how many restaurants there are. if you have ever been to north beach on st. patrick's day you will know what i am talking about. do not underestimate what the police department. i have every respect in the world for your service. it is a specific club

responsible four those calls. what if someone drinks three bottles of wine at the stinking rose and walks to the hustler club and starts a faith? in a way this club is a little unfairly category rised as the cause for these incidents or the trends. i would like to see when we hear back that really specific data or information is given that is clear or if not they are single-handedly responsible for the increase or increase in calls. >> commissioner johnson. >> i would be supportive of approving this with a condition there is a community meeting to kick it off to talk but agreed

upon set of metrics, there are two community meetings scheduled between now and our next revocation hearing. that is what i would feel comfortable with. i am -- my one question which i would like to hear other commissioners way is the question of six months or a year. i would agree that a year would be better. i will make that motion. motion to approve for a term of one year with the requirement of a kickoff community meeting to agree on shared metrics. posting to the community of information about the change in hour us with the community liaison, two community meetings between now and next year, and

community notice of the revocation hearing. >> are we scheduling the revocation hearing? >> the city attorney. >> i am not sure i understand. is the proposal it is a one-year condition use? >> well, it is not. it is condition use approval with scheduling revocation hearing in one year. >> instead of scheduling the automatic look back, which is something. >> well, we would schedule the revocation hearing. >> you are scheduling the revocation hearing now? >> i want it to be clear on the record what is proposed. >> sorry. i would like to make clear for the kickoff community meeting to agree on metrics, that then

starts the year's time? the metrics would need to be in place, i assume. >> yes. >> the year starts i imagine when they extend the hours. they would have to have the community meeting, and once they open with extended hours, that is the year clock would start ticking. >> just to be clear, you want them to meet. you have read into the record we want them to meet twice within the timeframe for the year. we also want them to meet with the neighbor to come up with criteria. when that is agreed upon, then they can be open until 4:00 a.m. that start the one year timeframe? >> why not have them agree on metrics, then the hearing and then appear it. consumyou come back mr. paul any

they have been really operating in bad faith because they want every garbage can rolling down the hill capture order the video. that is real metrics. rather than forcing them in the year and starting the year after that. >> i can suggest some things i took down i heard. check in with the neighbors at least two times during this year. there needs to be a phone number and dedicated staff at the club that will respond to incidents. you want them to come back with statistics on the incident. that is the criteria that we look at whether or not you are going to revoke. then schedule the revocation. >> i heard a motion. >> i second that.

the only thing i consider. i think it is shorter timeframe and mr. webber's comments about a full year. in six months we could choose not to revoke and schedule another hearing. i would go six months for a shorter time period. i second the motion. >> i am confused what this motion is. i am very confused. let me say that what commissioner richards suggested to me is not quite ideal because we suppose there is a condition community meeting and they can't agree on the metrics. does that meaning they don't get to open at all despite the motion? it is not clear to me what exactly we are doing. >> i heard commissioner johnson say have the meeting, agree on metrics then open at 4:00 a.m. have the meeting, agree, then

approve it and look back. we are doing the same thing. >> that is not what i heard commissioner johnson say. i didn't here it in that sequence. you know we approve it or don't approve it today. we are asking that they neat. you know, we will look back a year from now. if we speak with it, they can only open after they agree. to me, you know, it leaves it open for the possibility they won't. that is automatic disapproval. >> i will jump on. commissioner cobble. >> in the corner of the hearing room, you are saying what if the two parties don't reach agreement on metrics. i think the neutral party here is get anything the far corner and they have the metrics.

