tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 8, 2018 11:00pm-12:01am PST
services provided. because of the $7 million expenditure over age, we don't have appropriation authority for those dollars. we have to take corrective action to bring that back into line. we have a number of actions that are in place to deal with that. we are putting additional layers every view on hiring for vacant positions. we are looking at making sure that we appropriately charge those salary costs to our projects including the hr and capital projects. that is where they belong, and some other steps. we are asking for supplemental appropriation for a limited portion of this e expenditure or rage. at zuckerberg we have sally over
spending and temperature savings. we are asking the board of superintendents to take the fringe benefit savings to move to salaries. that will be calendared tomorrow at the boards of superintendents tomorrow. this will be a problem we are continuing to work on to get that down to balance by the end of the year. another thing just to note is that this is the first report to the commission since we had the new financial system. the controller's office led the implementation of the financial system that we are actively using. we reorganized the chart of acts that was lake borintensive under the old system. we took the opportunity to better reflect the current organizational structure. for the last few years we had a
financial reporting that matches the department's organization 8 or 10 years ago. we are updated. that would combine substance abuse and mental health into single behavioral healthdition. in the past we had all administrative functions lumped in with the public health division. we pulled that into pieces so you can see what is going on in ph.d. versus oured enough -- versus our administrative function also. we are very open to suggestions on how the new reporting and the form mat works for the commissioners. i won't go through each of the divisions in details, but just a couple other high level points. the balance so we are delivering a net positive balance to the
city general fund. that balance with every other department and all of the general tax revenues get compiled together in the controller's six month report and applied to the deficit for the upcoming budget cycle. surplus will be assumed to bring down the gap that the mayor's office needs to close in the budget submission that is good news we want are happy to help with that. we have a management research that we got permission to establish to protect us when we have big federal and state revenues that come unpredictably in time and amount so we have that reserve in place. the balance is $92.1 million. that is unchanged from what it was at year end 16-17. that is available to us should
we have future problems. then this report also assumes that we will make the full. we have the option to transfer up to $25 million of funds per year into the ehr project when we can afford to do so. since we have a net positive balance we are assuming we will transfer to that to project. that is the same assumption we used when we proposed the budget initiative for the ehr project at the last hearing we are on track to do that. then lastly, as i said, we have some actions that we are putting in place to tackle the $7.3 million of projected over spending. i think we will be able to do that by the year end. that is the short version. i think we are in a positive report. we have somethings to work on. overall it is a positive balance and we are in a pretty good
place, big picture. i am happy to answer questions or hear comments from the commission. >> commissioners comments? questions? commissioner chung? >> not at this point. i think this is great that we finally see behavioral health as being reported the same after having them merge for so many years. i think this will help streamline the reporting definitely. >> right. certainly we also comment that the public health division aside does help in understanding what the support is for the ph.d. >> that is one we wanted to clean up for a long time. >> thank you for that. any further comments?
if not. i know the finance committee discussed with mr. wagner some areas four clarification, but he is satisfied with the report, also. thank you very much. no public comment? >> we can move to item 11. the other business. commissioners a note on the calendar next meeting are your elections. any other comments or questions about the calendar? >> comment on the calendar? we have any suggestions or comments on the calendar? if not we can proceed to the next item. >> item 12 is report back from the february 27th meeting. i believe commissioner chow.
>> within open session the committee reviewed the standard reports including the regulatory fares which they responded. no new surveys since the last report. hospital administrators, patient care services and hr reports. during the medical staff report, the committee approved changes in the urology rules and regulations anesthesia privilege list. in closed session it approved the credentials report and the minutes. any questions? then we can proceed to the next item which is consideration of adjournment. >> next item adjournment motion in order. >> so moved. >> second. all those in favor.
this meeting is now adjourned. thank you. >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission of wednesday, march 7, 2018. i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not allow for any outbursts or objections of any kind. lastly, please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. [ roll call. ] we expect commissioner hyland to be absent today. members of the commission,
first item on your agenda are public comment. at this time, members of the public may address items before the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will come when that item is reached in the meeting. >> does any members of the public wish to address the commission on a nonagendaized item? seeing none, we'll move onto item one. >> it>> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff. i have a number of announcements to share with you this afternoon. one is in regards to your pending designations for washington high school, roosevelt high school and sunshine middle school.
