far have only one planned project for solar plus backup power at third and marshall high and that's in the works. there's an academy in diamond heights that will do a battery system in the near future but that's not set up to provide back-up power and that's just to balance the power that they generate on-site. there's a robust solar system at valencia gardens that is in the mission and they'll get a battery installed there soon or a system of batteries. nonetheless, it's still not going to be set up to provide back-up power. this might be an opportunity for cleanpowersf and other city agencies to bridge that gap in the funding they need to make it a back-up power system so that we can pilot that and so that the folks on site can receive the benefits of that in a disaster. so just to clarify the key recommendations, i think that we

should do robust community outreach to identify these sites with community-based organizations and faith institutions and more. and explore ways to pass the cost savings on to the residents themselves, and not just the managers of these sites. and as i mentioned, highlight affordable and senior housing sites. we have already started seeing the consequences for neighboring communities in the last round of public safety power shutoffs that there were multiple senior housing complexes in communities where the power went out. and with some cases with clients living there and tripping over each other and going without their oxygen equipment that required electricity for days. san francisco, we dodged the bullet in this case, but we might not be so lucky in the future. there are a number of other recommendations. just to touch on one real briefly, a prohibition on natural gas and new construction has been discussed. i think that is worthwhile

considering, given our cas disar prone areas of the city with earthquakes. we saw that in the richmond district how disruptive and devastating even an accidental natural gas rupture for a relatively small pipeline can be. and, again, i'll note in several points, back in 2014, our hazard and mitigation plan recommended solar plus storage. in 2019, in july, our hazards and climate resiliency plan identified, again, seeking funding and through advanced solar plus storage at critical facilities. but as i mentioned earlier, there's been little progress on this thus far. next recommendation is another strategy to reduce financial burdens and it's around energyis for. currently much of our programming is often complicated and requires a variety of different agencies implementing it. and san francisco has areas that

have low utilization of existing funds. for example, one pg&e efficiency program requires customers of new appliances to complete an application, refer to this year's guidebook on what qualifies for a rebate and then to keep that receipt, submit it in an application to them in order to get cost savings. that puts a high burden on individuals to meet. this is a map of areas in san francisco that have older housing stock. but low rates of energies for programmulatprogramming utiliza. and while it's not as exciting sounding as having solar installed, it has a meaningful impact on reducing bills and improving home health. so i have a litany of recommendations, again, including working with the department of environment and

others to develop a one-stop-shop, one place where people in san francisco can found out about energy efficiency programs and to be guided through that. also it's worth noting that north of here they're developing an advanced energy center with significant funding from the state where people would be able to walk in and to actually learn about and to purchase new energy efficiency equipment on site and there's nothing like trying something firsthand and understanding it. but we don't have a good system to set that up for both customers and contractors at the moment. i think that there's an opportunity to offer remote demonstrations and to instill excitement. last, but not least, workforce development. a key goal should be bringing job and cross-industry training for locals for cleanpowersf and as it expands its renewable energy portfolio and the city

electrifies our infrastructure, the need for a trained workforce is going to grow. and amidst that there's obstacles to our existing workforce development programs and training folks. one example of an existing obstacle relates to our grid alternatives partners, who implement and install low-income solar through our gosolarsf program. and most of the funding they receive goes to staff training and the actual infrastructure themselves. folks who are being trained to install this on homes are not necessarily getting paid for their time. and if you're someone who is looking for training but you still have bills, that makes it hard to retain trainees and hard to keep them in the industry and to bring them up to where they need to be. what i would suggest is that we -- if cleanpowersf decides to support more of this type of programming they have funding for stipends and to meet people where they're at. now the next workforce

recommendations that i would point to, they're a variety in here, and another one includes voluntarily disclosing our g.o. centerificertification program , minority, lgbtq, and veteran-owned business enterprises. and last year they started asking those enterprises that have that certification to voluntarily disclose it to m.c.e. and moren. and another thing that we should consider doing is building our funding existing workforce development programs in the community like citybuild, the ymca and young community developers and pore. especially for trainees that need more than just job training. and some final notes, whatever process that we're embarking on,

as it pertains to equity, needs to be inclusive and to allow the participants and communities to meaningfully steer it. there's examples of projects in the bay area and the oakland block to boldly introduce water and other efficiency improvements to communities that have been met with mixed feedback and to enhance the displacement pressures. so if the community-based organizations, and faith-based groups and participants in these communities think that another strategy should be adopted, cleanpowersf and lafco would be wise to heed their input. and it's also going to be an obstacle and it should be a priority for us to serve undocumented populations. and they encountered this obstacle and as we're trying to tailor the programming to communities to reduce their energy benefits, cleanpowersf would be wise to partner with the services that already serve undocumented communities to make sure that they can really get those services to them.

