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.

>> hi, hi, everyone. okay. the meeting will come to order and this is june 29, 2018, special meeting of the san francisco local agency information commission. i'm sandraly fewer, the chairperson, and joined by commissioner pollock, and i would like to thank the staff at sfgov-tv, michael, and adrian starks for recording today's meeting and do you have any announcements? cloik silence all cellphones and any documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> madam clerk, call item number 2. >> and any changes to the minutes of the may 18th meeting? seeing no changes, i will open this up for public comment. and are there any members of the

public who wish to comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approve these minutes? good. moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner ronen and without objection these minutes are approved. and madam clerk, please note that shanti singh has joined us. call item number 3. >> the community choice aggregation report and the status update on the cleanpowersf program. >> supervisor fewer: the public utilities commission. >> good morning and happy friday, commissioners. mike hines, the director of queen power s.f. for the sfpuc. and for the update today i'm going to cover a few things and provide an update on clean power s.f. enrollment activities and service status to customers as well as regulatory activities that we have been involved in

since the last lafco meeting. with respect to enrollment in service to customers we continue at this time to service about 81,000 accounts in the city and the county. our program opt out percentage 3.2%, that's the number that i have been reporting if are some time now and it's been stable. and our super green upgrade rate is 4.2%, which is stable although growing. and so everything is moving quite well. as i've also reported in previous meetings or at previous meetings, we're in the midst of a large enrollment. we've now sent two of our four enrollment notices as required by state law to the approximately 27,000 accounts that will be enrolled beginning next month. in fact, next week will be the

beginning of the process to clean power s.f. and that will continue throughout the month of july during those customers regular meteor dates of p.g. and emp. we had opt outs to our notices thus far. and our rate to date at this enrollment group is about .08%. and this is tracking our experience -- our experience from previous enrollments so it's comparable. and i wanted to report that cleanpowersf will mail its joint rate mailer to customers. this is done in collaboration with pg and e and this ised third rate mailer that has been collaborated on. and i'll just bring one up on the screen real quick so you can see what they look like.

so this is the cover and this is done on sort of a postcard-style mailer. and the flipside of it includes quite a bit of information, actually. and for context this -- this layout and the data and the messaging is something that has been worked through in collaboration with pg and e and the california p.c. over probably a five or six-year period. and when we launched in may 2016, we really inherited the work that had been done but we did also work with pg and e to

make improvements to it. and the box in the upper lefthand side of the page is a summary of the rates across four different products, including pg and e standard service, their solar choice and then also on the two cleanpowersf options so customers can see transparently how we compare. and i should point out this is for a residential customer under the schedule. we do prepare the comparison for every rate schedule that we're serving. and we send the mailer out to a sample so residential customers will get this e1 mailer. and we also send sample comparisons to small, medium and large commercial customers. so that the rates are identified there at the bottom line of that first table, identifying what the average monthly bill impact is. so you can see there at the bottom line that the green

product is comparable to pg and e service with a little bit of savings and the same goes for super green as compared to solar choice, 100% renewable. on the -- on the table on the right side, is a summary of power content. and you can see the different electricity generation technologies on the left column and then the percentages that -- of those resources included in our -- in the various electricity products. and this is consistent with how we report our product to consumers under state regulations enforced by the california energy commission. and then there's some text there that describes, you know, what customers are looking at in as plain language as possible.

so this is the joint rate mailer. they're going out to -- i want to say about 110,000 accounts. so we're sending them also to the customers who are enrolling. and then this time next year we should be sending it out city wide. >> supervisor fewer: yes. i do have a quick question. this is fantastic. i know that on the screen up there it's pretty small but i'm looking at the card which is easy to read with the font. is -- are people understanding what their energy choice is when they receive the mailer or we're hoping they are? >> you know, we haven't -- we haven't received any i think inquiries that indicate that they don't understand what they're looking at. i think that it's been fairly digestible but to date we haven't gotten any such contact

