and the public, city hall is closed. this precaution is being taken pursuant to the local, state orders. commission meetings will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the same extent as they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. channel 26 and sfgov.org are streaming the number across the screen. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001. again, it's 415-655-0001, meeting id(146) 797-7410. then press pound and pound again. then you will hear the meeting discussions which will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways, e-mail myself, alisa.somera@sfgov.com. madam chair, that concludes my announcements. >> thank you very much madam clerk. can you please read item number two. >> approval of the lafco minutes from the july 31, 2020, special meeting. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleague? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment please. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call, meeting id 1467977410 and then pound and pound again. if you haven't done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak. you may speak when the system indicates you have unmuted and then you may begin your comments. is there anyone on the line? >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> public comment for item number two is closed. a motion to move the lafco minutes for july 31, 2020. do i have a second. >> second. >> motion to approve the item, cynthia pollock. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> there are four ayes. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number three. >> a community choice aggregation activities report. a, bill assistance for low income customers, the equity project, power charge indifference adjustment, and the integrated resource plan. >> madam clerk, is commissioner singh with us today? >> she is with us here today but she's not a voting member as commissioner pollock is here today. >> thank you. >> good morning commissioners. i'm michael hines. can you see and hear me okay? >> yes, we can. >> great. i hope you all are doing well and staying safe these days. we got a full -- it's been a little while. it's been a couple months since we've been here from we have a full programs update for you today. i'm going to jump right in. give me one moment here as i pull my slide back up. are you able to see that? >> yes, we are. >> great, thank you. okay, so for today's update, clean powers sf update, we're going to cover a measure adopted for clean power sf low income customers. we'll be providing an update on the status of our clean power sf equity policy project. we'll provide an update on the power charge and difference adjustment or pcia and finally we'll provide you with an update on clean power sf2020 integrated resource plan. i'm going to be joined this morning by a couple of my colleagues, cassidy and jackie from our power communications team. i should say a few colleagues, and susan from our sfpuc policy and government affairs team. as you know commissioners, these are tough times we're going through. as you might expect, we seen a significant increase in the number of clean power sf electricity customers with a past due balance on their electricity bills compared to what we saw prior to covid-19. we are seeing higher rates of delinquency among customers that participate in the care and low income electricity programs. on july 28th, the sfpuc adopted a one time bill credit for clean power customers enrolled in care by september 30th. it will cover an average electricity bill for a care customer for about one month. the bill credit will provide economic relief for these customers and provide an opportunity to promote enrollment in the care and fera discount program, which will provide customers with a 20% discount on their energy bills going forward. we've been promoting this program since late august and you may have seen some of our advertiseme advertisements. i'm going to turn this over now to cassidy who will tell you about what we're doing to promote this bill credit and the discount program. i'll continue to drive the presentation here for cassidy. >> thank you mike. excuse me, hello everyone. my name is cassidy, i'm part of the powers communication team at the sfpuc. i want to go through our billing marketing campaign. the goal of this marketing campaign is to generate awareness for the bell credit program and the credit that will be available in october for our customers and also to increase the enrollment ahead of the september 30th deadline so as many people that qualify as possible can enroll and receive the discount in october. the target audience for this marketing campaign are our existing customers, low income san francisco san francisco cansens -- san franciscans, customers behind on their bills in communities that are most impacted by covid-19. as you see here on the slide, this is currently up. i'll talk more about it on the next slide please. so for this campaign, we really look at multiprong campaign to reach as many of our hard reach customers as possible. we purchase print, digital and audio advertisements. those channels were seen daily, sf bay view, and univision. we purchased 11 billboards that recently got put up. they're in spanish and english throughout the bay view neighborhood, admission, and outer mission. we also sent roughly 30,000 postcards to san franciscans to know about the program and the credit. we also purchased others. a couple of these channels are new, so we're excited to see how successful they are. we haven't used univision and google adware, but many said those channels are successful. we're excited to see the results. as part of our shared media, we're using the social media pages to promote the credit. we also created a community partner tool kit that we shared with the board of supervisors and community partners that include information about the credit and the messaging they can share with their networks and audiences. the clean power website, we created a new page that talks specifically about the credit and the qualifications you need to meet to enroll in this program, as well as how to enroll. it will contain information in the bill credit. i've also been doing some co marketing with the sfpuc larger push during this time. on the right, you can see the to add verticaltizement is the print advertisement and then the bottom is an example of the digital advertisement and that was placed on univision's website. next slide please. so what we really want to emphasize to san franciscans is that signing up takes less than five minutes. there's no proof of income required to enroll. eligibility right now is based on your income as of today. you can also qualify if you participate in programs like health and medi-cal. they will be receiving the bill credit in october, but they will provide the credit going forward. anyone can visit www.cleanpowersf.org or call our call center. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions or take those at the end. >> yes colleagues. any questions or comments at all? i had a few questions. so when you mentioned that there were a lot of families that actually were facing hardship about paying their bills, can you tell me about a number of san francisco residents that are having hardship paying their bills? >> commissioner, i don't have the figures at my fingertips right now but i'm happy to submit that to you through the executive officer after the meeting. >> sure. >> i'll approximate, it's probably on the order of 30,000 to 40,000 electric accounts, somewhere like that. >> wow, okay. do we have geographic information about that? are there certain districts hit harder than others? >> again, i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head or at this moment. we'll be happy to follow up with more specifics. when i say hardship, our measure -- i just want to be clear, our measure of hardship is basically delinquency, right? >> yeah. >> and that is, it is variable. you know, we are looking at the sort of population as a whole. one thing we haven't done yet is sort of looked at you know, individual accounts and their duration, but we do have some -- certainly some of these accounts have amounts owed that is accumulating. those