and most of these recommendations will require collaboration and lastly, i feel that as a city we're at a critical juncture. while these projects and recommendations will take time and they're worthwhile endeavors, nonetheless and we have an aging population. we have the threat of climate change. and we're already experiencing the consequences of it. and i hope that lafco and cleanpowersf will seriously consider these recommendations because we have an opportunity as the city to lead the way in responding to these challenges and these recommendations will be a key part of our choice to rise and to meet them head-on. i'd like to acknowledge a very long list which is in your packet of folks who have been resources who have interviewed me and provided me with information. and with that i would welcome your questions and feedback. >> chairperson fewer: wow.

mr. parsons, thank you very much, i think that we all really learned a lot. colleagues, any comments or questions? i actually have a lot of comments and questions, but i'll defer to my colleagues first. commissioner mar, anything that you would like to share? >> commissioner mar: well, thank you very much for your work on this. yeah, it's extremely informative and helpful. i just had some questions about the solar plus storage part. and so, yeah, that really sounds important and, you know, i definitely agree with your recommendation about prioritizing -- looking at affordable housing sites and senior centers, where we could add this. i had a question -- you showed a map of i guess the department environment had already identified sites. >> yes. >> commissioner mar: when were those sites identified? >> this was back in 2017. and the sites on this map where

the areas they did a study to see what energy loads were needed and what would have to be is stored on those sites. these were not all of the sites and it was a list of 67. and those were mostly schools, fire and other community centers. not housing sites. >> commissioner mar: and do you know what the status is right now of moving forward with -- on -- on installation at any of these sites? >> the only one that i'm aware of from my conversations with the sfpuc staff who work on these projects is at fergg and marshall high where they're piloting it. and that's the only one that i'm aware of thus far. >> commissioner mar: great. and then i'm just trying to understand the benefit of these installations so at the site, would that provide back-up

energy just to the school or would it serve a broader -- a broader geographic range of people that might lose power during a power outage? >> sure. my understanding is that it was just for the school site itself and the reason that it was identified in part is that it's an identified shelter. so if there's a disaster, people need somewhere to stay and that building would be able to have some sort of back-up power on site. but i don't believe that it's included in a larger what they call a micro-grid where the whole area would be identified to have backup power. >> commissioner mar: great. and then on the energy efficiency section, and the single point of contact recommendation, yeah, that sounds really important. is this something that maybe pg&e had more developed work on, energies foron,energy efficiencg it easier for the customers to

access information on energy efficiency programs versus cleanpowersf? >> they have a training facility in the south of market area but i believe that is mostly centered around training contractors. and the energy efficiency like program landscape and the regulatory framework is extremely complicated. so i don't want to make it sound that cleanpowersf could snap their fingers and have a point of contact. others are considering banding together to have a single point of contact. and there's obstacles in state-wide funding to apply for it that would be critical to overcome in order to do that locally. >> commissioner mar: great. you know, i think that is all the questions. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. i -- commissioner handy, do you have any comments? okay, so i have really a couple of them. so, first, concerning your charts on page 8, you know, no,

page 10 and 11. this is very concerning about these disconnections and the concentrations in certain areas and especially i think that would be really important to find out the information about -- as you mentioned -- how long is the power disconnected for. and also who is in those homes or households. because we know that this area of san francisco actually has a high concentration also of zero to 18 age individuals. so family members. and then also the reasons for the disconnections. so is it a lack of payment? is it moving and not reconnecting? or i think that an overlay of this actually to look at demographics of who this affects would be really be important for us as a city if we really want to reach our equity goals. and, actually, something like

this, because it's related also to health outcomes, should also -- this kind of information should also be shared with the newly formed office of racial equity that we can see that there are disparities racially in this information. i think that that would be important to have. and it is concerning, of course, because in these neighborhoods we have a legacy as you said of burdening these areas already with these power plants that we've had that were now causing so many disproportionate health outcomes for those communities which, quite frankly, that is for san francisco, the most progressive city in the world. and i wanted to also mention about the solar plus storage sites. is there a recommendation of how

