i don't recall off the top of my head. they may get bigger but they get big fast in the first three years and by the third year it's only a smaller increase in the last five years. >> commissioner: i have a concern. if the planning scenario being used for water supply assessment is different than the scenario we use in assessing the sufficient of our own water i would think that's a problem and any conclusion done on the shorter period would be misleading. >> i think the conundrum we're in there is and it's interesting because people have been critical of us for using such an extended scenario when the state only mandates three years which the state is now saying publicly we think people should plan for five years of drought and think some day you'll all catch up with us at eight and a half

years which is the most pru dent water supply planning and trying to get through the process and that's what we've done. >> i want to read what the statute says it has to discuss whether the total projected water supplies for the project during normal, single, dry and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand. the word is meet not sufficient. i misspoke. >> the simple answer would be no, it doesn't meet. >> right. >> commissioner: it meets it under some policy criteria but a simple reading is we don't meet demand.

the difficult situation is we can't meet, if in fact the state board's order is implemented as raped, we can't meet the water supply needs of our existing customers >> without additional supplies. >> or some other actions. rationing and reclamation or something. but we have to do something for ourselves. what is reasonably informed whether to add someone to the boat? >> sir, are you saying we should determine -- my understanding is that we are telling them what we think the picture is and that's that we can't reliably build the

water unless we build the projects with rationing and we're giving them that information saying we don't have the water now. >> i don't have a problem with that. the analogy is we're all in the same boat. the problem is the boat has some leaks and our job is to plug the leaks and adding more people to the boat doesn't change the math or the basic problem in front of us. but we owe it to say the boat has leaks which is the full disclosure part of this. let me pursue one other set of questions. and this gets knee -- into the weeds but this gets into analysis i have not seen us do before we've gone through a thing that says the rationing

we'd impose on the retail service area is one level but on this project it would be less than that. with go through a process that says it may be the case this or subsequent commissions would choose to treat projects like this somewhat differently than the past and goes through a bunch of math that says so with this project the actual rationing may be significantly less than what the rest of the retail service area experiences. that's a strange process and having trouble figuring out why it's appropriate especially if we're trying to come up with the best, medium and worse and saying we'll fiddle with that so it's not the worst for these

projects. the looks like spot zoning. why are we doing that? >> we were requests to do that by the planning department bep tried to make it clear to the planning department we would not do that but because of circumstances they insisted on getting some estimate of what the project would be and the methodology was to take what their obligation would be under the non-potable ordinance as a way to do their own recycled water project and supply diversification. there be meeting some of their demands up front so when it came time for the commission to decide in the extreme dry condition we had to call for rationing, that we would potentially give them credit for

having done that all right. it doesn't mean other people couldn't catch up but it was one we frankly did not want to go down that path but planning was fairly insistent. >> i don't think i want us to go down that path either. first of all, we have an plan up place and if we have to impose rationing we'll do it as an indoor/outdoor allocation and if that's appealed on a per capita basis. it was explicit in how we'd do it. for this water supply assessment we made up something new. it may be good but if the commission action hasn't been contemplated, let alone taken people don't see how we can do -- i don't see how we can do a -- an assessment based on

that. >> and by our assuming we approve the assessments, is that a cog into moving the projects forward? >> it is a cog in providing material that planning can then use in the see ceqa development process. they're necessary elements to be able to compete their ceqa review. >> our assessment would enable these projects likely? it would fit in the portfolio of items that are used as criteria for the planning commission to move forward? >> it's an informational document required for the ceqa

review and you provide it to planning and plan has to use it you're not playing a role in project approval. >> >> commissioner: i think our obligation is to provide as robust and straightforward and honest assessment as we can to facilitate that decision-making process. >> i know from my understanding i think they wanted to acknowledge the fact we have this new storm water ordinance that required buildings under the ordinance to use let water.

