incense. you can cut down on driving and other outside driving and other activities that produce dust and emissions like barbecuing or using outdoor fireplaces. here's a quick recap. and that's it for this episode. you've been watching coping with covi bloop enter int >> i'm sandra lee fewer, chair of this body, joined by commissioners gordon mar, matt haney, cynthia pollock, and shanti singh. i like to thank maya her man --

hernandez for broadcasting this meeting. do we have any announcements? >> to protect our commissioners, city employees, and the public, city hall is closed. lafco members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this is pursuant to the various state and local orders and directives. commissioners will participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda via telephone. both channel 26 and sfgov.org are streaming the number across the screen. you can call 415-655-0001, meetimee meeting id is (146) 354-7117,

then pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, and speak slowly and clearly and turn down your television or video. you can submit public comments by e-mails me, the lafco clerk or by u.s. mail. it will be forwarded to the members and included as part of the official file. madam clerk, that concludes my announcements. >> thank you very much madam clerk. can you please call item number

two. >> item number two, approval of lafco minutes from september 18, 2020, regular meeting. >> those who wish to provide public comment should call the number on your screen, meeting id146-354-7117. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. is there anyone in line waiting to speak on this item? >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> seeing that, public comment is now closed on item number two. i would like to make a motion to approve the lafco minutes for the regular meeting. can i have a second please. >> second. >> roll call vote please. >> item number two, vice chair

pollock. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> chairperson fewer. >> aye. >> there are four ayes. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number three. >> community choice aggregation activities report. a, enrollment and service statistics, b, update on delinquency and bill assistance for low income customers. c, grant proposal to demonstrate a virtual power plant. d, power charge indifference adjustment. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> thank you very much. today we have barbara hale from

sfpuc. the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. good morning commissioners, barbara hale presenting to you today. i like to move to slide two please, where we're going to give a quick overview of the agenda that we're going to cover today. you can see as the commission secretary announced the items. let's move into enrollment and service statistics. slide four please. at complete community wide enrollment, cleanpowersf now has a little over 409,000 customer accounts. since launch, 3.9 percent of those customer accounts enrolled have opted out of the program. that is still a 96% retention rate, so we're happy with that. despite the challenges presented by covid, the upgrade rate has remained steady at 2%.

finally, the receipt -- recent june 2020 enrollment is completed with a 1.2% opt out rate, just for that individual enrollment. that gives you a sense of how the program is doing. slide five please. i like to move on to talk about delinquent sit and bill assistance for customers. it's a tough time for san franciscan s. we reported that the sfpuc adopted a bill credit for qualifying customers enrolled in the california alternative rates for energy and family electricity rate assistance program. that's a state program and federal program. these are bill assistance programs. we've adopted a bill credit for qualifying customers enrolled in these programs by the end of september. the proposed bill credit would

cover an average electricity bill for a care or fera can you tells -- customer for one month. it's being applied this month, october. it provides economic relief for these customers and an opportunity for us to promote enrollment in care and fera discount programs. we're excited about that because that provides qualifying customers with ongoing assistance, not just one time. it's at least a 20% discount on their energy bills. we taken this as a marketing moment, a leveraging moment, to make sure that if people qualify, they get themselves enrolled. slide seven please. at the last meeting, commissioner fewer, you asked for more information regarding account delink went sit by supervisor district. what you see on this slide summarizes delinquency data

business supervisor district. we did a heat map where you can see the delinquencies are the highest in red and gradients down to green where they're lowest. >> i don't think we're seeing that slide in front of us. >> that is slide seven and i believe they're managing the slides. it's showing on the sf tv screen. i'm not sure why you're not seeing it. >> we're seeing a different slide. >> i'm asking for slide seven please. there. i'm not managing the slide presentment. so now you're seeing the heat map presentation that i just mentioned. maybe we want to stay on that

slide for a moment so you can absorb the content. >> sure. >> just for folks who are listening in, that's the slide we're looking at or showing, so is that correct in supervisor haney's district there. >> that's what we're seeing, 51% for folks that are overdue on paying their bills up to 30 days. for 60 days, it drops down to 16%. then for district six, we're

showing it drops down to 10%. so understand that what we're seeing here is an aging process, right? you can be delinquent for 30 days but then cure it so you don't show it on the 60 day column here. that's why the percentage delinquent dropped overtime. you can see that we do a delinquent sit rate around 6% and as presented on this slide, that represents about a $2 million under collection for the program. the average delinquency of $101. thank you commissioner fewer for folks who aren't able to see the screen. i appreciate that reminder.

>> thank you, please proceed. >> there's been an increase in enrollment in the care and fera program within our cleanpowersf customer base. so prior to shelter-in-place for covid-19, which occurred in march, march 17th. we all remember that date. we had about 38,000 enrollments. that's about 10% of active cleanpowersf customer accounts. as of the end of september, our preliminary numbers show that our enrollment in those two bill assistance programs has increased to 50,660. that represents a 30% increase in enrollment in these programs since march. that's now representing about a 13% total of our customer accounts being enrolled in these programs. we're continuing to work with this data and we will provide

financial results with our effort to get more folks enrolled at the november lafco meeting or i believe that's your next meeting. so if we could move to slide nine then. i'm happy to share that since the last lafco meeting, our sfpuc staff collaborate with the department of environment to submit a grant. this is an application to the u.s. department of energy to develop a pilot, virtual power plant at affordable housing buildings that our customers of cleanpowersf. slide ten please. the u.s. department of energy grant opportunity is offering $1 million grant with total funding of 10 million available to fund projects that have the potential to significantly reduce energy and u.s. commercial or multifamily buildings. the department of energy was looking for projects that could demonstrate end use demand

flexibility to improve power grid efficiencies and generate and dissimilate data on building technologies. the funding is available for up to three years and grant applications were due september 28th. slide 11 please. the grant application we submitted would leverage hot water heat pumps and other integrated demand side measures across ten tenderloin neighborhoods, multiunit properties. so we're focusing on the multi-unit aspect of the department of energy's offerings. this new equipment would convert natural gas usage to electricity usage. we're hoping to do some de-carbonization and we'll also then allow the building managers to flexible respond to hourly price signals. to establish the price signals, the project team will develop a tool to determine the value of

