tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 29, 2017 3:00am-4:01am PST
something so beautiful. as a partner of the conservatory of flowers, we're excited for the sum -- winter version, i guess of the summer of love. and it was such a huge success, i don't know if you were able to make it, but as dana mentioned, the conservatory has benefitted from the installation itself, in terms of membership and attendance, bringing people to the park in the evening for a nice fun activity. we support this and hope to see you on december 7th. >> president buell: thank you very much. is that it? >> is there anyone else who wants to make public comment? public comment is closed. >> commissioner mcdonnell: general manager. >> i wanted to follow up on katy's point. this is probably the best
opportunity we have to do a quick reflection on the lighting installation during the summer of love. since it went live on summer solstice daytime visits are up 40%, membership increased 20%. we're seeing real energy and attraction at the conservatory as a result of the exhibit. the goal here is to keep it going. >> president buell: makes one wonder, if you put lights on the zoo, all right. >> commissioner mcdonnell: i find it interesting that nighttime lights are driving daytime visiting when you can't see the lights, but whatever works. i'm happy to move approval. >> president buell: moved. moved and seconded. all those in favor? so moved. thank you. >> we're on item 10. geneva powerhouse improvements, award of contract.
>> good afternoon. i'm reem assaf, today is a request to award the contract for the geneva car barn and powerhouse project phase one. as you know, we've been working on the design and funding for the geneva car barn since 2010, a very, very long time. we received the permit this summer and put the project out to bid in september. it has seismic stable sfwlagsization, sidewalk improvements, improved entrances, new roof, restored windows, heating and most importantly, when we're done, it will be a community space for arts and enrichment programming. with assistance of the department of public works, the department held a
pre-qualification round for contractors in which five general contractors applied and were approved. the department advertised department and received only one bid proposal on october 25, 2017. the bid was submitted by construction in $8,252,300 with alternate of $15,000 in total of $8,267,300. now the base bid was $1,930,840 above the projected engineer estimate. now, there are several reasons for the high bid. we are an incredibly impacted construction market. there is limited and overloaded subcontractor market and space constraints with the site
relationship with the rail yard that provide complication. so based on the reason, staff does not believe rebidding project would result in a lower bid, so the review has been completed and the department recommends approval to award the contract. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, jim salinas, i hope as we deliver these type of contracts and i appreciate the fact that we have two labor representatives here, and robot is a union general contractor, but local hire should be important to the volunteer citizens on this panel. these projects actually offer often times an opportunity to bring in young brothers and
sisters from the black and brown community and as one of the brothers spoke earlier, we're not at a point in san francisco where we have 3% african-americans. that's not the city i grew up in. and so you are all in a perfect position to make a difference. as you obviously make decisions on quality of life issues. recreation and park centers are concerned, but there is one other added benefit you can bring to the community, that's those jobs. as we deliberate on those things, i'm not sure there was at one time a contract committee on this commission where those things were vetted. i hope that is still in place. so thank you for your ever consideration in that regard, commissioners, it's so important. >> president buell: thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public
comment? seeing none. public comment is closed. >> commissioner mcdonnell: just a question related to the last comment in terms of local hire and how that will play out. >> yeah, the city does have local hire and small business enterprise requirements and the project did fall within the guidelines and did comply with the guidelines. >> commissioner low: when we enter into contracts, don't we have the first source also? >> president buell: seeing no other comments. moved and seconded, all those in favor? so moved thank you. >> now on item 11. justin herman plaza. >> president buell: let me make a comment going into this. at the last meeting i feel responsible, at least partially, for the confusion around the vote. i knew that commissioner mcdonnell had expressed and i
can say inappropriately to the acting secretary that vote should be recorded. so, i apologize to all those concerned. now let me say that the item before us came from the board of supervisors as 11-0 vote asking this commission to remove a name and replace it with its original name of embarcadero plaza. what is before us does not have a staff report recommendation because it's from the board of supervisors, and two, we're not entertaining as part of this action renaming it anything other than embarcadero plaza if that's the wish of this commission. so i want to frame this and say that we also heard a great deal of testimony and comments at the last meeting and so what we're really doing is trying to
