tv LAF Co Local Agency Formation Commission SFGTV April 15, 2021 1:00pm-6:01pm PDT
announcements? >> clerk: i do. due to the covid health emergency and protect commissioners, city employees and the public, city hall is closed but members will be participating remotely. commissioners will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent if they were physically present. public comment is available on each item on the agenda both cable channel 26 and the website are streaming the numbers ape cross the screen. you can call 415-655-0001. again, 415-655-0001. meeting id is 187 803 5879 for this meeting. again, 187 803 5879. then pound and then pound again. when connected, you will hear
the meeting discussions but will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 at the beginning of the item to be added to the speaker line. best practices, call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your radio or television. you may also submit to myself. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be included as part of the official file. madam vice chair, that concludes my comments. >> great. can i please have you read the first item on the agenda? >> clerk: the first item is item 2, election of the 2021 chair person and vice chair person. >> okay. i'd like to open it up for nominations before taking public
>> clerk: did we get a nomination -- you got the nomination for the vice chair? >> we did. >> clerk: and chair person or just vice chair right now. >> i nominated commissioner chan for the chair. >> and then i nominated chigzer cynthia cruz for vice chair. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please call 415-655-0001, id 187 803 5879 then pound and pound again.
>> there are two callers listening in and one caller in the que. >> caller, you can begin your comments. >> hi, thank you very much. i'm the senior policy analyst for 350 bay area regional climate advocacy organization. i have not had the opportunity to meet supervisor chan. we have been an advocate since 2013 making it the most robust program we can. [indiscernible]
cynthia has been a stable presence for many years. >> thank you caller. >> there are no more callers in the que. >> great, thank you. madam vice chair? >> yes. if we could take a vote on the nominations and i believe for myself, for vice chair, i would recuse myself and commissioner singh would vote, is that correct? >> you can vote for yourself on the chair and vice chair
nominations. would you like to take both nominations together? >> let's take both together, yes. >> clerk: okay, on the nomination of commissioner chan for chair person and commissioner cruz for vice chair person of 2021. (roll call) there are three ayes. >> i will hand over the meeting to chair chan then. >> thank you vice chair cruz-pollock. i should say the full last name.
and thank you commissioner mar and madam clerk. so, i do believe we should go to the next item. is that correct madam clerk? >> yes. that would be item 3. do you want me to call it? >> please. >> approval of the minutes from november 20th, 2020, regular meeting. for members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please call 415-655-0001. meeting id is 187 803 5879. then pound and pound again. if you have not done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak and a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you can start your comments. >> madam chair? >> are we going to the public
comments for this item? >> yes, you may want to ask if there are any members of the commission who have changes to the meeting minutes for november 20th, 2020? >> any changes colleagues, for the minutes? seeing none, let's go to the public comment. >> operations is checking to see if there are callers in the que. press star 3 to be added to the que if you haven't already done so. >> there are no callers in the que. >> thank you. madam chair? >> thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> is there a second? second by vice chair
director of cleanpowersf is here to present, mr. michael hyams. did i say your last name correctly? >> pretty close. >> my apology. director hyams please go ahead. >> thank you chair chan. good morning. i'm the deputy manager for cleanpowersf. given this is the first lafco meeting of the year, i have a full update for you today and i wanted to take a moment and recognize a few colleagues that i'm joined by here today. from our cleanpowersf operations
team, our communications team and our regulatory and legislative affairs team. they're here to help answer questions that may come up over the course of the presentation that covers a fair amount of ground. and i wanted to mention, i'm having some technical difficulties on my end today. kiara, are you able to pull the slides up now? >> can you hear me? >> we can hear you. >> yeah, i think i need to be added as a presenter.
i wanted to go through highlights of 2020. it turns out 2020 wasn't all bad after all. i will cover customer bill delinquencies and pg&e's power charge indifference adjustment and provide a state legislative update, what happened last legislation and activities this session. i'll cover the california community power joint powers
authority. that the board of supervisors recently authorized to join. and last but not least, i'll provide an overview of the disadvantaged communities green tariffs program we have been working on to develop new renewable energy supplies at a discount. next slide. you can move on. thank you. the cleanpowersf program continues to provide reliable services to customers with over 409,000 customer accounts throughout san francisco. cleanpowersf has completed city widen rollment of all eligible. we have maintained a 96% retension rate or opt out rate of 4%. this is up a slight bit since
the last meeting in november, of about 0.1%. and now 2.1% of our customers have upgraded to our volunteer super green product. that means about 8,000 residential and commercial accounts are receiving 100% renewable energy, more than 5% of the annual retail sales. next slide, please. for highlights. in 2020, the cleanpowersf program delivered an energy mix more than 50% california renewable portfolio renewable energy and more than 95% greenhouse gas free under its green service and 100% renewable to customers taking super green service. i did want to comment that 2020
was our target year for achieving at least a 50% rps eligible resource mix and that target was met by the program. we also delivered more than $6 million in generation cost savings to our customers during the year. that actually brings cumulative savings to more than $20 million since the program launched in 2016. in addition to those savings, we provided a one time bill credit for low income customers to assist with the impacts of covid-19 for a total of $2.8 million in bill relief in october of 2020. we also conducted a robust campaign to promote low income discount programs to participate in, the care and fair programs which can provide ongoing bill
assistance. and we have seen significant amount of growth in those programs since the beginning of 2020. we also conducted a final enrollment of large customers, almost 6200 in total and that enrollment featured a 99% participation rate. lower than 1% opt out rate. next slide please. the program also and i'm really happy to announce this, received an investment grade credit rating from moody's. cleanpowersf received the highest rating they have issued for a program such as to date. and we have the integrated resource plan that we presented to the body in the fall. a road map for achieving 100%
renewable power supply by 2025, five years sooner than san francisco's goal. we also achieved commercial operation of the blythe for solar project, one of the new projects to come on line as a result of cleanpowersf purchase agreement. we also collaborated with seven other cca programs, a joint request for offers for long duration energy storage. i'll talk about that more later. next slide please. we also procure renewable energy to support the target. we entered into three new contracts to purchase renewable power including our first solar
bill credits to more than 1200 cleanpowersf accounts on the net metering program from producing more power from roof top solar than consumed during the year. these are highlights. there are plenty of other accomplishments but we wanted to feature these and share these today. the covid pandemic has created a hardship and we've had more delinquencies and i have reported on that in previous meetings. in the next few slides, i'm going to present data for cleanpowersf delinquencies and measures we're taking to help
rate payers. this map depicts the percentage of residential customers more than 90 days delinquent on their cleanpowersf electricity bill by zip codes, ranging from less than 3% to almost 14%. the zip codes with the deeper blue green shading are more delinquent and those with light green are less delinquent. in total, there are about 15,600 residential cleanpowersf residents that are more than 90 days delinquent on their charges. we chose this metric of more than 90 days to share today because we feel like this group of customers are most at risk of disconnections from their electricity service when the
current state moratorium is scheduled to end on june 30th. this map illustrates the average past due balance for residential customers. more than 90 days delinquent on their bills for each zip code. the amounts past due at 90 days is $50 to $180. these dollar amounts only represent the amount they owe cleanpowersf for generation service. since customers also pay pg&e, it is likely they have an outstanding balance that is more than 2.5 times the amount shown here. i should say two to 2.5 times the amount shown here.
next slide please. these next two slides show the same information for commercial customers more than 90 days delinquent on cleanpowersf power bills. in total about 1,740 commercial customer accounts 90 days or more delinquent and that represents about 6% of our cleanpowersf commercial customers. almost 90% of delinquent take place on small commercial rate schedules and furthermore, food service places represent the largest proportion in the zip codes. next slide please. in here we have the average past due balances for commercial customers. for these accounts, the
cleanpowersf past due at 90 days ranges from $400 to $1,500. and again, the total would be about two to 2.5 times for the pg&e charges. next slide please. the data i showed you indicates that about 4.5% of cleanpowersf residential and 6% of commercial customers face possible disconnection if the moratorium is lifted at the end of june. cleanpowersf is engaged on a number of fronts to help customers manage the debt they are facing. in october of last year, the cleanpowersf gave more than 2 million in loan credits to
customers and we have been promoting customers to apply and enroll for the available low income discount programs that can provide ongoing assistance. in december, california public utilities program rearage program or amp providing more than $500 in electric debt in exchange for participating in a payment program. enrolled customers receive forgiveness equal to 1/12 at time of enrollment for every on time payment of a current monthly bill up to $8,000.
approximately 3100 customers were eligible to participate as of last week. we continue to closely monitor this. enrollment began in february of 2021. we're going to make a big push to engage customers to enroll in this program over the next few months. i wanted to share that we're working with the administrator of the federal low income home energy assistance program to promote weatherzation and build assistance programs. the american rescue plan act which became federal law last week included 4.5 billion in
utility bill assistance for low income. >> can i ask a question? >> of course. >> the amp program. what's the source of funding to cover the debt forgiveness? >> that's a great question. this is part of the reason we wanted to participate in the program. it will be recovered across all customers within pg&e service territory. so on a bill component collected across all pg&e customers. >> uh-huh. thank you. >> i should add when the program was proposed, it wasn't envisioned that it would be
structured that way. as a result of advocacy by san francisco and other cca's through our association we were able to get the california puc to adopt an order that would include cca charges in that forgiveness and cost recovery approach rather than imposing the rearage obligation or forgiveness obligation solely on the programs themselves. last comment on this slide, related to the american rescue act. there's still information coming about how the funds authorized by the federal government for relief are going to be disseminated but in addition to the 4.5 billion i mentioned we
have identified a number of other areas where utility payments are included, so we are going to keep an eye and trying to engage wherever we can to direct these funds to our customers. that includes emergency rental assistance, homeowners assistance fund and coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery funds. those are different categories of funding that the act provided. >> great. thank you. i think director hyams, my question will be, you know, we provided a one time $2.8 million of bill credit for low income customers and that actually -- how many low income customers
does that actually cover? >> that reached about 50,000 of our customers. quite a large number. >> and how -- by average, how much of a bill credit is provided to the customer each? >> so the way we structured it was to provide a fixed credit amount based on the average total electricity bill this group of customers pays each month. which we calculated to be $50. all qualifying customers received a $50 credit. and that's for residential customers. there were some small commercial customers participating in the program that also qualified for a slightly higher credit that was sized sort of to their typical monthly bill.
