of amazing work together, and that is undoubtedly going to continue. i know that the one thing i have promised every one including my amazing colleagues is that we are not going to always agree. in fact, one thing i can guarantee is that i will not always agree with everyone in this room. na doesn't mean we are not fighting for the same things, and it doesn't mean our focuses are not on the same priorities and issues. in this case, mr. isbell is a human being. he is a renter. you know, it is in the equation from testimony with advocates. he is new. i have sat down with him, he is thrilled to be able to serve and fight for tenants in the city.

he is working hard to learn everything that he needses to be successful in this role. he knows the inequities that exist as a renter and member of the r.f.q. -- lbgq community. he knows what is right. he wants to fight to be a real true leader in this fight for tenants. this is san francisco. i don't want to be divisive especially when we have somebody who is qualified and willing. i have no issue with denying recommendations. i have no issue with going hard at somebody who i think is not a fit and not qualified and not ready. i do take issue when we have somebody willing who is not an attorney. that is very clear. he has worked on so many

policies to fight for tenants in the senator's office which i know a lot of people supported as well. this is not a board of supervisors appointment. if it was up to me. all appointments would be board of supervisors appointments. this is not the case, and we don't have control over the mayor's appointments. just like i wouldn't give her the opportunity to have control over ours. i would be fighting fiercely if she took issue to appointment that we were trying to make. with that said, there is one thing that supervisor ronan touched on. whatever happens in this room today, we don't get the opportunity to appoint ms. marshall or anybody else.

we can reject this appointment, but all that does is mean that we go back to the drawing board. would i have handled it different and talked to addvo cat groups, i'm sure i would have, but this is the mayor's appointment. because we have a role as a board of supervisors to have a hearing and have a conversation about whether or not we want to move something forward, then i would rather that happen with the full board of supervisors. therefore i move to move the name forward without recommendation to have this full conversation with my colleagues as well since we have been put in this position. >> thank you. i want to thank everybody who came out to share your perspectives to speak out on this issue today.

whichever side you are on and i want to thank mr. isbell for your willingness to serve on the rent board commission and your many years or decades of service around a wide range much issues in the city and beyond. it is clear from your testimony and all of your supporters' comments you have admirable personal qualities and you would be a great leader in many roles on many different commissions in the city. i do feel after today's hearing, i feel like the rent board and specifically one of the voting tenant seats on the rent board is one particular appointment that requires much deeper knowledge and expertise on tenant issues and longer history of that as well. you know, i think i have come to

that conclusion right now. more importantly, i do want to echo the comments in a number of the other speakers and the bad process that led us to this long hearing today and this awkward moment. i think it was the mayor's office in moving forward your appointment to a voting tenant seat on the rent board without consulting with the tenant are very important and well organized and well recognized tenant rights community here and breaking decades of protocol that existed around thistic appointment. i think that protocol exists because of how contentious landlord tenant issues are in this decision and how contentious every decision the rent board makes. these are decisions that could

affect the ability of community member to continue to live in our city and also they set precedent for future decisions. the appointment, you know, is for the tenant, it is so important. it is my understanding a recent appointment the mayor made for one of the alternate landlord seats was done through consulting with the landlord and real estate groups on putting forward that appointment. i don't understand that. i feel like this awkward situation was a result of broad process from the mayor's office. i would like to make a motion we recommend rejection of the mayor's appointment of reese isbell to the residential rent stabilization arbitration board to the full board. >> thank you.

