of the time. and they get grants. and folks have come forward to say, hey, this is where. and so when they get the grants and they look forward and they might remember this project that they heard about, about nine months ago, whatever, those people come up and get the money, a lot of the non-profits. so what i'm saying is, where we know we have the opportunities, let's justify that right now so they know we have these needs. they are very impressed by the job training on the island, and a lot of the resources that we are doing here -- they are thinking about it. so when it comes to the budgeting, let us put it in down there. and i also agree with commissioner shan, having a broader picture of the financing, this is the time to be doing that right now. because every year the city has their mandates and their goals. and we'r.and we're in devel, and we're doing this in phases. they don't fully

understand the full conditions of what we have to grapple with here. we're doing the pre-planning to get here. but now this is a huge implementation, and so we need to tell them what the needs are and why we still have people that we can advocate. we can go to the board of supervisors, and even our own supervisor, i thought we could give him certain things and say, go to your colleagues and bring the goodies back. he is ready to do that, but we have to justify that for them. so this is what is going on. i also want to talk about outreach. we have committed a lot of resources to outreach. and the support that is involved with so many outreachs in san francisco and on the mainland, they're giving, that we know. at the end of the process, two, three, five people will come in and say, they've never heard about everything you've been doing for two or three years. and the part of city i live in, we live that.

what we have done and demonstrated here, and i kept talking about that on this commissioner -- we have a lot. you cannot tell me after 20 meetings, you cannot attend five or six or seven if your life depended on it. we're not going to make provisions for individuals. let's be clear about that. everybody there has responsibility. we are providing housing resources that affect you and your life. we are providing meetings on the weekend, and during the week, whatever, and we're sending certified mail to you. you're being called. you received letters. we've exhausted all of that. there must be a time for the burden on you or your household to come in. that's what i was asking the director and the consultants. you need to, when you make your presentation, attach the log and let us know the true picture of this. out of all of the 200 plus residents, how many of them right now do you have

their signature? every time they come in to you, you have them sign that they're present. so we are moving forward now. again, it is a given. people are going to come out in the townhall meeting, that after 21 jobs in the neighborhood, and you cannot come. we have it on saturdays. that is the person who has not attended 20 meetings. they get that thing on their door to say this meeting is coming. i get that on my door, where i live in san francisco, all the time. but getting people to take the responsibility to attend those meetings. we need to identify those numbers that you have exhausted. we need to know that upfront. and we can tell you, this is what we've done to do this or that, and you have not responded, and that is it. so i'm very, very passionate about that because it happens everywhere, not just treasure island.

it happened in bayview point, it happened in mission, and everywhere in san francisco where you're doing a public process. people don't pay attention. they don't care. they don't do anything. the rest of the people will step up. but for us here, we have to provide and protect city resources, and we also need to demonstrate that we have actually conducted ou outreach to those people, and we need to be able to demonstrate that. any time when you go to the island, please attach all those meeting calendars. and then the subsequent ones. yeah, they should have the combination of people knocking on the doors, you have phone calls, and also registered mail, registered mail. whereby we know we have certified mail from the post office to say, we'd like to talk to you. we would like you to come in. and after that, we've exhausted everything. if that particular resident does not come, then that's their burden.

and wherever we go from then on, we'll have to deal with that. and that'.and that's the wae courts will look at that. there have been instances of phra san francisco projects where people show up -- and it goes to court, and the court looks at the calendar. and they say, wait a minute. i have a list here of 30, or 100 meetings in a year, and you cannot find 25% to show up here. there is no issue here. all of you residents got the same thing. did you not? and they say yes. and so why are you just coming in now? the city has to move and because, again, we have to make sure. that's just my take in there. commissioner, any other questions? >> yes, please. bob, just curious about the ticd , their responsibility to make our budget whole. does that only kick in after we've exhausted our