-- less water. it's not the same as the others. i think they wanted to incorporate we're using building that aren't using as much water as buildings before. i think that's what they were trying to get at that's a reasonable discussion but it hasn't happened. the other thing is when people install features that lowers their water use it's self-correcting. whether you want to go another step of saying we want to give you an dissatisfacti additionale you've done the right thing but it seems to me the answer would be yes. my sense of the assessment is i

would not like to have the assessment go forward with the hypothetical. there's things that can be done but to say for this project the answer's going to be something else i think is wrong. and i want to make sure it doesn't under state and if you are right by the third year we're up to the maximum and it gets worse in the out years between three and a half and we should include that in the presentation. and i'm not sure you put

additional cluck or do a foot note or -- additional comment or foot note in the full planning period it could be worse. those are the specific questions. how and where do the concerns get addressed ? if our obligation is to assess the impact of a project and the cumulative analysis. >> and is that part of the ceqa process. for example, the specific issue that peter has raised.

and we have seen the questions on the bailen's development which had little housing and ultimately had more housing but they were not under the obligation to provide a jobs housing balance within brisbane and i want to know how big are the region and those are policy land using question are big. are they question the public utilities commission should deal with? i would not recommend it.

>> tock clear i have no interest in having the -- to be clear i have no interest in having the commission get in the way of something that meets the criteria. i don't see a big reason for us to do that here. i think we have a big problem the additional problem is a little problem by comparison and don't think adding the projects changes our world in any significant way. i don't see any reason not to provide an assessment and allow that process to continue. i want to make sure the assessment say straight-up -- is a straight up one and it's representative of eight and a half and we don't presume an allegation method nobody in

public has thought of or acted on. thank you. >> i want to make a comment and ecc eccee -- echo what you're saying. we're in the public utilities commission commission not planning commission and housing is an extremely issue to everybody in san francisco because of the pressure that we have more than almost any other city except for maybe san josé and the bay area is in san francisco. and there's a value in the work you've din in this type -- done in this type of assessment. i don't know if you'll continue this or not with the amendments that you're suggesting and i would probably want to abstain on this because it's the first time i'm looking at these things myself but that being said, i do think there's value in putting the assessment together to find

out what the water use is going to be. i think it's going to be helpful moving forward here in san francisco we do get these reports as to what the effect on new development projects are based on the use of water and electricity and sewers and everything else. we should not get involved with dealing with the housing crisis officially here at the board. i think the background to the resolution is saying we don't know. we don't know what scenario is going to be the final scenario. >> that's correct. >> i think that's fair enough to basically we're saying we have no idea it depends on what's going to be happening. >> i wouldn't say we have no

idea. we have scenarios that play out in a different way. >> but which one we have no idea. >> i would say the one we feel most about is the worst. >> that's where my concerns lie that's what we know most about there was an order adopted in december that would putting us in the third bucket would assessing water, correct? >> i believe that's the case. that makes me hesitant until they reach a conclusion or have a clear understanding on where water supply would come from.

we have to say this is what we'll do in this scenario and that scenario and holding it is something that i would not recommend because it's not our job to police and say stop these projects. because then it's on us. it's to provide them with the information we have and i agree with some stuff we should have pushed back with and have been straight up and saying this is where we are in each and maybe clear if i we have an eight and a half year drought and this is what it would be. i agree with that.

>> the resolution, as i read it did not clearly say we do not have supply ly. they have to know this could put us in a position of rationing. >> i would answer we have enough water but people have to ration. people would have to ration. >> commissioner: which is the statement message to the state board right now. >> commissioner: for all the projects listed looking to address the largest problem if

it becomes reality, all those will require ceqa analysis and approval of the planning commission. we can't sugar coat it. i suggest we carry this over until we can come back with a revised version of the w.s.a. that deals with the, from my perspective, the two issues i raised and any others appropriate to include. i agree. >> i do think it needs to be clear in the resolution that that's where we are that that's

the process and urging state to get to the conclusions so we as a commission and water agency can plan accordingly for water supply. whether it's a high flow or compromise and understand we may not have that decision in hand before we need the approval but need to be clear with the planning department on what the implications are to meet supply. we can't under current standing order from the state. again, i believe we can but we'd have to have severe rationing. >> we feel we can supply water with severe rationing.

