school and middle school students know or rising sixth graders and eighth graders know what their options are? is it more of an elementary school focusing? i think there is more discussion that could be had about how to move that into the future. we had a really interesting report on general ed transportation services, which is shockingly expensive. $30 million for special ed, and the cost drivers there primarily are -- one is just expensive, and the costs are rising, but also in a choice-based assignment system, because we're obligated to provide to families with ieps that need that transportation, we're obligated to provide door to door transportation, and if we're allowing families to have the option to choose their programs

as general ed families do, which i support, then we also are busing students all over the place to all over the place. it's astoundingly expensive. although that, as we heard last night is not the primary cost driver. we are busing students out of the district to non-public schools. we actually had a consent calendar resolution on that tonight showing you how many non-public programs we are sending students to. that's interesting. we also discussed the policy development time line. i really want to appreciate staff for hearing the direction from the committee at past meetings. that's been tightened up a fair amount. so the time line that we're working on now is that we would vote on a new student assignment process sometime in the middle of 2020. so that will require us to

shorten some of the community engagement time lines and other things. but we feel like it's do-able. i want to really encourage the rest of the board, you're always welcome to come to student assignment meetings. i want to encourage you to attend those meetings. we're having -- we haven't made any decisions obviously. there's no proposals, but we're having a lot of discussions and giving a lot of direction to staff about things that we want to see, and so i just want to make sure that we don't get too far ahead of the rest of the board on this because this is obviously -- i said last night, this is a thing that in all of my time on the board that i get asked about the most from our community and people are watching closely. so we all want to be on the same page and moving along together. so the next meeting is september 16th. we're going to give staff the summer to kind of do a lot of of the work that we've asked them to do. one of the first things that will come back to us are the

definitions that are spelled out in the policy for what do we mean by what a quality school is? so ski concepts, but we'll adopt those definitions and those will guide the policy development. this is all obviously really important and high profile work that is moving along. so please, if you can, come to the meetings and share your voice. thank you. >> thank you. report from the joint city school district city college select committee, which was friday, may 10. i think that was at inaugural meeting. >> i can speak to that since president cook isn't here. it was a really powerful meeting. we talked about city college and the budget. they're dealing with some budget issues and having to make cuts as somebody who -- i'm glad i didn't have to make any of those decisions because it was, you know, mostly hearing from city

college folks and then there was a lot of testimony from the public. what was really apparent is that city college is a community college. it's not just a junior college. while we want -- as a city, we want to make sure that their goal is transferring students to other colleges and graduating students, there is also -- it's such a wide range of folks who go to city college. there's young people who are seen as like a bridge to -- they talked about it as a bridge. i really like that. a bridge to four-year college, but also older folks are taking it as ways to just continue to be in school and be in community and for people to do art. then there's also a sense of community that's there and a lot of folks spoke to that as a meeting space in doing the arts or lgbtq community, the classes are an important way for students to actually connect

with folks. so it just reminded me that our schools are communities, and there was just a lot of love for city college, and i just, in whatever way we can, there was a request to the city to see if there might be ways for the city to support city college with bond measures or with, you know, extra funding to supplement the gap because just as we are undes much money as we should for education at k12, they're in a similar kind of budget constraint. >> thank you. item 2 under section l, board delegates to membership organizations. any reports? seeing none, three, all other reports by board members. four, calendar of committee meetings. curriculum and program will be monday, may 20th, at 6:00 p.m.

buildings grounds at monday, may 27th, 6:00 p.m. rules policy and legislation, monday, june 3rd, 5:00 p.m. yes. let me just complete. budget and business services, wednesday, june 5th at 6:00 p.m. ad hoc committee labor relations and affordability, there's no -- we're giving them a break to hire great teachers. >> thanks. ad hoc committee on student assignment will be in september. joint city school district and city college select committee, friday june 28th at 10:00 a.m. commissioner lopez. >> i was just wondering about the buildings and grounds committee in may. >> whether -- the right day or whether it's meeting. >> it's not meeting. >> okay. okay. now we know.