the electricity demand flex blth on buildings based on cleanpowersf avoided energy procurement cost. under the grant proposal, we will recruit flexible demand aggregator, a third party capable of optimizing building energy demands and response to hourly signals. so the idea here is that a building could be dispatched, turned on and off. the energy consumption would increase and decrease based on pricing in the market, much like we procure energy in the market. we would be procuring demand reduction. so, let's move to slide 12 please. so through this grant application, we're trying to demonstrate the ability to decarbonize domestic hot water systems and verify the financial benefits of building

electrification. we're proposing to create an avoided cost tool to determine the value of electricity demand flexibility. we'll then use the avoided cost values to send a price signal to the building's energy manager to change the electricity usage in response to wholesale cost of electricity supply to provide that flexibility, the project would integrate distributed energy resources from multifamily buildings portfolios to a virtual power plant and analyze data collected from the operation of those resources to validate the virtual power plant's performance. so ultimately this project will assess the viability of cost pricing to promote distributed energy resources as a substitute for supply side resources. slide 13 please. here is the projected, the project's expected schedule.

we're expecting to hear back from the department of energy on the application in january of 2021. assuming we are awarded a grant, we anticipate contract negotiations and executions during the first quarter of 2021 and then we move on to phase one of the project, commencing in the second quarter of 2021. during this market assessment and technology installation phase, we will identify existing tenderloin neighborhood development corporation sites with appropriate energy aspects to include in the program. we will install heat pumps, measure and verify the greenhouse gas savings in the parenting buildings, created the avoided cost tool i talked about and procure the flexibility demand aggregator. phase two, which will focus on the program implementation is expected to commence in 2022 and run through 2023.

this work will include calculation of the demand flexibility savings for all the buildings, create a pool of non-participant comparison groups, so we have something to benchmark against, set up and manage automated meter infrastructure to facilitate the data transfer, and calculate our ongoing demand flexibility savings and the payment for ongoing demand flexibility. finally in phase three, occurring in the first quarter of 2024, we'll focus on project analysis andy sim -- and desimulation of results and findings. now power charge and difference adjustments. are there any questions about the virtual power plant? >> any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing no one in the queue, please proceed.

>> thank you, thank you. so shifting gears. at the last meeting, excuse me, our director mike hines, deputy director for cleanpowersf presented an overview and updated the commission on the power charge indifference adjustment. this is the exit fee all of our customers pay. we have a couple updates for you this week. slide 15 please. first, i want to recognize that at the last meeting, a group of administrators have coordinated to prepare a letter for elected officials representing their communities. to voice the concern about the pcia to the california puc commissioners regarding the pcia price volatility and high costs and how they're harming all electricity customers in the state, i want to thank lafco commissioners for your support of this letter, which was sent to the california puc on

september 24th and featured the signatures of 99 elected officials representing energy programs. those signatures included mayor london breed and all 11 members of the san francisco board of supervisors. they asked them to implement common sense fixes to increase transparency by adopting new rules to allocate resources to retail sellers whose customers pay for them and encourage better management of utilities portfolios and give consumers more information about what the fees pay for. so thank you very much for your support for that letter. finally, if we'll move to slide 16 please. on september 28, pg&e filed an application seeking to recover a

$252 million, in the indifference adjustment. pg&e is proposing to collect this money over a 12 month period, starting in 2021. if that request is approved by the california p.u.c., then the pcia is expected to rise by a total of 1 cent per kilo watt hour in 2021. we're working with other community choice programs to request a longer collection period of 36 months to reduce the impact on rate payers in 2021. while this request will not address the underlying causes of the problem with the pcia, those issues will need to be addressed through new rules requiring better management of the electrical corporation, the portfolio. it will provide important near

term rate relief to cleanpowersf and other community choice aggregation customers. that could have a significant impact on program participation. with that, i think that's my final slide if you will advance. i'll be happy to take any questions. >> thank you ms. hale. any questions or comments from my colleagues at all? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment please. >> okay, thank you madam chair. members of the public who wish to speak on this item press star 3 now to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you raised your hand. please wait until you have been unmuted and then you can begin your comments. operations, is there anyone in line to provide public comment on this item?

madam chair -- >> yes madam chair -- >> how many people are in the queue? >> we currently have two people in line. >> okay. i see that the advocates are asking to extend public comments to three minutes for all items. since we have on average two speakers for public comment on each item, i think i will grant that today. so please set the time for three minutes for each public speaker and we can start public comment now on item number three only. thank you. >> okay. thank you madam chair. can you send the first caller through please. >> hello commissioners, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> okay, good. eric brooks, california for

energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocate. on the pcia fee, i mean it's great that we're asking for an extension on how long that's to be paid off, but really we got to get more -- the cities that are community choice cities need to go at war with the california public utilities on this. if we don't, then they're going to keep doing this to us until our community choice programs are dead. so we got to really declare war and cities need to get organized and do something about this so that it can't continue. this charge is unnecessary. it's been in place for decades and it's time to phase it out completely. very importantly, on the grant proposal from the federal government, i think that sounds like it's going to be. >> worthy program and it's very useful. it will give us great data, but

i also think it's really important that we not get trap in the verbiage that the federal government is giving us that this is a "virtual power plant" demonstration. a virtual power plant, when advocates talk about virtual power plants, what we're talking about is building renewable, demand response, efficiency, and other things as described in the grant proposal so that together all these things in an entire region completely fulfill the electricity needs of the community in such that they don't need fossil fuel power plants anymore. it's like you have a 24 hour power plant on seven days a week. that's a virtual power plant. i want to make sure we don't get off on the wrong foot with this presentation, on this worthy grant proposal and call that a virtual power plant when it isn't one. so i just want to make sure to

put that clarification forward. those are my comments. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. can you please put the next caller through. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> i want to thank you for the presentation and thank chair fewer for the allocation of time. sometimes it's very useful, which is why we ask for it, but i will not use it on this item. i really just want to say you know, my major point is that the pcia fee going up the way it has in the last five years is normal business, like what we've been seeing nationally over the last several years with legislation restricting voting. it's normal democracy. it's something that should be called out and stop being treated as business as usual. to that end, i guess i would say that the normal process is

sending a couple lobbyist to handle things at the sfpuc is probably not a winning strategy. i would base that on us getting rolled many years now as you saw from mr. hines presenting the pcia shipping money out of the city that was presented at your last meeting. so what i would suggest is that the city pursue a legislative fix. the senator is really good on energy and pcia issues. he is very familiar with the pcia. we pursue a legislative fix that forces them to do xy or z, rather than engaging in their regulatory process. we have been dealing with this problem for years.