before we talk about the motions because i know there are legal issues we will clarify. i want to respond to a couple of the comments of my esteemed colleague and supervisor. i want to make clear this is not against mr. isbell. you have committed zero sins. that is not the issue anyone here is talking about. there is nothing wrong with mr. isbell. what i would like to see is that someone coming into this seat has a level of experience i that i do not believe mr. isbell has. does that mean he can't gain it? no. he is an intelligent human being that could. for today going to the seat i don't think he has it yet. i want to make that crystal clear. i wani want to make clear we can

project the appointment by eight votes. i take that control and responsibility seriously. i think you have to use it use disjudiciously. this is as my colleague said itt is uncomfortable. another thing to say to prove this is not about political divisions but about the substance and about care for tenants is that i was a huge supporter of former senator leno for mayor. mr. isbell worked for senator leno. i am inclined to want to support mr. isbell becauses my respect for former senator leno and the staff he always had in his office. he carries the highest standard

for the staff. this is never about that. it is never about politics. it is never about mr. isbell's qualifications. for me this is about life and death decisions to be made every day that are technical, complicated. that i didn'that i didn't realil it was until i came to city hall and started writing the laws and started realizing how little i know about this area of law. i am an attorney. i am not competent to serve on the rent board. i know employment board i do not know tent landlord law. it is incredibly technical. while i don't think you need to be an attorney to do this role, i absolutely think you need years of experience working with these laws to understand their context, to understand how they relate to one another, to

understand the history behind the fights to get those laws passed. so this is a very, very critical and important appointment today with real life impact on thousands of our most vulnerable residents in the city. i believe it is very important that we work -- that we give this utmost attention and critical analysis as possible to protect those tenants. supervisor welton. >> one point. i am clear we have the ability to block this appointment as a period. i do feel that we should make the decision as a full board and have that conversation. that is why i wanted to move the

recommendation forward. >> my understanding is it tonight work that way. we either, and i will turn this over to deputy city attorney. we have to make a motion approving or rejecting the mayor's appointment. is that right? >> deputy city attorney john givner. you have two motions. first, you can move to either to amends the motion before you to either approve or reject the nomination. after that you can send that amended motion to the full board with recommendation or without recommendation. >> supervisor mar made a motion to amend the motion to reject the mayor's appointment of reese isbell. can we take a roll call on that motion. >> on the motion to amend?

vice chair walton. yes. member mar. yes. chair ronan. yes. the motion passes. >> i will make a motion to send this item forward with recommendation. can we have a roll call. >> on that motion. vice chair walton. no. member mar. yes. chair ronan. yes. >> the motion passes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. isbell for silting through this long hearing. thank you everyone for speaking. thank you ms. marshall for your 35 years of incredible dedication to the rent board. thank you. mr. clerk are there any other items on the agenda? >> that completing the agenda. >> thank you.

the meeting is adjourned.. >> shop and dine the 49 .. challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the

shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we

have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who much. >> thank you for coming. >> we are ready. >> the meeting will come to order. this is the april 19th 2019 meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am centrally fewer, chair of the commission. i am joined by our chief commissioners. the clerk of the commission is

victor young. i would like to thank the staff at san francisco government t.v. for arranging today's meeting. unfortunately commissioner hilary ronen is having to step down from our commission. we have appreciated her role in this body and want to thank her for her service. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> please make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and copies of any documents included as part of the testimony should be submitted. >> mr. clerk, please assist commissioner singh on her apparatus? thank you. one moment, please. thank you very much.

mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> item number 2, approval of the minutes from the march 15th 2019 a regular meeting, i would like to note there is one correction needed in that the title of the documents should read minute and not agenda. >> thank you very much. do any commissioners have any changes to the minutes of the march 15th meeting? seeing no changes, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 2, the minutes of the meeting? mr. wright. >> i don't know anything about the minutes of the meeting, but the two minutes that i do have, i want to make an announcement, and when i get to public comment i'm going to demonstrate how to sink and save $66,000,000.1 building apartment building complexes. i have been stressing for years,

but not getting nowhere to explain that when you get a developer, you need a nonprofit developer, and quit getting developers are in it to make money and putting profit over safety. i will demonstrate that you can save $66 million per building, and this technique is pertaining to the inclusionary rule, where you are supposed to include the most honorable people to give housing. that is why everybody voted for them. then after being put into effect , you come up with this loophole that the developer, the construction company can pay the mayor's office on housing $2 million in order to not include the inclusionary people who the rule was targeted for, and then build another building and performed the same procedure all over again, that's why you have so many people out on the street, and about you setting the affordable housing, you