from customers. and admittedly we haven't done an assessment of that particular question. >> supervisor fewer: okay, i think that as a customer if i was looking at it and i would say this is fantastic, i'm a super green customer and i pay less than the choice of the pg and e customer and i can kind of see where i fall in the average monthly bill but if you don't remember, if you signed up or if you don't know if you have been transferred over there's not a "you are here." >> yeah. >> but i think that would be hard to parse out per customer? >> one thing to keep in mind is that this is a joint rate mailer and it's not a marketing piece for us and that is an important thing to keep in mind is that we do this collaboratively and it's partly managed by the c.p.c. as well to ensure that it's fair and is it necessarily

encouraging a customer to do one thing -- a or b? it's really intended to provide information transparently. >> right. and to make an informed decision about your energy choice. >> yeah, that's right. and, you know, it's certainly very helpful to have the transparency, right, because that's what the customers are looking for and we can leverage that and put that information up on our website and we can then tailor messages on our website around, you know you know, the ' choices that are available. >> that's helpful. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to also say that i think that it would be helpful for this to be in a powerpoint and a memo and copies for everything for all of the commissioners and also for the executive officer. i think that it's just would be easier for us to follow. >> sure, yeah. and i apologize for not being like that, but this was really hot off the press. i wanted to share something that

really is news today. >> supervisor fewer: yes, i mean even copies of all of these for every commissioner here. >> yeah, absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: and also for our executive officer -- i just thought bryan turning his seat around and trying to read it and so i think that it would have been helpful to follow it with everyone having a copy. thank you. >> sure. i will circulate that after the meeting. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: sure, i was just wondering because it's such compelling information why you aren't using it as more of a marketing campaign? >> um, well, i think that it's related to the fact that this is something required by law to be done in collaboration with pg and e so they do have a say as to how it's presented. but that said, you're right, i mean, we can use our media and

our messaging to highlight that this is -- this is out there and available and what the results are. so -- and we absolutely will be doing that. >> supervisor ronen: the charts alone. i mean, they're the best marketing tool we have. >> and the charts are on our website. and so as i said, you know, this just got produced really this week. >> supervisor ronen: just one more plug, i received clean power s.f. materials, the education and propaganda materials and if i received that

chart i think that it would be the most compelling piece of information that i could receive. and so i would just ask to go to the experts, the marketing experts again and just say if we can make recreate the chart in a way that, you know, is maybe less information but makes the same point that that would be a very, very compelling marketing material to the extent that you're going to spend money on that in the future. >> sure. i will bring that back. >> supervisor fewer: i think so too. but i also think that, you know, there's a lot of text but i'm wondering how we can also cross over to people who are not english readers in this because we could be missing a population. and then also do we have tabling events coming out? i think that normally during this time of the year there's a lot of tabling events that we do and are we using maybe a version

of this info in a way which attracts a lot of attention to folks? and is easier to digest, quite frankly. >> the answer is, yes. we are tabling. we do bring copies of these with us, but i do hear you out that it can be dense. so one thing that we're doing is we extract the tabular information that summarizes rates and the costs. and we include that in our brochure which is a lot more accessible i think. we are also in the process of translating our materials. we do have things like our terms and conditions are translated per city ordinance. but we're in the process of expanding our multilingual written communications. >> supervisor fewer: okay, that's great. commissioners, any other comments or suggestions?

yes, go ahead. >> just as a quick question in terms of language access. does pg&e mark money o mono linl spanish, do you know when are sending english fliers to households that don't speak english? >> we only know if they request it. so there is a population that has requested, for example, translated bills. and so that only probably doesn't cover the whole population that could use it but we do have access to that. >> okay. >> supervisor fewer: and also chinese media is really important, because i think this on chinese media, even on commercials could really be effective. it hasn't been targeted, this population has not been targeted. >> i know that one topic on the agenda today is the executive

officers work plan and i think that this kind of thing is embedded in that, but one thing that i might suggest is specifically is some work together on preparing really for our residential enrollment where we're quite aware of the importance of this issue and being able to communicate what we're doing effectively to the whole population. making sure that -- thinking through strategies on how to do that effectively. it could be a great area of collaboration. >> supervisor fewer: yeah, i think that i will address this also in item number 6 actually, our role, and the executive officers' role in the c.c.a. anymore comments, questions? >> i do have a little bit more. sorry. >> supervisor fewer: go ahead. >> i maybe teased you there with a little bit with distraction. i wanted to share a little bit about regulatory activities. and this won't be too long and then i'll be done.