okay. thanks. section m, other informational items. there are none tonight. i'm sorry? >> thank you, president sanchez. actually, commissioner collins, could i ask for clarification recording the date of the next budget and business services committee? there had been some discussion about moving that meeting from june 5th to may 29th, i believe it was. so i just wanted to flag that and see if that was -- >> that was mostly -- we were asking staff if they would do that. if they can, we would like to do that. >> i think that will work for key staff. >> excellent. thanks. swe're moving it up to have more runway for approving budgets in june. >> excellent. >> section n, memorial adjournment. we don't have any public comment right now that i know of for

closed session. have you gotten any cards? thank you. section 0, closed session. the board will go into closed session. many i call a recess of the regular meeting.

>> this is a rambunctious crew. >> we are reconvening to open session for the readout of the closed session. number 1, we're voting on the matters. i move approval to the recommendation to expel one high school student. from the district of the remainder of the semester. the suspension will be enforced

for the fall with conditions. can i have a second? >> second. >> roll call. [roll call] >> that is six aye. >> i move approval of the recommendation to expel one high school student, number 15. the duration of the 2018, 2019 school year and the 2019, twenties 20 school year. >> second. >> roll call. >> thank you. [roll call] >> that is six aye.

>> i move approval of a stipulated expulsion agreement between the general -- the middle school student where the party has waived the expulsion of one matter. number 16. they will be expelled. [laughter] roll call. [roll call] >> six aye. >> i am move the approval of the stipulated expulsion agreement where the parties agree to waive the expulsion hearing of one middle school student. number 17 from the district of the remainder of the school semester for the false muster in school year 2019, 2020. can i have a second? there we go.

[laughter] >> thank you. [roll call] >> that is six aye. >> thank you. i move the stipulation to -- from the district. for the remainder of the spring semester, 2019, and fall the fall semester of 2019. can i have a second? >> second. >> roll call. [roll call] >> that is six aye. >> number 2 is report from closed session. to approve the contract for five principles by the vote of six

aye and one absent. and approve the contract of one interim person. approve the contract of two assistant principals. by the board of six -- by the vote of six aye. the board by a vote of six aye approved a nonreelection of 12 certificated employees. in the matter of 16-55042, the board gives the authority of the district to pay up to the stipulated amount. for the other matter, the board by a vote of six aye gives the authority of the district to pay up to the stipulated amount. the matters provided direction

to general counsel. in one matter of anticipation, the board authorized the general counsel to initiate litigation. that concludes our meeting. thank you.

[gavel]. >> chair fewer: good afternoon. the meeting will come to order. this is may 17, 2019, regular meeting of the local agency formation commission. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the local agency formation commission.

i am joined by commissioners cynthia pollock, matt haney, and gordon mar. our clerk is miss alisa somera. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, will you please read item number two. >> clerk: item 2 is the approval of the lafco meeting from the meeting of april 19, 2019. >> chair fewer: any comments or question prosecut questions from my colleagues? let's open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i make a motion to approve this item. seconded. okay. can you please call item number three. >> clerk: item number three is

a community agregation activities report. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the next meeting of the lafco. >> clerk: after public comment? >> chair fewer: after public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to move this item to the next meeting of the lafco. can i have a second, please? [inaudible] >> chair fewer: thank you very much. now could i then, madam clerk, could you please read item five. >> clerk: item five is a survey of a on demand workers

with jobs with justice. we've already had a presentation, and we need need discussion and item, is that correct, director goebel? >> commissioner goebel: that's correct. i just want to let you know that the estimated costs for this survey is $300,000. lafco has allocated $50,000. we are still seeking funding for the second and third parts of the survey, but i have reached out and several organizations are interested in covering some or all of the gap. we hope to have some or all of that funding in place by

september. >> chair fewer: okay. first, let's take public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: okay. i believe commissioner mar needs to excuse himself. i'll make a motion for commissioner mar to excuse himself. seconded by commissioner haney. can i have a motion to approve the item? >> chair fewer: thank you, and seconded? and item six? global global madam clerk, before you is the proposed