of course are the ones we're most concerned about. >> yes, i think that information would be very helpful. i think to find out just how severe and how many -- to you, you may be in this thing for a while to come. so, just wondering how much relief that customers may need and the next question is, is it correct that this program gives relief for one month or did i mistakenly hear that? >> you heard it correctly that the bill credit is for one month, but what we're using -- so we're providing financial assistance equivalent to one month's average electricity bill, total electricity bill. we're applying it one month, in a single month to all of the customers that are enrolled in the care and fair program. it's a discount program. one of our objectives here in addition to providing the immediate assistance is to try to get as many customers as we can to enroll in those programs. we know that not all eligible customers in san francisco have enrolled. so, this is sort of a hook or a carrot, you could say, to entice more customers into that program, which will provide ongoing assistance to customers. >> okay, and then for those customers that are experiencing a duration of hardship and i'm wondering if you have a plan for those customers and also are you including customers that are delinquent in their bills but eventually pay it? i think that everyone's time schedule and everything is off also. if they miss a bill payment, are we finding -- are these people that you are saying are having a hardship paying, are they customers that just missed one payment but then the next time they eventually end up paying it, like in their next month's bill or is it people that have not paid their bill? >> well, it's sort of a combination of both of those. like i said, we look at the -- we're tracking the total number of accounts that are delinquent. it's delinquent at levels of 60 days, 90 days, things like that, right? so what we seen at a high level is that the number of delinquent accounts has increased significantly. to your point, you know, some of us -- probably the majority of the customers are paying their bills. sometimes they just pay them late. >> sure, okay. i think it's really great to get that data, if you have it. i think about who are those customers, which are the ones -- i think the people that really have been unemployed, unable to pay their bills completely for 30, 60, or 90 days, it's sort of -- i think that is a different level of support they may need versus somebody who, you know, after 60 days ends up paying their bill. so, i'm just trying to get a gauge of how deep and wide this problem is. >> sure, yeah, and i do want to answer one other question you asked, what other assistance is there. we are working through the california p.u.c., which is taking a statewide approach to this issue on a rearage forgiveness program. that would be rate payer funded. so one of the things i want to point out is that clean power sf is basically foregoing revenue for one month from this pool of customers. so we're not funding this by increasing rates on other customers. we're just simply foregoing revenue. this is something that the program couldn't sustain, but we know that it's relief that's needed and could be used immediately. the statewide program will also be a benefit, especially to those who are accumulating much larger ones over a period of time. >> you have more to your presentation, is that correct? >> yes, we do. >> okay, let's move on. so sorry. >> no problem, thank you for the questions. okay, i'm going to -- i'm going to hand this over now to suza e suzanne, who will speak about the equity project. >> thanks mike. high commissioners. thank you so much for having me today. i'm suzanne on the sfpuc policy and government affairs team and the sf clean power equity working group. i'm here to update you on the efforts of our working group. as we reported last fall, our staff has been working on a clean power sf equity project. lafco executive officer has been in the loop on all of our various efforts. it's been a while since we presented on this. the purpose of this project is to develop an equity policy that provides a lens across clean power sf policy, programs, and practices. so applying an equity lens will ensure factors such as race, income, gender, language, employment status, among others for example. so we have a working group of staff that has been developing the draft policy. we're also planning to do some outreach and engagement with stakeholders to get feedback on the proposed draft policy when we're ready to do so. ultimately our hope with this project is that the policy will serve as a model that could be replicated for the businesses we do and serve as a model for other communities as well, giving that choice is a relatively new program across the state. so our plan is to draft -- or to vet the draft policy with stakeholders, community leaders, and members of our priority community and we're using that term priority community to refer to those historically under served, in particular the low income communities. after community engagement, that will finalize the policy. once we have an adopted policy, that will focus on community recommendations. next slide please. so one of the most important aspects of the draft equity policy is that we're centering race in the work that we're doing here. we lead explicitly, but not exclusively with race because racial injustices exist throughout the country without exception, including electricity service. so advancing affordability, calling out cost burnden for lo income, black, indigenous, and people of color. we address barriers to participation in vulnerable communities, including disability access, culturally language translation and the digital divide. embedding community engagement as a core practice to our work and utilizing the connections we make during our engagement to continue this work and to have this work be an ongoing conversation and ability for us to make new ties within the community that we're serving. addressing environmental service and public health, especially given the historic and disproportionate impact on certain communities. addressing disparities in community preparedness, by addressing on emissions fueling the climate crisis and that under served and vulnerable communities have access to the same types of mitigating technologies that wealthier communities may already have. lastly supporting workforce development with a particular emphasis on local jobs that promote racial, gender, and lgb lgbtqia diversity. lastly, here's a brief overview of our timeline to date and our expected connection steps. apologies this says framework where it should say policy. we changed it a bit and decided to recategorize this project to focus on the policy aspect of it. so the equity working group as drafted an equity definition and mission. we have a baseline data analysis and stakeholder mapping and customer needs survey. we're promoting environmental justice training for clean power sf staff. a recent focus has been on developing the equity policy and community engagement plan. you know, we had to rethink some of our community engagement given the covid-19 emergency and the inability to work in person. we're working on fine tuning that. our goal is to begin that at the beginning of next year and have a finalized policy some time next year. that is all i have for now. i'm happy to take any questions and thank you for listening. >> any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing nobody in the queue, i have one question. i know that you mentioned that you are looking at race also, but are we also looking at sort of people in different housing? >> yes, that's an important fact. that's something we're thinking about. i think also when it comes to energy, the difference between renters and homeowners is important to think about. while we're intentionally leading with race and centering race, there are so many other disparities and differences in how folks in san francisco receive electricity and we're hoping it can be comprehensive. >> great, thank you very much. seeing no comments or questions from my colleagues, thank you very much. now mr. hyams, let's continue. >> thank you suzanne. now i get the