last night, we attended the board of education meeting and presented on the proposed designation. our presentation included information reminding the board that designation has no financial effect on schools because the schools are located on state property, and we reassured the commission and the department as a whole respects the community's process in determining the murals at george washington that are under scrutiny at the moment. we also stated that landmark designation at the local levels is intended to be a positive experience to acknowledge the architectural character of the three schools, and we provided some next steps once the documents are forwarded to the clerk of the board of supervisors. sf heritage, donna graves, and robert turny were also in attendance and provided some public comments, but several
board members still expressed concern over the landmark designations. they believe it kwconvolutes t board's process, and they believe moving forward would complicate not only what is formally decided what is the future of the murals for washington high schools, but also just the label of landmark designation may be used by the community to object to future alterations to these properties. with that, they also acknowledge that they believe they are very good stewards of the properties, and they don't see any reason for local landmark designation if it truly isn't, only an honorific designation. they were -- they seemed a bit concerned that the city could
designate their properties without their permission or significant involvement of the school board, but i would like to remind you that we've been attending meetings with their buildings and grounds committee since 2015 on these three pending designations. so in conclusion, they -- while it wasn't an action item, it was only an informational item, they did unanimously come to a conclusion that they are not supportive of landmark designation at this time. however, we do have your decision -- your unanimous decision to move forward with local dig n local designation pending at the board of supervisors. this is primarily an update, but i will keep you updated once we start briefing with the individual supervisors on the next steps. also, this past monday, the diamond heights safety wall was heard at the land use committee at the board of supervisors. the -- only supervisors tang and safai were present, but the
applicant, bob pullman from the diamond heights community association were there in support of the designation. one member of the public who is a member of the libertarian property argued against the designation. the supervisors did have questions about the ownership, which you know has been sort of an ongoing issue because it was a redevelopment agency property. we were able to locate some documents from the former redevelopment agency from the late 1960's that does indicate a conveyance to the city for its maintenance and ownership in the future, and so once we confirmed that with the department of real estate, we provided that information to the committee members after the hearing, and now, we're working with dpw just to iron out a few more details, including whether or not the arts commission will formally accept the safety wall
as part of the city's art collection. the full board hearing is scheduled for tuesday, and i'll certainly keep you updated on the results from that hearing. 56 mason, which as you know, is a category four building in the kmmf conservation district was heard at the planning commission on march 1st. the -- as you recall, it was to replace some street facing windows of a residential hotel. members of the tndc and the glide foundation and other members of the community voiced concerns over loss of residential units at this property, so the commission took d.r. and approved the project, basically upholding the historic preservation commission's decision on your scope of work but added that conditions that the original tenants be offered a tenancy at
the previous rental rate, that those tenants be served with a right of first refusal, and asking that the department report back to the commission on occupancy that are subject to rent control. and i will point out that the department is going to provide the planning commission with an overview of sro's in san francisco. there will be a memo provided, and we will provide that memo to this commission, as well, for your information. the one troubling item that occurred after the hearing that has been brought to our attention, apparently, in the sunday new york times, there was an article titled dorm living for professionals comes to san francisco, and it does cite that this property is being kweeconverted to market housing, and that is legal under the code. so it's likely this is going to continue to be an issue, but
we'll certainly keep you updated on the results of the project. and then, finally, the department was present at history days at the san francisco mint last weekend. as always, there was a huge turnout, and a lot of interest and support for the planning department. being there in support and representation of the historic preservation commission, so we're always happy to participate pa, but wa participate, but wanted to let you know it was a great turnout. that's all for my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner matsuda? >> it was a busy week. what are you doing regarding the situation at george washington high school, and what should the commission do? >> that's a great question. i think the first thing we will do is brief the supervisors on the outcome of the meeting, and i understand that the board of education staff will do the same. you know, if the board of supervisors or members of the
board choose not to sponsor the designations, the department would become the sponsor. and then, at that time, we will work with you and decide on maybe when's the best course of action. these are fairly unique landmark designations, in that our ordinances usually outline a regulatory framework for permit and design review. as they're honorific because they're state property, perhaps we can work with the city attorney that would make the board of education feel a bit more comfortable, but we can report back to you once we have some more information and maybe some tempers subside after last night's hearing. >> thank you. commissioner johnck? >> i had a similar concern about the board of education's decision, and i guess what was surprising, particularly in light of your comment that you've been meeting with the grounds and building committee since 2015, so it seems there