big these storage site areas have to be? >> that can vary on the energy load of the building. so there would be a lot more scoping work that would have to be done in order to say exactly how much needs to be allocated where. and one of the things that valencia gardens project has going for it, it has a large solar instillation on it. and you have to assess what is supported there as well. so in short, no, this recommendation was pretty broad. suggesting that we do some scoping work and also to do jousoutreach to the communitiest we have identified here and who is the best candidate for this, where do you want to see it, and how do we structure it to serve your needs and wants. >> chairperson fewer: i have been looking in my district at sites that could be under construction. since we're building and we're building it new, what are the things that we should be

includes, and this seems like one of them. one of them is a senior center, actually, to house about 99 units of affordable senior housing. but it seems as though this would be something that we should add into it while we're doing it. and i have also talked about cooling centers. you know, that if we're serving -- we don't have enough in our district actually, and i don't think actually city-wide. while we're doing this remodeling and dem ligd demolitd rebuilding, that we keep this in mind. is there any legislation that requires the developers or the builders to include this in their plans? i think that that's probably a question that we could look at, because we should legistate -- just as we are legistating, quite frankly, about the gas -- natural gas in public buildings which is going to expand, and to be extended to private development. to lessen our dependency on

natural gas and we do it to have impact. and about the training programs, i think this is really super important because we're going into the area and we're in like the third industrial revolution in our country where things like driving jobs is a number one living wage jobs for folks without a college education, right? and it seems as though this is sort of a niche where we could actually have people sort of reimagine their professions and to get into this field that is actually growing. and that there's a growing need for it. so i actually see possibility of a certificate program at city college, which is free. and also people who are incarcerated that we -- the best thing that we could do for folks who are incarcerated is actually to give them a job when they

finally come out of finishing, completing their sentence. and so i think that these opportunities actually we could be developing a pipeline. i think that that's what we're going to need. because many times in the jobs that we have in san francisco there isn't a pipeline of people that we have built along the way. if there's a standard such as a certificate program with the city college, that there's a standard that is developed, then we can actually take that standard and train people up to that standard and we could have a pipeline of folks for those kind of -- hopefully for living wage jobs to help us through. and then again, i also just think that, you know, when we're doing all of these -- and we're doing about workforce development, that we're always thinking about the most marginalized communities that we know in san francisco actually make below a living wage or a

livability wage. and so how can we elevate those communities actually to have more financial or economic stability. so i think that this report is fascinating and i am wondering -- because i think that there are things that we could be doing. as lafco or even as the board of supervisors that we could be doing on these recommendations. i'm wondering how we should work on some of these next steps. because this is just -- i think that this is -- it's thorough but it's just the tip of the iceberg. i think that we could be doing, for example, the storage plus storage spaces -- we could be developing a city-wide overlay of about where the eligibility -- just as we did for affordable housing -- where are these sites that we could be actually having them. and we could do a city overlay about where they could be all over the city. i think that, you know, in

relation to actually where our shelters are and coordinate it all and i feel that a lot of that is very uncoordinated. so i think that there's tons of possibilities. it hits on many of the things that i'm super concerned about which is, of course, disparities in san francisco, and never really thought about that this disconnecting of power, actually. i kind of didn't even see that. but, again, i think that were we to weed out disparities, and especially the racial disparities within san francisco, these are the nuances that we actually don't think about, right? because those of us who have never had their power shut off, and we don't even think about it. but that this happens, now i'm looking at the number that you gave us which is like 15,000? >> 15,000 account shutoffs in a

year. >> chairperson fewer: and what percentage of that are affecting families? i suspect a high number of them. and so i just think that this information is really fascinating and i want to thank you for this project and how much work you have done. commissioner haney any comments at all? >> commissioner haney: i wonder what kind of updates in terms of some of these recommendations that we might be able to receive in terms of what ends up happening and whether some of these things are formalized. and i am sure that supervisor fewer that there may be some things with the office of racial equity that you have been championing that they could be looking at as well with this. and some of the data that, obviously, seems to be missing and it is some of the racial equity questions sort of more directly. and one other thing that i wanted to ask about, and i know that you looked at workforce development but there wasn't as much of a focus here around

