>> chair fewer: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the january 17, 020, regular meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i'm sandra lee fewer, the chair. and i'm joined by gordon mar, and shanti singh and our clerk, and i would like to thank michael baklazar and jason goldhammer -- golddahmer, i'm sorry, i don't know what is with me today, from sfgov-tv. madam clerk, any announcements.

>> clerk: silence all cellphones and documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> chair fewer: i wanted to everyone to know that we will need to recess this at 11:20 to 12:00 noon. so let's start. madam clerk. can you call item number 1. >> clerk: item one was to the call to order and recall call. would you like me to call item two. >> chair fewer: yes. >> clerk: the approval of the lafco minutes from the november 15, 2019 regular meets. chair fewer: any questions or colleagues? seeing none, any public comment? seeing none, let's approve the minutes of the meeting. and we can take that without objection. do ied i need a second. thank you very much. and madam clerk, call item 3. >> clerk: the presentation and discussion on the cleanpowersf local renewable energy report. >> chair fewer: and we have

barbara hale with us today. >> the general manager at the san francisco p.o.c. and we're here to present a draft of our clean powersf local renewable energy report. i'll go through a number of slides here and we'll review, let's see if i can get this powerpoint to work with me. and if we could get it on the screen, that would be great. thank you. i'm not quite sure why it's not advancing. okay, now we got it. so here we go. we'll review the items here, background to put the report in context and the method that we've taken to identify the candidate sites for local and other renewable generation project opportunities. our findings and our next steps. the report is part of a larger planning process at the san francisco p.o.c., and the

cleanpowersf and a integrated plan. to preview what we'll conclude with, we will be with capit funding approval, high-value candidate projects that have been identified through this process and it will be, valiateed with -- evaluated with further planning and preliminary design work and candidate projects that continue to show value and constructability will be evaluated for funding and construction through the city's capital planning process. so let's talk first then -- a little bit about the integrated resource planning process and how this reporting effort that we've gone through fits. under state law, the san francisco p.u.c. has to have an integrated resource plan every two years. in this plan we model a range of supply and demand sensitivities. the objective is to develop the least cost, best fit portfolio of the electricity supply that meets program goals over a

20-year period, including local development. the integrated resource plan analysis allows for better understanding of the costs and the energy delivery impacts -- excuse me -- of candidate resource projects. including local renewable projects into the cleanpowersf clean energy supply portfolio. sorry, i'm struggling a bit today. local planning -- excuse me -- is part of this regular cycle. our renewable development has long been a part of the san francisco's clean energy initiatives. i certainly don't need to tell this commission that. the board urged the san francisco p.u.c. to develop this plan. the local renewable energy report findings inform our state-required integrated resource plan and ultimately the city capital plan. that's the process by which

cleanpowersf will develop and fund local projects. the city capital planning process is the same process that the city has used for about the past 20 years to develop and fund the program portfolio of local renewable generation projects. and just to take a minute on those, through our retail electricity program, the sa san francisco has projects on city-owned property, including this building that we're in right now. you can see the data here, 8.25 megawatts of solar generation and about $27 million invested. that's funded by the net operating revenue from the sale of electricity under the program. and we have more projects in the pipeline, 1.5 megawatts more, including storage and those are in development and construction. so that's the background and context. now let's talk about the approach that we've taken in this report to identify candidate projects that could be developed and funded through the cleanpowersf program.

three project categories were analyzed for cost effective development -- in city, city-owned sites, regional city-owned sites and other opportunities in and near the city. sites were evaluated for suitability to develop within the five to 10-year timeframe. candidates were -- candidate sites, excuse me, were identified as capable of exports power to the grid to serve cleanpowersf and had no identifiable barriers to development. candidate sites were rated. a high suitability rating means that the site is worth further time, further planning and analysis to determine whether a renewable project should be implemented at the sites and funds requested. a medium suitability rating was assigned to site where is a barrier will need to be addressed before we spend more

time on the renewable development at the site. so that could be something like a structural upgrade that we know that needs to happen before we put the weight of a solar system on it. for electric resource planning and procurement purposes, the city defines "local" as the nine county bay area. this approach provides a preference to projects that are located in the region through our bidding process, access to increased resource diversity, and so that we can access the wind and geothermal resources outside of san fran. those are represented in the orange and blue bubbles on this map much the county. and larger project opportunities, because we have, you know, less space constraints. lower costs than for construction than in the san francisco-only view and an opportunity to balance the higher costs san francisco projects with lower-cost projects, providing economic development in the bay area. that balancing helps us to maintain our affordability for

the cleanpowersf customers. let's take a look at the cost data for these different locations, resource types and size. along the horizontal or the x-axis you can see three locations, sort of buckets, with different project utilities. and utility scale with large projects in california is shown there on the left. and the first four projects. and then the nine county bay area. and then in city on the right. the blue bars show the average cost per megawatt of electricity generated by the different projects. the red line that goes through the middle there represents the average supply cost of the cleanpowersf portfolio today. around $55 to $65 a megawatt hour. you can see how different locations and costs compare to that average. we have to get the mix of locations and technologies right to protect affordability.

there's a tradeoff between the cost of local energy and the amount of it that can be procured and still maintain average supply costs to maintain affordability. if we procure local projects at an average of about $80 a megawatt hour, which is shown on the x-axis there at the extreme left, local content can be up to 30% of our supply portfolio without increasing average supply costs. that's represented by that green band at the bottom. so at the $80 point, you can see about 30% of local content. higher local costs as we move along the horizontal or the x-axis, will decrease the total percentage that we can procure or increase our supply costs. so we need to balance our local renewable development goals and our affordability goals.

that is the dynamic that we're looking -- that we're working with as we plan local renewable development. now let's look at the specific projects that the team evaluated. staff evaluated 132 in-city sites across multiple agencies and they are identified on the right on this map. the dots represent the sites. and the bigger the dot, the larger the generating capacity at that location with the dot color representing the suitability rating. so you can see a large green dot would be an attractive opportunity for us to evaluate further. so how do we screen these sites? first, we have prioritized sites that could support projects with more than 250-kilowatts potential capacity. the remaining sites were then evaluated to identify the potential risks to determine --

to determine suitability for development by cleanpowersf. age contactedded to determine at the host what their preferences are at the site and to learn more site detail. the analysis was conducted to determine potential on-site generation and associated costs, suitability ratings were assigned. so now let's drill down a little deep or that part of the approach. sites were evaluated looking at these criteria for near-term development -- structural improvements that might be required and if there were risks to the ass threat might be identified and the technical

export limitations, and whether there's on-site usage that is more than the possible generation. and contractual risks and competing usage. the host agency preferences and goals as i mentioned were identified and discussed and then we conducted our cost analysis. for city-owned sites, the 132 sites reviewed we identified 14 to medium to high suitability, 9.3 megawatts for high suitability, and 6.6 for medium and project costs ranging from $79 a megawatt hour to $151. for regional sites, six sites were reviewed and three were identified as medium to high suitability, representing about