correct the voting record here today. with that, please proceed. >> so we do have public comment. i have ace on the case and veronica garcia, after that, if anyone wants to make public comment, come on up. >> come on up. i accept your apology commissioner, as we thought, with my further research with the secretary, city attorney, reached out commissioner macdonell, i didn't see anything wrong. the only thing wrong was with the city attorney office. they had greaser to figure out who was assigned here. who is at fault? the city attorney. they weren't here. there is always city attorneys there. but they feel this issue wasn't
important. >> president buell: i heard from them shortly after, trust me. >> ace, what do you want? i made a big boo-boo. well then, i only got two minutes, ridiculous, but i'm hoping and praying that we're going to put together a committee. know this process is just to remove the name, but there is another process on selecting the name to go on there. that is a process that i don't want no flaws, no mistakes. we want a fair chance to rename the thing. everybody is up here trying to put this name, that name. i've got a bombshell. let's name it barack obama, because there will be no challenge, no denial. we get the federal building, state government and you can put everything else. that is my proposal. my name is ace, i'm on the case. barack obama and his first lady,
because that's history there. blacks come from all over the world just to be in that place there and then learn about the problems we have in the city. then they'll learn about people that want their names on there, but i say there is no individual in this city, that's deserving to put their name on it, it's for all of us. my name is ace and i come from the fill-no-more. >> president buell: thank you. >> veronica? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm hangry, so i can only imagine how you're feeling. i'll be brief. i'm from the san francisco human rights commission on behalf of the executive director, she wanted confirm you received the letter from the commission, i have copies if you don't. i wanted to emphasize that the letter has concerns from the community related to the name. ok? >> president buell: thank you.
>> mr. salinas? good afternoon, president buell and commissioner, jim salinas, i was admonished once, but i'm here not having known this was on the agenda. but commissioners, i'm here to plead with you, and hopefully convince you that there should be two names for you to consider when you replace or reposition the original name for what was justin herman plaza. i would hope that the names of commissioner leroy king, the longest serving city commissioner and lifetime member of the san francisco patrolman's union would be put into
consideration, as well as someone who served on this prestige commission, commissioner larry martin, president of the transport workers union. both served on the recreation and park commission. both these brothers have long contributed to the well-being of this city and i would hope that as you move forward in the future, those two names would be held in consideration. they both made such an impact, such great difference for san franciscoens across the board. commissioners i wish you well in your deliberations and thank you for the great work that you all do here. have great thanksgiving. >> president buell: same to you. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i'm here again, barbara, i chair the committee for david johnson's name to be placed on the plaza. i was here last time to speak. i did notice mr. king and the other names mentioned, so please
consider david johnson. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> anyone else who would like to speak on the item? being no further public comment, this item is closed. >> president buell: commissioner anderson. >> commissioner anderson: thank you, i wrote a statement, because i want to be sure i don't forget anything important. i've gone through a month-long discernment on this issue and i have reached out to a lot of people. as i reflect on the resolution before us, i see it in two parts. the first part is to remove a name which many agree it's time to do. the second part is to pick a new name. and it's that second part that i was focused on from the very beginning. san francisco's public parks and recreational spaces are the most cherished of community treasures. they're like no other city's parks and spaces.
iconic welcoming symbols that carve out landscape and skyline attracting millions of visitors yearly. as stewards of these vital spaces we're committed to provide safe, clean and accessible parks for our families, our children, coworkers and visitors from all around the world. all members of the public. as importantly, the manner or terms by which those spaces with named can also reflect the highest values and aspirations of the community. in fact, in this letter that we got from cheryl davis, executive director of the human rights commission, she wrote, hrc supports the board of supervisors call for the plaza on the embarcadero to be named for honor resident who embodies "san francisco values of equity, inclusion, and forward-thinking". on the topic of renaming the
space, i have engaged with the diversity of distinguished community leaders, residents and advocates regarding their keen, long time and even newly piqued interest in changing the name of the plaza, one of the most visible features of the public spaces and parks. their interests are clear. rename the plaza in honor of a person or event that best reflects the values of diversity, inclusion and social progress for which san francisco aspires and is best known. i will vote to remove the current name of the plaza and i look forward to hearing more public comment, i guess in the future since it's closed now, about choosing a new name for this vital space. and i'm looking forward to a broader discussion on public policy regarding how we name