the -- i have mentioned in the past the pcia, that's the exit fee that pg&e can charge c.c.a. customers. and the hearings and the proceeding at conclude at this n june of this month and working with the city attorney and c.c.a. we filed briefs in that proceeding. we're expecting a proposed decision from the assigned administrative law judge at the cpuc to be published for comment in august. so that's coming up very soon. and also i'm going to talk a bit more about this... in may the cpuc published a report on customer choice. you may have heard it referred to as "the green book." it's gotten some media coverage. the report raises questions about how the state will

achieve -achieve -- its affordad decarbonization and reliability objectives as increased customer choice is occurring within the electricity market. and i think specifically that the report raises fears that c.c.a. and customers choosing to generate their own electricity, say, with rooftop solar, may compromise these goals. so the -- the report is raising an alarm. it says also that there is no plan for mitigating these outcomes from the cpuc. and the report offers no solutions and it instead flags the need for unspecified regulatory and legislative change. and so i think that as you all know through reports that we have provided here previously that to reinforce that c.c.a.s are contributing to the three objectives identified in the

report. and c.c.a.s must and do comply with state law requiring resource adequacy and that's a requirement to support grid reliability. and c.c.a.s are supporting the construction of billions of dollars of new renewable energy projects in california at a pace faster than required by current state law to meet our community's decarbonization objectives. and then as i reported to you the last meeting, we recently signed contracts to purchase energy from 147 megawatts of new solar and wind projects for clean power for customers. so that's our contribution to date. and that will grow over time as well. and then, finally, c.c.a. has raised -- or -- the rates are lower than the i.o.u.s and the bottom line bills to customers are comparable, even after accounting for the above market costs that the utilities can charge through the pcia.

the ccpu requested comments on the report by june 11th so we joined cal c.c.a. and their comments and submitted supplementary contracts for san francisco. they have the tools they need to manage these concerns and can address them through several of its many open proceedings. i will share a copy of those comments with the executive director as those are accessible to you. and the cpuc also held a legislative-style hearing last friday on june 22nd on the report. san francisco is invited to represent our perspective as an operating c.c.a. on the affordability panel. we addressed three key points, our service is as affordable as the for-profit utility i.o.u.s. and c.c.a. governance is accountable, transparent and inclusive. and that c.c.a.'s value and

prioritized social equity. and the cpuc concluded the hearing saying they intended to take action on the report by some time in october. we're paying very close attention to the legislative arena where it's very possible that something in response to the report may emerge. so we'll keep you informed as things come up. but that is -- that concludes my report. >> supervisor fewer: who funded this report? >> pardon me? >> supervisor fewer: who funded the report that you're referencing? >> it was prepared by the cpuc staff. so it would be cpuc funds which are ratepayer funds. principally ratepayer funds. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you, this is so important and i know that it's a full time to keep an eye on cpuc proceedings

and it's important for cleanpowersf customers. as usual we're concerned about what happens at the cpuc and i am just i guess baffled sometimes by what's going on there. >> supervisor fewer: me too. >> vice chair pollock: does it have influence over cpuc or are you just mitigating the damage? >> well, cal c.c.a. is one voice among many and i think that cal c.c.a. is working very hard to make sure that c.c.a.s voice is heard. i think that one -- one thing that we're observing through this process is that we think that it's very important that the state regulators hear more and more from the communities

themselves and members of the community who care about c.c.a. service and customer choice. so that's one thing that i think that we'd like to also work more -- work together on to ensure. that champions of what we're doing are able to represent san francisco in these forums. so -- but, you know, the cpuc heard us out along with others. there's some complex issues. but like i said i think that the report itself is alarmist. really unnecessarily so. and a lot of what they're concerned about are issues that are under their purview and being addressed through open proceedings they have that can be -- can be addressed through

their public process. so i think that we'll have to see a little bit with respect to how much influence and how much we're being heard but definitely now is the time to -- to let the cpuc know that, you know, our communities care about this process. and that we want to have choice and we want to have community energy so that there's a fair level playing field for us to participate in. >> vice chair pollock: just in terms of how the green book might influence legislative action within the california legislature or assembly, do you have an idea of legislation that's been earmarked right now that is a response to this report? >> at this point i don't. but i will keep the executive