44 megawatts of total potential. and costs ranging from $32 a megawatt hour to $104. we also looked at storage, about 20 megawatts of storage opportunity was identified at sites that are owned by the city in city or regionally. and here we have the in-city sites identified as both medium and high suitability. so you're seeing some specifics here with the average cost between $88 to $130 a megawatt hour. at the top are the four highly suitable sites and those are all owned by the sfpuc and we identified no barriers to development at this point in the planning stages. the medium suitability sites are -- have issues that need to be addressed before we would propose moving forward with the project. for example, structural upgrades

that are planned for the reservoir. and then we have here the regional and the city-owned sites. these are lower costs regional projects and they can really help us to do this balancing -- handling that diname that i can i talk -- dynamic that i talked about, with some of the lower lower-cost students. it supports us achieving a higher portfolio renewable energy content from city-owned sites. some of these candidate sites are pretty strong and we recommend further planning and development of these opportunities. others include offshore wind and it's an emerging technology and we're not recommending -- well,

we are recommending that we further evaluate and potentially identify partners to go together on potential offshore wind. we're also looking at development of a disadvantaged community solar program. the state cap-and-trade funds are available for this. and it would support a green tariff and community solar programs that would serve disadvantaged communities here in san francisco. we have identified an opportunity to develop about two megawatts of solar through that opportunity. and then we are also developing a feed-in tariff program where -- this is a procurement program that encourages private citizens, private sector property owners, to develop renewables and make that generation available to us. we would purchase it, we wouldn't own the solar system, we would just purchase whatever they're willing to sell to us at

a set tariff rate. we think that could support 2 to 10 megawatts of solar development in san francisco by 2030. so what are our next steps now that we have pulled this information together? we intend to continue planning and development of the high suitability candidate sites. we're proposing a cleanpowersf capital plan, the first capital plan for cleanpowersf that would support that planning and anticipate the project construction. as you know, the members of the board of supervisors who sit as commissioners know, that the capital planning process is a rolling 10-year plan. so we would be identifying in the early years and funding the further planning and development work that i've talked about for highly suitable sites. in the later years we would show the actual costs of owning that site. having that developed facility. and we will, meanwhile, keep an eye on the medium suitability

sites to position ourselves to partner with the host agencies as those sites are improved. and we will not be doing any further work on low suitability sites at this point, as is our practice on the hechi sites and though we won't do further work on those suitability sites, we will keep our eye on those sites because their suitability may change. we will propose to move forward on the feed-in tariff program and the disadvantaged community solar program and work with other agencies as i mentioned on offshore wind as that -- you know, as that developing technology here in california emerges. of course we do everything with engagement with our community. here's the outline of our engagement plan where we will -- together with the integrated resource plan -- be working with community members to explain

ourselves, to hear what they have to say about our proposals. meanwhile, the capital planning process will move forward through the california -- sorry, the san francisco p.u.c.'s budget process and the capital planning committee process. we anticipate that the capital plan approvals to fund the recommended next steps will happen by the end of this fiscal year. be completed by the end of this fiscal year. with that i'm happy to take any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so any questions or comments from my colleagues. commissioner singh? >> yeah, i had a question about the graph at the beginning of your presentation, the cost for offshore wind, i think that it was the most variable, at least there was a large projected -- because it's an emergent technology that is not fully proven yet or has not scaled. >> you nailed it, that's exactly why. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: supervisor

mar -- i mean, commissioner mar. >> thank you. i just -- thanks for the presentation. >> you bet. >> it all looks very good. i just had a few questions on -- there's that slide where you listed out the medium to high priority sites. >> um-hmm. >> i just want to understand how you decide on what's high and what's medium as i'm looking at that slide. some of the ones that are in the medium category seem to have a lower cost, for example, the university south basin, or even in my district the sunset reservoir south basin? >> i think that most of those we saw challenges with the structural readiness for the reservoirs to be developed. and for some of those we have in -- we can see that the water

enterprise capital plan includes the structural improvements in later years and so we know that that current barrier is going to be overcome. and so we factor that in -- well, it's medium now and we're keeping our eye on it and it could move up to high and get funded in our 10-year capital plan as those improvements actually happen. >> great, yes, thanks. and i had a question around -- and i think that a program that pg&e had in place where they provided incentives for homeowners or property owners to install solar. and then there's an arrangement where extra plus energy that is generated by the private homeowner can be transferred back to the pg&e grid. so i was just wondering if that was something that we were considering as well using cleanpowersf? >> actually, commissioner, we're already doing that and we had a

program go solar sf and that the cleanpowersf customers can participate in. we have a net metering rate that allows them to be paid for the energy they spill back on to the grid. so, yes, we're doing that already. >> um-hmm. and just one last question on that -- have we considered incentives to -- to kind of expand solar -- solar installations in homes as a way to sort of generate renewable energy to the buyback? >> yes, so we do have under the gosolarsf program, we do provide incentives for low-income, non-profits, that are higher than the incentives that we pay to other property owners for placing solar on their roofs. it also includes a local hire component that participants in

the program are required to use contractors who meet our on hire local participants. and then the rates that we pay for the electricity that is spilled to the grid are higher than the rates that pg&e pay under their program. so i think we do have both rebate-like incentives and the incentive that comes with that higher price that we pay, encouraging property owners to make that -- make that smart choice. >> chair fewer: thanks. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? mr. brooks. >> good morning, commissioners. eric brooks, californians for energy choice, and our city san francisco. we were preparing comments, important comments, which we tried to email you this morning. not sure if you got them or not. it was very hard to do that when we only saw this report two days

ago. and so, first the positive. this is an excellent report. it's got all kinds of key information that we need to build a renewable energy network in san francisco. but this is not the renewable energy plan that we have been asking for for 15 years. this is not a plan. we do not believe that the sfpuc can be the agency to draft a plan. this -- this report does not create a plan to include energy efficiency, demand response, smart meters. and all of the diversified research, all planned as the sydney, australia, plan that you have all hopefully seen now to be integrated together as resources to get us to 100% local renewables and regional renewables for san francisco within 10 years as the ipcc

recommends urgently. this just isn't that. and we don't blame the san francisco utilities commission for that. their job is to be a conservative enterprise agency to protect the ratepayers. their job is not to develop an ambitious plan like this. we can't urge strongly enough this it's now time for the board of supervisors to take over this planning process, use this information to develop a sydney-like plan, and then to deliver that to the sfpuc for implementation. that's the time for them to bring their conservative approach to the table and make sure that we do it right. we've said this many times and we feel like we're not being heard. the plan needs to shift to the lafco and the board... >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks. >> hi, thank you, chair fewer and commissioners. jedd holsom from 350 bay area. i want to thank the staff for

this presentation. i think that this starts to get at kind of the systematic approach that we've been asking for for some time, but as mr. brooks pointed out i think that it's kind of a sub-set of that, in addition to kind of city-owned sites and i think that we have to look at any available sites and private ownership as well that might be low-cost projects. as mr. brooks pointed out, i think that in addition to energy efficiency and demand response, i think that given everything that's been going on in the region for the last couple years, resiliency has kind of increased salience and i think that while we might not be in huge wildfire danger, i certainly -- i just got an sf722 medallion and reminded myself how i'm wholly unprepared to take care of myself for 72 hours after a huge earthquake.

so thinking about how we'll keep some of our public infrastructure running in the 100% sure event of that earthquake happening, i think that it should be part of this plan. so, you know, we have been talking to staff about local build outs since 2013. certainly, having staff conversations about kind of what this would eventually look like for a couple years now and we're surprised that we were never reached out to about this. certainly, we would have submitted comments in advance. i think that really a comprehensive plan for about a 400 megawatt load would be 300 plus megawatts. i think that -- i think that this planning process would result after many more steps being completed as maybe 70 megawatts plus storage being built. so i think that kind of illustrates maybe the quantitative gap. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comments?