pleasure to shift gears here and talk about the pcia. many of you seen the pieces in the san francisco chronicle addressing the pcia and the role in the business model. the excuetive officer of lafco asked me to address this. we're going to start with the basics because it could be a complicated topic. what is the pcia? the pcia is an ongoing surcharge that customers must pay pg&e on their monthly bills to avoid shifting costs for those who do not participate in the cca program. it's the puc's implementation of state law that requires cca customers to reimburse electric corporations for the net unavoidable electricity supply cost attributable to those customers and what we mean by that is the cost of the power supply that pg&e committed on behalf of the customers before the cca program was formed, minus any benefits that the electricity supply that remain with the bundled service customers or the remaining customers that take generation supply from pg&e. and what is included in the pcia? so the pcia recovers what we call the above market costs of the power supply commitments pg&e made to serve customers prior to the formation. it's set annually based on a forecast of the market value of pg&e's resources that have been trued up the following year for the actual market value realized in the previous year. the resources are utility owned generation. these are power plants owned and operated by pg&e which include the nuclear power plant, natural gas power plants, hydro electric, and solar power plants. it also includes pg&e's long-term renewable energy contracts they entered into with third party suppliers. how has the pcia changed overtime? we had requested in previous meetings from stakeholders to show you a slide like this. so we're delivering. this slide shows what has happened to the pcia rate, that residential customers pay. it has gone up 300% since 2015. in fact, if we look at this further back in time, it's not shown on the gap, the pcia has increased 600% since 2013, just seven years. this slide shows what has happened to the rate paid by small commercial customers. it too has gone up since san francisco launched clean power sf. to understand what that means for the clean power business model, we provided these next two slides that show the electricity supply charges on an average san francisco residential customers bill. the first bar shows what the charges would look like for the average customer if it received pg&e generation supply service, about $32 per month. the second bar shows the charges that the customer pays as a clean power sf customer. the bottom segment of the bar represents the clean power sf charges for the customer's energy supply, $22.48. the top shows the charges that they collect from customers $9.28 per month. then you see the top, there is some savings that the customer receives as a result of the clean power sf service. these bars are the current rates and it shows that about 30% of pg&e's electricity supply cost is above market and need to be recovered through the pcia charge. oh boy. i'm sorry this is not coming through, but if you close your eyes, you can picture a similar chart for small commercial customers. i think the version that was attached to the agenda came through okay. i'm sorry about this. it looks like this and it's a version that we prepared for small commercial. so what's the bottom line. the bottom line is that san franciscans and the customers of other territories are paying a significant amount each year back to pg&e through the surchar surcharge. for clean power sf, we estimate that's $100 million per year, but we expect it to rise. the pcia is expected to increase about 30% in 2021, which would bring this up to $130 million per year. as we report in the past, there is an ongoing proceeding to review and revise the pcia. i provided the proceeding number there at the top of the slide. as part of this proceeding, the puc issued decision 181019 listed there in october of 2018. among other things, this decision was supposed to address concerns regarding the volatility of the pcia rate and the significant year over year changes we have been seeing. unfortunately now it is looking like the decision may have only exacerbated some of the problems by putting in place a complicated and uncertain true up process. this slide notes that there is a proposed decision issued in june 30th. i apologize for not correcting this. that decision was adopted in august. that decision adopted a framework, evaluation criteria for pcia prebasement agreements. a cca could pay for its customers pcia cost up front. if you're wondering, this would be a substantial amount of money for san francisco. while intriguing potential opportunity is something that we are looking further into, the methodology adocumented or the framework adopted did include some things that we didn't like like a risk premium that would be paid to pg&e as part of this prepayment process. lastly i'll say that the proceeding continues and parties that have been active in the proceeding have been working to develop a framework for improving the management of electrical corporation electricity supply, reducing their cost, and making their resources available for allocation and/or sale to other market participants like ccas. a proposal was developed by joint parties, which included a range of entities, including the electrical corporations and cal cca. that was submitted to the california puc, i believe this year. we are expecting a proposed decision to be issued on this topic late in 2020. that's all i have on the pcia. i can pause here for a moment or i can keep going and we can talk about it after my last sex here on the i.r.p. >> any comments or questions from my colleagues? >> yes, thanks chair fewer. i have some questions. thanks for the update michael on this pcia issue. yeah, i'm just trying to understand this a little bit better. it's obviously very complicated. i think what's clear is you said the 600% increase in pcia fees for residential custom mys and the 335% increase in small commercial customers and that's costing the customers over $100 million per year in pcia fees. did i get the numbers right? >> yes, you got that right. >> and then you also said there is an expectation that the pcia fees will increase by another 30%. >> yes, i did. >> so, i was just -- yeah, that's alarming, shocking. i just wanted to see what you -- if you have any -- if you can speak to what you think would be a more legitimate increase in -- well maybe before that, can you just explain a little bit in simple language like what is the pg&e's justification for such a large increase in pcia fees and then i have a question. >> yeah, i can do that in simple language. pg&e's justification is that the market value of the resources that they committed to is decreasing. so, the energy market value, the value of the various attributes that are part of an electricity supply has been decreasing. we know the costs are effectively locked in, right? they are not allowed to continue to add resources to the pcia commitment of clean power for customers. those resources are locked in time with the departure of the customer to our program, so new resources can't be added. so the costs are effectively fixed. there is a significant amount of cost, but what is driving up the pcia would be pg&e's claim that the value of the resources is decreasing. this question was at the heart -- has been at the heart of the debate at the california puc. some of the measures they ado adopted in their last decision resulted in valuations that were lower than what they had been before and valuations that we as part of the corral -- calcca group that were involved in the meeting disagreed with. that is one thing that's going on. that's kind of the simple explanation of the problem. >> thank you. just a follow up to that, i'm just trying to understand this again. so pg&e's rational for such large increases in the fees to cca customers, that's related to the expansion of community choice aggregation and like the significant expansion we done here in san francisco with clean power sf. >> it isn't directly correlated to the expansion. the fact that the pcia is increasing is not because ccas are increasing or it shouldn't be, i should