>> i'm not great at doing the math, that means a one time $50 per customer. we can see the zip code of the southeast sector of the city it is really affecting and alarming to see, even for me, to see for the commercial delinquency for the bills that's like in 94133 which is chinatown and north beach area and commercial ones also in 94121. not as bad as 94124 but overall it seems like it is really hard
hit for 94124 on the commercial and residential side. are there outreach specifically to the customers in that area and making sure they can recover and there's any grant funding and programming and relief we will be targeting that area? >> well, we have been doing targeted outreach, especially to get as many customers as we can on the discount programs that provide ongoing discounts. we know -- as i mentioned before, we have seen a lot of growth over the past year in these programs. one of the huge advantages, it reduces the monthly bills. to the extent customers are still having a hard time paying due to the economic recovery
being still underway. ensuring that as many customers are on the programs as possible are important. and then my next slide is sort of going to get into this, we are really focused on state wide approaches to addressing this. this debt problem is a problem across the state and the cpuc is very concerned about it. one of the advantages of working through the cpuc -- cleanpowersf provides the service in partnership with pg&e and our charges appear on the pg&e bill. having approaches sort of worked through the california puc does
provide for more resources to be applied. so that's sort of what we're focused on right now. that said, i have been speaking with executive officer about the issue on a regular basis and we have identified this as an opportunity to collaborate and think about and identify other ways that we can really help our local customers that may go beyond the measures that the state of california puts in place. >> great. i think in terms of knowing there's good news about the $4.5 billion in federal relief funds, my assumption that is coming through cpuc and then to us for cleanpowersf to distribute the supports of relief. often times the question would
be how much does local entity like us have control over how the funds are being dispersed and a lot of times it comes at a first come first serve basis. i think in this case what i'm seeing is the 91424 needs immediate relief or ideally we'll go down the color you're showing on the commercial and residential side, the darkest green should come to half priority to receive funds to
sustain. can we do that or is it rather limiting? >> no, i think being an organization that represents the community and is focused on san francisco is our advantage i think. the program that we'll be receiving, the $4.5 billion, that's a federal program administered through an ngo and with a focus on the san
francisco peninsula. my understanding i believe is that the funds will come into california through the state. i do not know yet how the funds will be allocated in terms of shares. that's something we're looking into and working more closely with san francisco peninsula energy services. what i think we can do is make sure that our customers -- we can sort of be a voice for these programs and make sure our customers are aware of them and connect the organizations distributing the funds with our customers. so that's one area we're focused on trying to provide support. the other thing i wanted to mention is -- i have spoken to the executive officer about this a little bit. there's right now the big
concern is that come june 30th, this moratorium on disconnections expires. the cpc is working to put in place measures to assist customers with relief. it's not totally clear yet what the specific proposals are going to be. they're going to be developed over the next month or so. so it's not clear if they'll be available in time for that or sufficient. so one thing that the state can do is extend that disconnection moratorium. potential angle. i hope that answered your question. >> that leads to another question of mine. when it comes to low income by
definition. there's federal low definition and then in san francisco it is very different median income. we see that in the vaccine rollout, focus for the vaccine rollout the majority of the land. only address when we talk about low income families. when we talk about low income the threshold of low income
threshold or looking at a different way to indicate what the level will look like. >> the threshold levels are fixed. i do hear you out on this. you know, the state thresholds may be more flexible and the california puc is really looking at sort of affordability broadly and looking at all the programs and bringing new things into place that start to address things tackling it more from an ability to pay percentage of income, different metrics that i think will be beneficial. i think the other thing, too. and i will confirm this and get back to the executive officer but i believe rather than having
to show historical earnings, information to qualify for the state's low income programs, they're using current income. the requirements they have in the past. recognizing that covid is different is an immediate issue that has impacted income. that's part of the reason why we're focused to get as many people in the programs because they will bring down the burden. and we're going to continue to look at that. your basic point is taken about geographical impacts. we're happy to continue working with your office to identify what we can do to really help the areas most impacted by this
in san francisco. >> i think in april when we come back where cpu is on the income level and whether they're going to continue or extend the disconnection moratorium. that allows perhaps the local legislative body to act or at least identify ways we could act and participate. >> sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt your presentation. >> i probably need depending on q&a here, another 15 minutes. >> thank you. >> i'll try to be more efficient here, too.
next slide please. so just going through these quickly, this is sort of what i was referring to before. actively engaged to address debt and affordability. the first one is a new proceeding that was initiated in february specifically to address covid-19 debt. and this is focused on developing special utility relief measures to address what is estimated to be $1 billion across the state. parties are going to develop proposals and the cpuc is planning workshops later this month to discuss the proposals. this is actually the proceduring
that is developing a percentage of income payment plan. i eluded to that earlier. that would cap monthly bills for customers based on their ability to pay. so this is sort of an innovation that is happening at the state level to address affordability. and working on tracking and assessment tools and affordability proceeding and we expect there will be new tools available to do those things by the end of the calendar year. next slide. it has been our practice to benchmark our generation service
rates to pg&e rates. historically we have set rates at a level that absorbs the surcharge that pg&e collect from customers that participate in programs like cleanpowersf. the p c.i.a. recovers what we call the above market cost of the power resource commitments that pg&e made prior to launching the cleanpowersf program. if you're looking for additional background on this, i would recommend you look at the update we provided at the september 18th meeting, it has basics on the p c.i.a. that could be helpful. sort of with that intro, on december 30th, pg&e filed new rates for implementation on january 1st. in this filing, pg&e increased
by about 30% from 2020 levels. pg&e decreased the generation rates, the rates that customers not taking service from cleanpowersf would pay by about 4.5%. the increase was a result of a lower forecasted market value of the electricity supply portfolio and under collection in 2020 due to the p c.i.a. rate cap adopted by the cpuc in 2018. back in 2018, they capped the amount to be increased each year to half a percent per kilo watt hour. if it was insufficient to collect the revenue needing to keep customers indifferent to the departure of other partners to programs, the undercollected
amount would be tracked separately for a true up at a later day. in 2020, the cap resulted in a large under collection incorporated into the increase in january 2021. working with a number of other cca's, we were able to get the undercollection to be recovered over a multi year period rather than immediately in 2021 which had initially been proposed. here a little more background on rates. in 2020, a rate adjustment formula was adopted if upgrades became higher than or more than the equivalent rates. part of the reason we put this
in place, pg&e rates can change frequently and at erratic times. we put this in place to, again, sort of benchmark and align with pg&e. the rate adjustment formula requires three conditions to be in place. the first is cost of service including should be within plus or minus 1% of the generation costs. second, cleanpowersf rates must recover the program cost and finally the rate adjustment must not increase more than 10% in the rates in effect prior to the new rate mechanism being adopted. pursuant to the formula, reducing the green product rates by approximately 16% in january.
by doing so, we protected our customers from pg&e's significant increase and the adjusted rates resulted in a cost of cleanpowersf service 1% higher than pg&e. we set it to the highest level we could. part of the reason is because it's a huge decrease of 16%. cleanpowersf is taking a revenue hit as a result and using financial reserves to cover the resulting revenue shortfalls. we have shown this slide over the years. the blue bar on the left shows the average -- shows what the
average customer paid pg&e based on the rates in effect in 2020. it's about 32.55. the next bar shows what the average customer taking was paying. these are residential customers, too. the green segment of the bar shows the service and blue segment of the bar, that second bar shows the cost collected by pg&e. you can see the average customer was paying about $0.32 less per month than pg&e. the total on both bars has come down. that's the first thing to point
out. cleanpowersf is now about $0.31 more than pg&e. and i should note, this is despite cleanpowersf reducing rates significantly. you can see that by the change in the green segment by the two bars and you can also see the increase in the p c.i.a. going up from 9.42 to 12.40 a month. the generations rates increased this time but by less than 2%.
this is showing january 2021 to march 2021 and you can see the changes. pg&e's rates went up a bit. the total size of the bars go up a little bit. and -- but really noticeable thing, the p c.i.a. went up again. you can see that $0.70 difference between the two services. next slide please. so based on our financial analysis, further reducing cleanpowersf rates would not allow the program to recover its costs. and as i mentioned before, cleanpowersf will be using financial reserves to balance its revenues and expenses this fiscal year. under the resolution, the rate authority i mentioned at the
beginning, the general manager is not authorized to reduce rates if the rates don't recover costs. next slide please. so looking ahead, we are working on preparing a new rate action to bring to the commission for possible implementation on july 1st and as part of this action, we'll focus on first and foremost, the program financial health and cost recovery, ensuring that the program is able to recover its costs. rate stability and affordability. meeting renewable energy goals and having funding to support customer programming around affordability and decarbonzation. more to come on this. but i wanted you to know that given the changes that have happened so far this year, we are planning to bring new action
to the commission later in the spring. >> thank you and director hyams i want to pause for a minute. i know we were supposed to excuse commissioner singh for 11:00. madam clerk, do we need to do that as we pause this presentation or -- >> commissioner singh is still present for the meeting. maybe she can answer if she plans to leave soon. >> yes, i'm about to hop off. i'll return after noon. to clarify, we are excusing commissioner singh at 11:00
director hyams if we could try to wrap up in the next -- i know you mentioned 15 minutes, if we could try to wrap it up in the next five. i don't mean to rush you but i think we have reports and is that possible? >> yeah, that is. >> thank you. >> if you can advance, i'm going to zip through the legislative stuff. i'm actually going to skip the content on this slide but i want to mention i think, probably not a surprise to any of you, it was an exceptional year for the california state legislature, focused on covid-19, economy, wildfires and housing. so many of the energy bills were
held last year to manage the shifting priorities, although this bill here summarized on this slide is one that was adopted and intended to address debt related to covid-19 for the investor-owned utilities. can you move to the next slide? how about the next one? thank you. i wanted to pause here. 2021. so this year cal cca and that's the california community choice association which is the state wide cca trade association that cleanpowersf is a member of and engaged deeply in is sponsoring legislation sb-612.
and this bill is cal cca's latest effort to address the challenge of the it. as i mentioned above, the p c.i.a. is intended to collect the unavoidable costs customers made before switching. one of the problems we have found aside from the pack that the pcia continues to increase, energy providers and the customers they serve have not had fair and equitable access to the benefits of the energy resources in the utilities portfolio in which our customers
are helping pay for. so, this bill would address this kind of missing value problem for customers that pay the pcia and specifically provide equal rights to all energy providers to receive the benefits of legacy resources that their customers pay for. it would require them to recognize the value of low carbon or free energy resources and the calculation of the pcia, it doesn't currently do that and require offering any remaining excess energy resources not used by the utility or sold to other providers into the whole sale market in a regular annual
process. this bill is awaiting referral to policy members. i'm going to skip this. again, happy to take questions, can follow up off line, too. i was asked to talk more about the california community joint powers authority. you know, with five minutes, i probably can't get through all these. i think the slides are pretty explanatory. maybe go to the last slide in the section -- >> i want to pause for a minute. i want to make sure vice chair and commissioner mar, do we -- would you like to dive deeper into details or -- i'm happy to, i just wanted to make sure
that i'm keenly aware of how packed the agenda for this is, but i know we only meet once a month. i want to make sure if there are actually specific interests, i want to make sure we do address them. would you like to go through it in greater details or would you like to continue and have some of the questions for the next meeting? >> i can speak specifically on the joint power authority. i did ask for the presentation at lafco but when i asked for this to be placed on the agenda, it was some time ago because it was appearing on the board of supervisor's agenda. but it hadn't been presented at
the public utilities commission meeting and had not been presented to lafco. because this is already passed at the board of supervisors, i think we can just read the slides afterward and make sure it is in the full packet, which i believe it is. >> great. director hyams, please continue. >> chair chan, i also sort of moved quickly through the legislative discussion. i'm happy to pause and see if there are questions related to that part of the presentation.