budget for 202 final budget for 2020. every year, the city and county of san francisco is required to fund the lafco from the general fund, in addition we have an m.o.u. from the san francisco public utilities commission which funds our work as the oversight authority for cleanpowersf. i'm happy to report that the m.o.u. which was scheduled to expire at the end of june, an extension was approved at this week's p.u.c. commission meeting. it now does require approval by the board of supervisors, so it will head there next. this first slide shows our history of our work order balance with the sfpuc. we spent about $5,000 this year. most of it was my time with the cleanpowersf but also to pay a

stipend. we set aside of a reserve of about $45,000 or about 15% of the annual budget. you'll see in the far right column at the bottom, that leaves us with about a $23,000 carryover into next year's budget. these are our expenditures to date. everything is right except for one item, which was legal services. we've been asking our legal team to do more work, and we on boarded a legal team member. finally, your final budget for 19-20, i've lowered my salary estimate for the coming year. travel and training mostly to attend cal lafco events and

community choice energy conferences. the rest is pretty cut and dried, and i would recommend your approval. thank you very much. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions on the budget? if not, let's open it up to public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do i have a motion? >> commissioner pollock: if i could just take a moment, thank you for your presentation on the budget. this is the first of your two presentations -- the second. it's pretty straightforward. i'd like to make a motion to approve the budget of 2019-2020. >> chair fewer: i second that. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: would someone like to make a motion to

approve this item as presented? by commissioner haney, seconded by commissioner pollock? thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: okay. let's move on to item four. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. mr. goebel? >> commissioner goebel: thank you, madam chair. at your suggestion earlier this year, the lafco partnered with the urban affairs program at the university of san francisco to assist with our study in emerging items. today, the professor and the students -- at least about half

of the class is here today to present their findings, and i would like to thank all of them for their hard work on this report. i also want to let you know that i will continue to work with them and also do further research based on their findings. there work is already proving valuable and helpful to our survey team and to the overall study. with that, i would like to introduce professor diana nigrin. >> thank you so much for having us? i'm not going to say too much but introduce these lovely students. they worked in four teams to research a different series of aspects. the students are going to layout the methodology and some of their findings, but you will be able to see the detail in the report that we prepared, which you all have.

we'd be happy to answer any questions and continue the partnerships, and thank you, sandy lee fewer for having us out. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sergio martinez. >> and i'm ben peterson. >> we are proud to present to you the gig industry and its potential effects on labor in san francisco. the research we will present was conducted by students at the university of san francisco and over the past three months

we've prepared our research focus, compiled or data and prepared a report. the research was separated into four smaller focus areas which were the labor political economy, lobbying, geography, and best practices. although our research was limited in scope, the findings are indicative of the larger picture and the research lafco has to follow. we are going to begin by talking about the population of drivers and their positions in the complicated relationships as drivers in the labor-political economy ground. the findings around this revolve around the question what role does this group play in the gig in san francisco.

demographic questions collect data on driver habits. the next section is 21 sliding scale questions that relate to the subcategory of work life balance, expenses, career, health and safety, and externalities. we distributed this survey through the sf-uber-lyft's driver facebook page and participated in events at gas stations around san francisco and received 36 total respondents. our second tool was in-person interviews with drivers where we elaborated on the questions, and there were six interviews total. so the first subcategory we have is work life balance which was used to determine how much the gig economy structure impedes on the life of drivers?