yes, sir. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jonathan kevlis, i work for a large energy firm. in fact, we're doing retrofitting of your lighting and in the parking lots right now. and golden gateway. i want to praise sfpuc and cleanpowersf for this report. we're excited to potentially to participate in the helping to build this out. i do have two quick questions. actually one quick question. perhaps not so quick. i'm trying to understand where lafco sits in the approval process for this discussion and where the sfpuc board sits and maybe even the board of supervisors. i'm not entirely clear and i'm hoping that someone can help me to understand where the different approving bodies fit into the process and sequentially as someone who is interested in bidding on the project when it ultimately comes to whatever proven body is, and

to have a better understanding. >> chair fewer: your name again, sir? >> my name is jonathan kevalis. i can give my card to the clerk. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. i think that our attorney may be able to differentiate the authority where lafco sits in this position versus in a private maybe conversation separately than this. yeah. because he probably has deeper questions also about the authority, the authority that sits with with the commission and the puc commission and with the san francisco board of supervisors. so i think that those questions can be answered by the attorney. thank you very much. comments or questions from our colleagues? i actually think -- thank you for public comment. i think that you bring up a very good point is that -- i thank

all are also miss hale for this report and i think that it is very informative. it is -- it gets us to answer some of the questions, but, again, i do think that the public comment about an overall plan of how do we get to 100% renewable energy that we are generating ourselves should be probably the overall goal. and this maybe is a step towards that goal, or one piece of how we kind of get there. but i actually think that as the speaker said that that is probably larger than the purview of sfpuc. that plan probably may be in the hands of lafco, i think that this is a discussion we should have and whether or not p.u.c. is part of a partnership for that. so miss hale, i have a question for you. do you have a rough sense of

what percent of our renewable energy portfolio will be produced in city before and after the development of these projects? i see that you gave us a chart here on page 9 that shows 20% local content. but i'm wondering after the sites that you have mentioned as high -- i guess rated very highly that it's doable and cost-effective, do you have a rough sense of what percent it would be of our renewable portfolio? >> it's difficult to nail down that, that number as i stand here. but it's probably in the 10% to 15% as opposed to the 20% to 30% would be my guesstimate knowing what i know today. and i would remark in the response to the concern about what's not in this report that that this report just looks at the local renewable energy opportunity. the integrated resource plan,

which will fold this report in, covers energy efficiency and demand-side management and the broader issues that address how we get to 100% renewable. that is a 20-year plan. the city's goal is to be at 100% renewable by 2030. so the integrated resource plan is where you will see that more comprehensive full picture. >> chair fewer: got it. and then my question then about -- you said that it was sort of hard to say what percentages you said, 10% to 15%, but what about the region also? >> that is intended to address regional and in-city together. >> chair fewer: oh, okay, the 10% to 15%? >> yeah. >> chair fewer: okay. and then what are the obstacles towards the development of these projects that we as lafco commissioners and members of the board of supervisors should be aware of to do our part to bring it actually to fruition? >> part is a recognition that we

have -- we will be relying on the facilities of others. those facilities at times need improvement. those facilities host agencies. you know, energy isn't what they're focused on, quite understandably, right? and so having a collaborative opportunities to work with them, knowing that they will have the funding they need to do the structural improvements, that's outside of our control. you have a role in that. those would be helpful areas to address. >> chair fewer: so you're speaking about in city such as san francisco districts, i see -- >> yeah, they're on the list and they have a strong preference for using their electricity on-site and we want to be respectful of that. >> chair fewer: got it. >> sfdph, and sfmta, you know, these are other parts of the city, organizations, that at times will have facilities that look attractive but once you get inside you realize that they need a lot of work.

the port facility is another example of that. so it's part of the broader city picture as to how capital planning improvements happen. because we're, you know, we would come in after those improvements with a solar on-site or storage and solar on-site. >> chair fewer: got it. and then about the storage. >> one other part before we move to storage, if i may. another big piece of this that will be a challenge for us in development is all of these systems connect to a pg&e-owned grid. and we will have -- we have had with the 23 sites that i talked about that are currently operating and funded by the program, we've had challenges getting those systems interconnected to pg&e's grid. so that would be another area. >> chair fewer: thank you. you know, i think that because we just received this report a

couple days ago and we haven't had a chance to fully look at it and this is just sort of a synopsis of it, before i go into other questions i'd like to make a motion, quite frankly, to continue this item to the call of the chair. and so all of the commissioners could -- and advocates would actually have time to digest everything that is in this report. so i'd like to make a motion. thank you, miss hale, to continue this item to the call of the chair. could i have a second? commissioner haney, taken without objection. thank you very much. >> thank you. and i just wanted to thank the staff. my jordan decker and jamie sidell who put this together for us. so thank you for your attention. >> chair fewer: we thank them too. madam clerk, please call item 4. >> clerk: item 4 is a presentation and a discussion on the scope of work for a renewable energy consultant. >> chair fewer: yes, mr. goeb

mr. goebel. >> good morning, chair, good morning, commissioners. going to get my slides. >> thank you for your patience. good morning, bryan goebel, executive officer. today i would like to present our recommendations on the scope of work for renewable energy consultants. i am not proposing local build out plan as you mentioned, chair fewer, but this does get us started. i will soon be issuing a list of prequalified firms who submitted for the r.f.q., the request for qualifications. and today i'm proposing four recommendations that could potentially involve multiple

consultants. first, i want to talk about our goals. we are following up on the great work that winston parsons did in his report on advancing equity in community investment in cleanpowersf. so the goals are to reduce the power outages and disconnections, lower utility bills while prioritizing low-income households and, have the energy infrastructure to promote prevailing wage jobs and training programs. and to deepen lafco's staff knowledge of renewable energy issues. i now want to recap winston's work, and he's here to answer any questions if you have them. first, winston reviewed energy equity models. basically, examining the various frameworks and goals that other communities, other c.c.a. programs and academics use to define energy equity. so with energy equity, it's not just access to resources, outcomes matter.

it's about reducing burdens on low-income consumers, avoiding a disproportionate distribution of the costs or the negative impacts, providing an equitable distribution of access to real benefits and also ensuring a reliable source of electricity and protecting low-income households. winston also reviewed other programs, programs at other c.c.a.s, and while considering the legacy of power generation sites that have had lasting environmental burdens in san francisco. talking here about the patrero and hunters point power plants. he also analyzed the san francisco disconnection data from p go an p imrch and even as -- pg&e and it's first time that this has been available and analyzed. so his findings were concerning. there were more than 15,000 disconnections annually for non-payment. while many customers do get their service restored, there

are significant disparities in electrical disconnections between neighboring zip codes in san francisco. some of these communities have three and a half times the percent of disconnections than others. this indicates that there's a great geographic and even racial disparity in which residents can afford to keep the lights on. he also found the potential vulnerabilities in energy resilience. many of our back-up power systems are fossil fuel dependent and in a sustained disaster like an earthquake or an outage, not only does that harm air quality but they can be unreliable. winston made this note in his report that we have an aging population in san francisco that does rely on energy dependent equipment on a daily basis. the good news to all of this is that there are opportunities to respond to these issues. and lafco, given its special

studies authority and work on cleanpowersf is uniquely poised to propose policy solutions to make positive changes. i just want to say that i'm pleased to see that cleanpowersf has already included a number of recommendations. winston identified it in his report in their equity framework. some of the focused areas and recommendations that winston identified are complementary to cleanpowersf goals, and serve to advance the energy equity. but they're outside cleanpowersf's scope or role. so this is where lafco, through the expertise of our renewable energy consultants can supplement the work cleanpowersf is doing. among other tasks at the last meeting chair fewer requested that we explore these issues further and return with some solutions, along with the complete technical and financial analysis and potentially even legislative strategies. so we hope that the renewable energy consultants lafco

contracts with will be tasked with performing technical analysis so that we can offer the commission further nuanced findings and ready the solutions. i want to move on to the recommendation. my first recommendation is to explore in greater detail basically winston's findings. and to process and to further analyze the data. and there is mordata to analyze -- more data to analyze. pg&e did have additional disconnect data in san francisco, that should allow us to understand in greater detail the nature of disconnection disparities and their causes. the cpuc notified lafco that the data set for winston's initial analysis did contain some errors. these errors are minor, but they're still worth accounting for as we want to ensure the