>> are they still going to our executive officer? >> i don't believe we have provided anything in writing recently but we are happy to provide an update. >> if those are not happening in a public way at the commission, then i think -- i haven't watched the recent meetings to know if we're getting a full legislative update by watching that commission. i think we can skip this one in the interest of time, but i would defer to colleagues on the commission. >> commissioner mar, any
thoughts? legislative updates, are you interested in having a written report or since director hyams is here and we could, if it's okay and then perhaps for him to finish the legislative update. >> i don't have any questions about the legislative updates. >> great. so maybe we can talk about the slide of approvals and timing then. >> sure. happy to. so we'll pick it up here for the cc power approvals and timing. as commissioner cruz-pollock just mentioned, the board of supervisors approved the cleanpowersf membership in the new march 9th that followed our
commission approving it on february 9th. the mayor signed the legislation on march 12th. this was an ordinance. it is set for 30 days. so that will become effective around april 13th. so the sfpnc will execute the agreement brought to the board of supervisors and request membership that requires two thirds positive vote of the existing members. and so we are anticipating that will happen sometime probably in the april meeting of the joint powers agency. >> it's been brought to my
attention, the commission is not receiving cleanpowersf updates except through a communications report. is that true? >> since covid and the move, work presentations, they are receiving a written report on a quarterly basis. we moved to a quarterly update of the cleanpowersf program. i think it was in late 2019 i believe we moved to quarterly reports and then when we had to move into a remote work force environment with remote meetings, we began preparing communications, written communications submitted to the commission that are opportunities for questions and public comment. >> okay. so this is -- i think troubling. for me because -- it shouldn't
be the place that the public comes to get information about cleanpowersf solely. if it's not happening at the commission, then i want to make sure the information is available not just in a written report but a presentation for members of the public to actively engage the material. i think in the interest of time, it is okay to move on with the presentation, but i just want to make sure that we're keeping close tabs on it and that people that engage with the commission are also just having access to cleanpowersf information. i don't know if that was a preference of the commission or of staff. do you know? >> i think it was a preference of the commission which has a very large agenda on its plate at every meeting.
i think the idea was to have them regular but not every meeting. i will take this back -- this recommendation back to my colleagues at the commission. and i wanted to mention that we are working to put in place quarterly stakeholder meetings for power. and we are -- i think notices either went out this week or are about to go out for stakeholder meeting in the middle of april. and our goal is to conduct the stakeholder meetings on a quarterly basis to provide opportunity for direct engagement with stakeholders in that kind of a forum. and we have invited lafco in the past, executive officer and i believe yourself, commissioner
cruz-pollock. we'll continue to include you on the distributions. >> thank you. >> okay. let's move on. this is my last section here. and i've got a few slides on the disadvantaged communities or dac green tariff programs our team has been working on. so 8327 way back in 2013 required that the california puc develop programs to provide renewable energy to disadvantaged communities. the cupc created two programs to increase renewable energy produced and consumed by low income customers located in the disadvantaged communities. the first is the green tariff,
the second is the community solar green tariff. both investor owned utilities and programs may apply to operate programs, apply to the california puc and in late december of last year, that's what the sfpuc did. we submitted an application to operate a dac program within the service area. a key advantage to running one of the programs, we would be able to recover some of the costs of running the program through the state's greenhouse gas allowance revenue and public purpose funds. next slide. to participate in the dac programs, customers have to reside in a census track identified as a dac. the latest version of the cal screen at the time of enrollment
is used to determine eligibility. it's a tool that identifies the census tracks most impacted by solution and where residents are most vulnerable to its effects. they're identified in the top 25th percentile of scores. the areas that rank in the top 20, the score is produced by the latest count of the tool. next slide please. so, to share a bit more about the two programs, program one, the green tariff program, eligible projects must be new solar projects located within a dac in pg&e service territory.
cleanpowersf may contract with an existing interim resource until a new solar resource is operating. so the idea here, we would procure from the resources. participating customers would receive 100% renewable energy from the projector projects located in the dac area and 20% bill discount. eligible customers must be low income, residential customers eligible for the care fair discount program. and program capacity would supply about 1200 customers for this program or 1.8 mega watts of new solar. next slide? okay. the second program is the dac community solar program. again, eligible projects must be
solar and located at dac. but they have to be within five miles of the subscribing customers. so within the city and county of san francisco. they would receive up to 100% renewable energy and bill discount. the eligibility rules an a little different. 15% of the capacity has to be customers in the dac. i'm getting some feedback or something. so developers need to work with community sponsors that would
support getting enrollment into the program. and for this particular program, cleanpowersf would supply energy for about 350 customers. about a half a mega lot per solar. the process of the next steps. i mentioned we submitted the application to the cupc on december 31st. we're requesting approval to implement both programs. we did issue a draft resolution approving our application late last week that we are reviewing. so we are expecting a final decision in the next month or so. so, our next steps for program implementation include developing and issuing a request
for offers to purchase from new projects in the dac and the green tariff program from an operating plant that we can start the program sooner while the new projects are getting constructed. we're working on operating procedures and billing with pg&e and marketing materials, a number of things to make this work on the timeline that i have provided here, which is late 2021, early 2022 launch for the green tariff and 2023, 2024 launch for the community solar product. and that's partly because it can't utilize interim resource. we have to build in the time to build in the projects that would
serve the customers. that concludes everything that i have prepared today. i'm happy to take any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you director hyams. colleagues, do you have any questions before i make some comments? seeing no questions -- >> i'm sorry -- i do have some questions just backing up in terms of the solar plus storage project that cleanpowersf was looking to move forward with, there were three projects and one was local. is the local one the same as the green tariff solar project? >> no, that's different. these are -- this is a whole
new set of projects that have to specifically been in disadvantaged communities as defined and determined by the state's coronavirus screen tool. >> and then we have the proposed launch dates for -- for this program but the solar plus storage, do you know the launch dates for those? >> so those resources that i mentioned at the beginning in the highlight section, those are wholesale projects that support broadly cleanpowersf portfolio we used to serve customers and i can go through. they're in different stages of
development. the first is slated at the end of the year. the second, both the second and the third are slated to reach commercial operation towards the end of 2023. so they'll commence construction in 2023. >> great. thank you. and then i'm not sure if this would be -- are you sticking around? i know we're going to talk about future projects and i wanted to see if you would be available i believe our executive officer wants to talk about delinquencies for cleanpowersf customers. if you are available to talk then or if i should ask my question now. >> i intend to stay for the executive officer's
presentation. >> great. >> commissioner mar? >> thank you chair chan. i had a few questions about the green tariff program. this sounds really great. yeah, i just had a question for the solar energy -- the new solar energy to be produced in the disadvantaged communities. is that expected to be -- what type of project do you expect to be produced in that new renewable energy? >> the projects are required to be solar. these would be solar, most likely constructed and installed on roof tops within those dacs i
identified on the slide. the census tracks. we're working on a package first submitted to the california puc once the decision is final authorizing us to operate the program. i believe the materials are due about 60 days after that decision is final. the cupc will review and provide comments to us. this is a new process for us. it's unique just because we are essentially seeking funding from the state. we don't normally review the solicitation materials these
projects will be developed by a third party and cleanpowersf will enter into a purchase agreement to buy the energy for a period of 20 years. that's the general structure of it. i did want to mention, we are excited about the program and kiara has been a key staff member driving and developing this work. i wanted to acknowledge everything she has done to get us to an application before the puc and hopefully a program implemented soon.
>> this all sounds great. thank you for your work on this and others. so the new solar energy project that would be hopefully created through this green tariff program in the disadvantaged communities would be -- this wouldn't be -- would they generate renewable energy for their own property or for the -- >> i understand your question. >> we pay for that energy and then the customers who participated receive the
projects? >> any costs that exceed the green project average rate would be above market cost. we get reimbursed for the costs. >> for the 20% bill discount, what is the source of funding to cover that? >> it's the same source. the revenues and state's public purpose program funding. >> thank you again. this is really exciting program moving forward. so thank you. >> thank you. i think so, too. >> thank you commissioner mar for your questioning and thank you director hyams for your answers to those questions and just want to make sure there are no more other comments,
questions before we open to public comment. seeing none, director hyams, thank you for your presentation today. i think vice chair cruz-pollock i don't want to speak on her behalf but in some of the discussions we have, this will be a priority of ours and we continue to keep track. it would be great in the coming
months to have a precise update and more updates i should say along with what cupc is doing on a state level and i think that vice chair cruz-pollock points out a good point, understanding a local body where they are with cleanpowersf. i think those are critical bodies on a state and local level to help -- they are the bodies that try to move this forward and trying to make sure holding -- making sure we track the progress necessary act to hold the bodies accountable and i think that rate payer impact across board, not just for the low income customers and commercial customers, really
customers all across san francisco. and definitely like always love to hear these type of updates for things like the green tariff program and for the legislative updates to break it down on the federal level and state level and local level to kind kind of help us better understand and that we can think in the coming days that allow lafco to decide to act if necessary in advance of some of these legislation or policy decisions being made. thank you so much. really appreciate and please stick around. i appreciate you spending time with us today. >> operations is checking for callers in the que.
please let us know if any callers are ready. do we have anyone in line to speak. >> we have two callers in the que. >> thank you. >> hello commissioners, good morning. i'm eric brooks and i am with san francisco clean energy alliance and with our city san francisco and californians for energy choice. so, welcome to the commission commissioner chan, it's great to see you on board. i want to bring you up to speak on what we have been saying at various lafco meetings as community advocates.
that's is that my clients have done a good job of reliably launching the cleanpowersf program, but i and others like me have been working on this since 2004, for 17 years and since 2004, we have been specifically seeking a local build out of clean energy for all energy needs to come from the local and regional area in the bay area. what we need is to get the local bay area self resilient so in the case of a blackout caused by
wildfires or sun spots, we are reliable not to depend on the old 20th century grid and the jobs benefits are crucial. so what we have come to realize recently, over the last couple of years, san francisco public utilities commission is an enterprise agency that cannot do that. that's why they haven't done it. they're like amtrak -- >> thank you for your comment. next caller please. >> congratulations to mike on the promotion. a lafco oversight is so critical. most are overseen by a board of elected representatives.
as you heard, now the commission is no longer even receiving presentation from the program which is really sad when you heard all that's happened and all the exciting stuff going on. it shows the critical importance of lafco's oversight of the program. thank you for hearing this out. and i wanted to really focus on the pcia. slide 19 shows the payments going to pg&e even though cleanpowersf is providing our power and has been for five years. as of september 2020 meeting, the residential had increased 300% and the xhal commercial had increased 335%. the changes you heard today add to that. this is complete madness like a
cancer. something has to be done, whether we need an exit, we need something beyond how they have been managing to do so. i think it's very clear we're put in a situation where you can't even reduce our rates lower. this is something that having failed to close on the front end, they are now trying to fill them on the back end. we warned about this for many years. the dac program is really cool but only going to help 1500 people. >> do we have any other callers in line? >> no more callers in the que. >> thank you. madam chair? >> thank you.
while seeing no more public comments, public comments is closed. madam clerk, can you call the next item? >> for the record, i will state for item 4 there was no action taken. item 5 is lafco 2020 year end review. >> it looks like we're going to have our executive officer presenting on this item. >> thank you chair person chan. welcome aboard. for this item today and i just wanted to double check, chair person chan are you on a time limit today.