claim it is affordable housing, yet you make the lowest income at $80,000, $70,000 a year, and out of nerve say that is low income housing. i'm real upset with kate hartley she came up here last week, this week and put up a scale and said that this is low income, and very low income, and the truth of the matter is, the people in the very low and low income brackets is not being included in the housing opportunities, it is disgusting, it is not fair, and the new supervisors, i will show you how they are not following the rules of regulations pertaining to mission rock. it has 1,000 apartment buildings i think 33% is supposed to be for low income bracket and very low income bracket people. i think that comes out to 250 of those apartments is supposed to be for very low and low -- >> thank you, thank you, mr. wright. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on item number 2?

seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> yes. >> motion made by commissioner mar and seconded by commissioner singh. we can take that without objection. the minutes are approved. mr. clerk, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, community choice aggregation activities report. >> thank you very much. we will have a presentation on the clean power s.f. director of the san francisco public utilities commission with updates about enrolment, as well as state legislative updates. go ahead. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm the director of clean power s.f. for the san francisco public utilities commission. i do have a few slides for you today that will run through in a fairly brief update, it is a pleasure to be with you in this meeting in april. it is a big month, it is earth month. it also happens to be the month that clean power s.f. really and

truly goes citywide by completing our enrolment of residential accounts in the city and county. so we are going to cover our enrolment and service status and we will provide, as the chair mentioned, a state legislative update and then we are happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. >> as i just mentioned, starting the beginning of this month, the clean power s.f. program began enrolling about 280,000 customer accounts citywide, mostly residential, a little under 1,000 of those were commercial customers, so what that means is now -- as of the end of april, about a week and a half from now , the program will have enrolled more than 400,000 customer accounts citywide, which is about 99-point 9% of our potential.

the only remaining accounts are some of the largest commercial accounts in the city, which we are going to go back and speak to the second half of this calendar year, and that was an approach we took as a risk mitigation measure. they command a lot of sales, so we want to make sure we have the time to understand their interest in staying with the program. so what that means on the opt out and upgrade statistics that we try to show every time we come here and speak with you, is that the cumulative out rate for the program is now two-point 7%. you might recall, it was about three-point 4% last month. that has come down because we have enrolled a lot of accounts. we're still in the open enrolment period. there are a couple more months of that, so do expect more opt outs to come through, but we are on the trajectory that we were anticipating, maybe even a little bit better. so the super green upgrade rate is now one point for%.

that includes the accounts we have enrolled. that represents three-point 5% of our program annual energy sales, and i wanted to draw that distinction here. because last time i reported to you ever super green enrolment rate was higher, so it has come down because the sheer number of accounts has gone up, but we haven't -- we have a significant number of sales, and that is ultimately what counts when it comes to addressing climate change. i know this is still a relatively small percentage overall, but we are addressing that by improving the carbon footprint of our entire energy purchases. i also wanted to add another stat here, which is it has come down to one point 4%, but ever super green enrolments have also continued to grow. we added 24% more super green enrolments since we in -- since we started. things are going wrong -- well. this is a voluntary action on the part of our customers.

one last thing, how do we compare with our peers? so mce clean energy which has spread is now multicounty, c.c.a., they have been operating since 2010. there upgrade rate is 1.9% the c.c.a. in sonoma is 1%. our goal is 5%. we think that we are setting our target pretty high, and we think that san francisco will deliver, too. so that is my report on enrolment and i will pause here if you have any questions before he handed over to my colleague. >> i see no one on the roster. >> okay. so i will hand it over to susanne of our external affairs team who will walk you through

the update. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners, thank you so much for having me today. i'm on the policy and governors affairs team. we submitted our slides before an important develop it came up and stay policy late last week, the report from the governor's strike team on wildfires and climate change came out, so it is not on the slide, but we wanted to give you a quick update on that and give you a chance to ask any questions you might have. you might remember governor newsom newson convened a strike force on wildfires in january, last friday the strikeforce released its report on california policy options to reduce the risk of utility caused wildfires, as well as utility financial problems linked to wildfires. the report focuses on the urgent need for wildfire mitigation and suppression, developing a safer