contracting and sort of how our money is spent and those sort of things. is that something that you considered as well in terms of where investments are made in contracts? >> certainly. one of my recommendations that spelled out much further in the report itself, which i'm happy to give to each of you, is for project labor agreements. which can be negotiated in a way that ensures that even sub-contractors are union employees or apprentices and that there's more fairness in that process. >> presiden>> commissioner hanei agree wit my colleagues with myt this is a thorough and enlightening report here and i hope that there's some responses and changes made as a result. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairperson fewer: i am going to mention about the development of the advanced energy storage. so i've had correspondence with some of my constituents who want to lessen their reliance on

natural gas. so they would like to move more towards electric. and they don't know how to do it. and they've asked me is there any information where a single family homeowner can actually -- what are some of things that we can do to convert from natural gas to electric. such as their tankless water heaters, are there electric ones? and actually knowing where to go and knowing where the information for it is. and that is something that could be done fairly easily through the department of environment, or done through our cleanpowersf somehow. i think that is what everyone can do, and it's not going to be just be us as a city government, but it's going to take individuals actually to make efforts to change themselves. as we're asking people to go to 100% renewable energy and super

green. so i'm looking at you, because you already have an equity group that is meeting, right? would you ever, mr. hymas, ask the equity group to look at these recommendations and see how feasible they might be? and if they need assistance of the board of supervisors to make anything in an ordinance or even this agency and how to further on some of these recommendations, i think this is too valuable to go unaddressed and too valuable to be ignored. so if you don't mind, i would ask that you ask the equity group to look at some of these recommendations and maybe to give us an idea of an analysis of what is doable, what is doable now and what is doable in a greater timeline and what is needed to actually to bring these to the attention of the issues and the recommendations and solutions for problems that we have.

i think -- and then maybe a report back to this committee about what is feasible, a timeline and what do you think that it would take. and we're looking financially, what assistance would they need. do you think that is doable? >> yeah, m i absolutely think tt our team, our cleanpowersf team and the sfpuc team broadly is looking at some of these things. in fact, i think that mr. parsons alluded to the discussions that we've already been having with him and he has met several times with our equity working group. the working group is initially charged with developing a framework and that framework is intended to inform everything that we do as a program, cleanpowersf. and we hope that it will be a model to apply even broader than that across the p.u.c. and i think that a lot of his recommendations are totally right for further investigation from that group and our team as

we're beginning to develop new programs and i think we've reported sort of throughout this year to this body that our focus had been completing enrollment and bringing the program sort of to fruition and once we did that, of course, we have to continue to procure clean energy. but it was to bring new programs to san franciscoians and our customers that fill gaps. and to address needs. i think that, you know, mr. parsons has, you know, i think -- mr. goebel referred to how thorough this report and it is super thorough and i really applaud his work and i thank him for it. and he's given us a lot of good ideas and things to pursue. so long answer to saying, yes, we will talk further about, you know, what that would look like,

what sort of is in the scope. and there's things in this report that are definitely beyond the scope of cleanpowersf but we're happy to look at those things that we think that are in scope and further coordinate with the executive officer on those. >> chairperson fewer: i think that is great and i hope that the framework addresses some of the things that you're developing are addressing the issues there. and i think in san francisco that we get focused on sort of what the big -- what our big task is, quite frankly. and we actually don't sort of drill down into these nuances around disparities. and i think that we -- if we're doing something well, that we should be doing something well for everyone. and i -- and i think that cleanpowersf has been doing

great work and i think when we look at these disparities that there are things that we can actually address, but also just about the resiliency of our city. and we have a tendency sometimes to work in silence here. so i think that this is a good opportunity for cleanpowersf also to look to the board and also to this committee. and how we can put -- shed a light on it. what can we do to further advance some of these issues? i mean, the remedies to some of these issues that we're having and we're happy, i think to actually bring that forward. so thank you so much. and thank you, mr. parsons. kudos. thank you very much. great. okay, there's no action needed for that, but public comment? and so coming up, mr. brooks... >> good morning again, eric brooks, san francisco green

party and also our city s.f. there's great report, there's a key crucial equity issue that's not in it because it's kind of a new issue. and that is big water boilers in the bottom of old buildings. i live in district 6 where there are a lot of them. i live in a building that has one of those boilers. most of them are gas. and we're now getting global warming and heat waves, and there's an ordinance that -- i don't know when it was passed -- but there's an ordinance that requires building owners even during heat waves to turn on these heaters at night. and the ordinance was originally intended to make sure that it doesn't get too cold for people that are vulnerable. well, i removed my radiator because it wasn't working well and that is my water radiator. so the only heat that gets from that hot water is through the pipe in the wall that feeds the