i think that is one of the most valuable opinions here. that could also happen at our next hearing. >> commissioner johnson. >> let me clarify. as a sign of goodwill and starting a relationship to work together is the spirit in which i would encourage the community meeting to get more on the same page. i think the ultimate metric of success are going to be whether they can reach you, whether there are issues, what we hear from the police department. it is for you to prove that you have been a good community not for the community to prove it is not a nuisance. i am comfortable with approving this with the app that the community gets together and they

schedule the community meetings. >> i was going to suggest that as a way of addressing that problem in case there is not agreement. you can ask at least one community meeting and that they could open within say a month of today regardless. is that part of the motion? >> that is. >> commissioner richards. >> if there is a community meeting planning staff and the police can be part of that meeting. you will be here in a year anyway dealing with this in a year. i just don't feel comfortable pushing this through today. i want to make sure we have responsible people in the room. >> i would ask officer mathias if you would be able to help. as planner, yes, i can

facilitate that perhaps at the department. >> do we have a yes from officer mathias? >> okay. >> earlier than 2:00 a.m. >> all right. >> there is a motion seconded t approve the matter. >> to clarify the motion was a year. >> it was, yes. >> we can't sunset it in one year. >> we would have a revocation hear anything a year. >> to approve with conditions as have been amended include a kickoff meeting to establish metrics and initiate the 4:00 a.m. closing time in one month from today to hold two committee meetings between then and the one year revocation hearing to schedule a one year revocation hearing a month from now when

they are starting the 4:00 a.m., and that the community liaison post the change of hours at the facility outside. >> the neighbors. >> give notice to the neighbors of posting. >> also the request for the phone number and dedicated staff to respond. >> community liaison in the boilerplate approval. >> this is a little more beefed up than the boil lawyer plate. >> commission. (roll call). >> so moved commissioners it passes four-to-one with commissioner richards voting against. >> this is on the discretionary review item. 2017-771456 at 1100 fulton street this. is a discretionary review.

>> we are on 17, 1100 fulton street. >> good afternoon. david win slow staff architect. this is a publish initiated request for discretionary review of 2017-0126-7999 to construct three accessory dwelling units by converts four garage units at the exist you go apartment unit. 50 by 110-foot lot in the alamo square district. it is a contributor reproperty

within the district. historic preservation commission determined the garages are not character de finding of the subject profit or district. in article 10 of the planning code and secretary of interior standards for treatment of historic properties. the pastor of the third baptist church at 1399 mcallister at pierce street. the reason for the dr is three reasons. alteration one adversely impacts historical building and district, two compromises rent control, theory moolvie of garages impacts the neighborhood parking. to date the department has received no letters in support or opposition for this project. department's position is in light of the d.r. request

concerns they have reviewed the project with the residential design guides. they found, one, the garages were determined by both staff and historic preservation. either the building or the district. the proposed alterations were found consistent with the article 10 and the standards. the nexus between under mining rent control was not made year by the d.r. request earn. rent control is not regulated by the planning department. third, removal of ground level garages and infill of u with accessory dwelling units serves the city in a number of ways. one, fulfills adding housing stock in an existing building, activates the ground floor,

removes curb cuts with the cars entering and exiting the garages. the removal of garages increases the available on-street parking in the neighborhood and other street scape improvements such as planting of trees. lastly, it seismically strengthens the goals. it meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends the staff approve it. it does not accept exceptional circumstances. i might add that we have our a.d.u. team lead in the audience to answer any a.d.u. specific questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. d.r. requester? not here. project sponsor here?

is there anybody who wants to speak on behalf of the dr? no. okay. project sponsor. use the big mic there. you can use that one. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect for the project. >> is there a presentation on the computer? you can use that if you want to,

the shorter one, pull it up. >> this is the project address and a picture at the corner lot facing alamo square. this is the existing floor plan showing the ground floor garages and storage spaces. this is a two phased project. only garages back from a portion of tenants. there are vacancies. we are not taking tenant parking away. three units on the right side here will be in phase one. shaded one on fulton will be phase two or as they become available as renters move out. we provided die grams -- diagrams showing we are removing the driveways and curb cuts from the building we are providing on-street parking. in phase one we are removing four spaces here. we are adding three. taking out four garages. in phase two we are adding three and four additional parking

spaces and removing those. it is a 70% replacement from private garages to on-street parking. we were dumb founded by the dr filing. they showed up at preservation hearing. they are from the church across the street. we are not impacting their building in any way. many comments were relating to damaging the historic character of the building or impacting the parishioners. we think we are providing additional units for parishioners. these are rent controlled units as required. we fail to understand the concerns. they are not here today. the concerns have been dealt with. i am open for questions. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this? seeing none, we will close