director informed of anything that we do here that's coming up that may be related to the green book. >> vice chair pollock: i also just related to that and i know that in past times when we've gotten our clean power s.f. update there's been an "item b" that is just about legislative updates. if we could have that added back on to the agenda so that we know where the sfpuc is taking positions on legislation and what those positions are, that would be helpful. >> sure. >> vice chair pollock: thank you. >> supervisor fewer: any comments or questions? seeing none, i thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i think that public speakers are on item number 2, let's call public comment. hi. >> hello commissioners, eric brook, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. so first of all on the cpuc,

part of the problem is that governor brown has stacked the cpuc with people who have conflict of interests in the fossil fuel industry and so that will give you an idea why that is a problem. so you've got ab813 on your agenda later and i have to say with frankness that i'm a little surprised to hear the staff say that there's no legislation that is related to the green book, because the green book is saying that we have no reliability and that we need to do things like expand the energy grid to this regional grid. they're not really pushing that. they even said they had concerns about that. but this whole false argument that we've got too much renewable energy and have to sell it somewhere else, it's false because battery storage is going to eliminate that problem. and it is driving legislation like aba13, because the

legislators are able to argue, oh, we've got all of these problems with energy flowing around the state, we've got to expand the grid. and i also want to call attention to another bill that would kill community choice in california that just came up as a surprise bill in sacramento 12 days ago. it's robert hertzberg's sb237. what it will do is completely eliminate all limitations on big access. and big access is big corporations like shell and selling energy directly to big corporations and like industrial and commercial customers. that would be unlimited and it would have no restrictions on renewable energy content. all of the large commercial industrial customers would leave all ccas and go to direct access and c.c.a.s would be decimated. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.

hi, mr. wall, good to see you. >> likewise. bruce wall, clean energy advocates state group. just to -- i'm not going to repeat everything that the previous speaker, my colleague eric brooks said, but we would really appreciate if you could -- i can't stay for the 813 item, but to reiterate that those items are really important. this is what we have been fighting about to try to get community choice aggregation on the books and active. and we think that the city and county of san francisco should oppose both these bills. so we would urge you to look towards that and to recommend to the board of supervisors to do the same by resolution. i want to finish by saying that we appreciate all of the work that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing on cleanpowersf. as michael knows in all of our stakeholder meetings we always try to encourage more, more,

more. we want more rollout, we want more customers in the system, and we want to try to protect all of our commercial customers too. so thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. anymore public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, can you please call item number -- oh, did i -- we need an action on that. thank you very much. can you please call item number 4. >> in item number 4, authorization to issue a request for proposals or a request for qualifications for lafco legal services. >> supervisor fewer: we have our legal services bryan goebel to discuss this. >> as you are awar aware that te contract for legal services was signed in 2001. shortly after lafco was created and has not been updated since. each year the commission has approved an extension of that contract and i think that part

of the reasoning behind that was over the years some uncertainty about the state of lafco. but i understand that there was a discussion from this body in the last year that when the current contract commitment expired you were interested in sending it out to bid. so today i bring a request to begin an r.f.p. or r.f.q. process for legal services. teresa stricter with public law has recused herself from this matter. and john gibner with the city office is here and he recommended that an r.f.p. would be best because it would allow us to sign a multiyear contract and prevent us from having to approve a contract amendment every year. and so an affirmative vote on this item would allow us to begin that r.f.p. process. and mr. gibner is here if you have any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.