was a disconnect in the process of communicating up or was the building and grounds committee there? or i mean, somehow, it seemed like something was lost in the last couple years, which was unfortunate. >> yeah. the only major change was the original facility's manager, dave golden, retired during this time, and so new laddership, it was in place, however, we were still having very productive meetings. there were about five school properties that are currently designated under article ten. >> all right. thank you. i'm just curious about the school board's perspective. the comment about the report e not including the school board's perspective. what's exactly missing? >> we're not -- we're not clear about what exactly they meant by that. some of them had felt that they didn't have enough time to read the full reports that were, you know, three lengthy reports
that we received a week in advance, but we will certainly follow up with them on that, and that will be one of the issues that we hopefully touch on when we meet with them again. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? >> yeah, i wanted to ask a question. so if it's only an honorary type of essentially a title, when they would go to do work, would it go through the same processes of -- >> the state issues its own -- is its own permitting agency. >> right. right. >> it did seem from the conversation that there is concern that, again, that there is sort of a public perception that as a local landmark, that the state should be held to a higher standard, and that was something that they weren't comfortable with because it may make it difficult for them to make changes to these buildings in the future. we offered, you know, technical support, and this commission's
arc is support to help address some of these concerns if they were to arise, and we cited previous concerns. it did not seem to go anywhere. >> okay. thank you. >> all right. we can move on. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto item three, commissioner president's reports and announcements. >> i would like to announce today that i would like to reappoint bob turney to the preservation commission for a year. >> do you need a motion? >> i don't think i need a motion. i think i can just make that motion as president. >> okay. >> so noted, commissioner. and -- >> and i will notify the fund committee and mr. turney, as well. >> very well. iti ition -- commissioners, item
four, approved the minutes for the speci -- the draft minutes for february 21st, and february 28, 2018. >> i just have a correction on page three. nibby brothers is not n-i-b-b-y, it's n-i-b-y. just spelling correction. thank you. >> if there's no further comments, we'll take public comment on this item. does any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes from january 17, 2018 arc or february 21st, 2018 hpc? seeing and hearing no public comment, we'll close that, and do i have a motion to adopt the minutes? >> i move that we adopt those minutes, both of them. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to adopt
the minutes as corrected. [ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. that places us on item five, commission comments and questions. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? >> no. we can move on. >> very good. commissioners, that'll place us under your regular he had calendar for item six, case number 2017-015030 des at 246 first street, the phillips building landmark designation.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. shannon ferguson, planning staff. this building is located at 244-246 first street in soma. the building was added to the landmark designation work program on may 12th, 2012. the hpc approved a major permit to alter in january 2017, which included transfer of development rights and an expanded 34 ezzanine as well as a commission to designate the building as a landmark. the landmark designation report was prepared by arg, and a final draft was received by the department in november 2017. commissioners hyland and matsuda conducted a site visit on december 6, 2017, and the hpc initiated designation that day. the phillips building is distinctive as a -- is significant as a distinctive and highly impact example of the lost art deco style, and
it's the largest example of the art deco in the city. the phillips building is a rare example of myers and klinkhart's commercial work. interior character designing features include the elevator lobby and former showroom. these spaces with eligible for designation because they are historically publicly accessible. the phillips building retains the design features that were present during the established period of significance, which is 1930, the year it was completed. the complete list of character defining exterior and interior features are on page 26 of the landmark designation report. designation of the phillips building also meets two of the historic preservation commissions four priorities for designation. it meets the first designation priority which is the designation of under
represented landmark property types, including landscape, san francisco's most well known art deco buildings are generally theaters, schools or office buildings. the phillips building was constructed to how's the industrial processes associated with a land scale printing operation. it's the largest art deco style lost building in san francisco, a relatively rare architectural style applied to this property type. there's only one other existing landmark located nearby at 443 folsom street, it's landmark number 149, the advendclocker's black smith job, donated in 1982, there's no public neighborhood or public opposition to designation. the department believes the building meets the established eligiblity requirements and
landmark status is warranted. the department recommends the hpc recommend designation to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. the property owner's representative is also here to answer any questions. >> thank you, commissioners, any questions for staff or the property owner? seeing none, we'll take public comment on this item. if there's any member of the public wishing to make public comment, please come forward. seeing none, i close public comment. commissioners, do have a motion? >> i make a motion to move to the full board of supervisors landma landmark designation -- >> second. >> very exciting. very exciting. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion then to approve the landmark designation. [ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously
5-0, and places us on item 7 a and b for cases 20170123 ca and var, at 3133 liberty street, certificate of appropriateness, and the zoning administrator -- acting zoning administrator will be considering the variance. >> good afternoon commissioners. the project before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 31 through 33 liberty street. which is contributory to the liberty hill landmark district. the property's occupied by a two story three unit building. [ inaudible ] with a new two level deck and spiral stair within a similar footprint. the addition of a solid fire wall at the east end property line, the replacement of the existing foundation, and fill
the existing light well at the ground level on the aeflt elevation, replace the existing windows and doors at the existing elevation, and an interior remodel. the rear deck will occupy a similar footprint to the existing while decreasing the nonconformity with rear yard requirements of the planning code. each of these alterations and additions will not be visible from the public right-of-way and will not detract from the character of the building or the district. given the nature of this property, the project sponsor is requesting a variance from the rear yard requirements of section 134 of the planning code. to date, the department has received three correspondences, two in favor and one in opposition to the project. the department recommends approval. to ensure that the proposed
work is undertaken and in conformance with this certificate of appropriateness, staff recommends the following conditions: prior to approval of the site permit, the project sponsor shall provide a protection plan for the proposed foundation work to demonstrate all of the existing character defining features and historic materials shall be protected during any construction work. the project sponsor is present and has prepared a short presentation. i am available for any questions, and this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. we have one question, from commissioner matsuda. >> i have a question. i see two letters. both are letters of support. where is the letter of opposition? >> it was received after the packet was produced. >> it was an objection to the deck in the rear, it was from an anonymous neighbor, and specifically the size of the deck and the deck being unsound. >> okay. thank you. >> mm-hmm. >> so the sponsor want to make a presentation, and will five minutes be adequate?
>> we also have the -- oh, okay. so we have the packet, too, so if you wanted to walk us through something in the packet. okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is brent hatcher, and i am the owner and sponsor of this project. i have lived at 33 liberty street since 2003, so about 15 years. my husband and one of his friend purchased 31-33 liberty in 1986, as a tic. a few years later, they replaced the stairs that were
not original to the home and restored them to their original design. through the years, we have cared to the home and continued to make improvements to the original design by replacing window sashes, replacing siding. our home is a little over 125 years old. it was built in 1892 by julius craft. it was owned and commissioned by steven wing as a two flat income property. the wings, mr. wing and his wife lived next door, which is at 25 -- no, 3537 liberty street now. in 19 -- so this is a diagram of the rear of the property, and as you can see, the house which is in the darkly shaded
mass, is already in the 25% set back. it encroaches on the 25% set back. the existing structure is hone with a heavy dash line, and then, the proposed structure is shown in the hatched area with the darker hatch being the upper deck, and then, the lighter hatch being the lower portion of the deck that's proposed. so in 1900 -- the 1900 sanborn map shows that 3133 liberty, and its neighbor to the east, 2729 liberty both encroached on their rear yards more than current set backs would allow. 3133 still sits upon its original set back and foundation. the 1914 map differs a little from the 1900 map and shows the addition of an egress stair on the rear of the structure which
encroaches further into the rear yard, thus we know at least back in 1900, that there were structures built where the current decks now stand. let's see...our neighbors to the east at 2729 also have an enclosed porch that still exists, and they recently had a variance to replace their rear yard and i believe their rear egress stair is, i think, within a foot of their property line, their rear property line. when larry purchased the building in 1996, he estimated the age of the decks that we were asking for permission to replace looked to be from the 70's. there is no record of the structure, but the sanborn map indicates there is a long history of it. the decks and stairs are in bad disrepair at this point. deck boards and stair treads are rotting, as well as some of
the beams and posts. just real quick, there's the 1914 map showing a stair, and then, this is perthe condition of now, it's sort of large and looming, rotting. because the decks are improperly flashed, over the years both units have sustained water damage, both exterior and interior during the heavy rains. we obviously could have done a 50% repair and fore gone this process, but we wanted to do this right. we wanted to fix once and for all, the problems with how the decks are attached to the building. we also wanted decks that are lighter and smaller and provide for more light and air to the inhabit of our building. as you know it's not easy designing something in san francisco that can please tenants in two units, neighbors on all sides, the planning department and the preservation department, but we think the
solution that you're seeing today is good for several reasons. it provides the minimum 100 square foot open space for our upstairs neighbors who do not have deeded access to the rear yard. it provides a smaller footprint for the upper decks. we're holding it off the property line by 5 feet. now it currently sits on the property line, and the cabe well system that we're proposing would be a lighter structure as well that would provide more light and air to surrounding neighbors. as for the work in the basement, this was -- >> [ inaudible ] >> so we care very much about this building. we want to see it stand for another 125 years, and we request that you approve our project. thank you. >> great. thank you. so at this time, we'll take public comment on this item. does any member of the public wish to speak on this matter? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon. i'm lawrence cusa.