public comment. commissioners. >> i make a motion that we approve this project. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. (roll call) sod moved that motion passes 4-0. that places you on 18. 136 palm avenue. discretionary review. >> david win winslow. this is a public request for 2017-0628-0596 to raise an existing roof four feet and add

dormers to create a fourth floor on a home built in 1920. it is 43 food white by -- food white. with a -- foot wide. it was a historic resource. it has been found to comply with the secretary of interior standards does not pose material impact to the identified district. i think it is a potential district. the d.r. requester is adjacent property to the south. the reasons for the d.r. request are two. first impacts to light and air. impact to privacy. public comment to date. department has received no letters of support or opposition. in light of the concerns department rereviewed the project with the residential guidelines. vertical expansion by racing the

roof and adding dormers is sensitive with minimal increase in height. it is approximately 20 feet away from d.r. requester's windows due to the 17-foot side yard and three foot deep light well to the south. location of the subject building to the north allows indirect light. in your package you can see renditions of that. the difference between the current and existing. number two. additional pairs of windows and dormers are appropriately sized and located to not present any you privacy. it meets the standards and guidelines and you approve the project. it does not present any extraordinary conditions to justify further conditions to

the code compliant project. this concludes my presentation. >> d.r. requester. welcome. you have five minutes if you would like. >> is there a way to it is and talk? >> yes. you can pull that down. >> grab that one. >> are you david winslow? >> the one and only. >> excuse me. i have never done this before.

thank you. i am going to try to talk fast. david winslow, i want to apologize fo for missing our lat meeting at the planning department. i was dealing with a friend hospitalized and i missed the last minute change of time. i don't want you to think i am unreliable and i don't care. i do care. i am told we will be turned down today. i guess you just did it. david winslow in a rent conversation said to the planning department does not want to spend more money on this case. in a conversation with natalie yesterday sadie laying the project will cost more money. if true this should not be the reason reason for denying due

process. if they compromise a little this could have been resolved sooner. out of my ear shot, i have been characterized as disinterested and obstructive to having discussions. any statements to that effect are untrue. they have demonstrated in all actions that they had no interest in giving up anything. so i am pointing that out. one after the first mailing the architect had an introductory meeting which alerted that i could not make. i had a brief conversation with him asking him to generally describe what the proposed were planning because i could not read plans. i was dependent upon him to describe everythingrel haven't. from the beginning i had

concerns and objections. i asked if he could schedule another and let me know. i never heard from him. two, the application was moving through the planning department for special review. i was not asked for concerns to perhaps incorporate to design. three, at neighborhood barbecue. nothing was ever hinted at by them on the plans. upon leaving, i mentioned we still had to meet to discuss the plans. kelly replied anytime. on the next day i said to her that i didn't necessarily have to meet to look at the plans. these were the preliminary ones. i wanted her to know of my concerns. i expected a response. there was none. she made no mention of what was

to come next. which is number five. the notice to build was sent. i immediately called ben. he listened, but nothing came of my stating my concerns again. he expressed confidence they would prevail because the plans hadlassed the planning department. he also asked to take photos from my kitchen but never made time to do so. six, i talked to alexander our liaison at the planning defendant and complained that ben did not seem to be interested in communicating with me. she said then that the wall would be going up four feet then pitched to the peak. that she would ask been to contact me to clarify. he never did. ben only call me when i e-mailed him to say we would filed for

discretionary review. only in the last month after we filed for discretionary review did i learn from ben that the pops agreed to go up six feet. they have made no concessions or interest in doing so. i am speaking for the could line owners. we would like -- co-owners. we would like to suggest a slight delay of a few weeks to bring the rise from six feet from four feet to start it from there. >> can i continue. >> you have 25 seconds. >> and that -- sorry. that they take full height on the other side of their building where they are closer to the neighbor and who may not care

and where it would not be obvious from the street. also to reduce the number and size of windows and place glass on the small bathroom and stair windows as permanent fixture. >> thank you. two minute rebuttal. that is after they speak. we will call you back for two minutes. then they have two minutes. any public comment in support of the dr? okay. if there is anybody else to speak on your behalf. seeing none, project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> five. >> i am one you have the project sponsors with my husband. this is ben farrell the architect. we will take a moment right now. for us this is not a new project. we purchased the property.