commissioners, any questions, comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that want to comment on this? mr. brooks. >> hello again, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. and our city of san francisco and the green party. so i've been coming to lafco hearings for 12 years now, mostly about cleanpowersf. and i would urge you -- we had over those times, especially -- and i will say thankfully the sfpuc is no longer oppositional to us and they're helping us now. there were times when the sfpuc was definitely oppositional to cleanpowersf back in the day. when we had that problem we also had the problem that the legal

representation was not helpful and was taking the side of the sfpuc. and part of that was who knows what the reason for that is but a big part was that the legal representation was not connected to san francisco, it was actually in sacramento and had to travel here, it was not consistent, it did not do effective work. now i realize that the way they've shifted their operations, the legal representation now has some local attorneys. that's a step forward. but i'm glad that you're doing an r.f.p. because what we need is a law firm for lafco that is very community oriented. that is going to support community values and community goals. that's what we need from a law firm. i urge you just to do an r.f.p. and make part of the selection process -- does this law firm support the community values that lafco is going to make

its central purpose? and, if not, even if another firm is a little more expensive or something like that, we need one that is going to stand up for cleanpowersf in a public bank and affordable housing and help the homeless. and i just didn't see that happen in the past 12 years. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, comment is now closed. i'd like to say thank you very much to mr. gibner for being here with us today. commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you very much, thank you, mr. goebel for your presentation and mr. gibner for being here today. you know, i think that just having some longevity on this body, i just want to echo what mr. brooks said which is that nancy miller, our prior counsel, was not a resource to us. we paid a lot of money to their law firm and, you know,

contrasted miss stricter is responsive and local and has been so valuable over the last year as our commission has changed. but miss miller was our representative for many years from that same law firm. and i found it very difficult to reach her. i wasn't -- my emails weren't responded to. and i was unsure whether she was representing lafco, the body that was paying our bills, and, you know, whether or not she had a conflict of interest with the city and county of san francisco. so that is something that is -- is troublesome. and so while we have miss stricter who has been quite, you know, wonderful and just a delight to work with, i think that it really does matter who our, you know, who our dedicated counsel is from that law firm. so i think that is something that we should take into consideration.

i agree with mr. gibner that an r.f.p. is something that we would to do. and revisiting this every year and extending it, even with a new scope of work, i think that it is burdensome for the commission. but i -- but i do think that we should have the same ability to terminate the agreement at any time the same with our current contract. you know, this was something that we put on hold as the commission went, you know, for lack of a better term, a little bit quiet with the change in our executive officer services. but i would put forth that we do begin this r.f.p. as soon as possible and i thank miss stricter for her help on this and possibly perhaps they are,

you know, -- the person or the group that we choose, but, you know, with the understanding that there have been some issues in the past. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other comments? do we have a motion to issue a request for proposals for lafco legal services? great, thank you very much. so without objection the motion passes. madam clerk, call item number 5. >> item number 5 is authorization to amend the legal services agreement with renne public law group l.l.p. to extend the term to june 30, 2019. >> supervisor fewer: would you like to present on this item? >> yes, so now we -- now we have an item for your approval and extending the contract with the

renne public law group which has been providing legal services and the current contract for legal services actually expires tomorrow, june 30th, 2018. so the attached amendment and the amendment and the contract that i have attached will continue the services through june 30, 2019 or whenever the r.f.p. process is complete. and teresa is here if you have any questions along with john gibner. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, and so teresa stricter will need to remove herself but before then are there any questions at this point? seeing none, mr. claire, if you don't mind, and thank you again to the city attorney john gibner for being here to advise. any members of the public that wish to comment on this?

seeing none, public comment is now closed. and any questions or discussion among the colleagues? seeing none -- >> actually, sorry, one question. though we're issuing an r.f.p. because that will take some time we're extending this. sorry, wanted to clarify. >> supervisor fewer: and extending our agreement with renne public law group l.l.p. >> so moved. >> supervisor fewer: okay thank you very much. and that was -- that motion passes. thank you. madam clerk, call item number 6. >> item number 6 is krrgdz of a proposed executive officer work plan for fiscal year 2018-2019. regarding advanced cleanpowersf and lead a labor study on emerging mobility services and watchdog efforts to establish a public bank in san francisco, and watchdog efforts to establish a public fiber network in san francisco. and elevate the work of lafco

issues and identifying funding opportunities and identify opportunities for special studies. manage and complete the r.f.p. process for lafco legal services. and a commission staff and development. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to appreciate mr. goebel for taking the initiative to have an extensive and comprehensive work time to discuss this today and i'm thrilled in a very short period of time that you're demonstrating the leadership to move forward with lafco. with that i turn it over to mr. goebel for his presentation. >> thank you very much, madam chair and commissioners. i'm super excited to present the proposed executive office work plan today. i have had an opportunity to meet with a lot of folks and have received a lot of feedback about what the priorities for s.f. lafco should be in the coming years. and my work plan was drafted after reviewing a number of issues that the commission has expressed interest in.