it's not getting any better. we acted in good faith. i trust that the government affairs folks have acted in good faith. pg&e has not. i guess to eric's term, i think it is time that we dial up the confrontational antagonism on this particular item. we as the city and county cannot afford -- i mean we're talking about care and fera expansion while we're shipping tens of millions of dollars out of the city every year. we can't afford to keep doing this. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. does that complete the queue? >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> okay, public comment is now closed on item number three. let's move on then, there is no action needed on this item. madam clerk, can you please call item number four. >> item number four, renewable

energy consultant update. a, cleanpowersf integrated resource plan response update. b, northern california cca benchmarking report. c, upcoming tasks. meeting id146-354-7117, then pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please press star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will have indicate you raised your hand. please wait until public comment is called and the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> thank you very much. today we have with us jenny whitson and nicole amweg. the floor is yours. >> thank you and good morning commissioners. this is jenny whitson and i will be presenting some renewable

energy consultant updates. so will i be sharing my screen or will you be sharing the slides? perfect, okay. okay, next slide. so today we'll be giving you an update on the cleanpowersf i.r.p. responses following the last regular monthly meeting for lafco in september. i will also be presenting the northern california benchmarking exercise we performed last month and then we will be describing our upcoming tasks. next slide. so for the 2020i.r.p. review that we performed and provided a presentation last month, since then we had met with the executive officer of lafco and cleanpowersf staff as well to discuss some of the comments that we provided in our recommendations to provided additional clarification to their staff, as well as reviewing some of their comments that they provided back, that we

provided to the commission. they also provided a written response on october 8th that we reviewed and addressed as well in our recent memo, also issued on october 8th to the commission. that's really in response to our formal feedback that we submitted to cleanpowersf staff and sfpuc on august 21st to our original memo when we provided our preliminary feedback. next slide. so, we wanted to provide an update since the last lafco meeting we presented, this slide. cleanpowersf provided a few clarifications to the graphics on their website and some of these tables listed in the i.f.p. i wanted to highlight that the green percentages under existing projects, as well as the overall portfolio with the preferred case has been updated. so 10% of cleanpowersf existing projects are locate in the local

bay area and out of the new projects presented, 24% which hasn't changed, will be located in that area. when you combine the two of those and their new projects, 12% of cleanpowersf's total portfolio will be located in the bay area. we want to note that because it's the nature of power purchase agreement and the term va varying, the percentages will fluctuate over the years. next slide. so, we did provide some specific follow up in guidance regarding reliability and resiliency to the cleanpowersf team. we discussed some different strategies, such as providing some best practices that other ccas are incorporating into their solicitation process and we also suggested that cleanpowersf provide some requirements in their

solicitation process that involve resiliency framework and some scoring for any proposed project that they are considering. we also talked about some innovative solutions for pilot projects, which ms. hale just presented on, which we're really excited to hear about. we also talked about power, the public safety power shutoff events and how they're not currently impacting san francisco, however, cleanpowersf will develop a communication protocol if they do impact any of their energy supply systems or assets. we talked about that at length. as well, they did provide something that we wanted to highlight to the commissioners regarding the pg&e wholesale distribution tariff, which they highlighted to us. so this is filed september 15th and if passed, it could prevent barriers to distribute resourcing a allegation and

distributed storage. so that could present some challenges that staff is monitoring coming up. next slide please. so under our cost analysis comments, the rate analysis value presented a cost for repairs. they con i remember if -- confirmed their rates are required to be between 1% of the generation rates. they did include the investment tax credit. sfpuc staff are exploring how they can implement the self generation program within san francisco and support participation by cleanpowersf customers, so that was one of our recommendations that they look into further. next slide. so under the cleanpowersf

program, cleanpowersf we requested a timeline of the programs and their rollout of how they plan to be developed and implemented to clarify when they will be available for customers. so, they did clarify in their memo that the applications for the disadvantaged communities is submitted by january 1, 2021. they estimate the approval will take approximately six months. so we'll keep the lafco commission updated as that progress progresses, as well as cleanpowersf equity working group is developing an equity framework which has been discussed in previous meetings. they said that will be integrated into all aspects of cleanpowersf operations. we saw in our benchmarking that a lot of cities across california have equity frameworks in place and they're

currently developing them as well. next slide. so the cleanpowersf and lafco executive officers, the teams have accepted our collaboration in the last few weeks. we requested a 12 month look ahead from their staff to help better understand the key milestones coming down the pipeline and help us align our tasks and activities that we perform as renewable energy consultants and cleanpowersf is going to add mr. goebel to their public bid notification for requests for offers and r.s.p.s. so he will be notified and our team will be notified at the same time when those solicitations are issued. we also talked about implementing a file sharing platform to have better access to reports scheduled and other key documents, to share between cleanpowersf staff and lafco. that way we can definitely see

what's coming down the pipeline and reduce the amount of attachments to e-mails and whatnot. so we're exploring how the i.t. team can implement that for lafco. with that, i'm going to hand it off to my colleague nicole to explain benchmarking. >> excuse me, if i could interrupt you for a moment. barbara hale has her hand up to speak. did you want to add something? >> thank you commissioner fewer. i wanted to note that i believe on slide 13, you have a typo. you're talking about the effect of pg&e's request to modify a wholesale distribution tariff. i think you used the frame that it prevents barriers and it actually presents, not prevents. so that was a key issue that i

wanted to make sure the commission understood that filing by pg&e is problematic for the city. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. you may continue. >> thank you ms. hale for that clarification and we'll double check the memo we received because we may need to clarify that to cleanpowersf staff. nicole, would you like to present the benchmarking? >> yes, thank you jenny. again, i'm nicole amweg. i want to thank you for your time and letting us present our findings with regards to benchmarking this morning. next slide. so to jump in, our team compared cleanpowersf with their counterparts within the same reason with the clean energy option program. it provides a show of context

and status of cca in northern california and can be used to identify gaps in order to achieve a competitive advantage over pg&e. please note that this information presented is aware of where the ccas are currently. next slide. so we bench march cleanpowersf to five others that we felt were most relevant, including marine clean energy, sonoma clean power, et cetera. they thought it's most important to compare against the same investor company, pg&e. we thought it would be good to have a baseline to compare apples to apples. so these are the key ones we decided to benchmark.