>> i have a question for mr. richie. if we put these other two criteria in the commissioner moran is suggesting in his comments, what would be the time line of rechanging the formula? >> they're ready to do. those are not hard changes. there may be consternation where they want the us to project out this we'd have to say we're not going to do that because there's a policy in place with a progress -- projection but it's different and what they have to do in term of rationing.

we have a number of wholesale customers anxiously awaiting to see what the p.u.c. does because they all have w.s.a.s which rely on the picture for the regional supply. they're all awaiting to see what the commission says. >> this is an assessment. this is not an approval of housing pieces and the work is of value for the commission. if you're waiting to get the report. >> technically the changes are easy to make and some people are uncomfortable they don't do

anything else but that's the commission's purview is what this says. >> to understand the second aspect of the request, are you saying go funk -- going further out than the 20-year project? or eight-year increments? >> it's demand and supply options and then to i would assume to say at the 20th year if you were paved with a doug drought, what would a 20-year drought look like. i'm not suggesting to go beyond the 20 years but the severity we see when we do our planning on the eight and a half year basis be reflected in the report. >> the table would be reflective of a 20-year period projection

and the last few years may have a different color or something like that to show this is an information piece. >> commissioner: am i hearing it will be back on the agenda if we delayed it to the next meeting? >> i don't know why we can't get it on the agenda for the next meeting. these are simple changes to make. there may be consternation in the planning department and their attorneys but part of me is like that's not their job. it's your job. >> and we have the discussion of how the potential credit. do you want to go further than what the state law requires and do an eight-year?

>> if it turned out the third year is as bad as it gets leave it that way. i'm fine but if the other years show it's worse we have to show it's the case. the other is the calculation to a rationing level. it says the general level of rationing is 38%. >> there's wording on page 18 saying this is what it would be for the customers collectively and may not be a precise number or the pushg may make a -- p.u.c. may make a policy decision to adjust it. >> >> that would be fine.

>> clerk: a motion to continue to may 28. >> commissioner: can we make a motion to move all of them. >> 10 through 13 to the next meeting with the adjustments based on commissioner moran. >> second. >> clerk: who made the motion? >> commissioner paulson. based on the two criteria commissioner moran suggested. >> commissioner: is there any public comment? any further discussion from the commissioners? seeing none, all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> let me make an offer as well.

planning may have see qua issues i don't know if it would help to adapt a policy that says and that level of rationing isn't okay. we are committed to meeting review criteria that allow us to never impose that and that's our intention. i don't know if that's helpful or hurtful but it is it is i'd entertain the policy. >> we'll work with the city attorney on language to that effect. >> and i'd like to weigh in because of the constituency i represent and the v.s.a. process is still underway. i appreciated you saying when we talked about the priority are still there and somehow put

language in the resolution that says we have obligations to meet for the sake of the environment and eco systems and fish and that's the balance we're trying to reach. >> commissioner: we were asked do we have enough water and we should answer that. if we start putting things like that in, everybody can add things. we should just answer what we're asked to do. >> i feel there should be reference to the state mandate

and there is but it's not specifically related to why we're struggle the water supply question. we can look at the language. >> that's why we put three options because we don't know the outcome. let us work with the city attorney and we'll touch basis with you on your issues. >> that brings us up to item 14. >> approving to the memorandum of understanding between the san francisco public utilities commission and local agency formation commission and thunder showers the general manager to

extend it a total mou term subject to board of supervisors approval. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the director of the clean power s.f. program for the pour enterprise. i wanted to welcome our new commissioners, maxwell and paulson. i look forward to working with you. have you before you an amendment and center hill mentioned it in the update to provide a one-year extension to the memorandum of understanding between the p.u.c. and local agency formation. the amendment would extend duties to monitor and advise the p.u.c. and the san francisco board of supervisors regarding