and i have also included for the viewing public an outline of the work plan and the objective -- my first objective is, of course, to advance cleanpowersf. san francisco's community choice aggregation program. which has been lafco's focus for the past decade. and the commission was very instrumental in getting cleanpowersf on the ground, off the ground, and will continue its role as watchdog as the program expands and as cleanpowersf develops a larger portfolio of renewable energy sources and implements its 2017 growth plan. so i have met with the p.u.c. and it's my second month on the job so i'm still very much trying to define my duties as it relates to watchdog in

cleanpowersf. but we're mandated as you know to provide fee feedback and to advise the board of supervisors on all aspects of cleanpowersf's development, operation and management. so this to me is the number one priority for the executive officer work plan. objective number two is lead a labor study on emerging mobility services. the san francisco county of transportation authority issued a report recently called "emerging moblght evaluation report." and really trying to get a handle on companies like uber and all of the emerging mobility services that are coming on the scene in san francisco. it's an excellent report that will be approved by the t.a. in

the next couple weeks. in that report they identified a number of research opportunities, gaps where the staff have not yet determined how emerging moblght service --y services align with the city's guiding principles. so it will look at emerging mobility services to get a handle on the demographics of the gig economy workforce that's out there. and also investigate how many contractors are working in this sector, which cities they reside, and what their commute patterns are. so i plan to work closely with your feedback with the san francisco county transportation authority to really develop the scope of the study, and the outreach, and the timeline, and determine whether new funding is required. >> can i ask you a couple questions about this.

first of all, i'm excited about this new topic area. i think that it's an issue that's very relevant, current and complicated. while there is work happening through the t.a. and through the m.t.a., i think we can bring a unique perspective. i think that there's been some gaps in the city's work. so, first, let me address the gaps. and one of the gaps that my colleague commissioner sandra lee fewer has been working on is taxi drivers and the fact that the industry has been decimated by the t.n.z.s and the fact that many working-class cabdrivers who saved up their entire lives to purchase a medallion and right when they were able to do so and put their life savings into it, hoping that that would give them a secure retirement and profession

for the rest of their lives really had the rug, you know, pulled from under them. and are in dire straits right now. and as a matter of fact these drivers come almost every week to the board of supervisors meeting to testify about the desperate situation that they're in and despite supervisor, commissioner fewer's attempts to go to the m.t.a. board an and, u know, to find a resolution so far there's not been one. so if we could add -- because it's absolutely related to this topic -- to your work plan an examination of how we can do right by these workers and how we can mitigate the impact that this industry has had on them personally, how we can get them some restitution for these, you know, medallions whose worth in

value has declined so extremely, is something that is a huge interest to me. and i know that it's an interest to supervisor fewer who has taken the lead at the board of supervisors on this. but there's just an absence of will and an absence of priority around this issue. so to the extent that you could take a look at that i think that would be helpful. i hope that sort of the direction is clear enough. if not, please let me know. >> supervisor fewer: actually we're voting on something in item number 7 that i think that we can actually expand on, the clarity at that time. which is absolutely in alinement with what -- alignment with what you're saying. >> can i make one more comment about this. and then the second thing is i don't think that we're that far

away from autonomous vehicles being the norm of transportati transportation, individual cars and for t.m.z.s and so starting to get ahead of what that does to the workforce and how, you know, whatever, you know, what we're able to do in a short term in terms of improving worker rights in this industry, that that will be -- i think that would be very short term because i think we're headed in the direction where there won't be anymore workers driving these cars. and so however that sort of intersects with this work area i think would be important as well. >> supervisor fewer: great, thank you very much. commissioner singh. >> supervisor singh: yeah, i just want to echo what commissioner ronen said and another thing is that i have been paying particular attention to is sort of the erosion of public transit by the public sector. so i'm really interested in what