reserves? >> yeah, that's after we have exhausted the fund balance. >> thank you. >> any other questions from the public, please? thank you. >> i'm just giving this to her. >> commissioners, no others? thank you. kate? >> item number seven, affordable housing development pipeline. >> we have to be out of here by 11:00, so we are in time. >> good morning, commissioners. >> good morning. >> natalie batowit, affordable housing development consultant. today we're going to talk about the affordable housing development pipeline. and first we wanted to do a really basic reminder of the residential housing plan. and then discuss each phase of affordable

housing, talk about the project generated revenue, as well as the gap funding, and then talk about the first projects. and the first projects would satisfy the replacement obligation. and that's why we're focusing on those first projects, five. so as you know, the maximum allowable number of units on the island is 8,000. of those, the total market rate for both rent and for sale is 5,827. and then of those, 266 are on treasure island, and that's -- excuse me, yerba buena island. and the remaining units, representing 27.2% are affordable. of those units, 307, which

is 5% of the total unit count, or 14% of the affordable housing count, but 307 of those units are inclusionary, and those are the ones that are developed by ticd and/or its affiliates. the remaining units, 1 1,866, are the authority units, those are the affordable units developed by non-profit affordable housing developers. so of those authority units, the 1,866, the dda states that the minimum -- a floor, not a ceiling, of the units, 435, are developed by qualified one treasure island non-profit development members. so, again, that's a floor, but minimally 435 of those units, which is 23% of the total affordability, are reserved for homeless

households. the authority units are developed on 20 pre-identified parcels, integrated within the market rate developments. again, i know we talked about this last month, but one of the reasons that the affordable housing on treasure island is one of the best deals is town is that land is delivered free, clean, fully entitled. on this map, you can see aust reall ofsee allof those re. and they're free, affordable housing. and we like that because it is baked into the plan. the first phase has eight parcels. you can see on the bottom, that's the two parcels we discussed last week at the tida board meeting on treasure island. and those are the first two parcels where land

will be available. the second part, also within the green, is the land will be available after the current subphase application is approved and then the work is done. it is projected the earliest will be about two years that the land will be available. after, you'll see that through the four phases, and each of the different phases is a different color, but through the four phases, you get 20 parcels. the majority are in phase one and in phase four. so one of the other things that's pretty exciting about treasure island is that because of the d.d.a., there are some baked-in funding programs for the -- that can be used for affordable housing. most notably, there is a $17,500 per market rate door contribution for affordable housing from the master developer.

likewise, because of the i.r.s.d., the project gets tax increments. so of all of the tax increment proceeds that are generated, 17.5% is allocated to affordable housing. also, like other parts of the city, there is job housing linkage fee that will be accrued once the commercial spaces are developed. and the funds that are generate franchise those fees, whefrom those fees,when te restricted to treasure island. and when we say treasure island, we, of course, also mean yerba buena island. so despite these generated sources, there is still a funding gap to fund the affordable housing outside of these sources. so while it is still the best deal in town, and

while there is actually revenue available because of being on treasure island, it is still not enough. when we -- when the project was initially forgiving out what the gap will be, the thought was -- and this was, of course, before delays and lawsuits and all sorts of things -- the thought was that the construction cost per square foot would be $220 a square foot. and now we're looking at 470 a square foot. meaning that between 201 1, it doubled the cost in hard costs. last friday you may have seen in the chronicle that san francisco had the dubious distinction of having the highest construction costs in the world. and the cost per unit,

with free land for development, is generally averaging $750,000 per unit. so costs are going crazy. and even though treasure island has resources, it is still not enough. so some of the ways that we can generate additional revenue are working on some logistics that have to be legislated with the i.r.s.d., to mam mo am amortizee loans from 40 to 45, and that makes a big difference, and that is state legislation. and likewise, there is advocacy that has started, but needs to continue regarding access to the licensing fee revenues, and those greatly benefit affordable housing on treasure island. on the flip side, those

will positively benefit. as of today, there is some optimism. as we saw in the projects and the presentations last we will be righlastweek, the fif affordable housing will use modular housing. they secured a $10 million veterans housing and homelessness prevention funding award. the catholic charities mercy housing project has submitted for a.h.s.c., and we expect to hear back certainly by june, and hopefully we'll have indication sooner. and if that is awarded, it will be $20 million for treasure island, of which $13.7 million will be for the affordable housing.