greatest degree of accuracy possible when performing the analysis and making policy recommendations. next would be a deeper analysis of the disconnection causes. these could extend beyond affordability and include language barriers, and we want to examine proposed policy solutions and get feedback from a variety of stakeholders on what those policy solutions could be. and we have also been reaching out to supervisors to brief them on the findings and -- and what we found in their particular districts and we have more of those briefings scheduled in the coming month. my second recommendation is to bring on a renewable energy consultant to assist the lafco staff. this is a pretty simple one and one that i have talked about for a while now. we would add expertise, for example, to provide feedback to the p.u.c. through their capital

planning process. and to provide feedback on the projects that were mentioned in the earlier presentation. and so, again, the goal is to add expertise to staff and to help us to provide better feedback and recommendations on all aspects of cleanpowersf. the third recommendation is to explore the feasibility and the implications of pilot legislation for solar plus storage at affordable and senior housing sites. again, the purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that our most energy dependent populations aren't left in the dark or immobile or worse during an outage. so the first thing that we'd like to do is to define the capabilities of solar plus storage at senior and affordable housing sites. and analyze the feasibility and the financial implications of passing regular cost savings of on-site or nearby solar and

storage on to residents at affordable and senior housing sites. we also want to explore the feasibility of prioritizing with community input piloting locations and cleanpowersf's equity and geographic and demographic target communities and senior housing sites. and, of course, we'll collaborate with the city departments to determine what, if any roles, each respective department could play. i just want to note on this that the nearby counties recently issued an r.f.p. for solar plus storage projects with the goal of being more prepared to weather the pg&e power shutoffs and configuring even some of these projects in a way that supports at-risk populations. and the fourth recommendation is to determine what gaps in the clean energy workforce development exists that cleanpowersf could address. winston's research found that

many of the trainees involved in these clean energy programs, these are individuals getting trained, for example, on how to install renewable energy systems, don't actually get paid. so here the goal is to identify the gaps in these programs and see how we can make it as equitable as possible. are there room, for example, -- is there room for improvement in these programs? and what are the obstacles? if we can better understand those obstacles, then we can try to recommend the policy to eliminate them. maybe some of these programs don't have enough funding. maybe some workers have difficulty staying in the programs because they don't have access to child care, for example. these are the types of issues that we would look into. so dependent on your feedback, the next steps would be to determine cost and funding for all of the consultant work, for recommendations, one through three.

and then to develop and issue requests for proposals for consultant work on those recommendations. i believe that the recommendation number 4 on workforce development, that the lafco staff could take that on along with its interns. and this is not an action item today but i would love your feedback. and winston is here as well in case you have any questions that i can't answer. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's take public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item? >> good morning again, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice and our city san francisco. so just to continue on the theme of the previous item, all of the things that we're seeing are good things, they're important things to work on, but i'm sure that they weren't fully informed by a report that we just got from the sfpuc two days ago which clearly shows that there's not an adequate planning process for integrated renewables in san

francisco. and a follow buildout plan like the one in sydney, australia. with respect, we have heard for the last 10 years or so from the sfpuc repeatedly, oh, the next report we put out is going to address your concerns. we've been hearing that for 10 years. the sfpuc, for very good reasons -- again, i don't want to -- i'm not bashing on them, they have to behave as they're behaving, they're not the wheelhouse for a build-out plan. this is excellent information but we need to go beyond that. so i can't emphasize in strong enough terms that what we need to you do now that we've seen this report, which is not going to get us where we need to go, where the ipcc demands that we go within 10 years, to get 100% locally developed renewables. we must have the lafco direct the sciewptiv executive officere

directive for proposals with the top item on the list is that consultants need to prepare a local buildout plan on the style of sydney, australia, but with battery storage instead of biomass. and maybe hydrogen, which is becoming economical. that's got to be the top priority. and it's going to take more funding than you've got and you need the board of supervisors to give you a few hundred thousand dollars to get that done. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks. >> hi again, commissioners, jedd holtsom from 350 bay area. i want to second everything that mr. brooks said. you know, we work with a lot of boards and commissions around the region, to do a lot of work at the bay area quality management district. and, you know, we hear a lot about 2030 goals and we've been talking about 2030 goals for a long time now. now we have officially entered

the period where 2030 is one 10-year capital plan away. we're talking by 2030, combustion engines need to x, y and z. and by 2030 we need to stop our use of fossil fuels or emissions from fossil fuels. we have how many e.v.s will be on the road and so many different plans for 2030. and we've been kicking the can down the road for so long and we're now at the point where we're literally one 10-year capital plan away from this huge milestone. these things are going to take time, putting together a buildout plan that is comprehensive and systematic and then implementing that, probably going to take over 10 years. so where are we going to be by 2030? so i think that the democratic policy of this city and county expects its representatives to solve this problem. and so i think that means that the board of supervisors and the lafco as the representatives of the democratic policy of this city really need to be heard on

this. pilot installation for solar storage is important. and i think that in 2000 that might have been a good plan. there is a 70% chance that a magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake will strike san francisco bay area before 2030 -- before 2030. that's last year's figure, that's not an old figure. we're entering the end of the timeline that we've been talking about since 1992. and we simply cannot continue to have this magnitude of response. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. commissioner singh. >> first of all, i wanted to thank winston for his amazing work here. i had a couple points that i just wanted to make for the future. mr. goebel if you want to address it. for recommendation 4, determining gas in a clean

energy workforce realm, i think that it's great that we'll survey the community-based organizations. are there any plans to talk to organized labor? >> they will be consulting. >> fantastic. and my second point, i would love to actually see some geographics or the community map for all of these disconnection disparities. is there mapping available for that? >> there is and it's contained in winston's report and we'd be happy to go over it with you. >> that would be lovely. thank you. >> chair fewer: any other comments or questions? so i want to first address the public comment speakers is that it is -- you are correct that it would be a whole new body of work actually for lafco. and it would require an increased budget. and we are going to get a budget proposed lafco budget presentation during this meeting, which is already an increase to the lafco budget. so i think that would take -- if lafco were to take on that

work -- that would be an analysis that we'd have to do a fiscal and financial analysis, considering the capacity that we would have to do that. so what we've been presented with today is actually i think a plan that is a scope of work that we should be addressing also. so i get that it should be the top of the list, but i think that actually launching from what mr. parsons' research showed us i think that there's huge inwe inequity in this cityd disparities. and a lot of it is racial and economic. and that shouldn't happen with energy in general. i think that -- so i understand that is a whole other body of work but i think this body of work is really important. it's not what we deliver, but how we deliver and to whom we deliver also. and as a city and county of san francisco, when we see these gaps we cannot ignore them, especially for populations that

aren't able to come up today and to advocate for themselves, but it is their moral and social responsibility to ensure they have adequate access and equitable access also. so i -- i just want to say that i agree with these recommendations and i actually think that many of these recommendations are very, very timely considering that we look at -- we're looking at our affordable housing bond that we just passed, a $600 million housing bond and $150 million to senior, 100% affordable senior housing. so completely timely that we explore recommendation number 3, quite frankly. and also recommendation number 4. we are in the middle of a third or fourth industrial revolution. people are not losing their jobs because of immigrants, people are losing their jobs because of technology. this is a pipeline, quite frankly, to have the living wage jobs that we could be producing

with around the clean energy and the industry behind that. so i think all of these things are very timely also. and so i just want to say that i -- to give you direction myself as the chair of lafco, i think that this is the direction that we should be going. i think that there is a possibility. i think that we should have a discussion about additional work around this buildout plan to get us to 2030, 100% renewable energy. i don't know that work lands in the lafco lap, but i think that this work does, quite frankly. and so i want to just say, i know this is not a vote but i'd like to give my personal opinion that i think this is the direction that we need to go. i think that we owe it to the people of san francisco. and especially because we have such disparities and these disparities aren't ju just aroud this, it's mirroring the disparities in other aspects of the city government whom we