and more reliable electricity system and keeping costs affordable for all californians. and importantly, the report notes a catastrophic wildfires are exacerbated by climate change and says it is critical to state's progress in clean energy is not derailed. the reports recommended many recommendations focusing on five key areas for action. the first one is wildfire prevention and response, the second is mitigating climate change their clean energy policies. number 3 is fair allocation of catastrophic wildfire damages. number 4 is a more effective cpuc with the tools needed to manage a changing utility market , a number 5 is holding them accountable and building utility that prioritizes safety. the report mentions c.c.a. most prominently in section two, which is mitigating climate change through clean energy section, it touches on the impact of c.c.a.s and direct access providers in the evolution of the energy market. the report highlights that c.c.a. his are playing an

important role in advancing clean energy in california and it also recommends and state actions including evaluating a resource adequacy backstop via the legislative process, increasing transparency for load serving entities such as c.c.a.s and steak ordination of procurement, increased variability in generation and consumption, and the report also recommends considering a change to the state's condemnation law which holds utilities accountable for wildfires even if they are not explicitly just explicitly at fault. we expect many of these concepts will surface in the legislature in the coming months and we will be engaging on her own and through c.c.a. i can pause here for any questions on the report. >> i see no names on the roster. >> great. okay. i will go ahead and then talk about our state legislative update at this point starting with ab 56. it is one of the bills we are closely monitoring so far, the sfpuc is opposed to this bill, as is cal c.c.a. other opposition so far come

from socal edison, and stakeholders including p.g. & e, semper energy, the american wind energy association and the solar energy industries association all says they can only support only the significant amendments. this to focuses on a concerned that we are seeing quite a victim of -- a bit of an sacramento, that is how to ensure grid reliability with an increasingly decentralized energy system. it did pass the assembly utilities and energy commission, although there was scepticism from legislators. the bill would give the cpuc the ability to tasking existing state agency is a procurement backstop. at the hearing last week for the bill, we focus and how the bill will be amended to address any stakeholder concerns and should be seen as a starting point for discussions. c.c.a. is providing some ideas for different amendments to make it a little bit more tenable for c.c.a.s. we currently believe that a central buyer is unnecessary, however, we will would be

willing to support one who is responsibilities are limited to procuring unmet local resource adequacy capacity. so we will definitely be continuing to engage on this bill and report back to as the session progresses, any questions on ab 56? great. ab 1362 is another bill we wanted to draw your attention to it would not be applicable to clean power s.f. because it applies primarily to c.c.a.s that are in development, but cal c.c.a. is opposing this bill. it would over stern s.p. 790 which was signed into law into 2011 and has the cpuc with adopting a code of conduct to prohibit investor-owned utilities for marketing against c.c.a.s unless funded by shareholders. so this prevents the iou from using their position and market power to undermine c.c.a. developments. this bill is currently in assembly utilities and it will be heard next week. and s.b. 155 is another bill

that cal c.c.a. is opposing. we are also still in the process of reviewing and determining our position. it would allow the cpuc to audit load serving entities like c.c.a.s, the compliance with the renewable portfolio standard requirement, and ensure corrective action when there is no compliance. cal c.c.a. is concerned that the bill would reduce c.c.a.s' flexibility and metonymy and increase procurement costs, and affect programmatic goals. that will be heard as well in the senate next week on the 24 th. any questions about those two bills or anything else. >> any comments? seeing none. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> let's open this up for public comment. is anyone who like to comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is now closed. there is no action to be taken from the commission on this matter. mr. clerk, please call item number 4. >> item number 4, consideration of approval a proposed budget