not mentioned here, there are the state bond measures that passed last year with $2 billion, meaning there are more sources now than used to be. going back to our 2011 projections we lost other sources, such as hudd 202, and we lost a lot of equity we get. so we've lost some and we've gained some. and this is generally. but one reason for optimism is the november bond in san francisco, and it's in the process of being worked on so it will go on the ballot this november, and that would benefit treasure island, as well as other non-profit affordable housing in san francisco. so moving on to what is the pipeline for the first five projects -- and, again, those first five projects would minimally

satisfy all of the replacement obligations that tida has. and the first project, as you know, is what we just saw last week, from parcel 3.2, the source to plow share project, and it is reserved for homeless and low-income veterans, including replacement of all of the source units on the island now. and the anticipated construction start is early next year. and they are in the process of trying to finish -- cover their gap through one additional state funding source. and if that works, if it is successful, there is no gap on that project, if it is successful. and this is the picture that you saw last week. the second project is what we also just talked about, the catholic charities replacement units being developed with mercy housing.

that project totals 135 units, and it would be -- have general affordable housing, where income qualifying households will be eligible. likewise, there are some units reserved for non-income qualifying households. if the funding award from the affordable housing sustainable communities -- if it is awarded, the earliest start would be the second quarter of 2021. there is a gap on that project. and it's $40 million. and those sources -- that googap is after tax credits and the funds, but before any project-generated sources would be attributed. and these are the same photos from last time. it is conceptual design project mapping. this is for the land that will be available in the

near future. the second portion of the units that are available, still in the major subphase one, the first project within that would be to replace the existing community housing partnership units on treasure island. and all those units are reserved for four million homeless families. and the earliest construction there -- and, again, this depends on available of bond or other gap financing -- but the earliest availability there would be 2023. the gap is estimated at $27 million. the reason there is a nuance here, about 9% credits, is because you can achieve a greater amount of subsidy with a 9% credit. 9% credits are very competitive, and 4% credits are much easier to obtain. the fourth project would be the combo project that

you've heard about before, where parcels were merged. and this is ic4.23. and the total projected unit count was 160. this would be the replacement of the hr360 beds, coupled with a non-profit affordable housing developer. and this will be another treasure island developer because of the hr360 units. there will also be new affordable housing units where income-qualifying households will be eligible, as well as units for non-income-qualifying households. the earliest would be 2025, and the gap, with estimation, is $64 million. and the fifth project is not designated yet, but this project would be

needed in case there is anybody who has housing obligation on treasure island that hasn't yet labobeen housed through inclusionary or the affordable projects. so with these five projects, tida's replacement unit obligation will be met. and the unfunded gap for these five projects is $170 million. this is, again, before project-generated funds are applied,but after tax credits, and one state source per project. and two parcels will be available in major sub subphase one, that could be developed as soon as funding is available. so the ability to provide 800 units on treasure island would actually be a significant impact for the

affordable housing crisis in san francisco if funds can be achieved. and there is the pretty picture. >> thank you very much for that excellent presentation. so we have five minutes. commissioner shan and the other commissioners can respond for five minutes of questions. >> thank you very much for that very comprehensive overview of the affordable housing program. i think it is great for us to be reminded of our initiative and, actually, our obligation to build affordable housing on treasure island. the rising construction costs, of course, are just having an impact on not only affordable housing, but also market rate housing. we're really in a crisis right now, not just in san francisco, but in the region. i'm really concerned that we have a gap of almost