serve. so, again, mr. parsons, thank you so much for this work that has really opened up our eyes to the inequities happening and also delving deeper and a call to our moral and social conscience that we must respond to as a government agency. commissioner mar. >> thank you, chair, chair fewer. i just had a question about the recommendation number two and it's going on the public comments from mr. brooks and the need for the city to have a comprehensive plan to reach our ambitious goal of 100% renewable energy by 2030. and the suggestion that lafco could and really should play a role in getting that comprehensive plan developed. so recommendation number two is just about bringing on a consultant with a more limited sort of role -- it's not to support lafco or to help to

get the city to develop the comprehensive plan to meet the goal, but can you explain what -- what -- at least what you're proposing for the consultant to focus on? >> so, thank you, commissioner mar for the question. so i think that the goal here is to strengthen lafco's role oversight authority over cleanpowersf by adding expertise that would allow us to provide better feedback to the p.u.c. on their proposed projects. to basically to more deeply examine the proposals that are coming from the p.u.c. with regard to cleanpowersf. but i think that this consultant role could also be all-encompassing. so if a local buildout is the direction that the commission chooses to take, i think that consultant could play a role in helping us to go about that wo work. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. any other comments or questions

from my colleagues? none. this does not require action from lafco today. thank you very much. and so madam clerk, call item number 5. >> clerk: item 5 is a presentation and discussion on lafco's fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. mr. goebel. >> thank you, madam chair and commissioners. today we bring you a preview of our 2020-2021 budget, and it's earlier than normal. i usually come before you in april, but this year is going to be an exciting year for last co. we -- lafco. we are hoping to take on more work and add more resources. i want to start with just a

brief history about our lafco, just to add context. as you know, our lafco is unique. most lafcos and other california counties oversee special districts. that is huge because special districts are the most common form of local government. but the types of special districts overseen by lafco are often in unincorporated areas and in san francisco we have no unincorporated land. our lafco was formed in 2000 when a group of advocates wanted to create a municipal utility district and the city attorney said that couldn't be done without a lafco because it requires lafco review under california law. voters did not approve a new utility district. in fact, san francisco voters shut down that idea like a dozen times. but lafco continued to work on public power and energy issues. and in 2007, the board of supervisors gave lafco oversight authority to help to form our local community choice,

energy program cleanpowersf. lafco was instrumental in getting cleanpowersf up and running. because our lafco is unique, it has focus on its special studies authority over the yea years. that authority is under the hertzberg act that says simply lafco may initiate and make studies of existing government agencies or more broadly lafco can study issues that impact municipal services. basically, it allows us to assist and to support the city in assessing its municipal service needs. and i just want to point out that when we pursue special studies that we make an effort not to duplicate what other departments are studying, but to fill gaps on issues that they're not examining. issues that are often beyond the purview of those departments. lafco does not implement

policy. we come up with policy recommendation. so some examples over the years, lafco did a number of studies that led to the establishment of cleanpowersf. it did a study on increasing voter participation. it did a study on title energy and energy services as far back as 2002. in 2020, we are starting and finishing up some exciting projects. we are leading the country's largest and most representative survey of on-demand workers. the final report will offer a slate of recommendations on how to improve working conditions in the sector. we're also examining what avenues the city can take to curtail labor abuses in the gig economy. and as i just outlined in my last presentation, we'll pursue a number of studies and reports around cleanpowersf. so to pursue special studies at

least in this fiscal year, we've had to do some of our own fundraisfundraising. it is the first time in our lafco's history that we raised and received private foundation money. i'm happy to report that it was successful. we raised a total of $330,000 for our labor study. and i say "we" because i had help from the members of our survey team, our interns, dan rail and leah trove, and our colleagues at the association. it was a team effort. we diversified our fundraising services in this fiscal year, doubling our budget. so every year we get $300,000 from the city of san francisco. last year -- or in the current fiscal year we had raised $330,000 from private foundations and we have a little under $200,000 left in our m.o.u. fund with the p.u.c., which i will be proposing that we spend on the work outlined in

the previous presentation. we do have some exciting things on tap in 2020. the survey team will complete the labor study and offer a number of recommendations. we hope to begin another round of research on this sector following up on research that we weren't able to get to in the current study. we'll get the consultants to work on cleanpowersf. and we will provide staff support to the public bank task force pending approval of that legislation from the chair of the board. and i just want to say that we're working with the chair's office in the office of the treasurer and tax collector as well as doing market research to determine the exact cost and resources that we'll need to effectively to manage and accomplish the goals that we're tasked with in the legislation. and because we'll have an increasing profile, we wanted to develop a communications plan to enhance and to encourage and

enhance the public participation at lafco as we take on these exciting new initiatives. so, again, to accomplish everything that we hope to do in the coming fiscal year, lafco will need additional resources. every year lafco receives $297,342 from the city and county. that number has not increased in more than 10 years. iit funds our basic operations. this year given the increase in the workload we are requesting an additional $486,000 from the city and county. so the total request would be almost $784,000. this would fund two full-time positions, a public bank consultant, and, again, we're still working on that exact number and trying to figure out what kind of resources we'll need. some funds to continue our labor research which would be

leveraged with additional funds from private foundations, assuming that our fundraising is successful. and i'm also asking for additional funds, a modest request, i think, for a communication plan. here are the line items. i know that this chart is probably hard to read but they're also in your packets and available on the lafco website. again, we are asking for about $784,000 to fund lafco's work in the coming fiscal year. i think that it's not that big of an increase, actually, when you take into account how much outside money we raised last year, which roughly doubled our budget. so i'll be coming back in april to ask for your approval of our draft budget and then to bring a final budget for your consideration and approval in may. and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. goebel. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item?

>> eric brooks, californians for energy choice and our city san francisco. i think that it's incredibly impressive. i mean, we have never seen in the whole history of lafco a doubling in the budget simply because the executive officer had the wherewithal to go out and to identify funding sources. i have a feeling that the executive officers are doing the same thing with regard to clean energy, and i greatly encourage that. i encourage that of him. i do think that the stuff that we talked about in the previous items will still require a board of supervisors allocations, but if -- if your staff can come up with $100,000 or $200,000 to go into that buildout process, that's great. and i have confidence that bryan is able to do that. not to put you on the spot, man, but that's where i think that we

need to get a new source of funds. i think that it's just awesome that your executive officer has been able to bring in that kind of funding and i look forward to the same thing happening with clean energy. thanks. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to also mention that at the budget and finance committee the board of supervisors that we approved this budget also to go forward throughout the budget season. i think that we'll need to recognize, quite frankly, that our lafco budget hasn't had an increase in the last 10 years and it's taking on significantly more work than it has in the past. and also that mr. goebel is on our payroll as a consultant. it is time that he became part of the city family and that we reinstate that position as a civil service position with all of its benefits and protections. so i -- although this is does

not need -- yes, it does, it needs an action. so i -- it doesn't need an action? oh, no action needed today. but does anyone have comments or questions about it? seeing none, just to let you know that we'll fight hard for this budget, lafco, at the board of supervisors. okay? madam clerk, call item number 6. >> clerk: item 6 is the approval of the resolution accepting a grant from the annie e.casey foundation for the on-demand labor survey and study in the amount of $50,000. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> thank you, madam chair and commissioners. and this site authorize us to accept a grant from the anniee. casey foundation for our on-demand labor survey for a total of $50,000. this funding will pay mostly for the survey team's time to analyze the data and it will also include an analysis of the 18 to 24 demographic. i want to thank bob golloth and irene lee and the foundation,

they have been wonderful and they really believe in the value of this study. i also want to thank our intern dan rail who helped with the pitch, and i recommend that you approve this item. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item number 6 seeing none, it's now closed. commissioner mar. >> thank you, chair fewer. congratulations on this latest outside funding that you secured for this important study. i just was wondering where we're at -- or where is lafco at as far as raising the full budget that was really needed to do this study as originally envisioned? >> so we were originally seeking -- thank you for the question, commissioner mar. we were originally seeking 450,000 and we raised $330,000. so before you today and later in the agenda is an amended contract that allows a survey team to work within the budget.