parks portions of parks in open spaces so that this plaza carries a name and symbolism in which we can all take pride. i heard two awesome suggestions today. or three, rather. i would like to consider that you might consider females in that in the audience? but thank you for your suggestions and that is it for now. >> president buell: thank you, commissioner. commissioner mcdonnell. >> commissioner mcdonnell: first i would add my apology since i caused the ruckous by leaving, only to get several calls after. i apologize for that and i'm glad we're back at this moment. i will restate a portion of what i said. this is such an important --
another important moment where the city takes a step in my opinion and perspective, a step forward. in some ways, another moment of long time coming. do the best you can until you know better and then when you know better, do better. and i feel like right now, we're doing better, so thank you very much. >> president buell: thank you. seeing no other comments, would you call -- >> i need a motion first. excuse me, can we backtrack. >> commissioner bonilla: ok. i voted to -- i voted in opposition. and the reason i voted in opposition is because frankly, at the board of supervisors
level and committee meetings prior to the board of supervisors, discussion on this matter, and because i did not see at our last commission meeting, did not see much input from the community, there wasn't really, from my standpoint, i don't think we really deliberated sufficiently on this matter. you look at the people that are here. i know this matter was in the newspapers and i looked on the website and additional to see additional comments that were being made and so on, and it really -- i mean i really didn't
see much -- many -- i didn't see -- how should i say -- feedback. i really didn't see or read many comments. so i saw, my thinking was that we really hadn't deliberated on this. and at the time i really felt that the comments made by our esteemed president, mark buell, were in my mind, persuasive enough for me not to want to rush to judgment. and for me, not to want to say that -- or not to be involved in a process of singling out one
individual during this whole era. and pointing the finger or blame on this one individual. and speaking -- i mean not -- and separating that out from looking at all of the -- the people, all the powers that be, the board of suits, city managers, administrators, people who were involved in the construction of these -- all these projects, and you know, spending thousands of hours, i'm sure, with commitment and passion, with what they were doing. i mean, i have -- i felt some difficulty in doing that. and i didn't feel that was an appropriate role for me.
so that is why i voted a long with my esteemed -- along with my esteemed -- along with the president of the commission, whom i have total confidence, trust and no doubt in his leadership. so i felt that being the case, that was, last month, that was the decision i needed to make and that is the same decision i need to make now. >> president buell: thank you, commissioner. with that, i see no other comments, the chair would entertain a motion. >> move approval? >> second. i want to acknowledge i was one of the attorneys on the panel that allowed that procedural error to go past month, so i also share responsibility. >> the motion is to remove the
name of justin herman from the plaza and name the plaza embarcadero plaza pending any further action. >> second. >> so we're going to do roll call vote. commissioner anderson? aye. commissioner bonilla >> no. >> so the motion does pass 4-2. >> president buell: thank you very much. >> we're now on item 12. general obligation bond, program lessons learned. commissioners, this is discussion only. >> i know this is out of order, but would you share your sandwich? i know that.
>> if that will guarantee a higher level of participation, i'd be happy to make that trade. >> i think she's allowed to eat whenever she wants. >> taking food from a baby? >> no, i would never do that. >> do we need a motion? >> seriously, if that would help. >> of course not. you have my undivided attention. >> i hope to make it a quick presentation. this is my last day of i go on maternity leave for six months. before i left, i've been cleaning up and putting context and next steps out there for my team and colleagues in other divisions. on one of the things i wanted to do for the commission before i
left is reflect on the lessons learned from the 2000, 2008 and 2012 geo bond programs. because we have a couple of big projects really coming up over the next six months to a year. and acting in my stead, she will continue to keep you apprised, but the life cycle project. so we've been reflecting quite a bit about what it means to be entering what i've called the plan to plan phase for the next general obligation bond. so we're not in the process of start ago public process -- starting a public process yet, but we took time and the general manager and several other staff. convened a half day workshop retreat to think about what did we learn from this past 15 plus years of implementation. what lessons are worth caring
for and we wanted to share that with you, because as the life cycle data continues to come in, i think it's going to raise new questions and it's worth reflecting on the past to evaluate the choices we have before us more clearly. i think we have a real history of success. dozens of ribbon-cuttings, including one this afternoon, hopefully you can get your sandwich before you go it west sunset. really delivering on projects for communities and really meeting and managing expectations and then being able to deliver on them. one of the things i wanted to really talk about today was just connect that success as much as possible, to i think the integrity of process and the due diligence that went into that.