is going on with uber and with traditional taxi drivers. and one thing that i wanted to bring up is that the gig economy is being used for scooter services. so it seems to me that, you know, the gig economy and the treatment of these workers and their conditions is also playing a role in potentially -- i don't want to say threatening but it is -- it is a big part of private intrusiveness or private forays into the world of public transit and san francisco being a breeding ground for that. so it's not just taxis but it's scooters now. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you very much. and commissioner singh took the words out of my mouth. i definitely wanted to make sure in in addition to t.m.z.s that we're looking at all moblght services whether it's scooters or bicycles and just in terms of i think a unique position that

lafco is in is like our work with sfpuc that as well as sfmta are separate from the board of supervisors in the way that they work and so to be able to bring a unique lens and advise their work and complement it and looping in the board of supervisors. i think these are the reasons why lafco is so uniquely positioned. it is something that we're offering some focus and clarity that we'd like to see flushed out in the special study. i will go back also o on the wok plan on objective number one, to see you bring forth the special

study that was requested on community choice, 2.0. that that be something that you look at concurrent with the mobility services. that is something that the commission has already approved. i don't know what your bandwidth is on that but i'd like to see that added into the work plan. >> i'd be happy to do that, commissioner. >> supervisor fewer: why don't we allow mr. goebel to go through all of his points first and then we can comment on them. so we don't lose track of your presentation. so we have done two. [laughter] and i also have comments about the first one too, so this is great. so, mr. goebel. >> and i point out that item 7, we need your separate authorization on that and warren logan, the senior transportation planner at the transportation authority is here in case i can't answer all of your questions. those are really the two

priorities that i foresee in the coming year is advancing cleanpowersf and leading this study. but i know that the commission has an interest in efforts to establish a public bank and establish municipal fiber in san francisco. so objective three is to continue to monitor the work of the municipal bank feasibility task force and they are expected to release their findings some time in fall. so my proposal is to continue to work with the city treasurer's office to explore opportunities where we can, and analyze the task force report when it's released, and come back to you with important developments. and very similarly on municipal fiber, in speaking with the department of technology and advocates, i have been trying to explore what lafco can do and one opportunity that emerged is for lafco to lead a study how a public fiber service rollout

would occur when underserved neighborhoods are prioritized. there was a blue panel on municipal fiber that looked briefly at this issue and the study would use an equity lens to come up with recommendations to be put to use by the winning bidder. what i propose is that i spend the next year working with the department of technology and the advocates to develop the scope for this study. and whether or not the -- what the department of technology is proceeding on right now remains unclear because as you know chair fewer, the funding is not there for a couple studies that they were proposing to do. so i'm not sure which direction that they're going to proceed on, but i would like to remain in touch with them and see how we can develop this study. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> on objective five, it's really to elevate the work of

lafco and the issues that we plan on taking on in the next year. develop a communication and social media plan to promote and in some cases turn a critical lens on the issues that we study, promote cleanpowersf, and objective six is to provide support, of course, to the board of supervisors on lafco issues. and seven, manage and complete the r.f.p. process for lafco legal services. and also identify funding opportunities. while there's no specific pool of money available on the state oor the federal level for lafco we can apply for grants when we partner with city agencies. this is something that might happen in our labor study on emerging mobility services with the transportation authority. and also over the next year i'd like to spend some time identifying other special studies that we could take on in

our next fiscal year. and objective 10, commission staff and development. i'll work closely with cal lafco to share best practices, strengthen and support cal lafco and lafcos across california. and i'd like to expand my knowledge skills when it comes to the city and climate change planning and attend classes on equity and intersectionallity so that i can deepen my knowledge skills around those areas. and that, commissioners, is my proposed executive officer work plan. >> supervisor fewer: okay. any more comments for mr. goebel or questions. commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you so much for this, and i think that having a clear, guiding document helps us, you know, as commissioners to talk about the work that we're doing on lafco. and, you know, it certainly helps you in working with other -- with the agencies to talk