we found that a majority of drivers drive for both uber and lyft. almost all uber drivers are driving more than 41 hours of week, and most lyft drivers are driving more than 41 hours per week. in addition, they said their schedule is more flexible since they've begun driving but simultaneously answered that they have less time for hobbies and families. one driver described driving as a trap. the driver began working for their uber -- began driving for uber-lyft after they were injured, and they couldn't

perform their former job. two thirds of drivers indicated that driving was not their long-term goal. not surprising, two thirds of drivers were either working another job or looking for another job. this could mean that drivers are using transportation network companies as supplemental income. many families need to 41.5 to four minimum wage jobs in order to afford a one-bedroom apartment. this provides insight as to why people turn to gig work. of those who answered favorably, the respondents did not rely on the income. the income/expenses subcategory was used to determine if driving for t.n.c.s is

economically profitable. three-quarters of respondents believe that the rate of pay for uber-lyft met rick -- metrics are unfair. the quote on the screen shows one driver who initially answered positively about the income questions but when probed about the expenses didn't seem to know how much they were putting into driving. this was revealing as it shows some drivers do not keep track of their expenses so it could mean that the uber driver company split is actually more unfair than we think. so >> so in the health and safety subcategory we sought some insight into drivers' physical and mental well-being. we received overwhelmingly negative responses when asking

about driver's' physical health. lozar three-quarters of drivers feel this has negatively impacted their physical health. when asked about safety on the job, we had 26% of respondents reported feeling safe while driving while 42% felt unsafe while driving. a majority of public concern in t.n.c.s own safety measures have been focused on the safety of passengers rather than those of drivers. and while we believe that passenger safety should be held to the utmost priority, we believe that drivers should feel safe, as well. the picture that you see on the slide depicts a severely unfortunate treatment at the

hands of a passenger. this driver has largely avoided reporting abuses due to insufficient reporting measures and a lack of communication line between the driver and his t.n.c. relationships between drivers, between drivers and their t.n.c.s, and their community at large in which they work. surveyed respondents were overall displeased with the relationship of -- nature of their relationship with their t.n.c., with the majority feeling like they were under values at work. we had many drivers claiming that they had a lot of issues expressing problems they were having with aspects of their work from their car to their driver app to issues with

passengers to their rate of pay, any issues that can come up during the duration of one's shift. a particular fear is driver's fear of deactivation that typically comes due to passengers negative feedback or driving times fall below a particular threshold. this unsavory aspect is similar to the one given here as many drivers feel that t.n.c.'s are not shouldering the burden that

they should. in terms of income and expenses, we'd like to learn a little bit more about the role of debt finances, as well as the ways in which drivers calculate their incomes and expenses and track them on their own. in terms of drivers' careers, we'd like to learn a little bit more about the average tenure of working with a t.n.c., how long drivers typically stay with one company as we think it would reveal just how temporary and supplementary this income really is or whether drivers are depending more and more on this income as time goes on. we'd like to learn a little bit more how drivers access health care as their status with independent contractors with t.n.c.s denies them from

accessing these types of benefits. finally, we'd like to delve into communications and ineffective drivers in corporate entities. thank you, and that's all the time that we have, and we're going to pass things over to the geography group. >> hi. good afternoon. i am justin pearson, and i am representing the geography group, and our work in the san francisco bay area was to better understand how the unique layout of the bay area affects t.n.c. workers. so the general inquiries that we have for this -- for our section was what are the reasons t.n.c. workers come to san francisco? why are they not working in their own cities? how long are they driving, and

we did this through in-person interviews as well as surveys and plotted some of our data using the application mapline. the interviews were conducted with t.n.c. drivers while waiting for or actually on a ride with them. drivers tended to be more amenable to speaking while in a ride while after having being paid for a ride whereas the surveys that would have been conducted by the labor group. okay. so here's our first map. this is a little bit wider out, but besides externality that we see with los angeles, there are a few drivers who took part in this survey that lived outside of the bay area. we see sacramento, stockton, modesto, so you can get an idea that were this to be done in a

wider scale, a similar result would come out. then, we go to -- closer into the bay area, and we see that a lot of the interviewees came out of san francisco. we spoke with one interviewee who came from antioch. because -- she lived there because it was cheaper, and she had the caveat that even though she drives into the city to get better -- to get better wages, etc., to get better rides, to get more rides, the problem was that she would have nothing going back. she would have to be using her own gas basically to be going back because usually, you don't end up getting riders the other way, so that's another thing that ends up being an issue for these people living further