other radiators. there's been times this year and in previous years where outside it was in the 70s and inside of my apartment it was in the high 90s. and it's because water takes a long time in those pipes to cool down. so the first thing that we need to really frontload in this process, looking at all of these old buildings, most of which have low-income tenants and getting rid of those boilers. whether they're gas or electric. and making sure that as we're electrifying these buildings and hopefully electrifying those buildings first, that we're making -- setting it up so that individual people, residents in their apartments, can shut off the heat. this is endangering people's lives. i wouldn't be surprised if someone has already died because of this. and it's also wasting a lot of energy. so we need to frontload dealing with those old boilers. i think that city hall might even run on that kind of power.

>> chairperson fewer: yeah, thank you very much. >> thank you, again, jedd holtsom, and the 350 bay area. and thank you to mr. parsons for the presentation and the great research. and i wanted to highlight in terms of educating folks on heat pumps and what is available for single family homes, the bay area and the district is doing a lot on that as well. although their website is not the best. but there's a lot of information there that people and incentives there that people don't think of or apply to. i wanted to highlight energy efficiency. you know, a huge amount of san francisco are renters. i'm a renter and i have lived here for 20 years. and i've only had landlords that don't care about tenants or the property. i pay the energy bill. so there's really no incentive for my landlord to actually pursue the single point of contact or any of these incentives or spending any money at all because i pay the bill. so i wanted to just highlight that i don't think that really

any discussions that i hear at the district or in the city around energy efficiency really look at the actual way that the economic incentives are laid out for folks. none of this is going to accomplish anything except for folks in san francisco or maybe out in the outer richmond or sunset where they own their homes. as far as the solar plus storage, we're regional organization with lots of folks in the north bay and, you know, they are taking this seriously in a much more intense way than we are because of both the fire impact and the power shutoff impacts they've had. i would say with the utility negligence and malfeesance and the criminality in the last few years as well as the incompetence with respect to the power shutoffs the city needs to move towards microgrids and not just back-up power for a particular building, but actually building out microgrids wherever possible. and to the extent that the facilities are going to be

finding it harder to do this because of the legal issues with pg&e and the recreation centers and schools and stuff they need to get that ball rolling. because we have to do this. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. just to respond to the public speaker that actually in my district is 65% renters in my district so they're not all homeowners. and also i wanted to also say that i agree that i have heard from many people who live in these old buildings that it's unbearably hot in their apartments and it's harmful to their children and they can't open up the windows because they're on the fifth floor. and now -- and i myself have converted all of -- i mean, my water heater to a tankless water heater which is so much more energy efficiency too. so there's no action needed on this. just to thank you to mr. parsons.

and so having said that, madam clerk can you please call item number 5. >> clerk: item number 5, an update on the request for qualifications for a renewable energy expert. >> chairperson fewer: mr. goebel. >> i wanted to bring you up to date for renewable energy expert. the deadline for submissions closed on october 18th and we received servreceive seven prope hope to issue a prequalified list of firms in early december. this is the easy part of the work. and before we can even bring on a consultant, lafco needs to determine exactly what the scope of work is going to be. and so as you mentioned in winston's report that there are a lot of opportunities and ideas in it that need to be scoped out. and i'm hoping that we can hand some of this to the consultants. so in the next few months, i'll work with you and your staff and

the p.u.c. and the department of environment and other city departments, and other stakeholders to figure out what the scope of work should be for the consultant. and then i'll come back at our next meeting in january with some options. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. i believe that -- let's open this up for public comment? any members of the public to comment on item number 5? >> thank you. one last time commissioners. jet holtsom from 350 bay area. and i wanted to highlight going back to the c.c.a. report, you know, the integrated resource plan is specifically it's a planning document that has iterated over time. and it's not part of a city-wide build out plan for several reasons. and the capital plan in terms of local buildout, that's where

that would live. and we've been waiting quite a while for that to come out and it looks like the capital plan is due to be approved in june 2020. i imagine with a list of contractors not coming out until december, probably, you know, we wouldn't have work done by then anyway. but i think that -- i just want to highlight what we've been talking about since 2013 and probably before, in terms of what we need to see for the city in terms of energy efficiency and demand response and renewables. whether it's cleanpowersf or public power or any modality, this is what we need for our climate targets and survival. that goes well beyond what was discussed by mr. parsons and it goes well beyond what we are likely to see in the capital plan in june 2020 from sfpuc. so i want to highlight that, again, we feel very strongly that the scope of work for this contractor needs to include a