i will try to keep the presentation under 15 minutes. >> that will be great and i also think we will have some discussion in the item number 6 about proposed project among us. that would be great. thank you. i wanted to highlight lafco's accomplishments for 2020. we are a little commission as you know but we have been able to expand our capacity with fundraising and passionate and driven interns and research associates who we've had over the past year almost 10. you all know this, for those
tuning in who may not, local agency commission in every california county, we keep a check on boundaries of agencies in mostly unincorporated areas. they are the legislative watch dog. our lafco is a little different because we don't have unincorporated areas. it was formed in 2000 to create a utilities district producing reports that the cleanpowersf up and running and we have special studies authority. this has really been our bread and butter along with our cleanpowersf, these are the two areas that the commission has wanted to focus on over the years. our most attention getting work
was three surveys we commissioned. this was a unique partnership between academics and community organizations and a cooperative that helps drivers keep track of their data. it was the city's first snap shot of the work force in san francisco. the main survey was an in person representative survey and despite covid, the team managed to capture about 643 responses. and this is through recruitment, surveys, uber and lyft and
doordash and then engaged workers for a 20 minute survey. we also raised private foundation funding for the survey from the ford foundation, san francisco foundation and others. we have done a number of presentations before the commission but the main finding, this is not a gig for most workers. a majority of survey respondents work full time for platform companies. the work force is mostly people of color with a significant immigrant population and i'm highlighting one of the more startling findings here, up to 20% may be making zero after expenses, that was on the main representative survey and two other surveys for covid impact and specifically for delivery workers and similar troubling findings about those that may be making zero after expenses. this was and still is the only representative survey of gig
workers we know of in the u.s. and you can find links to all of the survey findings and presentations on the lafco website. it is quite extensive. we did make an effort to get the word out about the findings to other city departments, including the transportation authority, planning, department of environment, the mta in particular has used the data to inform potential incentive programs to encourage zero emissions vehicles and we did a webinar that represents about a little over 100 north american cities and there were about 50 foeblgs who attended that webinar. the survey findings did have an impact and we share the findingses with other cities such as seattle. the survey helped some voters make informed decisions on
proposition 22. that was what voters approved to keep at base workers at independent contractors instead of employees and how the media covered gig workers. the survey gained a lot of media coverage. as you can see from some of the headlines, was cited frequently on twitter as well. now, based on the survey findings, lafco came up with a number of recommendations just over a dozen rnlgszs. some of those -- a majority of the recommendations i will tell you did not move forward. we tried to move a few of them forward but it was complicated because voters passed proposition 22. i think it's unclear what the city's authority is on labor issues where it concerns at base workers. i wanted to highlight a few
recommendations, the main one at the time before proposition 22 was passed was the city enforced -- city and state labor protections for ride hail and delivery workers compensated at san francisco's minimum wage and making sure they are following the healthcare and paid sick leave ordinances and we encourage city agencies with enforcement power for assembly bill 5 that requires before prop 22 they be classified as employees instead of independent contractors. another recommendation i wanted to highlight is we recommended that the city create a task force to explore the viability of a city-run worker owned cooperative. it is clear the services are valued but the companies argued at the time they could not
comply with ab-5 and the company's models are not sustainable. we felt it would be good to explore alternatives to the business models of the big app based companies. i did bring on a research associate after a series of next steps who took a deeper dive into cooperatives and that recommendation was the city of san francisco to establish a plan to develop a cooperative. i'll talk more about this in the work plan and proposing a specific project to advance this recommendation. and we recommended that the city establish a rebate program for delivery workers and that was based on the findings that an encouraging number of uber and lyft drivers said they would shift to doing delivery work on
an e-bike if given incentive. there are barriers to them, they are expensive. 39% of delivery drivers said they would switch with incentive. 31% were maybes. we found this pretty encouraging and brought a research associate on to dive deeper into it. the recommendation was the city should establish a program to help achieve the environmental goals and encourage a healthy lifestyle and mitigate traffic con jegz. there was a data component to that as well. it was recommended it require a bicycle safety training course as well. so that was the highlights of the labor recommendations that came out of the survey.
we also did a bunch of work in 2020 around addressing energy equity and disconnections in san francisco. before the delinquencies you heard about today, there was already a looming disconnection crisis with a number of folks struggling to pay utility bills before covid. so we brought on a fellow to analyze a decision on disconnections for low income customers. she produced a report on how to prevent disconnects in san francisco. one of the recommendations, the moratorium be extended from april to june. she also found that the decision on disconnections was insufficient to prevent utility debt accumulation during the moratorium. the specific reason was the
program being offered, requiring customers to stay current on utility bills but if they fall behind on bills, the repayment program would no longer exist and they then would sort of be knocked into another crisis. so that was the main reason she found it was insufficient. and she highlighted the city of l.a.'s plans to provide $500 grants. they used covid stimulus funds to -- as the funding source for the program. it was a total of about $50 million. those utility customers seeking grants could use it for a variety of debt.
seven firms were prequalified to work in all three of the service areas. it was decided that lafco would move forward with service area one, helping support oversight of cleanpowersf. a women and minority owned company scored the highest and was chosen for a contract and the commission approved the contract with banner at the september 2020 meeting. the banner team got to work
right away within a limited amount of time was able to analyze cleanpowersf integrated resources plan and came before the commission with a presentation. they also analyzed the local renewable energy report and compared cleanpowersf with other northern california cca's. i have learned quite a bit from the banner team and i believe they helped us achieve the goal of strengthening oversight and believe overall they have been a big asset to lafco. the other work that i wanted to highlight from 2020 was the work of another fellow we brought on who produced a report on accountability during covid. this was quite difficult. there's a lack of bank transparency and she analyzed
whether or not san francisco's 46 banks were implementing the covid recommendations and some of those included waiving atm fees. waiving overdraft fees. she found only half of the 46 banks were committed to implementing the recommendations. the report offered five recommendations, which were forwarded to the officer of the treasurer and shared with every member of the board of supervisors. so that was a lot of work. we accomplished in 2020. we have a lot of people to acknowledge and thank. i probably forgot some names here. but there are quite a few here that contributed in some ways to lafco, they include the clerk of board of supervisors staff, the finance team and clerk of board's office and it teams.
all our research associates for 2020. our legal counsel, the entire survey team, that also includes the team of 18 surveyors at jobs with justice san francisco who took part in the survey. the banner team. so chair person chan, that includes my highlights for 2020 and i'm happy to answer any questions or take any comments or feedback you have. >> thank you. it's my oversight that now i see vice chair cruz pollock was on the roster. my apology again that i did not see you on the roster. would you like to make your
officer goebel for the presentation and all of lafco's extremely important and innovative work from the past year and take the opportunity to really lift up the ground breaking and impactful work on gig workers and app based workers and their needs in our city. i think all the work over the past year that lafco supported particularly with the research team, including my former colleagues i'm very committed to supporting that work moving ahead and taking the policy recommendations into our city government and try to move them forward. thank you. >> thank you commissioner mar.
and any other comments? it is really amazing. it's amazing in one year especially a pandemic year that all these were accomplished and i am really impressed. i also think this is a good item to have just kind of what we will be doing in the upcoming year and kind of allow us to think about all the things that lafco has accomplished and where do we want to focus in the coming year and how do we build on the momentum in 2020. i don't see any other comments and -- sorry vice chair cruz-pollock. >> thank you so much. i think the work in 2020 as
commissioner chan said, during a pandemic, lafco achieved so much. i think i just wanted to clarify that some of these items will be proposed to move forward on the 2021 work plan but as of now, presented as part of the 2020 year in review, those items have concluded. and so i know that some of them have concluded without work at the board of supervisors. i'm thinking about specifically the e-bike credit. the co-op program, those type of
things. to see if they want to take any of the good work done and move it forward on the city and county level. >> happy to continue doing that commissioner cruz-pollock. >> great. thank you. madam clerk i want to make sure i didn't miss anything. i know in the last -- you mentioned we didn't take action for item 4. are we required to take action for item 4 to file the report or to continue the report? no action needed, right? >> we don't necessarily need to take action on every item but to state it for the record. >> that's good to know. and for item 5, do we need to
approve the year in review or just move on to public comments for this item? >> i don't believe action is required unless executive officer goebel has anything he wants you to move? >> just information. >> great. thank you. so maybe we're ready for public comment? >> commissioner singh is back. for callers who haven't done so, press star 3 to be added to the line. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. (please stand by...)
sfpuc as express in the chart is to deliver reliable energy at reasonable prices to customers. that's like amtrak on the national level. amtrak delivers nationwide transportation to riders of trains at reasonable prices. just as amtrak should not stray from that, neither should the sf p.u.c. stray from their mandate of low cost reliable energy. because of that, we kept asking over and over again for them to develop this rollout to reduce the climate crisis, they said we're not going to do that. we're going to do one small step at a time and one small project at a time. so now we need to use the authority that the original community choice law was passed in 2002.
it gave the board of supervisors the authority to run cleanpowersf and to derevolutionize things like the local rollout. they will do 100% local clean energy by 2030, it's kind of like asking amtrak when they were being formed back in the late '60s, it would have been if president jonathan said that you're not only going to do trains, you're going to design the apollo mission to the moon. that would not have made sense. what we need to do is for the lafco and board of supervisors, using it as a kick starter to give us a good outline on how we would do an r.f.p. to do a plan, a plan for a revolutionary local build out of clean energy on the level of the apollo program, literally, to get that to happen, we need the lafco and the board of supervisors to do
it, not the sfpuc. it doesn't make sense for us to ask the sfpuc to do that and it's not fair to ask them to do that. that's what the lafco needs to focus on -- >> thank you caller. may we have the next caller? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> madam chair. >> thank you. seeing no more public comments, public comment is closed. madam clerk, should we go to item number 6. >> yes, item number 6 is a proposed lafco project for fiscal year 2021 alright -- 2022. >> thank you madam clerk. i want to make sure if anyone wants to make comments before we
move into this item number 6 and allow executive officer to go over the proposed project. >> i can save my comments for the end. i would love to hear the projects that mr. goebel is proposing and to hear from other commissioners on what projects are proposed that we could work on for 2021. >> great. thank you vice chair pollock. i think i want to say this. i have seen the item number 6 and they really are all great projects, at least for me looking at it from the fresh eye and for the first time for the most part.
i agree with vice chair pollock that in 2020, some of the projects may have been concluded, but i look forward to hear executive officer global on what could be the next step. looks like optimally the goal from here, for lafco is, the local legislative body can act or at least play an advocacy role for the state legislature to act. so that is my comment for now. executive officer global, the floor is yours. >> thank you chairperson chan. i will keep this presentation under 15 to 20 minutes, i think is what i'm estimating.
i will address some of the comments that have been brought up. let me put my screen on here. all right. bryan global, and i'm bringing you the fiscal projects for 2021-2022. some of the projects are labor recommendations that have been made to this body for and advance equity and -- advisory to cleanpowersf. now the most urgent is the one i want to bring to your attention first, the debt crisis. you heard the numbers that
thousands of san francisco residential and commercial customers are behind on their utility bills because they have endured economic hardships during covid. california, as you know, currently has a moratorium in place, some power shut offs, which are set to expire on june 30th. the original date, by the way, was in mid-april and last month, they voted to extend it to the end of june. in addition, cleanpowersf is not currently returning customers to pg&e after they have become delinquent on their bills until after the moratorium expires. so what happens when the moratorium expires on june 30th? there are efforts underway in california to get utility debt relief. again, the moratorium expires on june 30th. the california public utilities commission has initiated a rule making process on covid debt
relief. they are expected to issue a ruling some time in may. the question emerges, will the efforts be enough? our former research associate, as i mentioned in my last report, at the last lafco meeting did a presentation, analyzing the separate rule making process on disconnections. that was an issue before covid. she found that those efforts were insufficient to help every customer struggling to pay the utility debt. so it does make you wonder if these covid relief efforts at the c p.u.c. will help every customer. there is another effort underway urging the governor to act. advocacy wrote to governor newsom to add funds to the debt
relief and be distributed by providers that distribute assistance grants to low income households. i think it's actually greater than 1 billion based on some of the media reports i've read. also some state lawmakers have asked that some of the state's budget surplus be directed towards utility debt forgiveness. there are efforts underway but the question that emerges in my mine is what if these efforts fall short. shouldn't san francisco be prepared for a potential disconnection crisis? the sfpuc, as you heard from mr. hines has provided over $2 million in help to alleviate utility costs to cleanpowersf customers, along with some, you
know, reaching out to the current providers of low income programs, to make sure that more people are enrolled in those programs. as far as i know, there is no other effort underway at a city department to talk about broader utility debt relief to san francisco utility customers. so what i'm proposing today is that we engage a pre-qualified consultant to look into this issue. there are still a lot of issues that need to be worked out, so we ask them to provide recommendations during our rf. we qualified two consultants for communities of concern. one area in particular was to identify develop and plan programs for communities of concern that will enhance their energy service resiliency and decrease the risk of disconnections and opt outs from
cleanpowersf. so this will include funding sources, and strategic partners and collaborates with the sfpuc and cleanpowersf. i would continue to monitor the rule making process. i'm proposing you to providing a funding source for this particularly urgent project. the next project that i would like to propose today would advance community resiliency. last november, or i should say november 2019, winston parsons recommended that cleanpowersf pilot solar storage projects at community facilities or housing sites to facilitate greater
community resilience. it's defined of solar power generation and energy storage, unlike traditional solar array, which can provide and operate during outages. so today, i'm asking for authorization to engage a pre-qualified consultant, to develop a scope of work, where solar demonstration projects at a community facility or housing site and that's what we will work to identify. the goal is to enhance community resilient sit in a neighborhood disproportionately affected by high disconnection rates.