say. really it boils down to one issue which is how the resources that pg&e has committed to are valued and you know, the mechanism is intended to avoid cost shifting to those customers that either opted not to participate in a cca program or to the communities for one reason or another decided not to launch ccas. the size of the cca shouldn't, the amount of the cca participation should not impact the rate itself. >> and one last question on this. do you have an assessment or an opinion about what would be a more reasonable and appropriate -- what would have been a more reasonable and appropriate increase in the pcia fee or do you feel like this huge increase that we've been subject to in recent years is reasonable and appropriate. if not, what do you think would be a more reasonable and appropriate amount? >> yeah, i don't think it has been reasonable. i don't have the specific amount for you today, but i do want to let you know and we shared this with the executive officer just this morning. calcca is circulating a letter from board members and electives representing customers for the california puc heart surgeurgin rethink some of the previous decisions. i do think that they should take another look at the decision they put into place a couple years ago. i think that there should be a closer examination of the true value of some of these resources. i do think it under values the resources. i also think that -- and we're hoping that in this next phase there will be some benefits that may be gained from this process, but that the ifd investor in utilities needs to be more accountable for maximizing the value of those resources in the markets that exist. unfortunately this mechanism, the pcia mechanism gives them zero incentive to do that. in fact, because there is no incentive, it really provides sort of an instrument for bludgeoning ccas. they can sit back and not try to maximize value, which then results in a higher pcia. so that right there is sort of the crux of the problem. the solution is multifaceted. it involves creating a better process for ensuring that the pg&e and the other ious maximize the value in the market. sorry commissioner, i can't hear you. >> there, i was on mute also. >> thank you for answering my questions. >> go ahead, is that commissioner pollock? >> yes. >> please. >> so i understand mr. hyams thank you so much for the presentation and answering commissioner mar's question. it's so helpful to get a refresher and to see where things are. you mentioned a letter was written, was that local electives or members of the state legislature? >> there is a form letter available for local electives to sign on to and we just received it. we provided that to the executive officer to share with the commissioners for consideration to submit. >> on the state level, has calcca or puc reached out to any of our state lecture electives to do a legislative fix instead of going through cpuc? >> yes and calcca continues to discuss this. i think the biggest issue has just been the circumstances in the state of california have required the focus of the legislature on other pressing matters like covid-19 and the fires and other more pressing emergencies. with that said, we're working on something and are hoping that there will be an opportunity to pursue that potentially in the connection session. >> okay, great, thank you. would you keep us updated on that. >> yes, absolutely. >> great, thanks. >> anymore comments or questions from my colleagues? i just have one comment which is just a comment to say that i think the whole idea of the pcia is absolutely ridiculous that this is competition for pg&e and the fact that if rate payers are saving $.35 or something using clean energy, but this pcia keeps going up, i think it's just absolutely ridiculous that we even have this pcia. it shouldn't be on rate payers that are not opting to use cca. it should be on pg&e. this is ridiculous how we had these ordinances that effect our ability to even change the environment. it's just ridiculous to keep those companies like pg&e and the monopoly and all this energy that is holding us hostage. i also want to say if it keeps increasing like this, the price of clean energy for rate payers will exceed what they would be paying if they were just a regular pg&e customer. this is super serious and disgusting how lobbyists can do this type of thing. it's just -- anyway, having said that, i think other comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, mr. hyams, let's go to integrated resource plan. >> thank you commissioner fewer. you will be hearing from us on this over the upcoming months. i mentioned the letter, but we do plan to engage further with this body, as well as with the board on this issue. so stay tuned. >> i'm sure my colleagues would join me in support of the letter that is being distributed state wide. thank you for to california puc. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so now let's move on to the integrated resource plan. here is a slide with some key terms. i'm not going to read through these but they're here for you as a reference. they were included in the packet and i will refer to these terms in the upcoming slides. as a reminder, the i.r.p. is an energy planning tool used by utility and energy service providers like clean power sf to achieve goals and meeting regulatory requirements. we identify a portfolio of electricity resources that can meet our customers demands at the lowest cost while also meeting local policy goals and regulatory requirements. as we discussed at your lafco meeting in june, clean power sf2020 was due on september 1st. on august 25th, the sfpuc adopted staff recommended accelerated case portfolio as clean power sf's portfolio in the 2020i.r.p. because it balanced affordability, cleaner energy, local investment, and financial and rate stability. the adopted case portfolio achieves 100% green gas energy by 2025. it's the lowest cost portfolio we analyze and achieve as comparable amount of local investment as the other cases. to find our preferred portfolio, clean sf model to satisfy these four scenarios. the first is our base case -- was our base case, meeting the 2030 renewable energy goal. the second was the accelerated case i just described. the third is a time coincidence case that emphasizes matching energy produced by customer usage in realtime by 2030. last, a cpuc required case that meets clean power sf's share of the state's 2030 emegss targ-- emissions target. this is a required case. it was not a case that met the city's goals. we also conducted sensitivity analyses, focusing on the following questions. what would be the impact on our power supply requirements if 100 peskin of new vehicle registration in 2030 were electric vehicle? what if all vehicle trips sta start started and ending in san francisco by 2040? what if all new construction in san francisco was 100% electric? staff worked with a consultant to perform the modeling using standard techniques and software. we then evaluated each of the portfolios developed using a set of metrics tied to the clean power sf's goals. so, how about the result? this slide shows pie charts that compare the projected energy supply in 2030 for each of the three portfolios we developed to meet the city's 100% renewable energy and greenhouse gas free target. the base case is at the top of the slide. the accelerated case is on the bottom left. the time coincidence case is on the bottom right. they have very similar energy mixes. the accelerate case is a bit more solar and bit less wind energy than the base case. the time coincidence case includes more wind energy, including offshore winds and some additional hydro. this slide compares the new energy resource capacity required to be developed for each portfolio over the next ten years. as you can see the accelerated case, the yellow line adds more capacity than the other xass and the time coincidence case has more capacity by 2030. in order to generate enough renewable energy that is demanded on all hours and seasons, it requires 38% more capacity to be built by 2030. recognizing that local investments is a priority for clean power sf, our project team required all of the portfolios, including the accelerated case to include 