for 2019, 2020. >> thank you very much. i like to bring up our executive director to present on this item . >> thank you, madame chair. i'm the executive officer, and i'm here today to present the 2019, 2020 budget. every year, the city and county of san francisco is required to fund for the general fund in the amount of $297,342. in addition, we have an m.o.u. with the san francisco public utilities commission, which funds our work as the oversight authority for clean power s.f. this year, there were no new requests for funding, and there's only a few slight changes, which i will explain. first, though, this is a history , this slide is a history

of our work order balance with the sfpuc. in the second column at the bottom, you can see that we spend about $10,000 this year, most of it was for my time working on clean power s.f., and also to pay our clean power s.f. interns a modest stipend, i've been careful not to draw a lot from this fund so we can preserve as much as possible for our work on the local buildout planning for clean power s.f., and as you know it, our previous meeting approved an r.f.q. to retain removable energy experts and i am looking at completing a draft of that r.f.q. also we expect the p.u.c. to approve an extension of the m.o.u. which expires this fiscal year. sometime in late may, which would be the earliest i am told. this next slide is our general fund balance. our general fund appropriation

expenditures and the year in balance for lafco from 2007 onward. we have set aside a reserve of about $45,000, or 15% of the annual budget. the second column, bottom figure shows ever projected here in balance and expenditures. that is going to leave us with about $23,000 to carry over into next year's budget. these are our expenditures to date, and everything is pretty much on budget with one exception, and in the last few months, we have exceeded our budget for legal services and there's a few reasons for that, one is, we have asked our legal council to do more work, two is the time spent on boarding our new team, and we have worked out a plan to ensure we stay within budget moving forward, and i have to say, i'm enjoying working with her and the rest of the legal team at richards watson.

we have proposed slightly higher legal budgets this year only an increase of about $3,000, based on this year's spending. and then our final slide is our proposed budget for fiscal 2019, 2020, a few notes, under the line item that says executive officer services, i have lowered my salary estimate for the coming year, as you know i am an independent contractor. last year we had $156,000 budgeted, based on this year's spending and my time, we have lowered it to 150,000 for the coming year. other line items, lafco memberships are slightly higher this year. travel and training, this is mostly to attend lafco events and community choice energy conferences. the rest of the line items are pretty cut and dry. the biggest difference, and -- in this proposed budget, because we do have about $50,000 to play with, i'm proposing 25,000

additional dollars to our labor study, this is to help with media outreach on the final report, printing, photography, i hope to establish a website that would be a resource for on-demand workers, and i also like to bring on a part-time research associate to assist me with the labor study, this is to ensure that i can manage my time while working on both the study and clean power s.f. i should let you know that we do have about $450,000 in funding requests. there are currently pending for our labor study with the san francisco foundation and the state legislature, i'm not sure how much of that is going to come through, but keeping my fingers crossed. so all told, the budget will have about a $26,000 carryover, plus $45,000 in reserves going forward, i would like to think the clerk of the board's office for her help on the budget, and with that, i would urge your

approval. i'm happy to answer any questions and she is here as well. >> thank you very much. any questions or comments about the budget? seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on his budget? >> i haven't started talking yet and you started my time. >> reset the? , thank you, mr. clerk. >> you talk about your budget, we would have a lot more money to have in your budget if we wouldn't have to ask for more money, for example, here's 144 -- s.f. viewer, please. this is a hundred and 44 unit apartment building complex that is being built in mountain view. they are charging $56 million to build this unit. when you build apartment building complexes in san

francisco, per unit you charged $850,000 per unit, at 144 units of apartment building complexes, that would cost the city $122 million. hundred 44 unit apartment building complex thing built at $56 million, you save $66 million per building by having a developer build a department built -- apartment building complex at hundred 44 units for $56 million. now, avenue some says 500 million is going to be directed towards helping homeless people, okay, and by the same response, the economic council wants to spend 12.7 million to house all the homeless people that is located in san francisco bay area. is that clear? and here is the mountain view

building where it only costs $56 million for this building. and this just flows. san mateo it's building 68 unit building for $57 million, so if you use this technique, you will be saving millions of dollars, and all the people that is homeless out on the street can have their own apartments instead of going in and out of navigation centers. you keep doing the same thing over and over, year after year, administration after administration, and turn around and wonder why you have so many people on the streets. it is not fair. >> thank you, mr. right. are there any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. can we please have a motion to approve the budget, please? so moved by commissioner singh, seconded by commissioner mar. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please call item number 5.