$170 million, that we have to find somewhere. and this is $2,019, and some of these projects are scheduled for later on, when we know construction costs rising at a 15% to 20% per year, as it has for the last few years, we know that that gap is going to grow considerably. so i think it is really beholding to us as a commission, but also in concert with the city, the board of supervisors, the mayor's office of housing, to really think carefully, thoroughly, about how it is that we're going to fund that gap. because this is truly an obligation. the only reason why we're doing the development on treasure island and allowing the market rate housing to be built, is so that we can build more affordable housing. if we are not able to meet that obligation, then it

would put, actually, the rest of the treasure island development, to make that not worthwhile. so it's a -- it's an initiative which is absolutely central to our mission as the treasure island development authority. so i really would like mr. beck to have some thinking about this on a comprehensive level. i think that we've been waiting for these first projects to come up and to see how they are able to go forward. it seems like the policy of ccdc project is on its way, but it still has to get some -- in a competitive process, it still has to get tax credits and other sources from the state. is that right? >> the tax credits

represents the competitive. it is 4% tax credits, and those are much easier to attain. but the remaining funding that they're applying for, the state program called m.h.p., multiple housing program, it is anticipated to be competitive for that, but it is a competitive process. >> that's right. so it is not yet known whether we will get an award -- we hope that we will, but, again, we're hoping that that will be able to go forward. and then for the next projects, which is the mercy housing project, that, again, will have to go through a competitive process to try to get subsidies from elsewhere, including the tax credits as well. >> yes, and again, that is considered at the 4%. >> yes. the other thing is that the affordable housing bond, which mayor breed is hoping to place on the agenda -- on the election

for november, what is the amount of that? >> the amount before it was 300 before, and now it has been increased, in the last few days, to $500 million. and so it has to pass. and given all of these factors -- but it has to pass. >> there has been acknowledgement publicly about a portion of that, and it's not confirmed, but that one portion of it could be used for treasure island, but i think we need tneed to continue to advocate and hope that that happens. >> that's right. if there is a $500 million bond issue for affordable housing, again, treasure island needs at least $170 million for its program. so at least on the four -- on the first five

projects. and not to say that we would use it for -- right now, but it is an element that we need to urge our board of supervisors to set aside for treasure island. in fact, it makes no sense for the city in developing affordable housing, to realize that the units on treasure because we do, indeed, have the land already, and there is not the cost of acquiring land to build. that is a resource that we have on treasure island. and it should be used, you know, for affordable housing. and, in fact, it h should be a priority on these affordable units on treasure island to be funded through those subsidy dollars. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to

emphasize, again, that the $170 million gap is before consideration of the project-generated revenues. and while the i.r.f.d. will be slow to build in value, the per-door contributions will be coming in from ticd, and as though accrue, that will help us deliver these first five projects as well. yes, noted that both the revenues from the affordable housing bond, for other things we continue to pursue, like the vehicle license fee commitment, anything we can do to bring more resources, now resources, to the table we have to pursue with full commitment. >> yes. thank you. >> so the first question -- hopefully it is a simple one -- the available funding source that you have identified as the affordable housing and sustainable communities -- is that a

source we can access repeatedly for all five projects? or is it just for the first one or second one? >> it's -- technically, yes, i think it is a state funding source, and i think there are considerations for how funds get allocated. so i don't think anything prevents more projects from accessing the asic money, but i think there are geographic considerations that might make future applications less competitive, own even on the surface this application is considered very competitive, but we haven't heard yet, so i can't clarify in. but technically it could be available to other projects, too. >> it is really good to hear that the first project at least seems like we have a solid plan for it. it is concerning, and i have to echo the comments made before me that the rest of the projects are pretty uncertain at this point. and good to know that the ballot is increasing from