the progress of the clean power s.f. development and i implementation. since 2009 p.u.c. and staff have worked pursuant to the terms of the mou. the mou has been amended three times extending the term of the agreement through this fiscal year, 2018-19. and the current amendment whether to provide one year of additional time on the mou at existing funding levels. work will be performed over the next year and work performed over next year will rely on the $200,000 remaining of the initial approved amount from the p.u.c. for 234e -- for the mou and it will extend to 12 years il requires board of supervisors approval. the resolution for your consideration would authorize the general manager to seek board approval of the amendment.

with that, i'm take questions you may have. questions? public comment? >> good afternoon, bryan gobbel. commissioner, nice to see you. thank you for considering this is amendment to extend the mou that's been in place since 2009. and faze reached a mile -- it's reached a milestone in 400,000 customers and hats off to clean power s.f. and everybody getting the program this far.

we now look forward to turning our attention to a local build out of renewable energy projects. extending this mou will allow us to expand capacity and expertise to compliment the work of staff and provide program and project recommendations. we look forward to a local build-out that helps the city meet the climate and electricity and renewable energy goals and advances economic, environmental and social benefits for communities in san francisco. so i look forward to continuing to work with staff and i urge your approval. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. do i hear a motion? so moved. those in favor? opposed? to the motion carries.

so madame secretary read the items for cloifd session. -- closed session. >> clerk: item 17 pursuant existing litigation and item 19 existing specific act and electric item 20 existing litigation for gas and electric and 21, existing litigation, 22, skifth litigation. 23, existing litigation gas and electric, and 24 existing litigation gas and electric. >> commissioner: any public comment on the matters we'll be addressing in closed session? may have a motion on whether to assert? >> i'll move to assert. >> second. >> commissioner: all in favor? opposed? the m

>> the commission has reconvened the report following closed session is there is nothing to report, we just had discussion. may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second? >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. is there any new business to be discussed? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:19 p.m.

>> 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 what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i

was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. >> the teams really, really went above and beyond and is continuing to do that today. this past year, the san francisco public utilities commission water quality division started receiving many more requests to test for lead in the public school system here in san francisco as a result of legislation that had passed from the state requiring

all of the public schools to do lead testing. and so as a result, the public utilities commission and the water quality team in particular was asked to meet with the san francisco unified school district to begin to prioritize which schools to test to meet that state mandate. >> the team that tests, we're a full service environmental laboratory, and we take care of both the needs of the water quality division and the waste water enter price. and on the water quality enterprise, we have to also have drinking water that meets all federal and state quality regulations. and lead in schools, we're playing a problem in remediating this problem of lead in schools. >> our role here in communications is being able to take the data that we have that we know is protective of public health and safety and transmit it, give it to the public in a

way they understand we are really doing our jobs well and making sure that they are safe always. >> the public learned very quickly all the accurate facts and all the critical information that they needed to know, and it's up to these individuals and their agencies and their commitment to the city. >> i enjoy the work because i can help people, and i can help the utilities to provide a better water quality, make sure that people feel that drinking hetch hetchy water is actually a pride. >> hats off to the water quality team because between them working on late nights, working on the weekends when the schools are closed, and working as a partner in the school district for the times they found a higher lead sample, they worked through to address that, so the team went above and beyond and is continuing to do that today.