comprehensive city-wide integrated buildout plan of renewables and energy, demand response and microgrids to the extent feasible. and i know that a lot of those points will be included in the integrated resource plan but not in a way that they would even tell you they intend to follow to the letter. thank you so much. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. >> eric brooks again, californians for energy choice, and green party and our city s.f. so i wanted to second everything that mr. holtsman just said that is really important. and to just carry on that discussion, really focus on the microgrid issue and the local installation issue. we must have a city-wide, county-wide and regional plan for san francisco to get to 100% locally sourced renewables. and a big part of the reason for that is equity.

so, yes, this report is great and, yes, we should do work around the report. but equity goes far beyond that. we need to change the entire city over so that it is an entire network of interconnected microgrids that have battery storage in them so that no person and in no neighborhood will lose power if pg&e decides that it's going to shut off san francisco's power. and other problems like that -- earthquakes and other natural disasters. and we can't get to these equity objectives until we have a real plan for the entire city of san francisco to make it a completely new energy grid with new -- you know, energy efficiency, battery storage, renewables in every possible place that we can put them. and also what wasn't mentioned specifically yet which is really important is to both us and

equity is demand response. setting up -- making sure that there are subsidies, especially for low-income homes to set up systems in their houses that turn appliances on and off or time appliances going on and off in homes and businesses so that they are using electricity at a better time of day to balance the whole system. without doing all of that stuff we're not going to get to the equity. and we need a city-wide plan so that's what the contractor needs to be set up for. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we need action on this? no, no action is required. thank you very much. let's move on, madam clerk, call item number 6. >> clerk: item number 6 is approval of the resolution accepting a grant from the san francisco foundation for the on-demand labor survey and study in the amount of $30,000.

>> commissioners, this item authorizes the lafco to accept a $30,000 grant from the san francisco foundation for our survey. big workers. this grant comes from the racial equity and the economic inclusion program. there's more information about it in your packet. and i want to thank rob hope and jack chen at the san francisco foundation for all of their guidance and support on this. they have also been helping with the fundraising and encouraging other foundations to give to our efforts. and, of course, a big thank you to our survey team for all of their work today. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. this opens up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is now closed. and so we need a motion actually to approve the resolution to accept the grant for the on-demand survey in the amount of $30,000.

commissioner mar, seconded by commissioner haney and we take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, call item number 7. >> clerk: item number 7 is an update on lafco's survey and study of san francisco's on-demand workforce. >> chairperson fewer: hi, mr. goebel. >> thank you, madam chair. first good news about the fund raising, we are awarded a $50 dpro$50,000 grant to support our survey of on-demand workers. >> chairperson fewer: good work, mr. goebel. good work. >> so this will fund the research analysis that takes place after the data gathering ends. and so this will reduce our deficit for the survey from $270,000 to $220,000. and we continue to aggressively fundraise and we're now in talks with the san francisco transportation authority and

they have expressed an interest in funding the aspects of the work but it's not a guarantee. because we really don't want to start the full-fledged survey before we have the funding, work is going to cease on the survey for the rest of this month and december while i continue to fundraise. i will tell you that there were some promising developments this week, contacted by some big foundations and we're talking. and the survey team has indicated that this timeline actually will work in their favor because november and december are not ideal months to conduct a survey. if we are not -- and i'm hoping that this will not be the case -- but if we are not able to close our funding gap by january, by our next meeting really, that the survey team will propose a number of scaled back options to work within the money that we have raised. we have raised almost half of it, including the $50,000 from lafco. so i'm still optimistic that

we're going to pull this off before our next meeting on january 17th. i should also tell you that the team has completed the pilot survey and so they were able to go out and to survey 140 on-demand workers working on a dozen platforms and in the process of analyzing that work. and the report is due on monday and i'll have more information at our next meeting and share the findings with you. and that's all i have on this file. >> chairperson fewer: thank you, good job. and let's open it up to public comment. any members of the public to comment on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. no action needed on that item. and then, mr. goebel, we need you up there again, and madam clerk, call item 8. >> clerk: authorization to pay the lafco intern for research assistance. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. >> commissioners, this item would allow lafco to pay our research assistant dan rail for his time as an intern at