>> i can't hear. >> for us this is not a new project. we purchased the profit nine years ago. this is a long road. we did a number of structural changes preceding this. that started in 2013 from the planning perspective. we started construction in 2014. we have been open with neighbors. >> i can't hear what you are saying. i won't be age to rebut. >> it is the mic. speak into the mic. >> i am speaking it as much as i can. i don't want to shout this. say long a long journey. we are open the entire time. that was our intention from the time we bought the property. in addition, we started this phase of the project well over a year ago and have been open with our neighbors and the neighborhood the entire time. we highlighted that correspondence including the

mandatory preapplication meetings and mailings in addition to other outreach that we did. there is the opportunity for dialogue all along. the only response we received from the neighbor was they didn't want us to do the project and they were opposed. nothing asked for we offered to bring the meeting to her. we had a conference call and have been open this entire time. only after the dr was filed did we have a conversation where they responded. i am a mom of two kids six and nine. 1600 square feet with one bathroom. we are trying to make it work. it let us afford to stays in the home. if we cannot expand the home we will be forced to leave the city. for us to buy this property we had the same tent from being a

single die to the third child in december. we have made it work. it is hard to feel this is our last chance and this one person who doesn't want to talk to us and maintain a neighborly relationship is preventing us from do what we set out to do nine years ago. >> i am the architect. i like this project. right time, right place, right people. it allows us to expand. we are takingatic space and pushing up the roof four feet to give us two story over basement right now with i think, you know, moderate change to the exterior of the building. there is great separation between this house and the adjacent house to the south. i did a very cursory shadow

study so we could see the summer sun angles and where they end up falling. it is hard to agree there is going to be any impact to light or fresh air across 21 feet from the four feet extension. the vertical wall closist does extend out six feet. that was not clear for a lot of the discussion. obviously the information came from me. you know, the great cross section of san francisco that we have seen this afternoon this is relatively small potatoes. to these two people it is the biggest thing ever. >> is that all? we have to keep going. any public comment in support of the project? seeing none.

he has a two minuter rebuttal if you would like. >> i don't know if it is relevant, but i don't feel you it. shy wants something and -- she wants something and wants all of what she wants. the characterization of my not wants to communicate. i had communicate. i said to ben, would they go for four-foot? i don't think he said yes or no. that is kind of a concession, isn't it? it is a suggestion of what how we can compromise. i initially said, women, you know, truth be told you i don't want you to do it at all but that doesn't mean that is all in my head. there were some things that we could have agreed upon as a

compromise, but they kind of, and i was available. i mean i think i pointed out in those as i did, one, three, seven. i didn't hear back. it is like, yeah, we can talk. okay, talk. okay. no hearing back. no coming back and saying, what do you suggest? what about this? i mean they were just -- to attitude i came to understand was that we have got it. we don't even have to talk to you. we can pretend to talk to you. we development have to talk to you. -- we don't have to talk to you. i was not unavailable for conversations, and i in fact as i pointed out did reach out to

them. i will let that go. >> thank you very much. a two minute rebuttal. >> for the d.r. request there is closed caption if you can't hear on the screens right over there. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to say that we were completely caught off guard by the dr filing. you can see the correspondence. they had everything for a large amount of time. we hosted outreach meetings didn't get anything prior to that. we exceed all of the residential design guidelines. we had a rigorous review of historic. there is nothing extraordinary about it. we need the head height four the space to be inhabitable by a 6 footman. if we can't walk through it, we can't afford to do it.

it is not worth it. >> thank you. we will close this portion of the hearing. commissioner richards. >> this is probably the only zr where i have not -- dr much about the merits of the case instead of who said what. i don't see any reason to take dr. i believe the staff decision is good. i move to approve the project. >> second. >> not take dr and approve as proposed. (roll call). so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> meeting is adjourned. thank you all.