i was going to explain more about this later but we originally -- and chris benner, the lead researcher is here to do a presentation where we're going to further explain that. but we have reduced the number of platforms that wil we'll be targeting so that it makes it less expensive and it working within our current budget. >> great, thank you. thank for all of the great work. >> chair fewer: yes, congratulations. i would like to make a motion to approve the resolution accepting a grant from the annie casey foundation. a second? >> second. >> chair fewer: taken without objection. thank you very much, because we have to recess at 11:20, i think we have time for one more item. mr. goebel, would you be able to do the executive officer's report? okay.

so, madam clerk read item 9. >> clerk: item 9, the executive officers report. >> chair fewer: mr. goebel, you have no report today. thank you very much. any members of the public that would like to comment on item 9? seeing none, public comment is closed. and item 11, please call item 11. >> clerk: the future agenda items. >> chair fewer: any suggestions for future agenda items? seeing none, let's open it up for public comment. >> hello again, one last time, commissioners. eric brooks, californians for energy source and our city san francisco. so for future agenda items, i think that first of all that i would respectfully differ with the chair. i think that it's absolutely clear that it's the lafco role to spearhead the buildout plan. i want to remind folks on the commission because you weren't

on the commission in 2004, that in 2004 that they directed the, tits commission to -- utilities commission to plan for sfpuc. and as i said before, and its enterprise role didn't want to do that. and basically refused. and maybe that was a little bit too far for them but we could understand the resistance as an enterprise agency. so the lafco commissioned the implementation plan and it was drawn up through a lafco contracted contractor. so we -- and i -- i must a an advocate representing a coalition here in san francisco and california absolutely insist that on the next lafco agenda that we have an action item to direct your executive officer to make one of the jobs of the clean energy contractors that

are hired within the next couple of months to be to identify what it would take to put together a comprehensive renewable energy buildout plan for san francisco and how much that would cost. figure out maybe some preliminaries on where some grant funding might come, but find out about drafting an item for the board of supervisors that will get us the full amount. which will probably be a few hundred thousand dollars. >> chair fewer: thanks. next speaker, please. >> thank you, and one last time, jedd holtsom. and i wanted to second those comments. you know, i'm stressed out today that the conversations that we've had with sfpuc, both in front of the commission and with the staff and in this body haven't advanced further. and i think that the clock turning over to 2020 really puts

into stark reality what we have to accomplish within 10 years. so i really think that, you know, if the house is on fire, then coming to work and doing your best and going home, you know, that can't be enough for any of us anymore. it can't be enough for your executive officer and it can't be enough for any city staff. we should be running around like headless chickens if we really think this is a stringent severe emergency. and i can tell you that our 25,000 plus members are running around like headless chickens, like it is a severe freaking emergency. and they're freaking out. and, you know, youth are blockading blackrock, you know, and people are kind of in their own ways doing what they can. they are not in positions of power. they don't have expertise.

they are looking at the people here and the people in room 400 to step up a lot. and i think that for a long time we heard that we have to wait for cleanpowersf to reach full city-wide enrollment and then that was low walked. and now that it's reached that, it's to wait for this planning process. now that planning process has happened and they're like wait for the next planning process because that will include -- no, we need to really take the bull by the horns. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i think that we -- thank you for these suggestions, public comment. i think that the discussion of the possibility of putting this on our next agenda item. let's see, we have 11:17. okay, i think that i will recess now because i don't want to start our presentation on the

on-demand workers and i think that we just want to give it ample time and also consideration. so we will recess now until 12:00 noon. and i want to thank everyone for their patience. >> clerk: madam chair to confirm for the record that there's no action taken on this item. >> chair fewer: yes, no action >> thank you very much. we are reconvening the meeting of january 17, 2020. thank you for your patience. madam clerk can you please read item 7. >> the presentation and update on the survey and study on demand workers in san francisco. >> thank you. i just want to provide a brief update on the funding situation, which i didn't mention in my budget. the last time i was before you on this item, we were really

frantically trying to raise the rest of the money. we are receiving a $150,000 grant from the ford foundation, who really believes in the study and work that we are doing. i want to thank everyone who helped secure that. it was a team effort. folks on the team assisted with that, and ford came through. that is the brief update i wanted to provide. i am very pleased to welcome chris benner, lead researcher of survey of on demand be workers who will present the findings and talk about next steps. >> welcome. >> thank you for the opportunity to present to you. this is really presenting work in progress. as you know and trying to set

recommendations for the final stage of the survey and where we are going for the final study and as bryan mentioned thi thiss the collective work of the partners on the research team. this is a powerpoint you have in your packet and on the public record for this meeting. just to summarize what i hope to get across today is that in the pilot phase of the study we were exploring two survey methods to make sure they work and exploring the use of a mobile app to gather more detailed information about drivers, patterns, particularly in the ride hailing portion of the on demand mobility service work. we discovered the preferred method works. it is more expensive than we originally anticipated. we were able to demonstrate the data gathered from the mobile

app is extremely valuable but more complicated to collect as in research projects. was the currently available funding we recommend going ahead with the survey for six of the largest platforms in the city. two in the ride hailing sector, uber and lyft, two in prepared delivery and then two in the grocery delivery business. ence take cart and shift. to supplement that survey work within depth quality interviews to give us more in depth understanding of the conditions workers in this sector face. then some medical gathering of data from the mobile app that would help give us useful information and demonstrate the value of that going forward that is what i will present. i will try to do that in 10 to

15 minutes so make sure we have time for your questions and comments. the pilot survey is designed to be a representative sample of the work being done in the city. reminder it is the 80/20% rule. 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. it is not a representative of the actual work in the city. data gathered in september to october. 15 3com pleated surveys across the platforms represented there. this preferred method had a very high response rate, 68%, from those in the ride hailing sector. it was harder to get response from meal delivery 15%. grocery delivery was a little higher. we thought we would get survey

responses from alcohol delivery, it is a smaller portion of the industry. we are recommending not moving ahead at the moment on that. what i went to present now is really just a taste of the findings from the survey itself. this is very much work in progress. what i am showing should not be quoted or shared in any way as formal findings from the survey,anticly any of the differences between the platforms. they are not statistically significant at the moment. they will be when we finish the survey. work in progress, not to be quoted. to orient you to the charts i am showing now, they are looking at the different platforms that we have data on from left to right. ride hailing, then the meal

delivery platforms from door dash through t to instacart and shift. far right is the average across all surveys. that is the one that is most important at the moment. the other ones show some level of patterns across the survey. it gathers demographic data. we can see that the average age of the work force is about 36, 37. i am not putting specific numbers on the bars to emphasize this is work in progress and not to be quoted. one of the things to see is in the ride hailing sector seems to be older than the work force in the meal delivery sector. some of the other data shows people working in the ride hailing sector have been doing that for a longer period of time, two or three years more. it is more established part of

the industry. predominantly male work force, 75% were men. we also had a question about other categories. about 77% were men. somewhat less in did grocery delivery, instacart and shift. we can imagine some reasons for other research we have and hope to gather more information about the safety concerns that exist when you are isolated in a separate car. that is not true for grocery delivery. predominantly immigrant work force. over 50% were born in another country, 55%. not dramatic across the differs

frenplant forms. we did find that meal delivery workers seemed to have a higher proportion of limited english speaking ability. you can imagine why. the passenger in the car may be more important to talk to people. if you are delivering food, it is easier to get into the work with limited english. the survey is in four other languages, spanish. chinese, portuguese and arabic. we asked the set of questions to get at how much people earn and we can do that on estimates of an average weekly earnings basis. this gives you the top level figure what they say they earn a week. $800 on average across all survey respondents.