so we captured cca's launch years. if you look at the top row of the table, you see 2010 through 2019. please note that mce is the first cca in california and the newest being san jose clean energy with the average launch year 2015. you see the number of rate payers listed. the number is approximately 375,000 and cleanpowersf is at 380,000. the number of programs in place with another kpi and you will see the average number is 11. we benchmarked a number of staff, and the average being 34. the existing portfolio size, cleanpowersf at 508 megawatts. we have east bay community at 550.

and we have san jose at 1,000. and peninsula clean energy at 400 megawatts. so note that the total only reflects the long-term serving their customers and the average is 738 megawatts. so the average customer enrollment can be proportionate to each other. next slide. so clean power is on par compare to the northern california cca with the programs offered to customers or in development. we have current staff size and the portfolio size is based on customer sizing usage. the average is 738 megawatts as state in the previous slide. cleanpowersf is at 508 megawatts and growing.

each cca aims to match consumption and customer usage. so although cleanpowersf has a large number of customer accounts, a substantial portion of the energy and demand not captured under the cca is the energy consumption from the city and county's buildings. next slide. so an effort to compare and pair up the current 2020 joint rate mailer to illustrate the various options offered to the residential customers. this compared the ccas and included pg&e for comparison. the total electricity cost include generation costs and pg&e generation delivery of power, the franchise fee surcharge. so the details in this table show each cca's renewable energy mix, the free content and

electricity rate. on this table, you'll see that east bay community energy and marin offer three pricing tiers. so the only ones that benchmarked that offer a renewable energy option. so for mce, the local is limited to 300 customers and it promotes the clean economy. mce eeshgs local option enforces solar energy within that service territory with their program. so evergreen options, it utilizes solar by day and geothermal by night. so the four projects are enrolled in their program.

>> so are we having a technical difficulty? >> i'll pick up where she left off. she may have internet connections issues. so there are different local opti options. so basically they're able to use solar by day and geothermal by night. >> commissioner pollock has her hand up, do you have a question about this or comment? >> yes, i was just noticing the

different programs available. do we have the opt in rates for evergreen, eco 100, do you know? do you know what their rates are for their 100% renewable product? >> that information is not as publicly available for each. some do advertise that and cleanpowersf does a good job in describing that publicly. we're not able to find all that information out from each of the ccas. >> would that be available with something like a sunshine request or maybe if it's publicly available or not publicly posted? >> we can definitely request that and follow up.

we did want to point out that the clean energy program, it's capped at 300 customers. so for that one, that would be easier to get. we will track down that information for you. >> and i'm more interested in their green rates, just to compare to the super green option, which is to be low here. >> okay. >> thank you. >> sure. next slide. >> hi there jenny, i'm back on. i apologize. let me jump in here. thank you for your time and patience here. so for this slide, here we wanted to point out cca similarities which include pg&e delivery rates and the total cost of electricity rates.

our research shows that cleanpowersf exceeds other northern california ccas by offering free content for their first tier, which is the green option, at 96%. one question raise second-degree that the cleanpowersf rate is higher than pg&e's total electricity rate, which they're comparable second tier. this makes cleanpowersf super green higher than pg&e's comparable option which is a bulk 100% clean energy mix. so san jose clean energy and peninsula clean energy were more competitive to pg&e's solar choice rate. so next slide please. so northern california's cca offers an average of 11 out of 31 programs, based on the tracks

or what they track. the cleanpowersf has 6 active programs, 7 more programs in development, 2 focused on disadvantaged community programs, which is administered by p.u.c. cleanpowersf submit add grant application a virtual power plant. it's similar to east bay clean energy, who is currently working with the solar company sun run to deploy. so, next slide please. some potential programs that are applicable to cleanpowersf that other ccas offer include the battery storage incentive, free e.v. charging equipment, and energy resiliency audit programs. m.c.e.s help customers apply for the incentive program, which is administered by the p.u.c. and it covers 35% to 100% cost to purchase the system.

customers pay up front for 50% of the charge or cost and once installed, sonoma clean power reimburses the customer. mce is even including the resiliency criteria for disadvantaged and low income communities and gaap cost coverage. our memo goes into more details on this program. with that, i'm going to pass it off to jenny and she'll finish this up. >> thanks nicole. so in general we wanted to summarize on the next slide. what we found when we were benchmarking and looking into all our research is that most of the ccas do have a little more information and accessibility on their web based content such as

their profiles. there are several meeting notes and information regarding different committees and add hock committees that they have posted publicly available, as well as planning and recording documents such as strategic plans, annual impact reports and other ways to communicate status. also, they provide information such as power notifications and important dates. that's something we saw the theme across the board and lot of this information may be posted on the website because of the nature of these, but we believe there could be more information posted on cleanpowersf's website. next slide. to wrap up, we just wanted to report out what we'll be working on in the next few months. so following this meeting, we will follow up on any action

items and look at the opt out rate for our next benchmarking exercise in six months, as well as next month we plan on providing feedback to the commission on the local renewable energy report. with that, we would like to open it up for questions. >> thank you very much commissioner pollock? >> i just wanted to clarify that the request that i made was an opt in rate instead of an opt out rate. so opting into 100% renewable. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from commissioners? i have one, i am wondering are we doing any sort of analysis around our procurement and the measures that we require when we're procuring renewable energy, do we give any extra points to companies that actually institute community benefit? we heard about a new green

economy and how this economy can help us bridge the wealth gap. so i'm wondering if any ccas actually, and when they're procuring renewable energy, if they're looking at companies that actually invest in these types of programs to do training or looking at local hire, those types of things. >> i will say that when we were looking at different ones on other cca websites, there were some requirements or preferred recommendations that they would like those things to be considered. i do not know exactly off the top of my head if they're adding additional points or how those are weighted. we can look into that. if ms. hale wants to provide any feedback on what cleanpowersf is actively doing, that would be great. >> i think as consumption grows and we will procure more

renewable energy and since we're looking at 12% is generated within the bay area, if we had a local hire measure, something that would be a more desirable, you know, aspect of when we use our procurement dollars for a greater good or to bridge also sort of what we believe in san francisco values and also i think the board of supervisors. so i think that would be super helpful. let's hear from any other commissioners. seeing none, can we open this up for public comment please? >> yes madam chair. operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. please let us know if any callers are ready. if you haven't done so, please press star 3 to be added. for those on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted.