it's very easy as we, five years, eight years later, you're at the ribbon cutting, it all looks great, to forget the tradeoffs and discipline that was necessary to get there. the main lesson of the 2000 bond, is around managing expectations. so this is an article about the 2000 bond projects, which the 2000 general obligation bond for parks was at $110 million for parks. that's it. unlike today's discussion about mclaren and the detail of what the bond ordinance said and what we were committing, to the 2000 bond set $110 million for parks, but not golden gate park. it said we would pursue leverage funding. we did. we got several hundred millions of dollars for additional funding which we leveraged against the 110, but because the public had been promised
renovation of the entire system for those funds, as we began to fall short, and you know, ran out of money, essentially, after only -- not only completing what was deemed to be the first phase, despite the fact that we delivered many projects successfully, the department didn't get any credit for that. what was left was the feeling on the stakeholders of all the other projects in the pipeline and now they would need to wait for. this is just a time line, also showing the history of geo bonds for the recreation and park department. you can see in the 70s, the light green means it failed. there were a number of initiatives that tried to get off the ground and couldn't. and it's the 2000 bond and the 10-year capital plan we start to
see major successes. and i think that's been important for us, there has been a balance of focus on neighborhood assets, region assets and city wide assets and we hope to continue that success. so, our first best practice. i think for 2008 and 2012, comprehensive outreach process. we had a stakeholder working group of 10-15 people that helped us zoom in on the important policy tradeoffs. in 2008, actually because of the feelings around 2000 and we were lucky, if people had access to rotten to rotten to matos, we would have been in trouble. we talked about measures we had to adopt as a department to
demonstrate we learned from past mistakes. that working group helped us frame questions and choices that we brought to the broader community in a series of easily over 50 community meetings in the course of a year, to get feedback on our proposal, as well as engaging with policymakers the whole way as well, to again, try to develop a proposal that responded to people's needs. i think one of the things that made the outreach process unique amongst outreach processes in san francisco, we really tried to combine an objective data driven quantitative perspective that made sure that squeaky wheels were the only one that carried the day.
>> we also in the community outreach process got feedback on the criteria for project selection. then we went back with the projects. so we also were able to engage in a high level conversation and the project selection criteria, we settled on were around seismic safety, condition of the asset, whether or not the asset was located in the high needs, high density neighborhood and the extent to which it had multiple features to serve as many user groups as possible. when you made the list and ranked the assets, there were a couple of notable winners in
quotes that rose to the top, chinese rec center was number one. it had a condition asset score that indicate thad it needed to be replaced top to bottom. so that made it number one. and being able to, i think, have a conversation that was data driven, but resonated with users experience. no one argued with whether chinese rec needed to be replaceed. it allowed us clear winners. another lesson in 2008, the neighborhood park projects were full-site renovations, curb to curb. as in fulton, a good example. in 2012, effort to spread funding more broadly and trying to capture more, we did partial
site renovations. i think you have all seen, i think the results of some of the choices. it's a little counterintuitive. you think you're spreading the money further, but then it comes back, because as you're doing partial site renovation, you made one part look awesome and the other looks worse than ever. it creates a real pressure for scope, for us to solve the other problems in the site, because the community mind has one shot to get as much as they can. and then we're in a scramble and again, you're delivering this great project, but people can't help but feel frustrated. so i think as much as possible, going with curb to curb renovations, you get these pretty spectacular makeover projects
the department and the board commit to delivering projects, but we have city-wide programs that are really popular, from community opportunity fund to let'splaysf! and that allowed us to balance again. we could have made a list of 25 projects, if you don't get a project, you're kind of upset. so having a portion of the bond that is around named projects where again we can measure whether we've been successful or not in a clear way. and then the city-wide programs that allow for more flexibility and allow the money to spread even further, that's been a successful approach as well, the balance between the two. we also built in multiple levels of contingency in the 2008, 2012
it feels to people like you're just wasting the opportunity, you have money sitting there. even though we know there is likelihood we'll need the funds, it makes it difficult to make the priority and the moment of the community members. so thinking about ways we can have reserves and contingencies outside of the bond ordinance is
helpful. worth thinking about. our regulatory road blocks have been significant on a number of projects. there have been recent improvements and changes made to the way that city planning staffs the preservation unit that i'm optimistic will have -- pay good dividends to our program. but we learned the hard way on a number of projects that ceqa historic preservation permit appeals eat into the project schedules, even when we tried to get ahead of them. whether it's beef chalet, george christopher delayed a year around preservation discussion, around the playground.