as brent hatcher explained in the presentation, i've been living at 3133 liberty for at least 22 years. >> excuse me. are you part of the project team as far as you're one of the owners of the building. >> yeah. >> then your opportunity to speak was in that first five minutes, however, the commissioners may call you up for additional questions. >> yeah. if we have additional questions, we'll call you up, but typically, the sponsor is to speak one time. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. so at this time this is the time for the general public to speak. does any member of the general public wish to speak on this matter? seeing none, we'll close public. commissioners? commissioner pearlman? >> yeah. i just want to thank the project sponsor for taking care of your building. it is also rare when the project sponsor is the owner and comes up specifically, so thank you for your presentation. i think this is a very easy one to approve. i think it does satisfy all of the requirements, and i would endorse approving this.
>> great. >> i second the motion. >> okay. so is that a motion, commissioner pearlman? >> that's a motion. >> great. >> very good, then, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the certificate of appropriateness. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. acting zoning administrator would say. >> i'll close the public hearing and intent to grant with the standard conditions. >> thank you. commissioners, that'll place us on item eight for case number 2018-2034 lbr for 1750 gary boulevard. this is a legacy business application. >> hello, commissioners.
shelley calcitroni for planning staff. the application you have today it for kabuki japanese bathing and spa. it's known fore massage, skin care and a variety of pan asian body treatments. the hot springs was opened in 1968. it was part of the development of the japan cultural and trade center. originally, the traditional men's bath house offered massage and communal bath house. in 1998 and '99, the springs came under new ownership, and major renovation was completed. they did add the spa services to the traditional shiatsu massage by retained the original nine furo tubs and the communal massage room.
the department is recommending support of the application, were the followi with the following features to be retained. the communal bathing if a il facilities, the communal massage, the kuro tubs, and the steam room and sauna. and i also wanted to note that although the business was not listed in the japan home current context statement, it was listed in the japantown cultural heritage economic statement ability strategy. >> j-ches. >> j-ches, as one of the businesses to be retained and listed in that inventory. if you have any questions, i'm here -- and i'm not sure if the business owner is here. >> yes. >> so she can answer any questions that you may have.
>> so i think we'll take public comment on this item. are there any members of the public or the owner wish to speak on this item? no? you don't have to. you're not required. i'm just saying if you would like to. so we'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i have to make a comment. >> commissioner matsuda. >> i have to make a comment. this is -- this is the first business -- retail business that has been nominated in japantown, and so it's very exciting. i'm happy it's kabuki springs and spa. it's under a great manager. she is a very ardent and enthusiastic member of the japanese community and sits on a number of boards and definitely supports things that promote and sustain japantown. probably before world war ii there are tons of public baths in this japantown area, and to have a modern day bath is
great, and i can't -- think the best thing that you can see on geary street in japantown, so i highly recommend the commissioners to at least make one visit. and i'm very, very happy and very, very proud of kabuki springs and spa to be the first. congratulations to you. >> thank you for that comment. i concur. >> i would like to move that we approve this legacy business. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then to adopt a recommendation for approval. [ roll call. ] >> apologies. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> thank you, and i think that was our final -- >> yes. >> item, right? >> indeed, it was.
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
started my career as a san francisco state university and got my bachelors in psyched and orientational psyche if they had we have a great relationship that the san francisco unified school district i exploded for american people interim shopping mall and become eligible for a permeate job. >> okay. perfect. >> i love working for our human resources services because of the agriculture we're laid-back with a professional mindset although human resources is a challenge we're light a hearted started as a intern guided through the process eventually one day a a deputy director or staying with the puc is where i