81 megawatts of local solar. this capacity represents the highest sustainability project we reported earlier this year. this represents $186 million investment in local clean energy, capable of generating 5% of clean power annual energy needs in 2025. we use the job year metric. it's equivalent to one full time job for one year or 280 hours. the chart on this slide shows total job years estimates using the best available industry metrics for the construction and operating phases of all projects identified for development in the i.r.p. portfolios. as you can see, the portfolios are projected to generate 11 thousand to 14,000 job years by 2030. the accelerated case create it is most jobs the soonest, it will create more jobs by 2030 because it requires more capacity to build. all portfolios have the same local job accomplishments but approximately 1,400 job years create in the bay area to develop the new local projects i just described. as for our sensitivity analysis, we found that requiring all new construction to be all electric is not expected to produce a large amount of additional electricity demand in san francisco, at least in the near to medium-term. that's because the city is built out already. new construction is relatively small against existing buildings. for that reason, the sfpuc is conducting additional analyses to look at retrofitting existing buildings to go all electric. i think that will have a much more significant impact. meeting the mayor's road map goals is projected to have a significant impact on electricity demand in san francisco. it would represent a 46% increase in annual electricity sales by 2040. this would require 114 megawatts of additional renewable energy capacity in 2030 and 679 megawatts in 2040. how do the portfolios compare from a total cost standpoint? this slide shows the total net present value of the portfolio cost from 2021 to 2038. you can see the accelerated case is the lowest overall cost, 2% lower than the base case and 11% lower than the time coincidence case. you can see here on this slide how the portfolio is comparing against one another and the ten year projection of the supply cost, which is the red dotted line. you can see the time coincidence case jumps up significantly in 2030, which is the year the portfolio adds more capacity to achieve that time coincidence objective. beginning in 2030 for the rest of the planning horizon, the time coincidence case is about 20% more costly to rate payers. so based on these results, the sfpuc staff recommended, and adopted the accelerated case portfolio for the i.r.p. submission. we found that the accelerated case stay truest to the program's goal, affordable an local investment in jobs, financial stability, and those things have been the touch stone to all those to date. one thing i want to comment on is our engagement on this with stakeholders. an i.r.p. engagement plan and our goal with that was to increase stakeholder awareness of the process and provide opportunities for stakeholders to learn of the i.r.p. and give us feedback. despite delays issuing the final i.r.p. guidelines which delayed our modeling work and our report writing, they worked hard to ensure that we had a draft i.r.p. analysis that could be made available in august for public review and feedback. we launched a dedicated web page for the i.r.p. and you're seeing a screen shot of that here. this included background information, along with downloadable resources, which is the draft narrative, a two page summary, and an overview of our findings, analysis, and results. it provided details on how stakeholders could provide input through public comment and that our commission meeting and at the request of stakeholders, we hosted two open office hours before the sfpuc meeting on this to answer questions and receive feedback on the i.r.p. stakeholders that were in favor of staff recommendation expressed support for how it accelerated clean power sf to 100% renewable energy and balancing affordability and local investments. stake holders who were opposed to staff recommendation preferred the case and expressed the desire to minimize the reliance on the california iso with more local investments. overall, this feedback we received has been very valuable to us and the emphasis on resiliency and de-carbonization will inform our planning work and the development of new customer programs this fiscal year. i mentioned this before, it does not stop now. we're continuing and of course our next i.r.p., which will be due before we know it in just two years time. so thanks for sitting through that. i appreciate it. we have a lot going on as you can tell. here is a link to our website with more information on our i.r.p. with that, i'm happy to take any questions on this last topic. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions? >> yes. >> go ahead commissioner pollock. >> thank you mr. hyams for walking us through the i.r.p. and sitting in the public seat, i also get organizational and individual input from members of the public and i just wanted to try to echo or amplify some of their comments. so one that i'm particularly struck by was from 350 bay area, and he in his letter wrote that the amount of time that stakeholders had to review it gave comments and they were due and the amount of time from the deadline date to the date of adoption was very short, just a few days. how does that represent a stakeholder engagement if there is no time for any changes to be made. >> i understand the frustration there, i have the same frustration. we have a very tight timeframe where we have all the requirements from the state regulator to conduct the analysis and prepare a draft. we literally made all those materials available as soon as we had drafts available. i mean they were rough drafts too. we put them out there and we had to continue to work on them. so yeah, i mean i would be the first to admit this was not an ideal process. we are subject to california puc regulation on this. we have to submit an i.r.p. that was compliant or face penalties, including financial penalties and fines. so we're hoping that we can influence -- and i should say to our i.r.p. report, which is available on the website. you'll see at the end of it lessons learned. we made a point of emphasizing the process issues to the puc and the challenging position we were put in terms of engaging with the public on this prior to adopting a plan. we will continue to communicate that. it was a big deal for me. it was a challenging and stressful time for us because we were sprinting. i recognize that for the public it's not sufficient to have 7 or 8 days to process something as complicated as this. >> and then also to spend time on feedback, knowing that it won't be integrated. >> well, we had to -- well, i think we did. we heard it out. we brought up these issues in the commission meeting. there was no time to account for some of the feedback we got in that short of a window, which is part of the reason why i communicated that our planning doesn't end with the filing of this plan. now this plan is our plan for purposes of statewide planning that's happening at the cpuc right now. in my view, it's dynamic, and the city can continue to refine what we put out there. i heard a lot of interest in the case and we will continue to look at that. as i mentioned in my remarks, we're going to continue to look at deeper carbon sayings, that's one of the points we received from feedback groups. we will look at resiliency. i actually think we have taken that feedback in and we're going to apply it to the planning going forward. >> that's great. my next comment had to do with the time coincidence case and i have my question written so excuse me for reading. so, with issues of wildfires and public safety power shutoffs, and it gets more important than ever that we build local energy independence and the time coincidence case meets these needs better than the accelerated case. now that you submitted the i.r.p., we have the option to switch to the time coincidence case or go beyond all three of these cases. >> yeah, first of all, i don't think it's true that the time coincidence case better supports those goals. i don't think that's accurate. i think they're comparable in