to continue to negotiate as assertively as possible, but that mean we have to think about the planning, the lead-up to getting to the design process with more flexibility and probably fewer explicit commitments, because the planning process is where eget thrown the -- where we get thrown the most curve balls. i think that deeper analysis off site conditions is worth while. the fact is a lot of times define the problems that cost the most money on the back end and involves destructive testing, which sometimes takes the facility offline. that's a difficult thing to figure out how to plan for, but one thing we talked about internally, is develop ago risk
matr matrix, that says if the following risk factors are present at a site, but may not know the answer, but you should increase the construction budget by a certain amount. the good example, you know there is a stream at the site, but do you know where it is? 10%. also soil conditions and mission pool, we had a lot of problems as we pulled back panels only to discover what was there. so that's another tool that i think we need to refine over the next year and hopefully the life cycle analysis will help us do that. i'm also just given the swings we've seen on project budgets from 2008 to 2012, to have a swing bidding market of 10% on a $5 million project, that's
somewhat solvable. but when you get to the larger than $30 million projects, which we have a number, you want to be further down the road in terms of the design and the ceqa process so when the ballot passes, you can put it out to bid. you should be close to certainty as possible and then act on that so you don't expose yourself to further risk over the lifetime of the program. so this is just an example of square which is moving forward and will hopefully complete design. we have a number of others moving toward that same goal. but that's important, because on a $50 million program to have a 20% swing, can mean the project has to stop. so we need to plan for that and think of that as well. lastly, i think we need larger geo bonds. when we started in 2008, we were
the first go bond in the first capital plan, no one knew if all the bonds were going to pass. since then, we have all this good progress, where each bond has passed, but rec-park has been frozen at the same, more or less, level of funding. when you just look at this 10-year capital plan own escalation figures, if we were to escalate the $150 million amount, we should be at $200 million and i think arguably, we have a good case why we need more than that given the types of projects we have outstanding. we have a number of pipeline projects and they're going to come in easily over $30 million, that are both neighborhood serving, but city-wide serving and thinking about how we're going to capture all those projects? i think there needs to be some change in thinking about sizing
and also what our departmental and city-wide goals are about how we want to set the priorities. this comes in easily over $400 million. that's it very quick. they want to pull some of that together. our life cycle, we hope to come forward in january with contract award with a new vendor who will complete assessment similar to the one for comet and that should yield brand new data set, sometime in the next 6-8 months that you'll be able to sort, analyze and evaluate the condition of assets relative to one another and we hope to share that information with you and we hope that will continue in form, not just bond planning, but all the capital planning and be a
made significant progress on the fronts because there is other funding leveraged. or like india basin, we've gone through a tremendous amount of outreach already. >> commissioner mcdonnell: i think that is a principle, which is the further projects are along going into the bond, the better, that is not a hard fast rule. there are reasons, particularly with respect to programs that we might not be shovel-ready. >> president buell: commissioner bonilla. >> commissioner bonilla: yeah, i wanted to ask, the peace plaza, which could be significantly costly project for us to undertake, where would that fit
in? could we have a little bit more? >> you should not take that as a list of 2019 projects. it's not even close. and frankly -- >> commissioner bonilla: i just want to put it on the table. >> so lots and lots of conversations about the peace plaza. it is an emerging priority and there are probably 25 things that are not on dawn's slide that are emerging priorities. i think she was gentle suggesting $400 million projects on the list. >> yeah. >> the plaza is probably expensive undertaking. there has been considerable amount of community engagement and this speaks to thinking through how we're going to develop the next bond and at what next size, because there will have to be by definition, winners and losers here, because we're not going to be able to fit everything into the scope of the bond. we're aware of the condition of the plaza and it is on the list.