>> item number 5, update on the request for proposals for a survey of on-demand workers workers in san francisco. >> madam chair, thank you. did i -- can i just make a statement -- >> yes, please. >> i wanted to highlight a conflict of interest that i have with this item, and due to my prior employment with the jobs of justice, and they are listed as the source of income on my latest form 700 filing, so jobs of justice along with a number of other entities submitted a proposal in response to the r.f.p. to the labor mobility survey, and so for those reasons i request to be excused for this item. >> thank you very much. is there a motion to excuse commissioner mar we. >> motion made by commissioner singh, seconded by commissioner

fewer, we can take that without objection. commissioner mar is excuse for this item. mr. goebel, please continue. >> thank you, madam chair. commissioners, i'm very excited to reports that we have chosen it winning bidder for our survey of on-demand workers in san francisco, and i have sent each of you and your staff a copy of the proposal. first little background of how we arrived to today. we originally issued a request for proposals in january, and extended the deadline to the end of march. i did outreach to a number of organizations who have experience in this area, and though i hoped we would ultimately get multiple proposals, in the end we received only one, but it was a strong one that exceeded expectations. because we only received the one proposal, i served as a sole r.f.p. evaluator, and examined it based on its merits on the criteria outlined in the r.f.p. it scored high in the proposal

and the interview evaluations, and last week i announced we had -- we tend to wear the contract to a group of economic economic researchers he will form a unique partnership with community organizers, the survey will be designed by on-demand workers and themselves. so the partners, i will mention them briefly. chris spinner who is the fact you do director at santa cruz, he is going to serve as the principal investigator and the person responsible for coordinating the project with me , steve mckay is an associate professor of sociology at santa cruz. he will play a key role in developing the survey and the methodology. mr. fang, executive director of jobs with justice san francisco will serve as the partner with engaging local community organizations, and especially reaching racially diverse and vulnerable workforce populations

, aaron johannsson is the research director of the jobs with justice education fund , she will collect information on prior surveys and serve as an overall advisor and coordinator. last but not least, hayes with and matt schlesinger are the cofounders of the driver seat cooperative. this is an app that can be used to collect data from on-demand workers, anticipate being able to deploy this -- for hundreds of on-demand workers, which will to collect data and inform the survey. anticipate this data will be very helpful in terms of transportation data to the transportation authority and the sfmta. every one of these partners brings extensive experience on labor issues to the table, they all have impressive resumes, resume is, the academic researchers have long histories doing research on issues related to the restructuring of work, and the economic security, jobs

are justice san francisco, as you know is a diverse coalition of more than 30 community faith-based student or labor organizations. they are going to take the lead on recruiting workers for the survey. that a partners also have experience conducting surveys in multiple languages. they will begin by recruiting workers for a series of focus groups, in which they will develop the questions and the methodology. the researchers plan to use multiple methods, data sources to enhance their findings. there's also this other thing which i'm really excited about is they are in discussions about a potential partnership on the survey with the u.c. berkeley labor sensor. the researchers there are already stuck it -- studying the gig economy, and that partnership could potentially provide aggregate anonymous data from on-demand workers in san francisco by examining tax returns over many years for a partnership with the franchise

tax board. i also want to add that the partners experience with ensuring the confidentiality of those who participate in the survey. they have a plan to keep all of this information storage and an encrypted format. it is an impressive proposal, and i'm thrilled to be able to work with every one of those partners to come up with a series of policy recommendations to address the problems and the issues that we find in the survey, i am now entering into contract negotiations with professor benner and the rest of the team. i hope to bring a contract to you for approval at our may 17 th meeting. there is no action required on this item today, but i am very excited to move forward. >> it sounds very exciting. commissioner singh? >> sorry, there we go. i want to echo commissioner fewer and a incredibly excited about this. i wanted to resurface something that i think could come up or i had brought up many meetings ago