those goals. i think what -- if i understand the concern correctly, it is how do we create a more local energy supply that can be available when the rest of the electric grid is offline, is taken down. >> right. >> really for anything. it could be public safety power shuto shutoffs, it could be an earthquake or a lot of different things. so you know, the time coincidence case was focused on california i.s.o. grid connected resources that would produce energy such that clean power sf would not have to use any grid power from the system in addition to the resources that it had contracted for, owned and operated. so it really is an issue of balan balancing. today clean power sf and other suppliers utilized the grid we're connected to balance the variability in our demands and in our supply. electric demand is variable. it changes every moment, as does energy supply, especially the more renewable it becomes. the cloud coming over a wind farm will reduce -- sorry, a solar farm will reduce the electricity produced by that solar farm, right? so we have fluctuations happening. we use the grid to help balance that so we have a reliable supply at all times. so we wanted to explore this question of what would a portfolio look like or start to look like if we had enough renewable energy under our control in every hour of the day, at every minute of the day. so, that's really what that was focused on. there is not -- there is no additional incity resources that would support a public safety power shutoff in the time coincidence case. that's something we will work on is adding those kinds of resources, especially in strategic locations where they are of highest value to the city. >> so, thank you for that. i just think the other thing that struck me was the discussion about the mayor's electric vehicle predictions and plan really coming online at 2030 and then that being -- or meeting increased capacities to meet those goals. if we were using the accelerated plan, then we wouldn't have an increased capacity just when all of those electric vehicles are coming online. >> yes, so i also wanted to clarify that. like i said before, you know, planning has to be dynamic. we breprepare a plan, we submit, it reflects the views at that time. a month later, it's sort of out of date. things have happened. things have happened in the market, in the regulatory world. so, we know, that's why we looked at the sensitivities. we know that demand for electricity is going to change. now, for purposes of our i.r.p., the california p.u.c. required that what we submitted matched exactly the demand forecast that the state adopted for its integrated energy policy report and no more. that is why we ran this as a sensitivi sensitivity. there is also uncertainty around how the electric vehicle mark is going to evolve too. your basic point i agree with, which is -- and we will continue to very closely monitor electric vehicle demand in the city. we will be including that in our demand forecast. as we do, we will update our supply plans to make sure that we continue to meet the city's goal of supplying that electricity with 100% renewable power. >> okay. i guess my last comment, which is not a question is that the job aspect, which has always been something that i, you know, i loved about the clean power sf plan and the local build out is how many jobs it produces, good city jobs, union jobs and understanding that putting more people to work to build capacity does cost money, but the trade off of having more jobs local is really a benefit to clean power sf and so i wanted to continue to support that. i understand why you made the decision that you have and why the commission adopted it. i just feel -- i think in just reading the report that time coincidence may meet some of san francisco's goals in terms of jobs and renewability than the accelerated plan. that was just my reading of it. thank you. >> thank you very much commissioner. any other comments or questions? seeing none, let's open this up -- oh, commissioner haney, do you have a question or comment? >> no. >> okay, that's great. let's open this up for public comment then madam clerk. >> yes, thank you madam chair. operations is checking to see if there are any members in the queue. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be lined up to speak. for those who have been on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. is there anyone on the line? >> madam chair, we have two callers. >> okay. thank you very much. >> hello commissioners, this is eric, representing california for energy choice and our city san francisco locally. i wanted to talk to you about many other things in the presentation but i can't because there is something much more serious that wasn't mentioned in the presentation and that is that a mailer has gone out, sent out by pg&e and also with the logos of sfpuc and clean power sf on it which is alarming and shocking and it shows that not only is clean power sf's rate to rate payers for 100% renewable more than pg&e's 100% renewable. even 48% renewable is more than pg&e's 100% on this mailer. this was something that was never discussed with the public in many stakeholders meetings, we never knew this was coming. we need to find out whether it's true or not and we need to understand why we were not told by sfpuc staffer that this was going to go out. the understanding is that we would never let this happen. we would never let a price be higher than pg&e, especially with our lower being more expensive than their 100%. the fact this was not in the presentation is alarming. and the staff is not telling us things they don't want us to hear. they were going to make a deal to take their nuclear energy which the lafco needs to talk about in their next meeting. this is alarming that staff is not telling us things that it knows the public won't like. we should have been discussing this a lot sooner. the i.r.p. is another example of this. we could have been discussing it for weeks -- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hi there, thanks for the opportunity. i would to appreciate if we could make three minutes instead of two minutes to make comments about issues. i would like to thank mike for presenting the data. i'm going to speak about that instead of the i.r.p. since that's on the next item as well. pg&e is likely gaining the market with large commitments prior to cca exits, which is widely telegraphed. that allows them to ensure future revenue for themselves. has you participated in meetings there? that's like a utility working group. the current formation was put into place by a commissioner who became senior vice president of strategy and regulatory affairs of southern california edison. this is corruption plain and simple. if this was happening in texas or d.c., you would have no problem calling it out. but here it's business as usual and what many are spending their careers aiming for. calcca and their one lobbyist is not cutting it. we are not flexing our power properly. every county should individually be fully applying their power. we are massively weakening ourselves and shooting ourselves in the foot. we believe this issue and the tiny staff. we are getting rolled by these people. our official power comparison between clean power sf and pg&e injures went out to all customers, selling 100% solar is the cheapest option available and that mailers goes out. we're getting rolled and the governor is literally from here. no one bothers to attend -- >> thank you for your comment. is there anyone else on the line? >> that completes the queue. >> all right, public comment is now closed. mr. hyams, do you want to comment anything on what the public comment has said? i wanted to give you an opportunity. >> yeah, sure. so, i think the first caller brought up the joint rate mailer. i'm happy to address that. we had a long meeting today as you know. this is not an intentional admission. it did just go out. this is a mandated joint rate mailer we send every year. we talked about it before in the past. it is produced between clean power sf and pg&e. the california puc has to review and approve it. so, as the caller mentioned, pg&e has a green tariff, which is called solar choice. that product is available at either 50% or 