300 to 500 500; however, i think historically loot of his t of these ballot measures are challenged, and so i don't know that the timing would work out for our anticipated second or third project. i just don't know how long these projects will take. i would appreciate, maybe out of a more general sense, maybe perhaps as a followup, what other funding sources we could look at just to get, like, a broad idea of what our options are, including the ones that, bob, you just mentioned about revenue sources from ticd, as well as licensing fees, all of that, perhaps just to have a percentage-wise conversation to start to understand, you know, how real is the gap? are we talking about 60% of the gap is really just very uncertain? i have no idea of that

revenue source you cited would cover. maybe it only covers about 5% of the gap, which in that case we're in real trouble. i think my point is let's have a followup conversation to start really having a solid idea, a running list of sources that we can access. >> thank you. and finally, on the matter, the $500 million bond, it's a do or die. and we need to put it out there, you know, for the city and county of san francisco. it is a do or die. so everyone -- everybody that i know, 100%, want affordable housing because this bond measure comprises senior housing, homelessness, disabled -- everybody has their parts in that. so we have that, $500 million, at least. it's not going to be the solution. but then at least we will have something that we can go and start begging for treasure island to have

something in there. it is really important that everybody should be talking about that and bringing everybody out to pass that. it is really bad. depending on this state, they're still trying to get their act together. every city in the state is faced with this problem here, and some of them even worse than san francisco. so that's how much it is. are there any public comments? so we can go to the next thing on the agenda quickly. none? thank you for your presentation. mr. beck, if you can go through the subphase in a few minutes. >> thank you. directors, this is a bit of a recap. but i did want to provide you an update. the super-phasthe sub-phase appn for the next year proposed for development is a cul culmination of all of the

precedent documents that have come before, from the d-4 deed to the major phase application, and now the subface applicatio subphase. the application that we've been reviewing encompasses the remainder of major phase one. it has the potential to support more than 2300 additional residential units. and it does compass the island center area of the island, which is the bulk of the mixed use zoning on the island. so most of the it will also be the home of the commercial core for the island. in terms of open space, it incorporates or completes the clipper coat frontage

as welclip coveclipper cove ares supposed to be part of the major phase two, but was incorporated into this subphase, in lieu of the aagricultural farm, which will be moved to another phase. it also includes an area that was originally proposed to be part of subphase three or major face three, which iphase three,s where the future police and fire station will be, as well as future parking garage, in the island center. not proposing to move the construction of the public facilities forward in time, but to prepare the site and construct the surrounding treaties and streetd roadways, so those sites can be used as surface parking until the

permanent facilities are constructed. that was just more of a logical sequence. there is also an affordable housing parcel in this area, that we're going to reconfigure, and i'll talk about that in a second. so on the left is the original major phase map, and then on the right, that modified to reflect what we're currently proposing to be incorporated into this subphase application, and into major phase one. so the subphase application approval is an administrative function by the director. it doesn't require board action, unlike the major phase application. with the basis of design that was prepared by ticd, it is i intended to inform the street improvement permit submission. the application we

received, we have before us, we received it in january and it was reviewed by seven city agencies, and we've been working with them to resolve their comments. a revised document was submitted by the developer on march 24th, and that's been being back-checked and reviewed by the city agencies. and last friday send communication to ticd approving the design and technical aspects of the application. and we're required to notify the navy of our intention to approve the subphase application. and we sent that notice to the navy with their concurrence -- with their concurrence, we issue the final approval of the subface application. i mentioned the parl sell, the ,

the affordable housing parcel, included in subphase area 3c, if you can make out of the numbers, ic4.2 is the parcel within the green, just below the 1d symbol. and the pink trap trapizodal parcel, and immediately tods right is ic4.2. and what we proposed to do and agreed to do with ticd is to extend the parking garage parcel, which is the lowest parcel within the green, so that it spans all the way from between the two streets but then to narrow it, increasing the depth of