is there anyone in line? >> yes, i have two callers in the queue. i will queue the first caller. >> madam chair, are we still doing three minute? >> yes, please. thank you madam clerk. >> hello again commissioners, eric brooks. thank you for the presentation. i want to preface this bay -- by saying we think you're doing great work. it's great that you're communicating with the sfpuc and you will be reporting back on creating that great communication with lafco, but also do include in your report back the interactions you had with advocates in the community and how you are responding to their recommendations and questions. then i want to reiterate what i said previously, which is that the small grant programs are not

really virtual power plants and we need to be careful not to call them that. we need a real region wide website that will fuel us completely without energy coming out of the city. so that gets me to what i want to emphasize. so i think so many are hoping that the democrats win the presidential election this november and it's looking positive for that to happen. however, we have to remember that both joe biden and his vice presidential running mate kamala harris has said emphatically we will not ban fracking. that is the last red flag that the planet needs that the federal government of the united states is not going to solve the climate crisis problem and that it is on us in our local

communities to do it. that means we need benner to get a virtual power plant plan on the table with an r.f.p. next year so the board can vote for it and pass it next year. the federal government is out to lunch on this, regardless of who becomes the next president. we have to get this underway next year. we can't wait any longer to get this plan on the table and get it voted on by the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. may we have the next speaker? >> thank you very much. i just want to also thank benner for the work and there are good items here that we have never thought of and good items that we have been thinking for a long

time. it's good to see them all. looking at extending program operations is an important priority for 350 bay area. we would like all of them to be the best they can be. i appreciate taking a systemic look antidotally we're familiar with programs in silicon clean energy, which is not include in the benchmarking. hopefully that could be included for the next one because they are a great program in the region. you know, there are a lot of programs there or several programs in the other jurisdictions that we would love to see come to san francisco. we're excited to hear that there are programs being looked at, although i'm unclear what the seven new programs that sfpuc are looking to expand are. i look forward into maximizing the use. i saw presentations in other agencies on the many categories of energy users that are

actually eligible. it's much bigger than i thought and we really should be doing what mce is doing in helping customers take full advantage of the pool of money they took from us in the first place. lastly, i do want to back up eric on the virtual power plant in a slightly different angle. i work with a lot of different agencies at the regional level. i'm trying to get rules passed and ordinances adocumented and things like that. i think the timeframe on this grant and this pilot project implementation shows the need to supervise our ambitions. separately from we have to do this argument that eric is making, i want to point out that this pilot project, the timeframe is ending in 2024. we talked about 2030, which those who are not climate exp t

experts, but since 1990. they talked about 2030 was far away and we would have jet packs by then. now we're almost reaching 2030 with some of our regulations that we're putting online at certain agencies and the project won't come on board until 2024. in order for us to meet our 2030 goals, we have to stop the small ball. we have been talking about small balls since the '90s. i think we're seeing a bit of a disconnect. in a relative fashion, it's comple complete completely different with the scale of the problem, so i think that we really need to take -- >> your three minutes is up. madam chair, i believe that completes the queue. >> thank you very much.

seeing no one else in the queue, i like to -- oh, there is no action needed. at this time, i see that commissioner mar must leave us. i like to make a motion to excuse commissioner mar. could i have a second please? >> second. >> thank you very much commissioner haney. can i have a roll call vote on excusing commissioner mar. >> vice chair cruz pollock. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> chairperson fewer. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number five.

>> item number five, a presentation and update on the findings of a lafco commissioned survey of food delivery workers in san francisco. the meeting id is 146-354-7117 and then press pound and pound again. please dial star three to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please remain on hold until the system indicates you have been unmuted when the public comment is called. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, today we have our executive officer bryan goebel and chris benner. >> thank you madam chair and commissioners. we released the findings of at base delivery workers in san francisco and professor benner is here with the presentation. combined with the bigger representative survey that was released in may and the online

covid survey, this new survey being released today provides a better snapshot of this vulnerable workforce. we are seeking additional funds to expand the survey, but looking ahead, the future research and surveys that lafco commissions will depend on proposition 22. that measure backed by the companies would keep at base workers as independent contractors and restrict local regulations, including some of the recommendations that we presented to you back in may. the first of its kind representative survey that benner and his team released in may is proving to be a useful data point to help voters make a proposition about 22. it's linked in the guide and was cited in an editorial this week and has been cited in a number of media publications. i just want to commend the survey team for all their work

on this new survey and thank our funders, the san francisco foundation, the ford foundation, the chavez family foundation. with that, i would like to pass it over to professor benner for his presentation. >> thank you so much. can you see the presentation okay? >> we are not seeing a presentation yet.