out. here -- through mapline, we were able to get some of the information of just the general -- the general demographics for the areas, and through that, we were able to get an idea of the income inequality that takes place in the bay area counties. alameda, contra costa, had the largest amount of drivers driving into san francisco. there was a large amount of miles driven per day for the sample -- as we mentioned, it was not a representative sample, but it gives you an

idea. as a limit, we had drivers driving about 100 miles a day, but it went to 250-plus miles, to give you an idea that the bay area is not just a collection of cities, but it does in a lot of ways act like a super city. through this data, what are we finding? it's important to find out why san francisco is an important destination for so many drivers. this may stem from the city's growth in jobs. it may be from the greater prospect of jobs in the tech district. this must also be compared to the high rent in san francisco which allows it to exist as a super city. as a result, many people that work in san francisco must commute from outside the city. because of income disparity,

many people are having to work multiple jobs in order to afford the cost of living in the bay area. in t.n.c., they are accommodated by higher income levels in the city while lower in the out skirts. the economy fills the gap. some of this information might have existed in other areas, not just in t.n.c.s, but it's something that's indicative -- it needs to be looked at on a wider conceal. and with that, i'll give it up to the next group. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is -- [inaudible] >> my name is lydia cho.

>> and we are the group for politics and lobbying? i want to lead off with the questions that we came up with. how will city leaders factor in transportation companies when introducing policy and legislation. the second question is what are merchant groups and elected officials impressions on the t.n.c.s lobbying efforts, and the last is what can san francisco do to mitigate the impacts of t.n.c.s on the city? so we were able to interview three legislative aides who gave us a lot of information on the side of the city and the city officials. so some of the key findings from the legislative aides talk a lot about the constraints on being able to regulate t.n.c.s especially because the california public utilities commission are the ones that

help us statewide sort of say how they can be regulated? but some of the findings came from the constituents and most of their complaints in areas like labor, especially taxi drivers, the environment, just in general, the congestion and emission that has been increasing, and also the safety when it comes to being a pedestrian or a person that rides bikes or just a person inside the car, the passenger and the driver? and also something new that came up was vehicular housing, and something -- people outside of the city, you know, traveling into the city, a lot of neighbors start to notice more people living in their cars, and -- >> so the second round of findings that the politics team would like to emphasize is the

emerging information. we came across this chart? it's from bloomberg research on various issues that uber specifically lobbied for since 2013? and as you can see, they started off with some of the more obvious issues like transportation and tech industry? and they further expended into larger social issues such as labor, health, and even crime as the company's grown? and by 2016, uber and lyft alone outnumbered a number of lobbyists compared to other companies like amazon, microsoft, and walmart combined? so among some of the more standard issues, we decided to dig a little deeper into how small businesses fit into the picture and how uber and lyft have advocated for their public support in san francisco. and in the time and capacity we had, we were able to get ahold

of two groups of merchants? one was volunteer quarter merchants and the other wished to stay anonymous even though they agreed to have the data reflected in the research. both uber and lyft tried to make connections and have sponsored these organizations for various causes? and for example, in 2018, lyft partnered with valencia corridor merchants and they funded the production of this map that highlights unique storefronts on valencia street in exchange for having their logo printed on the map, as well. so -- and the feedback from the merchants was really great, and they were actually impressed with the level of communication that lyft had provided throughout the process? and merchants also believed that the map helped revitalizing the neighborhoods and the businesses and they had

an opportunity to talk about pedestrians and riders in the neighborhood. and for the -- another merchants associations that the name we will not say today, we were informed that the organization has given -- they were given grants from both uber and lyft, and lyft and uber have donated money and sponsored activities such as local business mixers to promote and protect small businesses on their corridors? and we were also told that there was an agreement established between them as long as their interests were aligned. however this organization doesn't necessarily agree on the issues regarding these ride share companies especially on the broad spectrum of the gig economy. just to sum up, uber and lyft filled the gap that city officials weren't able to do so in the past and by doing that,