about the work that we're doing. i wanted to ask specifically on objective 10, is in the current budget does this include funding for the commission to pay for these types of classes and skills enhancement for you? >> i think that there might be a little wiggle room in the budget for these, yeah, um-hmm. >> vice chair pollock: great. i wanted to offer the suggestion that if things come up that were not budgeted for that you bring it forward to the commission so that we could take a look at those and approve those for you. >> absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. i think that there may also be, if there's cal lafco meetings that you may want to attend with other lafcos, if they have those convening but i think that it would be important for you to represent our lafco there and to learn from them too. so i think that those kind of items we can budget for and we'd like you to bring them forward to us as you identify those

opportunities. i have a comment about the first objective. i just want to say that i think that we have some -- we have a new commissioner on board and also there are varying levels of knowledge about cleanpowersf. and i think that singt caknows a lot and hillary knows some and shanti just came on and so i think that there's a need for us to all get on the same page. i'd like for you -- i mean to propose in your plan that you maybe have a study session with us just to get us all onboard so we're all on equal footing. because anything that sfuc or cleanpower wants to bring forward it has to come before a board of supervisor approval also. so having said that i'm looking to probably for you to have a little bit more oversight over the c.c.a. process. so we have downloaded

information but i feel that we should also be -- having sort of a critique. i think that it is our body as an oversight body also to work with the same goal, but through the lens of the city and county of san francisco and the board of supervisors too so that we can have a voice in sort of how it's being rolled out or if we have a critique or a suggestion or a recommendation that i think that -- so we normally, i mean, cynthia has been been the most knowledgeable and very vocal so she has recommendations. i think that as a committee for us to all bring forward because we're hearing they're having the biggest rollout and we think this is going to be that we need to actually have a firm footing as a lafco and helping to set direction and also some guidance along the way. and to be able to critique. and then you're our voice and communicator between the two. so it would mean that you would

have to, you know, thoroughly understand, of course, what's going on and have more of an oversight so you're able to tell us that we're as a body able to critically look at how the rollout is going and to give these sort of suggestions as a body. and then, let's see... i think -- yeah, i think that is it. so any questions about that or is that clear? >> i think that is clear. and, you know, i so far have had one meeting with the p.u.c. but i think that i need to meet with them more and i need to sort of establish what the -- what the level of transparency is with the p.u.c. because right now i have to say that after two months on the job i'm still getting a handle on that. and i have gone back and reviewed the language in the original m.o.u. and i reviewed the ordinance that mandates

lafco oversees and for feedback on cleanpowersf and i feel that language is outdated, frankly. and it's something that we'll need to revisit, to clearer define what lafco's role is in the oversight of cleanpowersf. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. are you referring to the 2008 m.o.u., yes, and it does state that the m.o.u. calls on san francisco lafco to advise the searcsfpuc and the board of supervisors on all aspects of cleanpowersf's development and operation and management. i believe that commissioner pollock has a comment. >> vice chair pollock: thank you so much. this is helpful i think. perhaps in the future that we would like to revisit the language on the m.o.u. though it looks like we probably in doing a special study might exhaust the funds in that m.o.u. in the next one or two fiscal years. but i just want to clarify

lafco's unique role in this is because of the way that the city and the county have set up the board of supervisors, and it does not have oversight on the sfpuc. and it's the sfpuc's commission that provides it. the only way that the board of supervisors is going to be able to do -- to weigh in would be by resolution or by a budgetary line item. and then approving the budget. so i think that it's important when you prepare information for lafco that those commissioners that also serve on the board of supervisors could take a memo from lafco to their other supervisors. that might be a helpful way to bridge the gap and, you know, and maintaining the independence and the differing roles that lafco has from the board of supervisors. but also providing a document

and some clarity that, you know, chair fewer and commissioner ronen can take to the board of supervisors and then say, you know, because of the work that we have done here on lafco we'd like to bring this forward as an item of discussion on the board. that would be helpful. just sort of to have a second step that you could help to prepare a document. >> supervisor fewer: right. and to complement also the work of what cleanpowersf is doing too to work in conjunction with the city partners. thank you. and any other comments or questions for mr. goebel? thank you for this. and this is open up for public comment now. okay. our friends from the public, hi, bruce, come on up. >> speaking under a different organization, public net san francisco coalition and the ash bury neighborhood council. and we welcome mr. goebel to lafco. and we very welcome him