lafco. this motion is before you today because i am required to get commission approval for any expenses or work orders above $5,000. dan as you know came on a few months ago. he's been very helpful with our work on the labor study. in fact, i will have some updates for all of you shortly. and it's also been a learning opportunity for him. so the scope of work is outlined in my memo to you and i urge your approval. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item number 8? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to approve the expenditure. and seconded by commissioner mar. and we take that without objection. thank you very much, madam clerk, call item 9. >> clerk: item number 9 is approval of the 2020 lafco regular meeting schedule. >> commissioners this item would set your 2020 meeting schedule, and i have been in touch with the commissioners and your

staff. all of the dates next year seem to work fine, except commissioner haney, i know that there was a conflict with one of those dates and i will make sure that we have a quorum at that meeting in february. and we start out at 10:00 a.m. on room 26 263 and the next meeg is on january 17th. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. so this is open for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item 9? seeing none, now closed and the motion to approve the 2020 lafco regular meeting schedule, and seconded by commissioner haney. and take that without objection. thank you very much. and then madam clerk, read item 10. >> clerk: item 10, the executive officer's report. >> commissioners, i just have a few items. one, as you all know, lafco is going to be playing a key role in helping the city to move towards establishing a public bank.

thanks to the legislation introduced by the chair this week, we'll have a role to play in the second phase of the work next summer. i just want to say that i'm excited to be part of this and i have taken immediate steps to analyze what kind of resources we'll need to do the work. the second item is just an expenditure update that is included in your packets and everything is pretty much on budget. i will just note that we're likely to spend most of it this year. so there won't be much carryover into next year. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much, mr. goebel. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item number 10? >> thank you, commissioners, jet holtsom, 350 bay area. our c4 bay area action was involved in supporting the bill in sacramento and really gratified to supervisor fewer for pushing this locally. and really excited to see, you

know, how this moves forward with the public coalition. i wanted to just throw in there that in addition to the amazing kind of -- i guess stuff that we were looking at the bank getting involved in, that a lot of the stuff that we talked about today and that the board etc. have talked about in terms of how are we going to pay to get natural gas out of buildings, how will we pay to retrofit all of these old victorians, and, you know, no one knows where that money is going to come from. and that's not just here but pretty much everywhere, everyone is looking around, and so i think that this is a fantastic opportunity to look at innovative financing mechanisms where we can kind of as a democratic quality to actually spend resources on the things that we need to preserve going forward. so i wanted to highlight clean energy broadly as a thing to

look for the public bank and i look forward to the conversation. >> chairperson fewer:. any other public comments? >> eric brooks again. and i want to second what mr. holtsom just said again that we need to use the public bank to do the housing, it is big. co-op housing and the other one is clean energy. and i have been reading about the progress on the public bank, it looks like it's going to take at least seven years and maybe longer and i just want to remind that the intergovernmental panel on climate change, climate crisis is what it ought to be called, is saying that we've only got a decade left. so we need to try to accelerate the public bank process, both because -- especially in my neighborhood we've got, like, far more people living on the

street who need homes and we've got a climate crisis that needs to be reversed rapidly. so the faster that we can get -- you know, i don't want us to go so fast that we make mistakes but the faster that we get a public bank online the faster we can solve these crises. and they even fit together because homeless people are out in this high degree weather that we've never had before. and so we need to get the public bank rolling really quickly. >> chairperson fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public comments, public comment is closed and no action is needed on that item. and i also just want to say, yes, the passing of this gives us the opportunity to really dream and actualize a public bank here in san francisco. instead of investing in fossil fuels with the money earned off of hard-working backs of san franciscoians that we can try to save our environment. so, madam clerk, call item 11.

>> clerk: item number 11 is public comment. >> chairperson fewer: any public comment and seeing none, public comment is closed. item 12. >> clerk: item 12 is the future agenda items. >> chairperson fewer: colleagues, any items and we discussed a couple things that will come up and we'll not have another meeting until the next year in 2020. and let's open this up for public comment now. mr. brooks? >> yes, eric brooks again. so some things to get on your radar that really need to come up in the next meeting because we need to get ahead of them. one is abq-35. that bill was killed last year because of good work from a large coalition state wide. but it's on -- it's on for january most likely again. that is the big bailout, the one that would bail out pg&e for the 2017 and 2018 wildfires, the