was asked to do is water system improvement program and one thing i looked at is about the 4.8 billion dollars wurthd of work and a lot of the work was regional. we looked at how can we make sure that we provide opportunities for san franciscan's and people in the region and so we looked at ways we can expand our local san francisco lb program. so, we thought about it and worked

with general manager at the time to form an advizry committee to talk about how to include local businesses in the region. >> i was on the first committee back about 10 years ago and the job changed over time. in the beginning, we just wanted people to know about it. we wanted to attract contractors to come into the system which is a bidding system and bid on some of these projects. our second job was to help the sfpuc to try to make themselves more user frndly. >> i like that they go out of their way, have contractors trying to teach and outreach to small businesses and lots of creative ways. help the community as well. there is so much infrastructure going on and repair, new construction that i think is helping to get

construction back on its feet. >> my faiv rlt part of the committee has been that we have played a opportunity for many small businesses. [inaudible] women owned business to come in and [inaudible] sfpuc. it is a great opportunity because some are so small they have been able to grow their companies and move up and bid other projects with the sfpuc. >> everyone i was talking about with any contractor [inaudible] and super markets and things like that and i realize the transition was on the sfpuc. he got that first job and knows about the paperwork qu schedule

and still works on this type of job, but he works with general contractors that also did other things. pretty soon it is like he did that one and that one. it completely changed his business. >> my name is nancy [inaudible] the office manager and bid coordinator for [inaudible] construction. worked on 10 plus puc, lbe contracts. today we are doing site maintenance on the [inaudible] chr site and currently the gentlemen behind me are working on every moving and basic specs of plants. in order to be success you need to work hard, bid low and keep a look at the sfpuc website for future bidding opportunity. >> this is a successful program because it provides

opportunities to regional communities that might not have opportunities to work for large scale projects. the sfpuc is a fortunate agency we have a lot of capital program that span over 7 counties who also to see how some businesses like [inaudible] and bio mass started as small micro businesses grow and expand and stay in the program and work on several projects before they graduate from the program. that is what warms my heart. >> my name is college willkerson, the principle for bio mass. bio mass has been in business since 2006. 3 partners. small businesses fill a niche but apply and being a part of the program

helped us be more visible and show the city and county of san francisco we can also perform services. >> this program had tremendous impact to the region. in fact, the time we rolled the program out was during the recession. this has h a major positive impact and certified over 150 firms in the rejen and collectively awarded $50 million in contracts, and because of the lbe certification it open many opportunities to work with sfpuc. and, i significantly helped the business. it is one of the major contributors to our success. >> hi, i'm with building san francisco. and we have a special program

of stay safe today where we're going to talk about what you can do to your home after an earthquake to make it waterproof and to be more comfortable. we're here at spur in san francisco, this wonderful exhibit of safe enough to stay. and this is an example of what your home might be like after an earthquake. and we have today with us ben latimer from tvan. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> we'll talk about things you can do you don't have to be a professional contractor to make your home more livable after an earthquake. >> i want to talk about things a homeowner can do. we have comfort and we have things like a little bit of maybe safety if your front door is ajar and waterproofing if you have a leak in your roof, or if you have broken glass on the window.

>> so unr, one of the most important fib use is keeping outside out and inside in. let's look at windows. >> let's assume this window is broken in the earthquake. we have wind and rain blowing in. one of the most important things you need to do as a homeowner is secure the plastic properly. if you just take staples or nails and put them into the plastic, we're going to get a strong wind and rip it right off. what i'm going to have somebody do is they're going to have -- this is an old piece of shingle. you might have -- everybody has a piece of wood in their basement. it doesn't have to be fancy. they take out this rusty screw begun, and hopefully you have one of these. >> there is one at the neighborhood support center. >> at the neighborhood support center. you're going to wrap this plastic around this board, take your screw. and then screw that in. >> you need a permit for this? >> you do need a permit for this. and you can contact the former

head building inspector to get that permit. that's it. now when the wind blows, it's tight and it's not going to pull through, having a single point of contact. >> great. what about this door? take a look at this door. what can you do? let's say it doesn't shut tight. what can you do? >> for the sake of argument, we're on the inside. i can't lock my door at night. i have a very similar, very similar idea. i'm going to take my 2 by 4. i can put it across the jamb in the door. one. two. maybe i want another one up here, maybe another one down there. but i can go to sleep. and that quickly, i can get it off in the morning. >> terrific. what about the roof up here? we see people throw blue tarps over their roof after an earthquake. that seems reasonable. >> i think the blue tarp is reasonable.