the parcel that fronts the east side commons, which will give us a better parcel to work with from an affordable housing development perspective. but it maintains our overall total square footage and gives us some flexibility there with design. another parcel that i wanted to highlight was ic2.2, which is the parcel that you see immediately across from hangar three, the smaller of the two orange parcels. that was originally identified as an authority lot. we agreed to swap this parcel with ticd for a parcel in a later phase, which will be more -- this parcel is a little small to be an efficient

development parcel for affordable housing, so these other parcels will give us greater development potential in terms of the total number of units we can construct on those sites. and it will be more in line with what we anticipate having funding. within this major phase, we maintain the same number of affordable parcels because of the parcel from what was supposed to be major phase three that i just discussed, which has been moved into this major phase. so our next steps in going forward to issue final approval to ticd, and upon receipt of the navy concurrence, continue the subdivision mapping process with public works. the director of public works will be holding a hearing tomorrow morning on the tentative transfer map for this subphase. because of our trust

exchanges with the state lands commission, we actually have a complex mapping process where we will have a tentative transfer map, multiple final transfer maps, two trust exchanges with the state, and then a tent tiff and final subdivision map. so we have a lot of approvals to work in over the next 10 months. ticd is planning to -- is working to submit their street improvement permit application at the end of may, which will give us a target of issuing all final maps and permits for the subphase by the end of february 202 2020. and, again, that timeframe, because of the review periods fof the for the agencies, the time it takes to revise drawings and reconcile comments, it really means we can do a

maximum of two resubmittals during that process. and we need that final package to be approved essentially as noted by the agencies. so that's where we are with this subphase and kind of our goals for the next year. >> thank you so much, director. commissioner light? >> thank you. director beck, i have asked, i think twice before, about which parcel we're intending to swap with ic2.2? i understand the logic, but i want to make sure we're swapping with something that will be worth the value. >> yeah. i highlighted the three parcels that we're looking at. they were all originally identified. when we were a 30% affordable redevelopment program, these were all parcels that were designated to be

affordable housing parcels. and then when we dropped from 30% to 25% affordable, they became developer parcels. so they were already planned within the community to be distributed with market rate sites. so in terms of the question of clustering -- would this site be clustered, it won't be clustered with other affordable sites. it will be separate. but in terms of area, all three of these sites are quite a bit larger than the current site. i think the smallest of them is about 40% larger than the parcel that we're giving up. and the largest is almost twice the size. >> did you say you already showed that on this presentation? can you pull that back up and point that out to me? i just want to note where it is located. >> yeah. can you bring that up. on this slide i mentioned

parcel c4.2, c6.1, or c14.2 -- >> where are they? because i can't see -- >> i can show you on -- unfortunately the highlighter doesn't show. c4.2 is within the orange block. that is shown as major phase two on the city side. c6.1 is within the block labelled 4c. and both of those would be shared between -- between avenue "c" and the shared public way. >> mr. beck, these maps are fairly small. it is almost inledgelegible.

it would be helpful to have the parcels -- a larger map so we can clearly see what is being discussed. please. >> c4.2 is this parcel right here, the center of this block, and c6.1 is this parcel here, at the corner of this block. and 13.2, i believe, is this parcels right here, within major phase three. >> i'm sorry, maybe i misunderstood. are we exchanging c2.2 for

all three of these parcels -- >> for one. >> which one, though? >> we haven't finalized which one of those it would be. >> i see. so we have the option of three? >> yes. we focused on these three because they were all previously planned to be affordable housing sites, when we were a 30% affordable program, and these were three sites that tida gave up when we shrunk to a 25% affordable program. >> my concern is making sure that we're trading for something that is equal or better for the future affordable housing developments. it sounds great that the site is larger and we have more land to work with, but there are other considerations, including how close these parcels are to the bus stops or to other community amenities. looking at this map, i really don't remember where we are providing the