>> do we have a copy of the presentation we can assist with? >> we do not have a copy of this one. >> there it goes. >> can you see it now? >> i can see it on my screen. >> oh, i'm sorry. i cannot see it on mine. >> could mr. benner possibly e-mail it to us? >> i think i see it now. >> it says cover title on demand an on the edge. >> yes, in blue, right? >> wonderful. my apologies for the technical glitch there. >> no problem. >> well, thank you once again for the opportunity to present this updated data as mr. goebel indicated this is an ongoing collaboration with jobs with

justice san francisco, the job with justice education fund, working closely with mr. goebel's office to understand the employment practices of on demand mobility workers in san francisco using this representative selection process. as you know, we had to stop the survey when covid eresuupted ine spring before we were able to get a sufficient sample size to compare practices of individual companies. so we were presenting broad patterns between ride hailing drivers and delivery drivers. since the pandemic, the number of delivery drivers have spiked. there had been an increase in employment. so what we wanted to do was to really focus on those delivery drivers. one of the questions that we also had was about whether it was possible to do an effective survey in the midst of a pandemic and to do it safely. so just as a reminder, what our

methodology does is not a representative sample of all people that have done this work on some level. our focus is what's the workforce required for these companies to provide this service in san francisco? so it's a representative sample of the work being done, not of all work. this is an important point because the companies themselves like to stress that when you look at everyone that does some of this work, there are many who do it intermittently, very part time. the services they provide actually depend on people who are doing this work as their primary means of income and mostly full time. i'll show you some of those statistics again from this particular workforce. so the study was conducted during the summer. we really wanted to ask a couple of methodological questions of could it be done safely and what kind of response rate would we get. then to get more indications of

during the pandemic, what is similar and what might have shifted from our previous survey findings that were back in february. one of the things that we were tremendously pleased by is that our response rates, which for these delivery drivers were about 15% back in the previous survey, were closer to 80%. you can see the figure there is. 81% for door dash, 79% for amazon fresh. you know, part of that points to the increasing skills of our survey takers who were employed with jobs for justice in how to text ahead of time to the delivery drivers to expect that a survey would be coming so they would be prepared and tell them more about the purpose of it. of course when people are delivering, they have a very short period of time. so to be able to let them know ahead of time that we would be asking them to complete the

survey helped. so we also shortened the survey dramatically so it a shorter period of time. all the surveys were done with masks, appropriate social distancing and health precautions. so we feel good that it was done safely. i'll just mention as i go ahead and present some of these results, you will see some charts in which we look at the responses from individual apps. we looked particularly at these three, door dash, instacart and amazon fresh. because these sample sizes are small, the differences between apps are not significantly significant. so we wanted to present how a fuller survey may reveal in our efforts to get additional funding for those specific company practices. so under the survey findings, again, tremendously diverse workforce with predominately

people of color. about 75% people of color, and in our findings in the summer, 36% are immigrants, foreign born, and slightly less than the pre-covid era. i think that raises an important question of what are the challenges to immigrants retaining employment during the pandemic. still a predominately male workforce. we do see some signs that there are more women in grocery delivery working for instacart. i'll show you that chart in just a second. a higher percentage of these delivery workers who are providing services in the summer live in san francisco. we're seeing people coming from further away to provide the delivery services in san francisco because of the higher concentration of work here but during covid, that was less the case and most of the people

doing the case live in san francisco as well. here are some of the charts available. now to highlight a few, this looks at gender. the average across all the surveys and that's the one the most meaningful. with instacart, it was slightly over 50% who identified as female. so i think we do see some significant gender differences between the prepared food delivery and other amazon fresh grocery delivery. when we talk about an immigrant population, those are people all over the world. it's not concentrated in one particular location. that's important because immigrants are more vulnerable

in our labor market. we didn't ask if they were documented or not. it's a vulnerable workforce. there is lots of evidence in the survey about the difficult economic circumstances that people face. one of the things that struck out in this survey is a significantly higher percentage of people working support others with their earnings. 67% compared to half that in the pre-covid survey, including 69% that support children. you know, our sense is that this is because people have few options and if they have family members to support, and children to support, they will do the work, even if they are concerned about the health impacts and low working conditions, poor working conditions. 15% have no health insurance and 31% use public health access

health insurance. 25%, this is higher than in the previous pre-covid survey, 25% receive some form of public support. the highest percentage of that are those who receive food stamps, the light blue bar, and you can also see housing assistance, women, children, et cetera. and again, this is not a gig for most people. the majority of our survey respondents work full time for platform companies, over half work more than 30 hours a week, 30% work more than 40 hours a week and 13% in the survey work more than 50 hours a week. this is slightly less than the figures that we had in the precovid, but not very substantially. it's really clear that people are doing this as their primary source of income and in many cases their only source.

57% said it was their entire income last month and another 13% said it was 75% or more of their income. so these are their only jobs in most cases. the earnings are quite low. before expenses, and this is one of the critical things mr. goebel mentioned, prop 22. you know, these companies under current california law will be required to reimburse all expenses of their drivers. they're trying to prop 22 to get around that state law. it's the state requirement under av5. so we look at median earnings, $450. so depending on how you calculate the expenses, we asked them both to give us actual expenses in the last month, so we could get a sense of immediate expenses, but of course wear and tear on an automobile, on a car, accumulates over a long period

of time so you need to account for that. so the alternative method was calculating based on mileage driven and that drops to $270 a week for median earnings, despite working full time or close to full time. actually, we estimate when you account for that full expenses, as much as 12% might be earning nothing when all those expenses are accounted for. again, you ask how is that possible? if you are postponing the expenses to maintain your car to bring in current income, that really should not be accounted as earnings, even though people need it at the moment. those expenses should be reimbursed by these companies in my view. delivery workers are dependent on tips, than the ride hailing workers. workers also had a significant amount of unpaid time as they're waiting for orders or driving to

a pick up location. there is also unpredictable earnings, in part because some portion of their pay is due to incentives and bonuses provided by the companies themselves, which again is another indicator that they largely control the conditions of employment and work. so this is a chart that shows some of those figures, the median income for all of them at 450. this is accounting for named expenses, bringing it down to 380 and this is the figure bringing it down to $270 when you did that expenses based on estimated mileage, which leaves about 12%, who might be earning nothing when all expenses are accounted for. we can see that for the median respondents, 30% is the estimate of how much of their income comes from tips, which of course

is not counted for minimum wage purposes under state and city law. again, unpaid time is 30%. there are other indicators from this survey of the ways that the apps manage the job opportunities of what is offered to people on the app. people felt penalized for declining certain job offers if they decided not to accept a certain job offer. so they interpreted some type of punishment, 25% thought they were offered less bonuses and 17% said they were threatened with deactivation and 22% thought the app handled it fairly. we continued to be interested in bike delivery as an option and