also, it could potentially reduce energy costs for some customers. there are great many details to be worked out. what i'm asking today is that you give the executive officer authorization to continue developing this project and do a scope of work. we were mandated by the board to look at all aspects of cleanpowersf, development, operation, and management. when i first came on as executive officer, i gathered with legal counsel and had them look at the ordinance. all the requirements are still active. this is our interpretation of that. we have a current work order on our work with cleanpowersf, the balance is just over $137,000.
so in addition, we will produce further reports and analysis as directed by the commission. the next project, i'm excited about is a delivertive cooperative. i'm asking this body to commission a research project led by workers. some of the goals include not just improving working conditions for workers, but exploring shared ownership models that are democratically controlled and run by workers. this will create 20 jobs training them as worker
researchers. they would work with other gig workers to generate findings and recommendations. they will provide recommendations and draft ideas that will determine the need for a delivery cooperative. they will empower workers to lead. this will be an alternative to the exploitive models of the big platform companies. i'm proposing that we partner with a non-profit, which is a staffing agency based in oakland. they have pioneered this working led research committed to fair pay. they have done groundbreaking
research, and trained longer term unemployed workers and bookkeeping skills and the project leads for t.b.l. all have backgrounds in government business, and cooperatives, and you'll hear from some of them in just a minute. the main question in the research is what is the quality job from the perspective that workers will be engaged in every step of the research from the methodology, to the recommendations. it would be an inclusive process that would research a model for a delivery of right hill cooperative that provides economic ownership and creates career autonomy. compared to most employment models, these are found in working owned cooperatives, in comparison to big jobs currently offered. it is a lot of work for not a lot of pay without the full
benefits of being an employee. so part of the research, it would be empowering workers to lead, job training network and community based organizations, for the 500 to 1,000 workers that participated in a paid interview and survey and planning and preparation, and of course analyzing the data using a number of research tools. the outcome would be findings and recommendations on the viability of a delivery business, which shared ownership. there would be clear learning goals and motivation and buy in from local researchers to remain committed and engage with the work. there is a case for the city to pursue the co-op with an
understanding of building a co-op, right hill, or delivery business if it's determined that is what is needed. i do want to turn to some folks to talk a little bit more about this. i would like to start, first of all, with marty shaw. he is one of the worker researchers. marty. >> hi everyone. worker researcher and i'm excited about the opportunity to share here today. are little background on me, i've been a personal trainer for 33 years. last year i lost my job and due to all the closures of the gyms. so, actually i was approached about being a worker researcher and i was excited about the
possibility because we were going to look at job quality from a worker's perspective. so workers, the ones out there doing the work, they have the deep understanding and the needs of the workers. so through our process, we actually came up with a series of questions we were going to go out in our community and ask workers about their work experiences and from that information, just get information from them as far as what was missing and what would make their work experience better. a couple of concepts that hit home for me was the concept of ownership and empowerment. ownership we separated into two
categories. to give you an example of psychological ownership, as a trainer, i had creative freedom, i created programs for my clients, but i had no ownership as far as material ownership. i didn't own the facility. i didn't own the equipment, therefore i had no control over my pay or my time off or benefits that was the distinct of the two ownerships. empowerment was the other concept, a concept that was foreign to a majority of people we talked to, simply because that would insinuate that you have a voice and they say in your work. most people found that laughable. they did not feel empowered at work. they felt that if they spoke up,
they would lose their jobs. that was an eye opener for me. we figured out that if you give the opportunity to give empowerment to workers, that would lead to an increase in potential success of that business. if a worker is committed and engaged in the process, work is no longer a job or paycheck, but it's something they're passionate about. so getting workers involved in research as a different dynamic and that is what i gained in this experience of being a worker researcher. thank you for the opportunity to share. >> thank you so much marty. it's great to hear your incites on this. to talk about this project in particular, i like to introduce
now steven, the cofounder. >> hold on one second. >> sure. >> i want to make sure we address vice chair pollock's mentioning of the project during discussion and we address her concerns in this discussion that do you want to slides back up during the discussion? is that your request or did i miss that? >> that he has are projects proposed by our executive officer mr. goebel, that when we begin the discussion, we will no longer have the slides in front of us.
i am not as familiar with these projects because they're not current projects of the commission. so i just want to make sure we're speaking to all of them so when we flesh out what the work plan will be for 2021, we are making sure to include or not include the projects that we decide on. so i want to make sure they're all in front of us. >> great, i think it's part of the packet material that we can pull up and understood. my apologies on the interruption. executive officer goebel, please go ahead in introducing the next presenter. >> madam chair, if we could not use the roster for chat. this is only for the roster. we don't allow any of the discussions in that section. >> i apologize for that.
>> thank you. >> sorry about that. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> thank you chairperson chan and also the items are a little out of order but all the projects are listed on the agenda, under item 6. i would like to introduce the cofounder to talk more about his organization and this research project that we would partner on. steve. >> thank you, i will be very quick because i know time is short. i am the cofounder and we're excited about the potential to help on this research. we've been going for a couple years, based out of san francisco and i will say we're basically trying to build a very different starter worker owned agency, one owned by the workers, where workers have a say in the work they do, where
they get ownership in our agency, and where we share income of what we learned and we support them around learning and training and access and benefits. so that is what we're set up with -- to do. we're excited about this work and doing this research and supporting workers to build an alternative model to the models we see out there, exploiting our workers and fellow citizens. we're super excited to start this and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. i would also like to introduce danny, who would be the lead research director on this project for some brief remarks.
danny. >> hi everyone. i'm very enthusiastic about this work. i was the facilitator as marty mentioned and i found this validating research because of talking with their peers. so for this project, the worker researchers are again centered in studying their working conditions and the so called gig economy, which you all can appreciate stretches beyond right hill and delivery work, you know, coffin -- contract work, owning a 7-11, and some of the similar dynamics. coming out of this work, as bryan mentioned, the development of recommendations would also be part of the output and the idea would be to build up capacity and interest among the worker researchers to carry those out or at least organize around them and implement them if and when it's deemed appropriate to develop a new enterprise, which
would have discussed worker ownership and control. the approach contrasts to a lot of the enterprises on one or two people that try to bring people in and their leadership is not as authentic as original as in this project. that's what we're here to hopefully bring to life and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you so much for your time. i wanted to share the slides again. hopefully chairperson chan, you can see those. i want to add also that he is also on two projects, new york city and san diego. what would be the proposed
timeline for the project? this will be the one item that would require the executive officer to raise money for, would work with the company to do that and have a lot of fundraising experience as supported by the foundation. the estimated cost for this project would be $300,000. again, the money could come from private foundations. the research would get underway in october, or potentially sooner if the funding comes through. a final report is due 2022. so we're really excited about that project and advancing one of lafco's recommendations on co. we look forward to working with the partners there. and we have a couple more items to present to you, three
exactly. this project would follow up on the three surveys of at base workers that we commissioned last year. the only difference is i'm not asking lafco to commission this work or to sponsor it. my role would be pretty limited as the project liaison. it would be another survey of delivery workers and the driver seat cooperative app, which tracks workers' hours and in particular, the hours they don't get paid by the companies to eliminate important questions like what are delivery workers effective hourly wages when all their time is accounted for. what mile based expenses do they incur and that data would be complemented with an in-person survey. one of the other goals is to understand the impact of proposition 22. i think that's something that a lot of municipalities and the state are trying to understand.
to talk briefly about the survey the team is hoping to do, i wanted to invite the research director at the jobs with justice education fund to make a few remarks. aaron, are you with us? >> yes, can you hear me? >> i can hear you great. i am removing my presentation from the screen. >> thank you bryan and the commission and thank you for supporting our research last year as bryan and gordon had shared. it was really very impactful, a lot more than we initially thought going in that we would be able to provide to the city of san francisco and informed what was a national conversation on gig worker rights and employment status. so we are really eager because we established a real baseline
last year through the representative survey, we're eager to go back to do a similar survey in san francisco to understand what the impact of prop 22 has been, not only to inform the city and the state, but also states that are contending with similar policies, and our legislation next year, the ballot measures likely in other states that are mimicking prop 22. so folks want to understand what the impact has been, are workers getting the benefits that companies promised or are things basically the same? that's a part of it. as bryan shared, we weren't able to get that granular data of work time versus non-work time or paid time versus non-paid time. so that's the second piece. because of the pandemic, we were not able to collect that last year. that's the piece of research we want to do in san francisco.
we appreciate being here, and continuing to work with bryan and the commission, especially given that bryan had been a liaison working with the city departments, letting them know of the data. we would love for him to play that role for us, if we're able to raise the funds to get the research off the ground. >> thank you very much erin for your time today. it's been exciting working with you and the rest of the survey team. again, commissioners my role would be pretty limited on this, i'm stilt -- estimating 5% of the time over the project period, which would be from now until october, and the idea would be that the team would come back at the october meeting and present the findings of the survey, assuming they are able to raise the money for this.
i have two more items remaining, which are important items and could affect our staff capacity in the coming year. the big one is public bank. as you know, supervisor preston introduced legislation that assigned lafco an significant role with the san francisco re-investment working group, stating that they would provide support and facilitation in accordance with the law. details on the exact role that lafco would play is still being worked out and would require approval by this commission. based on what i know in talk with supervisor preston's office and commissioner pollock has been engaged on this as well, and i've been talking to legal counsel. based on what i know, i'm estimating that it would require about 20% of the executive officer's time. the last item that i wanted to
bring up is not something that i'm proposing as part of my work plan, but that i just, you know, just generated a lot of interest. i want to keep it on your radar. the department of environment applied for a grant that was created a rebate program for delivery workers, which would have advanced one of our recommendations from the survey findings. it would have provided a model for a rebate program. that funding did not come through. due to limited staff capacity at the department of environment and at lafco, it's not currently moving forward. i still think it's a great idea and i would recommend that the city or the board explore other avenues for sponsorship. so to wrap all of this up, these are the lists of projects that i am proposing. and how much of my time is estimated for each of these.