>> commissioner bonilla: at least it's in the running here. i mean, going to be -- i mean it's going to be considered? >> yes, it is it definitely is. >> commissioner bonilla: because the position it's in is untenable. >> yes, it is definitely on the list. >> president buell: commissioner mcdonnell. >> commissioner mcdonnell: i don't want to eat lunch, i want to sit and talk all day. another thank you, helpful to look back and learn and go forward and then just wanted to say, wish you well. >> thank you. >> >> commissioner mcdonnell: go and have a beautiful baby that plays in our parks. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: thank you very much. that was discussion only. >> that was. so we're now on item 13, general public comment, continued from item 4, so if you made comment
on item 4, you cannot make comment on item 13. ok? >> can i make item 13 -- >> president buell: no, you've already spoken on public comment. >> it's the same item, just continued it. >> it's not for public comment? >> right. >> can i speak on anything else? >> president buell: you exercised your right earlier -- >> i'm out of shape, can i exercise more? >> president buell: well, i'm not going to comment on that. >> item 14, new business agenda setting. anyone who wants to make comment? >> can we, somewhere name the moment of continuing the conversation we just touched on? >> for sure. >> president buell: thank you, commissioner, i agree. >> seeing no public comment --
>> public comment is over? >> president buell: it's on news business, if you have a public comment about something that was raised as new business, you can talk to it, but it's not general public comment at this point. >> can i get a case, point of order. you talked about, is it out of your hands with the names, who is the one -- >> president buell: on the names of the park? >> yeah. >> president buell: you can send us a communication expressing what you think or like, there is nothing on the agenda for renaming right now. >> ok. >> secretary: item 15. any commissioners? public comment, none, it's closed. 16 is adjournment. >> we'd like to adjourn the meeting as i remember in memory of may wong and larry martin. we entertain a motion? seconded, all in favor. thank you all.
we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody. hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice, they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center, they are very committed to combining for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety.
>> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. they, their family or teach their kids have a swim. >> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you will find out why mca. parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools that are still around, and this
is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. >> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. >> from more information, visit
food in san francisco isn't just about expensive eat but food for everyone and there's organizations in the city that are doing really good work making sure that healthy food it assessable to everyone. more and more as follows are are becoming interested in upper arlthd they want to joy the open green pace sea know where their food it coming from we'll look at 3 programs talking ushering agricultural and garden to new heights. so what exactly it, your honor agricultural >> it the growing food or flowers within city limits
traditionally we've been referring to communities gardener that is a raised bed over and over upper argument has a more a farming way of farming. >> so tell me 0 what's growing in this garden. >> a really at all plant. in the one of the rare places, you know, people have access to green space 24 is one of the places to grow things like the purple floor. it is sort of recognizing that the more diversity in given space the better not to just have one thing by everything supported each another >> it provides the community
with an opportunity to get their hands dirty and reach 0 out and congressmen with the community in ways they might have not otherwise to engage with one other. >> now the dpw urban planning program so see how the garden community. >> so i grew up on a farm in air force base we picked the foods open the trees and share with other families and as i drive around san francisco i see any trees with apples or mrumdz and lemon trees i can see the food going to waste and brought that idea back to the department many of the trees where the fruit would go to waste we origin or crop and pick other fruits and delivery this to food
banks or shelters to people who need them. >> i'm here with nang wong hello nang. >> hello. >> i need to understand house this gleaning work. >> we come and harvest like for example, we'll come over here this is the lemon and plug it like this. >> (laughter). >> made that good, good and ease. >> the trick is how not to hurt the branches. >> like the thing. >> i'm so excited about this. the people are so passionate about where the food goes to the private property owners give us
the food they're happy that no of a t is going to waste >> oh. thank you. thank you. again job aura natural >> (laughter). >> from backyards to back lots let's take a look at the food and community bonding at the free farm. >> my idea was to start growing food and giving it away. and getting my neighbors to who had space and having a kind of event that brings people together not to run our food program this time around but to share the wealth of the abundance of our welfare. we were all divorce and as part
of our philosophy of working together and working together. >> what's the most rewarding aspect of volunteering for the free farm stand. >> well, we could is a generalic satisfaction but something about giving food away it's giving something i brought that in and sort it and gave it to you it's primitive to be able to give something some basically to someone else. >> now serving number to 49 come on down. >> we have the capability of producing this food and in san francisco you can grow food all year round so the idea we're capable of prougdz food in our own backyards we're here to
demonstrate an bans of food and i think that giving it away for free we show individuals it in have to be a comedy. >> we build time together and it's the strength of any ideas of the connections we'll turn that connection and the more connections you make no mistake about it the more you can have a stronger power and not have to rely on money that's the people power. >> in this episode we've seen the urban farms and gardens provide more in fruits and vegetation people can have the
>> good morning. today is wednesday november 14, 2017. this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals court. please turnoff electronic devices. vice president, commissioner lee, commissioner mccarthy, commissioner walker, commissioner warshell, commissioner clinch is excused. will all parties giving testimony today please rise and raise your right