to see what happens in that case. we actually had 26% of all delivery workers in the survey say that the bicycle was their primary mode of delivery. 11% use an electric bike. that was higher than our survey results in the pre-covid period by a substantial amount. you can see here again, i present these differences between the apps as elustive of what we may learn if we are able to get funding to do a full survey that it appears that door dash workers are using bikes for the delivery of food, substantially more than groceries. perhaps that's not surprising because groceries can be heavier and larger. we're up to almost 50% of people doing door dash delivery during covid, in the city, who are using bicycles. you can speculate a bit about why that might be higher now during covid with perhaps less

congestion on the streets, perhaps safer, people feeling more hopeful for doing that. i think it was an interesting finding as well, even though overall, it was less than 30 who were working on bikes. we did finally ask a question on whether people would like to have some kind of organization. we didn't specify what that was, whether a union or workers organization or representative body in the city. we just asked this question, if they had an interest in some organization that would represent them and other workers in negotiating with app companies over issues like pay rates, bonuses, handling of customer complaints, et cetera. 38% answered yes. just at the moments, there are no unions in this industry and it's hard to get collective representation because the companies are classifying themselves as itndependent contractors. 38% answered yes, they would like representation and 37% in

addition to that answered maybe. and i think the policy implications from this are reinforcing everyone during the covid times what we concluded from the previous survey as well. on demand delivery work in san francisco is performed by people who are close to full time work and their primary source of income. it's a diverse workforce with high levels of immigrants. this workforce struggles to make ends meet. there is evidence that these companies are not for a substantial portion of their workforce meeting the equivalent of san francisco's minimum wage. so many also don't receive benefits they would be entitled to under state law if they were classified as employees in san francisco regulations as well. so i think it underscores the importance of policymakers, ensuring laws are enforced. as mr. goebel mentioned, if prop

22 passes in this election, it will severely constrain our abilities to help protect this very vulnerable and low paid workforce. with that, i would be happy to take any questions, comments, or feedback. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions for the professor? i do have a question and i am wondering that if -- have we done any analysis if prop 22 were to pass or recommendations? it would limit our ability at a local level to enact some of the recommendations that we're thinking about. so i think that it would be -- i mean is it your opinion that we should be incorporating the recommendations after november, if it should pass, about what we can actually do? i mean i also am wondering if there is any statewide effort besides this prop 22 in

preparation if prop 22 passes that any organizing happening in light of prop 22 passing. so those are just sort of questions that i'm worried prop 22 is going to pass because they put so much money at it. >> right. i'll ask mr. goebel to answer some of that as well. i'm not a lawyer and i think you have to get legal advice on specifically what might be possible under prop 22 or not. i do know that there are people very concerned about it being passed or thinking of legal challenges to it. i don't know the status of that or what basis they would be challenging that. if it passes and it's not successfully challenged, it gets implemented in december. it's a very quick implementation process. >> okay. thank you very much. i see commissioner haney. >> thank you for this and this is obviously both very

informative and very concerning and actually angering that this is the reality for so many people. i didn't see anything there that really focused on flexibility. that's something that we hear a lot about and you know, maybe something for future analysis, a question of whether you know how important flexibility is and whether there are certain needs around that or concerns or fears around limits to flexibility, in terms of when and how and where they're working. >> yeah, thank you for that question commissioner haney. in this survey, we didn't ask specific questions ability flexibility because that is one of the set of questions we had in the previous survey. we were trying to keep this short and thought we had enough evidence from that, that showed people value flexibility. we had people rate a variety of

work characteristics on a one to five rating. it was clear that people valued flexibility and they also value fair pay at the same level. they also value access to typical benefits of being an employee, health benefits, unemployment insurance, access to workers' comp, nearly as high as flexibility. so the point that i make on all of this is that it's not a trade off. it is very possible to be able to have flexible hours and you know some kind of choice in scheduling and to provide all the benefits and protections we expect of employers in california in this situation. so, it might be worth doing some more investigations of types of flexibility that this workforce particularly values. i think we have clear evidence already that yes, flexibility is important and just as important are all the things that go along

with being a legal employee of these companies. i think the companies are being disingenuous by saying it's a trade off. they have very smart people in these companies providing a needed service. they can if i wering -- figure out ways of providing flexibility in scheduling and providing a good service and treating their employees correctly. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. commissioner pollock. >> thank you. this survey is, you know, as commissioner haney mentioned is deeply concerning, the results of it. my question has to do with prop 22. i wonder if there was a way to reconnect with respond -- respond dents to ask about their

thoughts on prop 22 specifically that customers of those apps have been contacted by the app p companies to ask them to vote for prop 22 and delivery workers have been asked to include stickers and flyers and that kind of thing to vote for prop 22. i just wondered if there was a way to reconnect with respondents and ask them their thoughts on prop 22, specifically. >> i really appreciate the question and it's an important point. i think given our resources and capacity before the election, and of course some people have already been voting. we would not get a representative sample of people's thoughts on prop 22. we could do more interviewing of

a smaller subset. i have a graduate student that may be interested in doing that in the next couple of weeks that may give us some indication of people's response to that. as i'm sure you're aware, there are lots of communication between different app workers on social media around these issues and we wouldn't have a representative sample of all the respondents, but i think it would be interesting to see what they say. >> that's something i would be interested in hearing and i don't know if it could be reported out to lafco in a memo since the next lafco meeting will be after election day. >> i'll have a conversation with mr. goebel about it and we can see about doing that. i do have a graduate student who may be available to do that interview before november 3rd and we can report it back to you

if we're able to do that. >> okay. thank you. any other commissioner -- those are the only two commissioners available. okay. thank you. it is depressing the findings. it is institutional and structurally inequitable and wrong. that is sometimes the hardest things to change, they're designed to do so. when you try to fight back, they have the big dollars, as we can see on television commercials, quite frankly. i think it is a good point that you know, that you can still have flexibility and you can still have fairness in pay and working conditions, right? so it's not one or the other. i mean you have good points. let's open this up for public comment please madam clerk. >> yes, madam chair, operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know

if there are any callers that are ready. if you are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. is there anyone on the line? >> yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> hello again commissioners, eric brooks with the previous clean energy groups i mentioned and also with our city san francisco, local grassroots organization. first of all, thanks for the presentation. this crucial vital information shows the absolutely -- i mean the importance of the lafco cannot be overstated after seeing a presentation like this. we need to keep this commission in gear. a couple of things, you know, since i'm representing clean energy groups, i would say let's make sure as we move these studies forward, we're including