cost of which if the tubbs fire is included could be above $50 billion. if pg&e gets that bailout, the state is not going to be taking over pg&e and even the corporations that we don't want to take over pg&e won't take it over and pg&e will be able to perpetuate itself and we must stop it to stop it from happening because the last thing that we need is pg&e for another hundred years. and the threat is either of berkshire hathway or paul singer and his vulture hedge funds taking over the pg&e system instead of us taking over. and it's an immediate threat and it might even happen before -- might start rolling before your next lafco meeting, but hopefully not. so even the governor came out and said, hey, berkshire hathway and warren buffet, why don't you

buy p and e and that's frightening. and they have made maneuvers and supported the ability to take over california's electricity grid. berkshire hathway, if it did that, it would become the largest monopoly electricity utility in the country. and so they'd be like pg&e on steroids. we can't allow pert allow berksy to take over. and they are only interested in making money and they'll probably gut the company or throw it out. so that stuff needs to be on your radar for your next meeting. >> chairperson fewer: thank you, mr. brooks. next speaker, please. >> jet holtsom, 350 bay area. and i wanted to touch on the comments that this is the first time in 20 years of living here that the board of supervisors, the mayor and sfpuc are all moving in the same direction on energy. and so then it's very frustrating to see the governor popping off with press comments

about berkshir berkshire hathway undermining the whole discourse of what the city and the county is trying to achieve, what i believe that san jose and 20 other mayor his signed on to. so i think that in terms of lafco's interaction with this, i think that maybe -- i would propose tabling something like a resolution that states that, you know, that we support community participation and ownership. whether it's c.c.a. or the co-op situation or a public takeover or a municipal takeover, whatever model it is, that we are in favor of one of those and not either th this in the curret form. i know that the city can only take one position and i don't know if it needs to be the board or the p.u.c. or lafco, but i think that it's tough when you

have these different groups and only one position can be taken to actually get the ball rolling. so i would maybe encourage lafco to get that ball rolling. >> chairperson fewer: any other public comment? seeing none, comment is now closed. any other items before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business today. >> chairperson fewer: and i wish everyone happy holidays and a happy 2020. thank you. >> the bicycle coalition was giving away 33 bicycles so i applied. i was happy to receive one of them.

>> the community bike build program is the san francisco coalition's way of spreading the joy of biking and freedom of biking to residents who may not have access to affordable transportation. the city has an ordinance that we worked with them on back in 2014 that requires city agency goes to give organizations like the san francisco bicycle organization a chance to take bicycles abandoned and put them to good use or find new homes for them. the partnerships with organizations generally with organizations that are working with low income individuals or families or people who are

transportation dependent. we ask them to identify individuals who would greatly benefit from a bicycle. we make a list of people and their heights to match them to a bicycle that would suit their lifestyle and age and height. >> bicycle i received has impacted my life so greatly. it is not only a form of recreation. it is also a means of getting connected with the community through bike rides and it is also just a feeling of freedom. i really appreciate it. i am very thankful. >> we teach a class. they have to attend a one hour class. things like how to change lanes, how to make a left turn, right turn, how to ride around cars.

after that class, then we would give everyone a test chance -- chance to test ride. >> we are giving them as a way to get around the city. >> just the joy of like seeing people test drive the bicycles in the small area, there is no real word. i guess enjoyable is a word i could use. that doesn't describe the kind of warm feelings you feel in your heart giving someone that sense of freedom and maybe they haven't ridden a bike in years. these folks are older than the normal crowd of people we give bicycles away to. take my picture on my bike. that was a great experience. there were smiles all around. the recipients, myself, supervisor, everyone was happy to be a part of this joyous

occasion. at the end we normally do a group ride to see people ride off with these huge smiles on their faces is a great experience. >> if someone is interested in volunteering, we have a special section on the website sf bike.org/volunteer you can sign up for both events. we have given away 855 bicycles, 376 last year. we are growing each and every year. i hope to top that 376 this year. we frequently do events in bayview. the spaces are for people to come and work on their own bikes or learn skills and give them access to something that they may not have had access to. >> for me this is a fun way to get outside and be active.

most of the time the kids will be in the house. this is a fun way to do something. >> you get fresh air and you don't just stay in the house all day. iit is a good way to exercise. >> the bicycle coalition has a bicycle program for every community in san francisco. it is connecting the young, older community. it is a wonderful outlet for the community to come together to have some good clean fun. it has opened to many doors to the young people that will usually might not have a bicycle. i have seen them and they are thankful and i am thankful for this program.

>> good morning. welcome to the transportation authority board meeting for today, tuesday, november 19. our clerk could you please call the role? [roll call]