the things that people want to know that they need to know is if you have multiple tarps, how you overlap. starting from the bottom and moving up so that you're overlapping this way. so, rain running down doesn't slide under your tarp. >> right. >> and the same technique we did over here, as silly as it may sound, wrapping the end of that blue tarp with your board and then securing that if you can underneath, if you have to on top is fine. but making sure that you don't have an area where the wind is going to get under and bill owe that tarp. >> the wind can rip it right off. >> and then you're back up there again. >> let's go inside and check out what we can do inside. >> old fun. here we go. >> so, ben, i see you have nails, universal tool right here. >> man's best friend. duct tape. let me show you a couple things we can use this for after an earthquake. this window right here, because it's off kilter, we have open seams all along. i have a lot of air coming through. i want to stay comfortable at night. i want to keep that air out.

it's as simple as that, all the way around. >> excellent. >> now i don't have any air coming in. let's say this one is one that would annoy me. everything is a little off. my doors won't stay closed. i take a piece of my favorite duct tape here, close it up. and at least it will stay out of my way when i'm trying to live throughout my day. if we're not talking about pressurized water, we're talking about just the drain, sometimes they're going to get a crack here. >> right, sure. >> and you're going to get a leak. duct tape around that is going to help us get through until we can get a plumber out and get that fixed as well. let's say we only have electricity in one room, so we're running extension cords across the house. if i'm going to run an extension cord from one room to the other, i don't want kids tripping on it. i don't want to trippon it. i take my trusty duct tape, tape it to the floor, and i don't have to worry about it getting kicked. >> great, great. look at this. let's look at the duct tape here because we see a big -- >> yes. in the event of an earthquake, i don't think we're going to

have too many -- too much debris that's safe to put into a plastic bag, even as strong as it might be. these are called vice bags. this is what they use to put rice and things when they ship it. this is something where i take my glass, i can take broken pieces of wood, i can take anything sharp and fill it. and it's not going to puncture and come out. it's not going to fall all over the floor. i've not going to have it sticking out, maybe scratch myself, cut myself or anything like that. these are a great thing to have. >> you have a little go-to box for emergencies. that's great. thanks very much for joining us, ben. it's really been interesting. and i want to thank you all for joining us here at the spur urban center. and we'll see you again [♪] >> coming to san francisco on june 11th, the earthquake safety his fair from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. as the auditorium at 99 grove street. meet with contractors, design

professionals professionals, engineers and architects, along with city agencies and hundreds of booths on the main floor. attend one of the workshops at 11:00 a.m. the seismic safety strategies study. what you need to know is the city strengthens buildings 240 feet high and higher, and to get ready to the next -- for the next big one. 12:00 p.m., changes in the updated citywide vacant commercial storefront ordinance. 1:00 p.m., comply with the accessible business entrance program to enable everyone to enter your business. 2:00 p.m., home modelling process made stress-free, meet the experts and understand the permit review issuance and inspections process. 3:00 p.m., making the best use of the accessory dwelling unit and legalization program to at affordable housing. learn from these three workshops at the june 11th d.b.i. earthquake safety fair, and begin to get ready for the big one by taking immediate steps to protect both family and property

we hope to see you there, so register now. [♪] >> there weren't really any real funding structures available at that time, so we started out in civic centre. we always wanted to find our way back. the temporary navigation center at south van ness and around 22 nd street allowed us to start a small pilot program over there. leadership told us that we may get an impact on the area in cleanliness and community. those who have been vehemently opposed to the center became even more angrier when it was taken down. folks at the north end of the mission saw what was going on and eric who you will hear from in a few minutes, saw our impact , he asked us what we can do closer for 16th and mission with $5,000. it wasn't much, but the funding