at this point, but i would be interested to know if some of the data collection is going to involve, or is going to be able to capture tipping practices, so i brought that up last time, but since it has come up, there has been a lot more controversy around companies such as door dash, and insta cart to have refused -- insta card says they have changed their policy, but door dash, for example, which is used heavily in san francisco, has refused to change the policy where they are basically deducting tips out of the wages they would pay their delivery drivers otherwise. still very interested if the study is going to try and capture that data, or is it possible to do so? >> thank you. i can tell you, most definitely, that that will be one of the issues the researchers look into i have been in contact with supervisor peskin's office he has been looking into this issue i know the bureau of labor enforcement standards for the city is also conducting an

investigation of door dash. i have been in touch with them as well. yes, tipping policies of companies will most definitely be one of the issues we look at. >> thank you so much, this is really exciting, i think. i thank you are right. this is a very impressive proposal, and i like the fact that it's -- that they will be doing the on the ground work while they are working academically. what a wonderful combination. i look forward to our contract next month and thank you for your work on this. no comments, questions? great, let's open this effort public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? mr. wright. >> yes, you were talking about employees. i will ask you to step back on focus on the employees, that's well over 1,000 that's been working five, ten, 15, 25 years for the city and county of san

francisco and you call them exempt employees, this is a discriminatory practice and tricking devices on the grounds that exempt employees that's working and labouring for the city do not get medical insurance, don't get annuity plans, and don't get no retirement plans, but yet you work them and have them not being able to know what they are going to wake up to you, and whether their job is going to be terminated, it is not fair, then you turn around and you have any executive director that works for the department of public health for well over 20 years and got annuity, retirement plan , and health plan, and she has been embezzling $100,000 a year for seven years straight. do stopper from working, but you let her keep her retirement plan it is not fair. as far as taxes, you talk about dealing with the tax board, i have demonstrated that you have

given twitter -- he used to be five, but now it is nine high-tech companies, multi- trillions, and billions of dollars of tax free money, talking about you giving them a break, when i ask you, why is twitter getting multi- trillions and billions of dollars of tax-free money? and then you tell me, you're giving them a break. they don't need a god damn break the people who need a break or the people who are speaking up for the homeless on the street with people with mental and physical disabilities, amputees, people in wheelchairs, and our veterans, i need a break my god damn self. give me militant -- multimillions of dollars of tax-free money and watch what i do with it. it is not fair. you are running a racket. that is called money-laundering, tax evasion and fraud. where are you keeping that money ? >> thank you. any other public comments? seeing then, public comment is closed. there is no action that needs to be taken at this time. can you please call eight --

last month a launched a new speaker series. what i hope to do by having this speaker series is to bring expert for great conversation on the topics that they are taking on. i hope that these sessions can be a resource not only for myself and for interns, but staff from all supervisors offices and the office of the mayor. our first speaker last month was mary collins of the american jobs project. she gave a pop presentation on the potential for offshore wind energy in california and how california could be a leader in that area. we had staff, five staffers from the sfpuc, we have staff from the port of san francisco, as well as the mayor's office.

our speaker next week helped write a new book called designing climate solutions, which is a guidebook for policymakers, and we now host to these these meetings monthly in the conference rooms, and i hope sometime we will all have time to attend. my one other note is that for the may 17th meeting, i anticipate it will be a longer meeting, and we are looking at changing time from 11:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. that day. i believe chair fewer there is a conflict in your schedule that day so we're looking at moving the meeting to a different time. that is all i have. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on item number 6? >> this is a derivative because you are working on the budget, and i want to explain further to you that that tax-free money that is not being collected, i've already mentioned that that is called tax evasion, money-laundering, bank fraud and