they have effectively leveraged the public into gaining support. >> to end this, we have some noteworthy stakeholder and recommendations for the research to continue on, and that includes going more into the small businesses and associations, organizations, and coalitions such as restaurants, associations, bike associations, and other merchant associations where there could be more different types of lobbying efforts than what we see in the city in city hall or in sacramento. thank you. >> all right. good afternoon commissioners. i'm winston parsons. >> and i'm wes gilmore. >> and the policy team put together proposals for individuals such as yourselves based on the political climate

and your ability to regulate locally. we're going to put forward six regulations for you to consider. so our first is congestion pricing which most of you are likely aware of, which is simply a charge to enter a designated zone of the city with the proceeds available to potentially fund transportation improvements. now while ride hail can play a useful role in our transportation toolkit, it has many effects. cities have seen significantly and positive impacts on reducing traffic, pollution, greenhouse gases all while raising funds for investment in other modes that alleviate traffic. importantly, its rollout must be paired with major investment locally and in transsit. likely increasing other modes as well will not be enough to

combat uber and lyft. there's concerns if rollout is not conducted thoughtfully, it can hurt. there are some measures to mitigate these issues and given our constrained time today, we'll refer to our report so you can see those further. we also think it's worth noting that uber and lyft have come out as procongestion pricing in new york and seattle, and we feel if the sfcta reexplores congestion pricing for san francisco it would be wise to consult with t.n.c. drivers themselves to ensure that their concerns are taken into account. it will be met with public opposition with more of the public receiving better transit service, and ultimately, it could be one of the best tools we have in our toolkit today to respond to t.n.c.s and

potentially autonomous vehicles, and we feel the city should consider freezing, reducing or eliminating muni fares. our next policy recommendation is for the city to develop a comprehensive curb management street gee to help mitigate illegal parking and traffic 234r0e issues. another impact is felt at the curb, and in addition to t.n.c.s, we've seen commercial impact growing, and that should encourage how we redirect curb space. at the moment, our system for allocated curb space is antiquated. it places the burden on businesses and organizations to apply for a loading zone. an individual has to

potentially take on some pretty significant costs in order to get a loading zone in front of their business. and while yellow and blue zones have no charges, this inburden is typically on an individual to apply for them. instead what the city ought to be doing is allocating curb space to meet a variety of needs. that way or streets can be more organized and safer, and this image illustrates some of the other curb uses and potential benefits. other cities have developed or piloted other strategies for curb management, and this is something san francisco could consider, too. the city has done this on a project-by-project basis but thus there's been no comprehensive corridor by corridor needs. what's more, there could be large benefits from t.n.c.s themselves, with loading zones

sparing them from unnecessary tickets. i'm going to turn it over to preston to talk about some other issues. >> thank you, commissioners. so currently existing regulation by the cpuc focus on drivers and regulation. t.n.c.'s offer very little public data? however we can find some data that sheds some light on the safety data on osha and the bureau of labor statistics? taxi drivers are over 20 times more likely to be murdered on the job than other workers? and 32% of taxi drivers were murdered on the job in 2014. another example of the safety risk that exists can be found here. so as you guys can see, can imagine, the data is very comparable from t.n.c.s and taxi drivers, and that's what we're trying to highlight. another example of the safety that exists is the image on the

right. this poses a safety risk for drivers that are attempting to identify or report passenger rideshare incident. next up, we have food delivery. third party food delivery companies are not regulated at the federal, state or local level. in san francisco, the city's department of public health issues permits to a variety of retail food operations, including farmers markets, caterers and mobile food vendors but does not appear to regulate the mobile food delivery companies? we found that the cpuc definition of network companies does not define these companies which means there's a unique opportunity for the department of public health to regulate them and require companies to take on the burden of