and the excitement generated by him and the program helped us hold out until the end of the fiscal year. when the team and supervisor ronen's office give us funding to expand throughout the mission [applause] >> our team in the mission has grown from a tiny four person team, all the way to a 30 member cohort that works daily to clean the area stretching from division street, down to 24th street. and from valencia, all the way to harrison. it is incredible how much they've accomplished in these past five months, and it wouldn't have been possible without community momentum from neighbors like sean case, a raised awareness of our team and pushed rest in his neighborhood outside of coronado park, about three blocks down. our vision is to build -- to bring clean, beautiful streets, to end homelessness in the mission, and to tear down the barriers to community that

exists between the least and the most franchised. we are on our way, and we are going to get there with your help. and now, i have the pleasure of introducing layer breed who has been a champion -- mayor breed who has been a champion since the beginning. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. really glad to be here. i also wanted to mention that yes, there was an ad back provided for this program to extend the downtown streets team to the mission, to this incredible neighborhood, but our office, through the fix-it department gave a quarter of a million dollars to downtown streets team to make sure that we provided the appropriate funding so this program can expand. this is not just about jobs, it is not just about clean streets, this is about our city. this is about taking care of our

city, it is also about making sure that people have opportunities to get housing, people have opportunities to get services, people have opportunities to do jobs to that allow them dignity. we want to make sure we have a thriving city, and it takes a lot of work, and it does take a village, doesn't it, donna? it takes a village. it takes a village to make sure that everyone in our city has an opportunity to be part of this incredible program. i want to think downtown streets , because you do the important work, so many of you volunteer your time, so many of you are out there cleaning the streets, but you are also engaged in conversations with neighbors, with merchants, and it is really creating this incredible feeling in san francisco. you are the ambassadors of the city. you represent our city everywhere you go, and i have to

tell you, i see those yellow shirts everywhere downtown in san francisco. [applause] >> i know we have our challenges , and i know the income inequality gap has widened like never before. which is why it is going to be important that we move aggressively to build more housing. that is one of the reasons why we are putting a 500 million-dollar affordable housing bond on the ballot this november. it is also why i am proposing a chart amendment to build 100% affordable housing and 100% teacher housing as of right. no more bureaucracy, no more delays, no more not in my backyard. if we are going to really address what we know are serious challenges in this city, we have to build more housing, especially affordable housing in every corner of san francisco. i don't want to see the next generation who grew up in san

francisco like nikita and i, where our friends in our family cannot afford to live here anymore. this program, yes, it is important, but housing and making sure that people have the dignity of a safe, affordable place to call home is equally important, and i'm committed to making sure that as we expand programs like downtown streets and we continue to clean up our safety, we also have places for people who work in our city to afford to live here, too. that is a critical part of making sure that we are really a diversity. that we invest in the people of san francisco, so i am just excited to be here today, and to say thank you to fill ginsburg with recreation and park, to the fix-it team, to do the department of public works, to all of the volunteers and community members, and i will

say that d.p.w. and the downtown streets team, they can't do it alone. it is all of our responsibility to take care of our city. so let's roll up our sleeves, let's get to work, let's make san francisco a more green and clean city, more than anyplace else in the rest of the country. thank you also much for being here today. [cheers and applause] >> now i want to take the opportunity to introduce your supervisor, hillary ronen. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. it is such a pleasure to be here on this gorgeous, gorgeous day. i love downtown streets team! i want to tell you a story. so i don't know if you guys saw it there or read it in the media reports, but for a good part of the year, the barge director and

i cleaned the 16th street b.r.t. station because he needed help, but also because we're trying to make a point that they didn't have enough full-time workers at that station to keep it a dignified place for everyone. and it was a mess. it was a mess. every week when we got there we would fill up garbage containers after garbage container of trash and one day we got there and it was spotless. it was so beautiful and we were so confused, and we said what is going on here? we found out that a private citizen who has an office across the street from the bart plaza had given a grant to downtown streets team to work in that area, and oh, my gosh, you changed the entire atmosphere and the entire feeling of that area, and i got an upfront view

t