services on the island, but, um, it seems like the closer east we are, generally there is more access to retail and neighborhood services. and so that remains my reservation about this because, you know, obviously the original site, although it is small, it is much more proximate to all of the central services of the island. it sounds like perhaps staff -- this is maybe a staff-level decision because it is informational in front of us, but i would be very concerned if we're trading for a parcel that is very far west without very much support of amenities. >> i can include it in our may discussion, you know, specific size, zoning heights, massing for these three parcels. but we, working with

natalie, working with them, we did see them as having significantly better development potential than the site that we're proposing to the developer to take. >> all right. thank you. >> other questions, commissioners? >> mr. beck, in this subphase application, are there mi minimum or maximum parking requirements? or do we leave that as a flexible negotiation item? >> throughout the development area, the residential development has a maximum parking entitlement of one to one. >> thank you. >> and -- but the parking is decoupled, so the buyer of a condominium cannot be required to purchase a parking space. so i think particularly in the initial treasure

island subphase, they're planning projects to be at one to one, but i think as those projects are sold, i think there will be a learning curve of what is the market demand for parking spaces. so as we move into this subphase, i think we'll probably see a lower ratio of parking actually developed. >> i see. thank you. >> thank you very much. so please bring back the maps so we can have other questions. are there any public comment? i see none. okay, we've had a very productive meeting. and thank you commissioners for being here. >> one more item, discussion of future agenda items by directors. >> directors, are there any? yes. >> hi. just a quick one about parks, playgrounds as a followup. there were lots of comments made today at various points about the

importance of playground structures. i just want to say that -- you know, my kids are six and two, and we bring them to treasure island on occasion to play on the playgrounds. and i've talked to a couple of other families, and it seems to me -- and i don't have the gem demographics to support this, but anecdotely, there seems to be a large proportion of very young kids on the island, as opposed to the older kids, like eight and above, and the play structures that currently exist on the island are really meant for large, older kids. it is actually not that safe for younger kids. so i'm wondering if we can maybe do a little bit of an evaluation of what the age categories are for kids on the island, and how age-appropriate our parks are for them, and just to keep those demographics in mind as we continue to develop our programming for the playgrounds moving forward. and the second item, i didn't want to get into

this discussion er earlier on, but i do feel like a followup is necessary in evaluating our continued outreach efforts for the transitional housing issue. i certainly agree with my fellow commissioners that we've done our job in notifying the residents, through years and years of engagement, but it does strike me that perhaps we should evaluate whether or not the current outreach program is meeting the needs of the residents because i feel like we're doing a great job in, like, notifying people of workshops and meetings and things like that, but somehow there is a disconnect between our notification and the confidence that the residents have in terms of next steps and what to do. i think i get the sense that just from engaging with the community that perhaps this is a very

complicated process. and maybe the nature of the outreach needs to be adjusted to match really this next phase of outreach because we're no longer just saying, hey, pay attention, we're doing this. i think people know that this is going to happen, but in terms of understanding all of the details, and perhaps it is more of an intensive session -- i just want to make sure that we're spending or consulting our money and time the most effective way. thank you. >> thank you. any other's tros? we certainly concur on having the outreach. every meeting we have had here had the outreach component in there, because it also has legal implications, also. and tida also needs to demonstrate that we've done everything to accommodate the residents. so it is a major item that this commission will need

at some point to stand up to, to explain how they conducted that. so let's revisit everything we can with regards to the outreach, and every meeting, even with the general meeting for the board, i thank the commissioners should continue to ask about -- ask questions about the outreach, as we've been doing all along. no other commissions' suggestions. please, for the next thing on the agenda. >> meeting adjourned. >> okay. thank you very much.

>> 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. ♪ ♪

>> good morning, everyone. this is the budget and finance meeting of april 17, 2019. i am sandra lee fewer, the chair of the committee. i'm joined by supervisor stefani, the vice chair, and we'll soon be joined by supervisor mandelman. the clerk is linda wong. and i would like to thank kaleena and korman