of course it varies. i know the commission has been having internal discussions on where to go on local build outs and our oversight rule. i'm estimating 20% on public bank, 20% of my time for the co-op research project, the survey 5% of my time, utility debt, i would be engaged with that from now until june, so 10%, storage project 10%, and 15% for my other duties, including bringing additional interns on. i realize this is an ambitious list of projects, but we have expert consultants to help us with these projects and can bring on research associates as well. my recommendation to you today is that you authorize the executive officer to proceed developing these proposed projects and bring them back to
the commission for final approval. with that, i will turn it over to you chairperson chan for feedback and any questions. >> thank you, i have a few thoughts, but i know that vice chair cruz-pollock has as well. there are a few things, and i look forward to hearing commissioner mar and commissioner singh, what your thoughts are as well. i can really see that frankly consolidate some of these items into just one bucket and into three. i think that will actually help us rethink about a way to scope out the work, to get to more specifics, or to take a step back and make sure that we
understand policies and to help us drill down into the specifics of those items. i see that commissioner mar has a comment. i will actually open up the floor, just for some discussions before i make my final, sort of suggestion. i do see, you know, cleanpowersf, public bank, and i think you know, the gig worker, sort of work that can have co-op research, or post prop 22, even the e-bike rebate survey, that goes into the one bucket of gig worker, just overall projects,
it's not just about debt relief but the conversations we had early on about low income threshold and what that means. essentially, we want cleanpowersf to move forward and make progress, i think rate payer equity is a key element to it. thinking of the solar and storage project, it's how we make progress with cleanpowersf. i can see that fall under that as one big scope, just having a big agenda item, you know, to be part of what we want to accomplish under the category of
cleanpowersf. this is contingent on funding sources, which for me, i am also having a conversation with supervisor preston when it comes to public banks, to make sure we get funds from the city and you know, san francisco to contribute and fund public banks' effort with lafco or you know, so i think that's where i'm at. i see that commissioner mar is on the roster. so i would like to hear from commissioner mar. the floor is yours. >> i don't know if vice chair cruz pollock had some questions. i don't want to jump ahead. i would be happy to allow you to go first. >> i actually wanted to put someone in front of all of us. should we ask for members of the public to comment before we have our discussion? i'm sorry to step out of turn
here. i just wondered because it was such a large presentation before we put items forward to vote on. >> totally. i think that we're just having a discussion and remarks and then we should definitely open up to public comments before we make our final decision. i just thought that i would open up the floor for somewhat of an introduction toir or initial reaction we have from the proposal from bryan. commissioner mar? >> sure. well i just wanted to thank executive officer goebel for his prejudices thoughtful work on this program. i know you have been in talks with commissioners on our thoughts on this. i really like the proposed
project and i mean as chair chan has stated, it looks like in the final slide you showed, there are six areas, work areas. maybe it can be consolidated into buckets, connected to the solar and storage project as equity strategies within that. it looks like that would represent about 40% of your time and then the follow up on the groundbreaking work, on gig workers needs, the co-op research project and the post prop 22 survey adds up to 25% for that issue bucket. then the new sort of role that we may potentially take on
around the public bank, would be about 20%. so i guess my question is, i mean it's a lot of work, and you think it's realistic given you know, we're relying on you to hold it all together. >> thank you for the question. i do think it's realistic. particularly for the co-op research project, we had a team in place for that, if the funding comes through to do that work. we have consultants engaged already in a particular service area, if you want to take a deeper dive into the utility debt issue. really, i feel this will be a
project manager and the bulk of the work is done by consultants or research associates under my advisement. i realize this is ambitious. before covid, we provided more funding for lafco, and i wish we were in that position now, but i believe we will have enough support to work on these issues, unless there are specific issues you feel another department, you would like to work with another department or as a supervisor take up some of these issues, for example, utility debt relief. i do think these projects are realistic and ambitious, but i feel we can accomplish what i proposed today by the end of fiscal year, next year.
>> great. and i wanted to speak about the importance of lafco continuing to do innovative and important work on our growing workforce and economy. so i think these two follow up research projects this year are really important and there looks like there is a different role for lafco on the two projects. so the one project, the worker led research with turning basin labs and that's really looking particularly at the possibility -- exploring a
possible co-op model. that one, we will be playing more of a significant role, like commissioning the research, like we did last year on the other prior research. then for the second one that erin johanson spoke to around the researching, looking at the status of gig workers and drivers, post prop 22, the role is a lot more limited. i think you used the term liaison. can you explain? >> that's correct commissioner mar. i ask that we commission that research and raise money for it, that would be managed by laugh co. i do have, and in the process of fundraising for the at base surveys, i have developed
relationships with several foundations. i have some foundations in mind that would be targeted for that. i'm estimating that the fundraising, the project management, i would have a role as co-project director in terms of being involved with the researchers. lafco would have a more significant role, but they wouldn't do any fundraising for that. it would be sponsored by jobs of justice and driver's seat app, and my role would be limited. it's reaching out to other city departments, maybe doing presentations on it. both of these projects, i'm optimistic about fundraising but dependent on funding. so keep my fingers crossed.
>> looks like both of these projects sound very important to me and also, just to highlight the point that you made, that there is work to support these projects, similar to what we're able to do last year or in the prior years for the prior projects. i think that's really important and last year, there were a whole set of policy recommendations that came out of this work, that the team really helped with. so i think those, again, very committed to following up on a number of those policy recommendations, and bringing it to our city and county and to
implement, including the pilot e-bike program rebates, and exploring -- i really like the policy recommendation of creating a licensing or permitting system for delivery companies. yeah, that's all my questions and remarks. >> thank you commissioner mar. i see that vice chair cruz-pollock is on the roster. please. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation. i think it's really helpful to see the policy and project work that you see is important for the commission to consider. i just want to say that i think i'm a little bit uncomfortable with bringing consultants and organizations in front of us for a fully baked proposal, versus having an opportunity to flesh
it out here on the commission source, so i was caught off guard that these presenters were here today. so, i will take it item by item. i'm looking at the agenda. as i understand it here, on public banks, we do know that supervisor preston, suggested lafco providing a watchdog role to the public bank. this is a significant undertaking for the commission and i know that details are being fleshed out in terms of how big a role it would be, if it would be something that would be required some more staffing, if it would be someone -- if it
would be a consultant that we would reach out to, how much it would increase our council. all of these things are things to be considered and when we talk about the overall project plan, we need to be realistic about how large our role will be with each one of these projects, so i don't want to put anything too many things on our project plan that will take away from the large project, right? we want to make sure we're moving things forward. i want to talk about the co-op research project and i might be getting this confused of whether it's the same as the post pros -- proposition survey. i understand that it would be about researching whether or not
the city and county of san francisco would launch a co-op for app based delivery drivers, is that correct? >> that's correct. it would be research led by workers to determine the viability of a pilot cooperative and also to examine ways that the city could support those kinds of businesses in san francisco as alternatives to the platform based companies. >> has any members asked lafco to take on this work, to be part of their legislative agenda? >> no, i have briefed some members of the board of supervisors about this and was following up on advancing the recommendations that we presented, back in may and with the previous research associates.
i am bringing it to the commission because the commission was enthusiastic when we checked in on worker co-op. then i began developing this proposal. >> great. >> so it is exciting work and i think it takes a big chunk of staff time to work on the co-op project when it doesn't have a legislative home. so i would just, i think every piece of work on our work plan should have a pathway to policy implementation and so i just want to maybe step back and say if there are other commissioners, chair chan or commissioner mar, that are interested in taking this back to the board of supervisors, that maybe we hold off on projects that don't have a home or a sponsor.
so that's one that i just want to flag. also, the e-bike program, which i think you said was not moving forward because of the department of the environment did not get their grant. >> that's right commissioner. i'm not asking that i have any role on that at all. i just wanted to flag it for you as i'm hoping we will move forward at a different home. >> okay. great. >> i am interested in the post proposition 22 survey project. it sounds like the role of lafco would be limited and i think that's consistent with our work plan. i know commissioner mar is very interested in this work and i believe that his office is committed to moving forward some policy recommendations from that and i think it's great to have a sponsor and sort of legislative home for that work.
i'm excited that it could be part of our work plan, and i just want to say that i would caution having too much on the work plan that doesn't go into the major project bucket. i'm concerned about the utility debt project. i think it's super important and i want to give you my thoughts on why it might not be right for lafco. so this is being addressed by the c p.u.c., the state legislature, and sfpuc. i feel like the project could -- that it would just take away from the processes in play if we were to take on this work. i would love to see a member of the board of supervisors work hand in hand with the sfpuc to identify a funding source for debt relief, but that's not in
lafco's wheelhouse. that's not something we have jurisdiction over, so we can make some policy recommendations, and there were policy recommendations in the last survey that was done for lafco last year, but i just worry that it's a huge under taking of work and it has a due date that's really soon. is that work that our staff is qualified to do? if not, if it would engage a consultant, where would that funding come from? i feel like using our mou funds for anything other than specifically looking at cleanpowersf's build up projects would be a misuse of the funds. so i think i would just caution all of the projects that are
presented that use those m.o.u. funds, that we slow down and pump the brakes a little bit. that does exhaust. it completely exhausts funds that are available for lafco to use on cleanpowersf. so that brings me to the storage project. when mr. goebel told me about this project, i thought it was really interesting. i do want to point out to my colleagues that this is very similar to a project that the department of the environment did four years ago. so, this would be some duplication of efforts for a grant that was quite large, that the department of the environment received. they did not build solar projects, this was a resilient show. so, i would just say that if we are showing solar resiliency in
low income areas and looking at providing for the people who are most impacted by climate change, that we not try to duplicate efforts and we not try to do the work of the sfpuc that way. i'm super excited about what sfpuc presented to us today about the green tariff project and the solar storage project and i wonder if we really should be building solar arrays, right? is that how we should be the watchdogs for cleanpowersf, to do that project. so, i hate that i'm having sorts of a nay sayer for some of these projects, but i think my goal for our project plan would be three main buckets. the first would be taking on the important work of public bank, being a watchdog for this
working group that is being set up by the board of supervisors. it sounds exciting. it sounds like a lot of time and effort. it does sound like lafco could be a really good place to shine sunshine on this project because that working group that is not public facing in that way, so it could be a really good place. i would say that i have been part of the push for a build out plan for cleanpowersf. how do we have just transition and do the work that these environmental justice organizations that are engaged in, you know, climate. the impact of climate change is real and we are just behind the ball. we are not doing the work at the city at county. we have climate goals that we have not met.