the most important figure is what is the real earnings once you subtract the expenses of operating your vehicle and the costs that are part of that. you can calculate that in two ways. one ask people about the real expenses they have had in the last month of operating the vehicle. if they are leasing it, service charges, cleaning costs and other things. this gives you a sense of monthly not weekly earnings after they subtracted the expenses they named. it is 2700 per month on average. tough to live on that in san francisco. often we know that people underestimate the true expenses involved in operating a vehicle. long-term wear and tear and

maintenance. one way to measure that is to use the irs mileage deduction rate, which is a rough estimate of the true cost of operating the vehicle. it shows dramatically lower earnings. the average mileage in the last month and when you use that, significantly lower down to $1,700 per month on average earnings. when you use that figure, a significant portion, maybe 5 or 10% of workers are earning almost zero when you subtract the cost of operating the vehicle. based on the preliminary findings. >> may i ask a question on the earnings? >> yes. >> were the drivers that were surveyed working full-time? >> i don't have that slide.

we asked what portion of their earnings were from platform work. more than 75%, 50 to 75%? my people reis half of the people surveyed it was full-time work or more. one thing when we asked the number of typical hours per week we had 40 hours or more. it was a large portion that said 40 hours or more. in the revised survey we added another category of 50 hours or more. we expect some significant people will do that as well. this is the difference of doing a survey representative of the work being done. some might do this a small number of hours per week. they are not the majority of the work being done in the city. does that answer your question? >> yes. >> we have a series of questions

about benefits. this shows access to health insurance, and that top category is that they do not have any health insurance whatsoever. it is almost 30% of this work force has no health insurance. most people do get health insurance, 70% through some other combination of partner, state or federal insurance program, maybe through another job. 30% have no health insurance whatsoever. then we asked people if they currently receive public benefits of the variety of food stamps, housing assistance. over 20% of the respondent get some form of sub pick assistance. we will do a breakdown of this figure by the number of hours per week they are working. that will give us a sense of the full-time workers dependent on

public assistance. that is to give you the taste of the findings from the survey. final version will have a lot more detail. i want to point to the implications of the differently response rates for the different platforms. the implication if you have a low response rate, you have to contact more of the delivery workers to be able to get the survey response. that means a higher cost per platform. you can see for the uber and lyft $11,000 in data gathering to get 200 survey responses. in the prepared food delivery channel it is close to 31, $32,000 to get our targeted response. that is why we are recommending to prioritize those two largest companies in each of the broad

categories. that will cover -- we don't know the exact figures you are. somewhere between 80 to 95% are in the largest companies in that sector. i wanted to talk a little bit about the mobile act, driver's seat cooperative. the data from the survey is people's own estimates of earnings, and we know when you ask people about an hourly rate in this type of work, it is very hard for people to have a sense what that is and to be able to act for that. with the driver's seat cooperative we can measure in realtime based on being able to track earnings but also based on them having to enter in information when they are picking up a passenger, dropping off a passenger. you can use that to measure actual working time versus wait time.

in our pilot, we discovered that it is harder to get people to download the app, install it and to report on it regularly on a day-to-day basesis. ultimately to fully get the information from this, not only do they have to enter the information about picking up and dropping off passengers, also, at the end of the week sending a screen capture of earnings statement so that we can check what we are capturing from the data with what they are earning to be able to do calculations of hourly rates. despite the challenges, we were able to get a total of 10 activated drivers, recording three or more trips each day, with five drivers submitting that information. it came to a total of 49 driver days with three or more trips. you can see the additional figures in terms of the number

of trips, 540. over 600,000 different data observations related to that. it is a small number of drivers you get tremendously rich data to see the geography where people are moving, it allows you to calculate as well paid and unpaid time, utilization rate and using estimated expenses, irs mileage deduction calculates the hourly payment rates to understand that. that can be looked at by different driver data by time of day, days of the week. you can also look at it by different geography to see how much work is done in san francisco versus other parts of the bay area. we have information both from the survey and from the mobile app where people are living by zip code and actually working in san francisco as well.

so this data is tremendously valuable for understanding real hourly pay and paid and unpaid time. because of the lower on boarding to that app and using the app correctly to a more complicated to get that data. what we are recommending going ahead is to do this representative sample of work done 250 people working in each of those six different platforms that i mentioned. that would come to a total of targeted 1500 total surveys. to supplement that within depth interviews with 30 to 50 of those delivery workers that would give us a deeper understanding of their experience with the different algorithms, how that changed over time, the factors that is important that shapes waiting

time and work time, fears about de activation. one of the big questions is if they exercise autonomy to refuse a job offered through the app does it punish them? it is a critical question to understand that as well as trying to understand other policy implications that might be important and their attitudes towards collective representation to represent their interests. with the driver's seat recommendation, our recommendation is that we would target a smaller number of drivers than we originally anticipated. but be able to provide support work to make sure they are providing the data and submitting the screen shots of earnings. if we can get 25 drivers that will turn into 250 or 300 driver days to be representative of the sector to give us insights into

that work. we are aware our partners in the cooperative are in conversations with the county transportation agency about funding a more in depth study to get larger data about travel patterns to allow us to abilityize the data for labor issues, earnings and paid and unpaid time. that is our proposal we can do within the existing yo budget of $380,000 that is the proposal and we still have a final report target release date of early june. with that, that completes my presentation. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> let's open up for public comment. any members of the public to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioner. >> i have a few questions. have you seen changes? it is interesting that the study is conducted as we are seeing the implementation or rather the ignoring of ab5. that has, you know, led to some notable changes, not just in pricing but in app design and stuff like that. any uber user, i try to avoid it, they can note changes. there are also other issues with door dash acquiring caviar. have will bennotable shifts you have -- have then been any notable shifts that are related to this? >> i would love it if we had a full survey before and after

ab5. we have some before and the rest is afterwards. it might be interesting to compare that. this is part of why we want the in depth interviews to get at the question for drivers working before 85 and now. how have they experienced that change? you say we know specifically some of the things that uber and lyft have done in response to that legislation. we expect that shifting. this sector is changing so fast and they are cons stability leo constantly experimenting. from focus groups and studies is the lack of transparency about how those algorithms are driven and what are the consequences of not accepting a particular job andy laying a job. people have preferences where

they would like to drive or the work they would like to do but have very little autonomy in doing that on the app. that is what we hope to get at in the interviews. >> uber's black boxal go rhythms have chad made -- made changes to change the prices in a way to semi comply. i am not sure of the strategy. that is why i wanted to ask. one more question. in terms of the issues we have in terms of app usage and retention, has there been a consideration of maybe bringing on some sort of contractor who has like maybe product management or some sort of user design? do you think that bringing someone on board or having

someone to consult with or improve usage? >> are you asking about bringing on board to the study or companies? >> no, no to the study. have you been having app design issues or people don't have the time and energy to use it? it could be either or both? >> i am not sure i fully understand the question. in terms of filling out the survey? >> have there been other structural difficulties in using the app? >> driver's seat app. no, the main problem, two things. in the pilot we would run through the survey with people. then at the end of the survey asking them to download the app and put it on. by that point they are tired of talking with us. actually i should have mentioned