regulations rather than simply passing it on to their operators. clark county, las vegas, requires drivers who work as independent contractors requires drivers that transport goods to obtain a lejs license. in addition, a few states require restaurant affiliated driver's -- a few of these companies or a few of these states require that drivers have food safety certificates in their cars, and once again, we recommend that a lot of these companies -- a -- align with these wide ranging policies, that the companies bear the burden, not the operators? i'll turn it back to winston really quickly to finish up. >> all right. so the last indication is easiest to implement. one assembly woman has authored a resolution called ab-5 that

would codify the abc test into state labor law, thus enshrining a relatively simple way to determine whether a worker is an employee or contractor. legislators should also be aware that there is some disagreement amongst t.n.c. operators about whether they want to be employees. that he had is, the worker contractor status is currently being abused, and we think the city should support worker protections as soon as possible. no municipality in california has thus far filed support for ab-5. passing a resolution at the board of supervisors would show san francisco supports it. this is an opportunity for officials like yourselves in the public eye to exercise your

bully pulpit power and enhance recognition of these issues. i'm going to skip this in the interest of time, and we're going to wrap it up with some final thoughts? so that so many individuals are driving with t.n.c.s and on demand work poses some serious questions. how much has the economy improved since the '01 and '08 c crisis. how stable are uber and lyft when both are still operating at a loss and both appear to be significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. we feel that the policies we presented could be a way forward for san francisco leaders such as yourselves. beyond responding to these issues today, we need to be

thinking about the futures. we don't know when autonomous vehicles will be viable, but it's definitely in our future, and we need to start preparing for it. lastly, our literature review in the united states shows there seems to be a critique in labor whereas internationally there's a greater focus on the conditions that workers encounter. local leader should focus on elevating public awareness of the labor concerns especially as we sit on the precipice of another economic crisis. and we're happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: wow. that was a great presentation, and i want to thank all of you for the work that you've put into this. as you can imagine, i think this is the tip of the iceberg, quite frankly.

as i'm hearing all your findings and recommendations, i have so many questions, other questions to dig a little deeper, but colleagues any questions for the students here? >> i wanted to just also thank you for all of your hard work on this. this is an extraordinary and comprehensive look at this industry that we know is having such a tremendous impact on our city, on our community, and on our economy and on those individuals who participate in it, and it also i think really, as chair fewer said, brings up so many more questions and shows that we really don't have enough information right now in a systemic way that we need to make these policy decisions. so one of the things i want just going to ask, and i would -- there's a lot of pieces that i would like to dig deeper into, but are there certain things, especially for

the folks who talked directly to the drivers that were important for them in terms of their sort of day-to-day well-being or, you know, some of the things that have come up, bathrooms or places to park, places where they can sort of take a rest, things from sort of a policy perspective that the city can provide to improve their well-being and working conditions? >> i'm going to let sergio answer your question. >> so of the things that came up that were extra that the drivers brought up, there was an interviewee that said when they come to san francisco, they go to grocery stores to use the rest room. they usually have lunch at safeways and stuff like that? and so it did come up that they

are using the facilities of the city of san francisco. they are choosing to go to certain places because the bathrooms are cleaner and whatnot, but that was something that came up. and then, another thing that was interesting was an interview that i had, we did the entire interview, and then afterwards, he called me up and told me the story about the sexual assault. and he said i really want this to be a focus of the research, as well. how many people is this happening to? how can we protect the drivers so that this doesn't happen in the future? and then, ben talked about it a little bit, about the fear of deactivation. if you go into an uber, and if you ask the driver, they probably have been scared about deactivation because any passenger can just report that the driver was intoxicated, and the driver app will shut them -- driving app will shut them off right away.

this driving income is necessary for a lot of these drivers to make ends meet, so they drive for both apps because if they get deactivated for one, they can still drive for the other one. i would say yes to your question about there has been concern about what they do coming to the city, abobut moro it's the health -- their mental health, physical health, and the fear of deactivation that came up. >> thank you so much for this report. you know, we had limited time. i think we would love to hear at length what your impressions were when you spoke with drivers and as the data was presented to you, and i think that's something, you know, that me