there is no real tracking of our climate goals. we know from the climate action strategy that cleanpowersf was seen as a way to put san franciscans in the place to receive 100% renewable project, that we know that 2% of cleanpowersf customers are receiving 100% renewable projects, or power. so how do we increase that? part of the way we could is by building these 100% renewable projects regionally and in the city. [please stand by]
>> i also want to hear what commissioners think about, you know, the project that you would like to be involved is -- with. i would like to get involved with the public bank, you know, and really facilitate a conversation with supervisor preston and identify the general fund and maybe hire a consultant or a policy consultant to play a role in the public bank. i see that the director -- [indiscernible] -- hands are up and i have commissioners saying, just look in the camera. if i may, could i go with
commissioner saying first before i call you both? commissioner? >> yeah, you know, now that we are having this conversation, quite frankly, when i was appointed by former chair fewer, it was very much related to public banking. i think that, you know, and i have been drinking from the fire hose and i am grateful to all of the folks who have been educating me over the years that clean power s.f. it is a core responsibility that we absolutely cannot compromise. not that i am suggesting we want to compromise it, but that kind of goes back to what i was saying about budget and about capacity because i would really like to. and i think that organizers around the public banking specifically agree and organizers around the labor
issues, they want to see that work being done here. these are things i could suppor. and especially considering the reasons why i was appointed, particularly as someone who works on housing and land use et cetera. that is my two sense right there. >> that is great. i love it to too heavy really focusing on the public bank. i think, moving forward, it would be great, you know, to really have you schedule these meetings with the commissioners and to be sure, to open that meeting without violation of wrong act. and my assumption is the same rule applies here, you know, but to make sure that we work that out and we find the scope of the
work. if i don't see any of my other colleagues having any comments at this moment, i will -- vice chair? vice chair? >> thank you. i just want to highlight that some of the proposed work that i am suggesting is not just my idea, but i just want to uplift those organizations that are part of the san francisco green new deal coalition. uplifting the work of jobs with justice, bayview advocates, senior and disability action, and others. these organizations are really focused on climate and they are wanting us to move these programs forward. i have also been asked if the work that the executive officer is doing about listing what city
agencies are doing what in terms of renewable energy, and so they have even asked if we can expand it to include looping in the department of the environment to do a look back of what has been done to meet san francisco's climate goals. i have been working with them on whether that would be something that we could take on or whether we should have that meeting with the board of supervisors. and just helping them. i want to say, i'm trying to uplift the people in the community that i really focused on climate. these are not my only ideas, but i just want, as the commissioner that represents the public, to always keep my finger on the pulse of what san franciscans really work. that is what i do. i will say that. thanks to them as well. >> thank you. i agree. this is also why i think it is key to visit out the work,
especially the fact that, you know, the vice chair has the institutional knowledge of this work and know the key players that we need to really bring in and continue some of the ideas. seeing that, commissioner mar? >> thank you. i wanted to thank you for your proposal and move forward in the important discussion about setting out the priorities for the work ahead. and i'm happy to focus on the important research and follow-up with brian about that and anyone else. i also didn't want to point out, it seems like the public bank work, which i agree is important, so incredibly important for our city.
i think we can play a very important role in the public bank. that seems to be the least clear about what that means for us. >> absolutely. i think -- i agree. i think that is the part where supervisor preston comes in with his legislation. i know there has been conversation with the council to try and scope out and making sure that the lafco can take on that work and the role of lafco is clear. i am going to take on that responsibility to work with our lafco council and identify funding to further solidify. i think we have some initial understanding, you know, i think we do need to circle back and my intent is to have a conversation with the executive officer and the supervisor and i to sit down and scope out that work and be
much more defined and clearly presented both in a smaller amount and identify the funding source and what that money is going to before so that it is clear to all of here before we can support -- move to support it so definitely. i see that executive officer goebel's hand is no longer up. but director heinz? >> thank you, chair champ. i also wanted to thank the commission and the members of the public for the lively discussion here. and i felt it appropriate, as a representative of the p.u.c. and a partner with lafco and the source of funding for the work related to clean power s.f., that i contribute here to the discussion.
i think the executive officer characterized, you know, our reaction to the proposals that were submitted for the work plan. i think that that stands. we are supportive of corroborate -- collaborating with lafco as it relates to disconnections and utility debt. i do believe it is quite timely. and while there was an issue prior to covid, it has no doubt exacerbated the problem. and i think lafco has served as a channel for motivating and mobilizing the broader group of supervisors. i see that as a potential benefit of collaborating in this space. it's complex, as i mentioned before during my presentation, so having multiple minds on this one would be beneficial for the
residents and businesses in san francisco. i also think that the solar and storage demonstration project has a lot of value. it is consistent with our own commission's goals around affordability, equity and resiliency. i think that in that project is a reflection of many of the things i have heard from the advocates over the years. things -- things that they are interested in seeing happen. these are still you technologies. these are new applications of new technologies, and there are also issues with deploying things like battery storage in urban environments, fire code issues, there are a number of challenges, cost benefits, how to build the business case that allow us to grow and to scale these kinds of things that would really benefit from such a
collaboration. i did want to share those views. i did also want to request that any discussions between now and future meetings around the clean power s.f. work and the use of the funds be inclusive of the sfpuc, and finally i want to gently push back a little bit on the notion that san francisco is way behind in its climate goals. clean power s.f. has been delivering virtually greenhouse gas free power for the past couple of years. it has moved the needle significantly such that if you look at the greenhouse gas emissions inventory that the department of the environment did, what is remaining are things like natural gas and vehicle traffic, the use of gasoline.
this is as the primary remaining major wedges of the missions that the city needs to tackle. we have put in place a very significant building block. it is, by no means the end. i would never say that, but we have a good springboard and the integrated resource plan that our commission adopted last year and will be updating probably in about a year and a half took a significant step in accelerating clean power s.f.'s goal of delivering 100% renewable and greenhouse gas free energy mix to its customers. its customers, which represent about 60% of the city's demands. so clean power s.f. is just a portion of that ultimate city energy use.
i did want to point that out as well. but, and last thing, and of course, i am happy to provide more updates at a subsequent meeting, but we have moved into implementing that i.r.p. we are preparing to issue solicitations to pursue the buildout of the resources identified in the i.r.p. and we really need to do that to make it happen on time. i know that is something i have been speaking with the executive officer about in terms of the schedule and implementation and i am happy to provide more information about that to lafco soon. >> right. thank you. i think what i intend to do for the next meeting is that we should move for a leave to look over your report and presentation to make sure that we answer and follow-up on the questions that the commissioners have from this meeting and
moving it forward. i want to make sure that we are comfortable with what i just suggested and i do have a last addition to this proposal that i want to suggest for us to approve for the next meeting. it is for our executive officer to draft a policy memo, to resubmit it to send to the san francisco board of supervisors. and in this memo is really including what we have concluded from year 2020. and i think that should really also addressed some of the concerns that the vice chair has talked about. and the work that was concluded
and we need to find a legislative home. i think that is the best way to do this. i think we need to have a draft policy memo to present to the commission and for this commission to discuss, you know, it is space on the year 2020 review report, what are the policies -- recommendations coming out from lafco that we think the local legislative body can actually take on and should take on as a response to the work we have done as a commission. and obviously, i would like that to be an agenda item so the commissioners can have a conversation and discuss before we go on and approve it for the board of supervisors. with that, i want to make sure,
colleagues, if you have no more comments and no more questions, madam clerk, my assumption is that what we could do today is a motion to amend the proposed -- proposal into what we just discussed -- instead of right now, i believe it is item eight -- a through f., maybe a motion to amend the proposed project to only a two c. and then he, a policy memo, and
for us, as part of the discussion -- we will do a motion to amend the proposed project and then we can vote to continue for the next meeting. okay. okay. a motion to amend the proposed project as i just listed is. a through f. >> you will need a mover and a second. >> do i have someone to help me move the motion? >> so moved.
>> and a second? >> second. >> okay. on the motion to amend the plan contained in item number six... [roll call] >> thank you, colleagues. the motion has been approved without objection. let's also have a roll call to continue item number six, the proposed project. madam clerk? >> madam chair, i know you indicated we will do our next meeting, but our next item on the agenda his approval of the meeting. for the purposes of this motion, it will be for the next scheduled meeting. >> yes, please. >> all right. we need a mover and a second on
that. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> great. on the motion to continue item number six as amended to the next annual lafco meeting... [roll call] there are three yeses. >> thank you. madam clerk, let's go to item number seven. >> item seven his approval is approval of the 2021 lafco regular meeting schedule. for members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please call in. a system prompt will indicate you to raise your hand. please wait until you have been
unmute it and you can begin your comments when we call for public comment. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, any comments, questions objections to the schedule? seeing none, madam clerk, let's go to public comment. sorry, executive officer goebel? >> i wanted to add, in my memo to you on proposed meeting days, i neglected to include the next regularly scheduled meeting which is april 16th. i wanted to make sure that was included in the meeting dates. >> great. do we need to have a motion to amend the schedule then? >> yes. you would need a motion to amend the april 16th date. >> okay. we need a motion to amend the schedule to include april 16th. is that correct? >> yes. we need to take public comment first.
>> got it. okay. let's take public comments first. >> operations, just checking to see if there are any colors callers in the queue. please let us know if there any waiting. if you are already on hold, please continue to wait until the system has indicating you have been unmute it. >> there is one caller in the queue. >> great. >> hi, commissioners. eric brooks again with californians for energy tourism. so just a quick note, last year we advocates were under the understanding that the three minute time limit for public comment was established for all meetings, and so it would be good with the regular meeting schedule if in each printed and online record and agenda it is
clearly noted so the secretary knows that public comment for lafco is three minute, lafco almost never gets the big, long comment lines that the board of supervisors and other committees get over issues like land-use. i think it's something that can be an ongoing thing and if this can be regularly established, that would be great. >> thank you with your -- for your comment. do we have any other callers in the queue? >> we do not have any other callers. >> great. thank you. >> thank you, madam clerk. and i noted the caller's suggestion. i think we should probably amend that or we can always revise. >> if i may, the setting of public comment timer is done at the beginning of the meeting by
the chair. it's not -- i missed that before. we can make that statement, but i would not suggest adding that to the regular meeting schedule. >> understood. thank you, madam clerk. please do remind me time. >> thank you. seeing no more public comment, let's move forward with the motion amending the lafco schedule for 2021 to include april 16th. do we have a motion on the floor? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> thank you. the motion to amend item number seven to add april 16th... [roll call]
there are three yeses. >> thank you, madam clerk. this item has been approved -- >> amended. >> sorry? >> it was amended. >> yes, sorry. let's do the roll call for the item as amended. >> on item number seven as amended... [roll call] there are three yeses. >> thank you. this item has been finally approved. let's go to the next item. thank you. >> item eight is the executive officer's report including renewable energy assessment
update and the lafco presentation and extended tourist update. >> thank you. the floor is yours. >> thank you. i just wanted to provide a brief update on these items. the former chair and vice chair requested that the executive officer can do assessment of whatever city departments are doing the build up projects. i have had some discussions with the vice chair about that and i worked with banner to develop a survey that we have been sending out to city departments. i have been focusing on the departments that have the biggest footprint and, you know, i've received a couple of responses so far, but i have been working and meeting with
staff from other city departments, including the department of the environment, the planning department, the airport, and we have a couple of surveys already from the school district. we have the survey in from the m.t.a., so i will be compiling all of this information and bringing it to you for a presentation. and assuming this is an item you still want for the april 16th meeting. the next item his annual report and i have just included that in your packets. on april 16th, at our next regularly scheduled meeting, we requested that pamela miller, executive director of the organization come and present lafco. i have been in contact with mr. miller and she will be
giving a presentation at the next regularly scheduled meeting. i neglected to include the expenditure update. however,, i've updated all of you directly for the public. i will give a copy of these so that document is accessible, but in looking at the expenditures, there -- they have been online. we are under budget in a lot of areas including introspection. the rest of it is pretty much on target. the expenditure balance, and you mentioned it in a previous slide, is just over $137,000. that concludes my report. >> that is great. thank you so much. colleagues, any comments, questions or executive -- on the executive officer's report?