>> when i open up the paper every day i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about the planet i want to leave for my children and other generation, i think of what contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. ♪ clean power sf is san francisco's key way of fighting

climate change by renewable energy and offering it to san francisco customers. i'm from the san francisco public utilities commission. the program came about with state wide legislation in 2002 to enable people to take more control over supplies. i first heard of the program when the organization was advocating to launch clean power sf. what i'm most excited about, it's going to bring 100% renewable energy to my home and reinvest into renewable energy infrastructure and jobs. i had gone to a lot of street fairs and heard from the staff at the san francisco public utilities commission to sign up for clean power sf even before it launched. >> we learned about clean power sf because our sustainability

team is always looking for clean operations. linkedin is the largest online network. there are about 530 million members using our site. in this san francisco office there's about 1400 employees working in roughly 400,000 square feet. >> after signing up for the program we heard about the san francisco program and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. i'm the co-owner of the new wheel electric bike shop. we opened this store in 2012 and the new wheel sells and services electric bikes. 11 people work here in san francisco and our store is about 2,000 square feet. electric bikes are fantastic for transportation in the city, they're clean and green and you get places faster than any other form of transportation.

it amplifies the power, it doesn't replace it. it makes it easier to get places by bicycle and it's so enjoyable and environmentally friendly way to go and more convenient in san francisco. >> clean power sf requires two products, green, 40% renewable and competitively priced with pg and e. for those who want to fight climate change more, 100% renewable at $0.02 per kilawatt. >> i decided to go with the super greens, after finding it only to cost about $5 more a month to have super green, that's a no-brainer, i can do that. >> we were pleased that clean

power sf offers the super green 100% for commercial entities like ours and residents for the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services for linkedin and now encouraging our employees who have a residence in san francisco to sign on as well. >> clean power sf buys its power from renewable plants that feed the energy directly into the grid. >> there's a commitment to sustainability throughout the entire organization and this clean power opportunity reflects that. >> one of the wind farms we use is the shilo wind farm and that is large enough to be able to provide energy for up to 200,000 homes. >> our mission is sustainability, even though our bikes are minimal energy use, it still matters where the energy

comes from and part of our mission in sustainability is how we run everything -- run our business. having the lights come on with clean energy is very important. >> the sunset reservoir has solar panels that take up about four city blocks covering the reservoir and the solar power generates energy for city resources and clean power sf for residents participating in the program. >> it was easy to sign up for the program, i went online to cleanpowersf.org and i started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going to be switched over and it just happened. when i pay my bill, i still go to pg and e and i don't see any difference between now and a year ago. >> sign up online, just have your account number ready and it takes about two minutes and there's nothing to install.

no lines are getting connected to your home. all the power goes through the existed power grid. >> we haven't had any problems with the switch over to clean power. >> it's super easy to sign up. our book keeper signed up online, it took about 15 minutes. nothing changed but now we have cleaner energy. >> we see clean power sf as a key strategy to meet renewable energy goal, we have a goal of 50% renewable energy by 2020. currently we have enrolled about 86,000 customers across the city. about 20% of what we hope to serve in the future and in the next two years we'll offer service to all san francisco electricity customers. >> an easy way to align your environmental responsibilities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it and it

doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> joining clean power sf is one of the easiest ways to fight climate change, receiving cleaner energy at low and stable rates, you're helping to support a not for profit that helps influence the energy grid and produce more production. >> i would encourage any business to seriously convert to the clean sf service. it's good for environment, business and the community. >> you can sign up online our call and the great thing is, you'll have the peace of mind that you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. ♪ ♪

>> we will call role for the commission on the environment. [roll call] >> there is decorum. >> thank you, very much. i am president on the commission of status of women. i wanted to thank everyone for being here today. i particularly wanted to thank the staff of the two departments the department of the environment and the status of women for this amazing meeting tonight. i know is a lot of work. it is something that the president and i talked about several months ago before the climate action summit.