conspiracy, you are depriving the low income bracket people of their due process and equal opportunity rights. i have talked about the exempt employees, they are working and can't get full benefits. ronen claims she has experience in employment discrimination law i find it all that nobody stood up for those employees, because, see, what you were doing, having a set of employees during the same type of work, but not getting the same type of benefits and income, medical coverage, and retirement plan, that is a violation of the unequal pay act of title vii of the united states of america code service, the u.s. attorney generals and the lawyer's edition. 2,000 each series. you can't be benefiting one set of people, one set of income and doing the same work, but don't give them the same type of results. that was is a violation of the unequal pay act, and you should compensate those employees and

back them up and give them back pay for what you are shortchanging them on. it is not fair. and about this situation -- s.f. viewer, i mentioned kate hartley she is talking about how she literally put up a scale and said, 80%, which is $63,300, is low income affordable housing. people make it a low $66,300, is not included in the housing opportunity. so you are discriminating against them. you are so deeply involved in you discriminatory packages and you discriminate against people that those same skin color as you and then you said, 50% is low, very low income, so that is $41,450. >> thank you, mr. wright. thank you mr. wright. any other public comments?

public comment is now closed. strickler, please read the next item. >> item seven, public comment, members of the public may address a san francisco local agency formation commission on matters within their jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. >> i wonder -- public comment? mr. wright. >> all picked up all pick up where i left off. i showed you -- >> okay. [indiscernible]. >> i went through this with supervisor walton in his office. he was very impressed, and i want to show you how the homeless situation is at a point where homeless people don't want to go to navigation centers and shelters because of the hardship , it as a result, they are sleeping -- that's what used

to do my god damn self when you had me on the streets. [indiscernible] law enforcement came in contact with approximately 1,139 homeless people using the airport as a bathroom to keep themselves clean, while they are living in transit. all because you have to find housing for the low income people that you claim that you want to help, that you can't pay for, and then when you get enough, you turn your back. it's just like mayor breed. she campaigned and claimed her when she was a kid and her two brothers and grandmother were taking care of her and she is taking home $900 a month. that is general income under people who are on the street and living on social security, and getting -- getting general assistance for the same income. how would you like it if you

were out on the street and you're at a navigation center for 90 days and they kick you in your grandmother out of the navigation center, that is not housing, it is not fair. it is another -- [indiscernible]. >> is it on there? >> there it is. >> thank you, mr. wright. thank you very much. public comment is now closed. mr. clerk, will you please read item number 8. >> item number 8, future agenda items. >> colleagues, to be have any future -- yes, supervisor mar? >> thank you, thank you chair fewer. i had a question or an idea on,

you know, as we are waiting for the p.u.c.'s report on possible new directions we can go, i think in terms of electricity distribution and san francisco, i think we are all eagerly awaiting that, and there will be a lot of attention and discussion about -- on the board of supervisors and in other bodies, i'm wondering if there is some presentations and discussion we can have here at p.g. & e even prior to that report coming up -- at lafco even prior to that report coming out to expand our understanding of lafco and to hear the broader public about this kind of moment we are in right now, and understand potential options. i don't necessarily have anything specific in mind, but i

was just wondering, since it seems like that report and where the discussions and possible actions go from there, is directly related to the role that lafco plays in overseeing clean power s.f. >> go ahead. >> executive officer. commissioner mar, i would be happy to work with you on preparing a presentation for our next meeting. i know that by our next meeting the report will be out, sorry be happy to work with you and prepare a presentation on that as well as asking the p.u.c. to prepare a presentation as well. >> thank you very much.

colleagues, any other future agenda items? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. seeing no speakers, public comment is closed. mr. clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you very much. this meeting is adjourned. [♪] >> when i open up the paper

every day, i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the

environment. . >> let's get this party started. welcome to the golden gate park tennis center. good morning. i am phil ginsburg the manager of the san francisco recreation and parks department. it is my pleasure to welcome you here. you would think the bryan brothers answer arena were red -- serena were ready to play. this place has a buzz thanks to champions of tennis, golden gate park, our city. this facility is going to undergo a $27 million renovation starting almost today.