seeing none, madam clerk, i assume we will also take public comment for this. >> yes, we do. thank you, madam chair. operations, checking to see if there are any callers in the queue? please let us know if any callers are ready. please press start three to be added to the line. please continue to wait into the system has indicated you have been unmute it. do we have anyone on hold to provide public comment? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> great. thank you so much. madam chair? >> thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. i think we also have just general public comment for item number nine. >> yes. i will go ahead and -- before the record, there was no action taken on item eight.
if you'd like to provide public comment, please call in. if you have not already done so, please press start three to speak. the system pronto indicate you have raised your hand. operations, please let us know if there are any callers ready to provide comment on this. operations? >> yes, there is no callers in the queue. >> thank you so much. madam chair, we have no callers. >> thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed.
madam clerk, for the next item please. >> item 10 is future agenda items. >> colleagues, any future agenda items? great. seeing none, public comment for item number 10. >> thank you. operations, checking to see if any callers are in the queue to provide public comment on future items. let us know if there are any callers ready. if you haven't done so, please press start three. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmute it. do we have anyone in line? >> yes, there is one color in the queue. >> great. thank you. >> hello, again, commissioners. eric brooks one more time just to speak to future agenda items. first on a lighter note, i think
we can hear from the cat that has been vocalizing in the background that it is calling out to was that we have not put on the welfare of house cats in our lafco agenda. [laughter] on a more serious note, two points. one is that even though we are properly streamlining but we will spend our attention and money on, i think it is vital. i live in the lower pole neighborhood. it is vital that we continue what the executive officer has picked forward, especially in small businesses on relief from covid energy. we do need to keep an eye on that because our small businesses in san francisco are absolutely devastated and that devastates jobs. i just want to put in a plug for that. i also want to expand on and make the connection that the
public bank issue is not separate from clean power s.f. if we are going to do all of the things that this agency has talked about today in the agenda, especially clean energy, it is vital that we establish a public bank as quickly as possible so that future amortization of debt to build an apollo style clean energy programme in san francisco knows that we've got public bank financing to back it up and that includes stuff on gig workers and homelessness and you name it. all of that is dependent on public banks. i just wanted to chime in that we do need to keep that on the front burner in 2021 because last year we put it on the back burner. and i think that was a mistake. i am glad it is no longer on the back burner. i urge that we keep it on the front and realize that clean power s.f. and the public bank and the other things we are working on are intertwined and inseparable and they are crucial to each other.
thanks a lot. >> thank you for your comments. do we have any other colors on the line -- callers on the line. >> there are no others. >> thank you. madam chair? >> thank you, madam clerk. seeing no other public comments, public comment is closed. before we call item number 11, i think this is reaction to the color we just caller we just heard. what we truly have dose -- what i see is it is a commonality in social justice. it is social justice. both the public bank and the gig worker that we are excited about is also part of social justice,
and i do find commonality on all these three items. i look forward to working with all of you. if no one has any other comments, then i am moving to call item number 11. i want to give a shout out to my colleagues. >> there is no further business for today. >> great. the meeting is adjourned. thank you, colleagues.
>> >>[music] >> i came in with her impression of what i thought it was good >> what i knew about auditing with the irs spears i actually knew nothing about auditing >> in my mind it was purely financial. with people that audited the pain no one wants to deal with it >> now i see a lot of time explaining auditing is not just about taxes. >> oftentimes most students believe that auditing is only financial whereas when they come into a government environment we do much more than financial audits. we do operational audits that were looking at the operations of the department for economy and efficiency and effectiveness. >> when i hire an intern some of the things that i am looking for first of all is is this individual agile and flexible
because i am our environment is so fast-paced and where are switching from project to project depending on what's going on in the government at any given time. >> primarily i didn't with audits on utilities management across city departments. >> citywide this ods management audit was also been assisting with housing authority audit program >> the homelessness audit >> the it functions >> [inaudible] >> were starting any water on the department of public housing environment allows >> i also assist with the [inaudible] program. >> then additionally i really enjoyed having staff who have some critical thinking skills. because i believe the basis of auditing is not do you know how to audit, but to have critical thinking skills [inaudible] >> [inaudible] even though i've only been here for short time our quick in-depth
analysis and research >> analytical skills there's a lot of taking enlargement of information a compacting it a very concise report because we've a big focus on [inaudible] if you're transmitting this information to the audience you need him to be able to understand it. >> so i work with the sparrow program primarily. broadway stan abused [inaudible] they prepare me for full-time employment because i knew i could not to challenge myself in order to be an auditor. >> at the [inaudible] we are a content feedback and communication and they pointed out areas where i need to grow. >> one of the things i like about working at [inaudible] is that they actually give you quite a bit of autonomy i feel like kevin sage trusted me. >> the environment really [inaudible] to everyone feeling
super collaborative and wanting to get to know one another. which i think at the end of the date is a better work environment and gives you a better workflow. >> i believe that a really is a great experience because it provides an opportunity to have a better understanding of how government works. >> i think what i've learned so far is that every audit is unique everyday. different learning opportunities. >> the recordation we make in on its i can honestly go home at the end of the day and zack and treated [inaudible] in a better way. >> even of not familiar with what auditing is you should deftly find out. it's been really really awesome he was it turns out there's a whole world of auditing that i cannot open file oriented performance and [inaudible] and that's an exciting. audit is a lot broader than i ever knew before. >>.
potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is
francisco welcome to another episode of stay safe in our model home with matt we'll talk about plywood. >> great thanks. >> where are we we if you notice bare studs those are prone to failure in an earthquake we need to stabilize those they don't lean over and plywood is effective as long as you nail along every edge of the plywood for the framing we'll nail along the sides and top and on the bottom 0 immediately you'll see a problem in a typical san francisco construction because nothing to nail the bottom of the plywood we've got to wind block between the studs and we'll secure this to the mud sill with nails or surface screws something to nail
the bottom of the plywood. >> i notice we have not bolted the foundation in the previous episode thorough goes through options with different products so, now we have the blocking we'll a xoich attach the plywood. >> the third thing we'll attach the floor framing of the house above so the top of the braced walls one to have a steel angle on top of this wall and types of to the top of the wall with nails into the top plate and the nails in this direction driving a nail it difficult unless you have a specialized tool so this makes that easy this is good, good for about 5 hundred pounds of earthquake swinging before and after that
mount to the face of wall it secures the top of wall and nailed into the top plate of the with triple wall and this gives us a secure to resist the forces. >> so you now see the space is totally available to dots blocking that he bottom and bolted the foundation in corneas what the code in the next episode you'll see you apply
center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may
have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe
cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake.
>> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller
soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san
we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and
assistance diversion to work with individuals with nonviolent related offenses to offer an alternative to an arrest and the county jail. >> we are seeing reduction in drug-related crimes in the pilot area. >> they have done the program for quite a while. they are successful in reducing the going to the county jail. >> this was a state grant that we applied for. the department is the main administrator. it requires we work with multiple agencies. we have a community that includes the da, rapid transit police and san francisco sheriff's department and law enforcement agencies, public defender's office and adult probation to work together to look at the population that ends
up in criminal justice and how they will not end up in jail. >> having partners in the nonprofit world and the public defender are critical to the success. we are beginning to succeed because we have that cooperation. >> agencies with very little connection are brought together at the same table. >> collaboration is good for the department. it gets us all working in the same direction. these are complex issues we are dealing with. >> when you have systems as complicated as police and health and proation and jails and nonprofits it requires people to come to work together so everybody has to put their egos at the door. we have done it very, very well.
>> the model of care where police, district attorney, public defenders are community-based organizations are all involved to worked towards the common goal. nobody wants to see drug users in jail. they want them to get the correct treatment they need. >> we are piloting lead in san francisco. close to civic center along market street, union plaza, powell street and in the mission, 16th and mission. >> our goal in san francisco and in seattle is to work with individuals who are cycling in and out of criminal justice and are falling through the cracks and using this as intervention to address that population and the racial disparity we see.
we want to focus on the mission in tender loan district. >> it goes to the partners that hired case managers to deal directly with the clients. case managers with referrals from the police or city agencies connect with the person to determine what their needs are and how we can best meet those needs. >> i have nobody, no friends, no resources, i am flat-out on my own. i witnessed women getting beat, men getting beat. transgenders getting beat up. i saw people shot, stabbed. >> these are people that have had many visits to the county jail in san francisco or other institutions. we are trying to connect them with the resources they need in the community to break out of that cycle. >> all of the referrals are
coming from the law enforcement agency. >> officers observe an offense. say you are using. it is found out you are in possession of drugs, that constituted a lead eligible defense. >> the officer would talk to the individual about participating in the program instead of being booked into the county jail. >> are you ever heard of the leads program. >> yes. >> are you part of the leads program? do you have a case worker? >> yes, i have a case manager. >> when they have a contact with a possible lead referral, they give us a call. ideally we can meet them at the scene where the ticket is being issued. >> primarily what you are talking to are people under the influence of drugs but they will all be nonviolent. if they were violent they wouldn't qualify for lead. >> you think i am going to get
arrested or maybe i will go to jail for something i just did because of the substance abuse issues i am dealing with. >> they would contact with the outreach worker. >> then glide shows up, you are not going to jail. we can take you. let's meet you where you are without telling you exactly what that is going to look like, let us help you and help you help yourself. >> bring them to the community assessment and services center run by adult probation to have assessment with the department of public health staff to assess the treatment needs. it provides meals, groups, there are things happening that make it an open space they can access. they go through detailed assessment about their needs and how we can meet those needs.
>> someone who would have entered the jail system or would have been arrested and book order the charge is diverted to social services. then from there instead of them going through that system, which hasn't shown itself to be an effective way to deal with people suffering from suable stance abuse issues they can be connected with case management. they can offer services based on their needs as individuals. >> one of the key things is our approach is client centered. hall reduction is based around helping the client and meeting them where they are at in terms of what steps are you ready to take? >> we are not asking individuals to do anything specific at any point in time. it is a program based on whatever it takes and wherever it takes. we are going to them and working with them where they feel most
comfortable in the community. >> it opens doors and they get access they wouldn't have had otherwise. >> supports them on their goals. we are not assigning goals working to come up with a plan what success looks like to them. >> because i have been in the field a lot i can offer different choices and let them decide which one they want to go down and help them on that path. >> it is all on you. we are here to guide you. we are not trying to force you to do what you want to do or change your mind. it is you telling us how you want us to help you. >> it means a lot to the clients to know there is someone creative in the way we can assist them. >> they pick up the phone. it was a blessing to have them when i was on the streets. no matter what situation, what pay phone, cell phone, somebody else's phone by calling them
they always answered. >> in office-based setting somebody at the reception desk and the clinician will not work for this population of drug users on the street. this has been helpful to see the outcome. >> we will pick you up, take you to the appointment, get you food on the way and make sure your needs are taken care of so you are not out in the cold. >> first to push me so i will not be afraid to ask for help with the lead team. >> can we get you to use less and less so you can function and have a normal life, job, place to stay, be a functioning part of the community. it is all part of the home reduction model. you are using less and you are allowed to be a viable member of the society.
this is an important question where lead will go from here. looking at the data so far and seeing the successes and we can build on that and as the department based on that where the investments need to go. >> if it is for five months. >> hopefully as final we will come up with a model that may help with all of the communities in the california. >> i want to go back to school to start my ged and go to community clean. >> it can be somebody scaled out. that is the hope anyway. >> is a huge need in the city. depending on the need and the data we are getting we can definitely see an expansion. >> we all hope, obviously, the program is successful and we can implement it city wide. i think it will save the county millions of dollars in emergency services, police services, prosecuting services.