this. going ahead we are going to have targeted recruiting of people specifically for downloading the app so they wouldn't have necessarily done the survey first. we think that will increase response rate as well. this is getting into the weeds a bit. the app is a bit in development to actually use it on the apple platform you have to first download another app that allows you to access apps that haven't been fully approved. it is now to the point where it is improved on the apple platform. that should lower that barrier as well. the final thing is having a personal relationship because we found being able to check in with someone daily did you drive today, turn that in. that makes a difference. we will try to link the surveys

with people filling in the app so the person doing the qualitative interviews would be building a relationship with someone as they do the interviews, and then would have that relationship to follow up with the driver's seat app as well. >> thanks again. this is vital and frankly overdue. thank you. >> any other comments? >> also, i wanted to echo thank you so much for your work on this as well as this is so important at this moment, the study. not just for us having a better understanding of the drivers, the tens of thousands of drivers in san francisco and their needs. as you are aware it will have broader impact statewide and

nationally. i guess i had a question more how this connects to some other big issues we are struggling with the pushout of the working class population of the city. the homelessness crisis here in a recent uber ride the driver told me that he lived in sacramento and comes to drive here on the weekends, and then i was also recently speaking to a person in my district, in the sunset district living in his vehicle like so many in the city. he is a delivery driver. it seems like what you are studying or this population has connections to other critical issues we are grappling with as a city. do you have any thoughts about

the intersection with this and displacement and homelessness? >> i think it very much intersects with the issues that you are raising, and part of why i highlighted the earnings is to point to how precarious this work is in our high cost area. we have a number of specific questions about people's economic circumstances including how many people they support on their earnings. a question is drawn from the federal reserve bank designed to measure people's access to savings in the event of emergency. you may have heard 42% of the u.s. population couldn't access $400 in an emergency. we asked that same question. our finding higher figures in san francisco compared to the national figures as well. we don't ask in the survey

questions about housing. that could turn the survey into a longer survey. we will get at those in the in depth interviews to tr try to understand those circumstances. we will have the information how many people are commuting in here to work but living in far-flung places. at santa cruz the students come up for the weekend, work 16 hours, sleep in the car, work 16 hours straight and then come back to school. that is tough to be living in this housing cost with these labor market conditions. >> i want to say thank you. this is fascinating. i also have -- it helps itself these preliminary findings about the impact that the economy has on our income and wealth gap. i ask every time on a slide i

ask more questions. what is the earning gap to meet basic needs for these people? also, just about the whole economy and what it has done about the wealth and income gap and how has that either perpetuated it or, aspirated it or is it helping at all? we hear that it is helping the income gap because people are able to make extra money. it is their full-time job. we see that on a lot of home shares, with the economy. you can supplement your regular job. why is it always people who are lower or moderate wage earners why is it okay to work two or

three jobs while we build the playground for those with leisure time. this brings up so many questions. thank you so much. i wish we had three million dollars to dig into it. the labor force the delivery is if we can capture them as organized labor workers and how we can then offset move with this 21st century economy of delivery but offer protections, employment protections, living wage job, benefits as we move into we understand more delivery. what are the mechanisms to bridge, i think, the gap of this income cap knowing that -- income gap.

i meet with the restaurant industry. food delivery is killing them. they can't exist without it. they are paying them so much. this whole gig economy about who the money really is flowing to and how they are so i think part of it is work. i am worried about the workers. even though it is about the work. my main concern is about the workers. the work is important because this type of work is branching out to create so many more inequities and pressures on our small businesses, on grocery stores that hire organized labor workers. people are trying to do the right thing and undermining this basic needs of people to survive and undercutting them. i don't understand how uber or

lyft works. if you are paid instantly i can see how you would not know how much you were being paid. i was a cocktail waitress at fairmont hotel. i would get the tips. i was bringing home money. i wasn't accounting for declaring the taxes and tiping the bartender and the busboys. how much do you get? when you get the lump of money every day you are thinking i am making money. when you look at the other expenses you don't account for that. you don't know how much you are really making. i know that when i was a cocktail waitress for about a year that i would, you know, think i was making a lot of money. when you break it down, you are not making that much money. when you tell people working 60 hours a week, i think that you

are not compensated for the wear and tear on your physician -- your physical health. you are not exercising when you are in the driver's seat. it is a crazy economy, a loophole to bypass paying people a living wage. i wish we had zillions of dollars. i look forward to the full report and other foundations will look and have the same questions as me. i think this is a first start. it is also mind-boggling and some of it is heartbreaking. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you for your comments. part of what you are pointing to, this is one step in a way to

fully understand the implications of the growth of this work for the workers and the industry. there are people trying to study this. this will inform many people around the country as well at the same time as we are learning from them. i am involved in a number of studies looking precisely at those issues, particularly the grocery industry and how that is affecting grocery stores. i look forward to engaging with you further as we get more data from the survey. >> it plays out in a larger question about our values here in the united states, how we value workers and humans, quite frankly. we have created this economy, a permanent under class with permission of consciences. it is sold to us they need to

make extra dollars to pay rent here or to feed families. we are exploiting their need to -- their lack of funds. the position they are in. do you want to eat? then you have to drive 60 hours a week at 10 bucks an hour. it is a crazy circle. thank you very much. there is no action needed on this item today. we want to thank you very much. madam clerk can you please call item 8. >> k and aptravel of the contract amendment for the survey of on demand workers in san francisco. >> thank you. commissioners this is amendment to the original contract to the survey of on demand workers. it isvey viced to -- revised to the budget so the teamworks

within the budget of $380,000. also, leaving the door open for additional research and funding. specifically the contract changes the scope to six platforms. it extends the contract to august 31st of this year with an option to extend for an additional year. if that happens we would come back for your approval. it changes the timeline to reflect the final report is due june 8th. it increases the total amount of the contract to $500,000 in case we get additional funding. we have pending requests with foundations that have expressed interest but the timing wasn't right in this fiscal year. the recommendation is to approve the contract amendment. >> thank you very much. we need action on this, is that correct? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like

to comment on item 8? seeing none, it is closed. i would like to have a motion to approval 8. second. thank you very much. please call ry item 10. >> public comment. >> public comment is closed. madam clerk any other business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you very much.excited.

>> when we had that big d. rainstorm last year that was racing down this hill i went out and when there was a break in the weather to make sure that was clear and that was definitely debris that draws down i make sure i have any bathroom we me and sweep that away that makes a big difference sfwrts can fleet floated and every year we were coming home he it was rainey noticed it the water with hill high on the corner and she was in her rain boats so she had fun doing that. >> i saved our house.

>> so adopt a drain 25 brine is in the pro -- o bryan works on oceanside projects. we understand the infrastructure is old and there is new technology to incorporate. bryan's role is to manage the capital projects to update infrastructure and to make things more efficient. >> bryan is a unique project manager. he brings technical experience but only that but he is a great mentor to young project managers in my group. >> mentors is a lot about compatibility, too. he showed me his process and how he organized things and managed

projects and had conversations on escalating things with contractors. >> brine shows leadership. he is independent. >> we work together pretty well with the resources we have to get the best outcome for the city. i think we have an open communication and that trust again of teamwork. >> bryan is a straight-shooter, he likes to get things done. he doesn't seek praise. i think that is why myself wanted to nominate him for the award to get recognition for the things he does to go above and beyond in his job. >> he is committed. that is why he deserved the golden pride award. >> i haven't been awarded anything like this in my 20 years. that is exciting to be

recognized. it is special. it is excited to get recognition with the ongoing activities with the focus on the southeast. it is good to have a little bright light over here every once in a while. we are next to sor ocean beach. >> i am a project manager for the sewer system improvement program at oceanside. >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came

out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador. we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the

area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need.

>> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community

ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

[gavel]ow. >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, february 6, meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar, and i'm joined by supervisor peskin and supervisor matt hainy. and i would like to thank maya and corwin for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, thank you, mrc