ways to subsidize and encourage and make sure all these drivers are using zero emission vehicles soon. i also think it would be interesting. we have a set of drivers that have been working for decades that we could be polling, that it would be interesting to see their work and pay and job security and how their job works out compared to these gig drivers and that would be the pizza delivery drivers. i'm sure they have a different situation, but maybe there are some things that are better, maybe some things that are worse. we should put them in future surveys. the last thing is the most important thing i want to mention, which is that i want to make sure we keep on the table the most important aspect of all of this, which is that if the city and county of san francisco develops its own open source p apps for these ride hails and for these delivery drivers, then

we could immediately after getting those apps successfully on the table, just to simply put all these companies out of business and that should be our objective so that these -- so that would make it easier for us to serve the needs of these workers in our community. so let's make sure that we're keeping that as our final goal as well, to make sure that we're simply making these companiies o longer possible in our city and no longer necessary. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. is there anyone in the queue? >> that completes the queue. >> thank you. >> okay. >> public comment on item number five is now closed. i think another aspect about this is delivery food workers, which we heard from the small business groups that these delivery companies are also gouging our small businesses and that's probably a whole other topic too.

we do not need an action on this but we require a word of thanks to the professor for bringing us that study and sharing the results today. can you please call item number six. >> item number six, the executive officer's report. a, new lafco research associate adiba kahn. >> thank you madam chair. i wanted to welcome adiba to our office. she's the public affairs at northern california. she graduated from berkeley where she obtained a bachelor's of arts degree. she's a bangladesh american from oklahoma. she founded, original dmieganiz led a reproductive justice campaign called campus action for reproductive equity. it aims to expands access to

student health centers by 2023 and her bill became law in 2019. upon graduating, adiba was a paralegal in san francisco, representing incarcerated people. later she was an organizer for the bernie 2020 campaign in nevada, arizona, and pennsylvania. she hopes to pursue a masters in public policy. at lafco, adiba's work is going to center around researching power disconnections in san francisco, following up on a report we issued last year. i'm excited that adiba is joining us as a research associate. please join me in welcoming her to lafco. that concludes my report madam chair. >> thank you very much. i think on behalf of all the commissioners and this commission, we welcome her and thank you very much mr. goebel

for recruiting her and adding her to our team. thank you. there is no action needed, let's open it for public comment. >> operations, please let us know if there are any callers ready. if you haven't already done so, members of the public should press star three to be added to the line. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> public comment on item number six is now closed. we do not require an action. madam clerk, can you please call item number seven. >> item number seven is public comment. >> are there any members of the public that like to speak? >> operations, please let us know if there are any callers lined up to speak for general public comment. members of the public please press star three to be added to the queue now. if you are on hold, please

continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> madam chair, there are no caller in the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. could we please call number eight. there is no action needed on item number seven. madam clerk, please call item number eight. >> item number eight is future agenda items. >> yes, colleagues, any future agenda items? i think that we have one last meeting before the end of the year. seeing no one in the queue, can we open this up for public comment please? >> operations is checking to see if there are any callers in line. if you haven't already done so, press star three to be added to the queue. wait on hold and continue to wait until you have been unmuted. is there anyone in the queue? >> yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> hi, one last time

commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocate. so, i just want to reiterate what jed and i talked about earlier, the importance of next year getting a virtual power plant, a real virtual power plant plan for citywide clean energy buildout on the table and voted on next year so that we're doing what's necessary to be commensurate with the climate crisis and what i would ask you and executive officer goebel to do is to make sure and start ageneral diazoing updates with developing a citywide development plan so we're hearing reports back about that. i feel like if we don't start agen agendaing that item on lafco,

we're not going to get there. i make that request that you start making a report back about local build out plans and every month agenda item. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. is there anyone else in line? >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment on item number eight is closed. before we adjourn the meeting, i wanted to mention that i think -- i would recommend for folks to watch on netflix a life on our planet. if that doesn't scare you, i don't know what will. it makes our work here at lafco and our clean energy even more important and i want to thank everyone for all the presentations today that were so informative. thank you and thank you colleagues. madam clerk, is there any more

business for today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. [♪] >> hi. i am alia, and i am running for san francisco city college.

i never knew that i would one day grow up and oversee the free city college program at the department of children, youth, and their families, increasing access to educational opportunities for our community every day. in this role, i also monitoring the entire budget for the program. my passion for education started at a young age. i grew up in a low-income household and have experienced firsthand the transformative nature of education both as a student and teacher. but over time, i realized how education systems failed our most vulnerable students. as a former legislative aide, i worked on legislation to ban the box on private college applications, making san francisco the first city in the nation to do so. during this time of a global pandemic and a social movement to dismantle systemic racism,

city college needs a new voice and a proven leader in education. my life's mission has been to ensure institutions are accountable to the people they are built to serve. i am running to make sure city college remains the people's college. if elected, i will fight to invest in a permanent emergency grant program for students, establish a jobs guarantee program, with clear career path days, and grow free city. i will advocate for increased transparency and further education resources. i would be honored to have your support. please vote alia chifsky. you and are four your time. hello. we have a choice of two paths. the road ccsf is traveling is one of financial challenges, instability, and a decrease of

18% in enrollment. i see a second healthier path. with strong experienced guidance, ccsf can gain financial stability, and reengage as an important and diverse institution. ccsf is in danger of closing, creating a crisis in san francisco. ccsf must be saved, but electing the same type of candidates, politicians be-holden to stakeholders will result in the same outcomes. i have declined all offers of consideration for endorisment

by stakeholders so that i can focus on slufl doing what is right to save ccsf, i will not be be-holden to interest groups. i'm the only candidate who has raised over $40 million for educational and other causes and will bring creative funding ideas and other opportunities to ccsf. i'm the only candidate who has served on a finance committee of a fiscally fit company. i believe that ccsf is a gem that must be preserved. i will be your independent and experienced voice on the board. thank you, and please vote for me. >> i'm juanita martinez, a family poor in money but rich in family history. my family came from northern mexico. my father was especially proud of his indigenous