100% renewable. the 100% renewing option is included in the joint rate mailer as a point of reference. it is not just less expensive for a large number of our rate schedules and it's cheaper than pg&e's dirty products. it's the cheapest product and that is because it's subsidized. it's subsidized by non-participating rate payers. the city participated in the proceeding that developed that product and opposed the rate desi designed and we lost on a few things. so that's the reason we're working with our colleagues on this to see what we can do about correcting it. i will say this is not how solar choice presents in the future, so that's something to keep in mind. the other thing is that it's a limited program. this is part of the reason probably why the california puc didn't put its best foot forward in setting the rate. it has a limited enrollment. it's not open to large commercial, the largest commercial accounts. so, those are some of the things we did include language on the joint rate mailer that tried to make it clear to readers of the joint rate mailer that it had limited eligibility and participation. so i hope that helps. there is a little bit of context there. i also wanted to add that it's not just representing that way on clean power sf's joint mailer but on every cca and pg&e's service territory. i recognize that it's a challenge. we don't roll those rates. we control our own rates. it is my view that is subsidized unfairly and anticompetitively. we are investigating our options for addressing that. yeah, i think that was the main issue i wanted to respond to. >> thank you very much mr mr. hyams. i understand madam clerk that we need an action taken today. is there an action required of this commission today? >> no action is required. this is informational. >> okay, thank you very much. so, we will move on then. no action needs to be taken to this. we taken public comments. let's move on to item number four please madam clerk. >> yes, item number four a presentation and discussion on lafco consultant analysis of the clean power sf integrated resource plan. >> good morning commissioners, thank you madam chair. i am going to be presenting on the i.r.p. let me just share my screen. can y'all see that? >> yes. >> perfect. so we were asked by the executive officer to perform a review of clean power sf2020 integrated resources plan. my name is jenny whitson. i will go over the summary of our review and provide our initial feedback and some of our recommendations. so, in summary we reviewed several of the i.r.p. dominants that clean power sf posted on the website. we reviewed draft documents of i.r.p.s and the final filings. the overall summary of the i.r.p. and the presentation form, as well as we reviewed the public comments that were posted in addition to ours. on behalf of the san francisco lafco on august 31st, and in addition we made public during the sfpuc meeting on michael hyams regards. i'll go back to this slide. it was very difficult for our team to review all the documents in that short timeframe, but we understand that it was a little bit out of clean power sf's control due to the late posting. we did have a call this week with clean power sf's team to discuss our comments and we received some feedback that we're in the process of reviewing. we will continue that conversation. overall, of the four portfolios that were provide in the i.r.p., we did support clean power sf's case that mr. hyams just communicated. so also a review of the i.r.p.'s written comments, we did see four reoccurring themes of comments that we wanted to highlight. one is on the portfolio and also reliabilitied and resiliency, the cost analysis and clean power sf's program they're offering. for the overall portfolio selected, he did ask us to provide some feedback in terms of the percentage of local projects that were presented in not only the portfolio, but some of the existing projects, as well as the overall portfolio with the preferred case. so we took the one posted on clean power sf's website and identifi identified. we received some initial feedback as of late yesterday that we're reviewing and we understand some of these numbers may be updated. i just wanted to highlight under the new project for this accelerated case that the overall percentage of projects that will be located in the local bay area equals about 24%. overall, it was not clear if the axil -- accelerated case would be met in five years. this is something that our team feels that there could be some unforeseen circumstances associated with these projects, such as permitting issues, transmission delays, project barriers and contract issues. so that's something that we wanted to highlight out there. it's unclear if these programs also known as the resilient san francisco document, if the project aligned with that and if project based vulnerability accessibilities were considered in this portfolio. out there, we have a strong concern, as well as the public comment for clean power sf to address the system reliability for public power, and unplanned shut down to natural disasters which mr. hyams also described. we'll be looking for additional communication strategies around those issues. and in terms of the cost analysis, we did not see a rate analysis for each portfolio on how itment manies the residential and commercial rates. the i.r.p. template requires each entity to provide how the portfolio will effect rate payers. that's something we saw as a cost per megawatt hour and we will see how that translated down to the rate payers. also, if the cost is confirmed, all assumptions and the rebates or subsidies were included, aside from tax credits, which was clarified this week in our conversations with clean power sf, we did hear that all the projects in the portfolio are power purchase agreements, so those entities will likely take advantage of the subsidies. again, it wasn't clear on that in the i.r.p. and then in terms of the clean power sf program, the program information was very limited in the i.r.p. there was a general overview of each program included, but there wasn't really a timeline provided for this program, or any specific details we were hoping to see. additionally we see any details on programs specifically for disadvantaged communities and hard to reach populations. so overall, we highly recommend for clean power sf consultants, our future providers to perform extensive feasibility studies, including vulnerability assessments, cost benefit analyses for each project and not only demonstrating the rate savings that support the financial stability of the program, but also to include resill yet sit for all the concerns we heard today. we also recommend that the information on the program be expanded and future i.r.p.s, as well as possibly on the website for any program and development and timeline for those. so to summarize, our peer review was done in a very short timeline so we do hope that in future i.r.p.s and stakeholder engagement timelines that we see a draft of what the timeline looks like and an increase in that time, potentially this could start a few months in advance, talking about different parts of the i.r.p., and maybe not reviewing the full draft i.r.p., but we see programs, how p.c.i.a. rates and charges impact that portfolio and things like that could be talked about in advance. we did discuss the challenges of clean power sf filing an amendment for their i.r.p. as we originally requested sfpuc consider. they reemphasized that their planning process is ongoing and refiling an amendment would create challenges around the 2020i.r.p. they would like to avoid. so our team and mr. g o.eoebel explain. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions? >> i do have a quick question and this might be a question for mr. hyams. what would be the challenges around filing an amendment? like what challenges does that present for you? >> would you like to answer that question? >> yeah, i'm here. i'll take that, thanks. so, filing an attention will effect the -- i'm not exactly sure how it would look in terms of a procedure with the cpuc's schedule. so, what they're doing next is aggregating all of the i.r.p.s submitted by individual l.s.c.s to look at the statewide goals and reliability. as a result of the aggregation, it will then determine if procurement is needed for system-wide reliability. submitting an addendum would change what we would have potentially changed, i assume we'll do it because we're changing our plan. what we submitted and could have, you know, a major impact on that assessment, that statewide assessment. so i think that in order to -- i think my comments to the consultant and mr. goebel is that we could incorporate things into our next i.r.p. and our procurement strategies and approach. it's in a parallel fashion. i actually think that would be a much better investment of limited resources we have as a city and staff rather than submitting an amended plan. >> commissioner pollock, any other questions? >> no, thank you for that. >> okay. yes, go ahead. >> thank you chair fewer. i just wanted to make a quick comment that i appreciate the time that the lafco and the consultant put into reviewing the plan and the comments they provided us. we have met and we will continue to meet. there were a number of questions they asked of us, a number of which are sort of detailed, but we will be working together and i look forward to doing that, to addressing their questions and to help better inform you as a body on our activities. >> thank you very much. commissioner mar, do you have any comments or questions? >> yes, thanks chair fewer. >> thank you. >> i am again just trying to understand these complex issues and more specifically kind of understand the difference between the accelerated case, which is the recommended one, both by the clean power sf and puc and also the consultant also reinforced that versus the time coincidence case, which is the other one. it seems like the main difference, or one of the main differences is the source of the renewable energy in the time coincidence case would be more local than the accelerated case. it's more increasing the amount of renewable energy that we get from outside of the bay area. did i get that right? >> yeah, if i could respond to that. the time coincidence case that we analyze in the accelerated case has the exact same amount of local resources in them. the only twiefrns difference between the two is the type of energy resources that are included and the amount. the time coincidence case -- what we used is a model. think of it as a piece of software, a complex medical process to sort of optimize across a number of different objectives. one of the -- and you add constraints to the model to have it look at certain conditions or certain goals that you want to achieve. what we did with the time coincidence case is we said starting in 2030, no more california i.s.o. system purchases. so the model didn't allow us to balance our portfolio in any given hour using the general grid. we could only use the resources that we are contributing to the grid. so those are utility scaled resources and some smaller resources also connected within the bay area, within san francisco, but those resources as a whole were in the model where the only resources we could use was to supply our customers. because of the variability of the renewable energy resource and san francisco's electricity demand over the day and over seasons, it required us to build more capacity than we needed. that's basically the outcome of that case. it also leaned towards other technologies that were less cost effective, like offshore wind. now again, i want to say something i said before, which is this is a snapshot in time. we know that the market and the technology evolve and the costs come down. offshore wind is an expensive resource relative to solar and battery storage. one of the things that is good about it is that it produces during the evening hours. it's blowing offshore during those time periods. that case says you should procure offshore wind because you have an hour in the middle to the night that your solar and batteries can't cover. so i wanted to give a little bit of more of a flavor they compare. the important thing to know here is the cases were comparable as far as local investments. >> that's very helpful. maybe a follow up question, so i understand you know, and in both of your presentations why the accelerated case, you know, was recommended. it's significant from the cost analysis, it's lower. it gets us to 100% renewable, if we can achieve it in five years versus ten years or longer. are there some advantages of the cost -- i can't remember the name of the other case. like what would be the advantages of it? >> well yeah. i think the advantage is more time coincidence means that the resources that we're contributing to the california grid better match our demand and overall better serves the hourly deman we have. this also speaks to why we have a grid in the first place. what's the point of the grid? the grid is there to create efficiencie efficiencies because we're not an island. we're a peninsula, but we're connected to the rest of the grid, right? as a result, we can benefit from the diversity of a much, much larger pool of customers and resources. the time coincidence case is what if we did live on an island? we would have to increase our electricity rates. that's sort of what we found, that we have to build more to cover all of the possible hours of the day. now, i want to say because we adopted the accelerated case, the accelerated case does not perform that badly in this regard. we think that this is something we'll continue to look at and see how we can find a middle ground between the time coincidence and the accelerated case. that's something we want to look fwu further into. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner. any other congressmens -- comments or questions from commissioners? commissioner pollock. >> i don't have a question. i appreciate that i'm given this time but i am wondering if we can continue the conversation at our next meeting and mr. hyams may respond to the questions that were raised in ms. whitson's presentation and to hear some prepared responses to those questions. that would be great. >> sure. yes thank you commissioner pollock. actually, i was going to ask mr. hyams that if you didn't include this formally that our consultant had, if you didn't officially do it but for this lafco and internal uses of san francisco as far as our concluded in our plan is that could you possibly look into those recommendations and provide us with those things like the timeline as was recommended by our consultant. i still think those recommendations are worthy of actually being answered and also being addressed. i am -- you know, it is concerning i think that our consultant mentioned it was such a short timeline and they realized that clean power was out of your hands. i think because of the short timeline and you weren't able to incorporate some of these recommendations in, i think that it is a good move for lafco moving forward to have our own san francisco lafco integrated plan and recommendations inse inserted to our own internal uses plan. that is piggybacking on what commissioner pollock's request was. i guess in more of a formal way and not as informal, that we would also adopt that as part of an amendment internally to our integrated plan. mr. hyams, what do you think? >> i just want to make sure i understand the question. you're asking -- i will say what i think i understand is a request for sort of a formal response to the questions. >> yes. >> we are planning to do that. we have been working on written responses. so what we intend to do is provide a written response to the executive officer in the form of a memo that can be made available to the commission. >> okay. i think that's fine. i think that with the next meeting in november give you ample time to do that? >> yes. >> okay. so let's agenda that for our november meeting so we can have further discussion on it. then at that time after we see the responses, i think we have a discussion on whether we want to formally adopt those recommendations also or what you're going to be presenting to us. i think it deserve as good look and discussion also. mr. goebel, i see your hand is up. >> our next meeting is in october and not november. it's mid-october. >> okay, would october be enough time mr. hyams? >> i think we'll be able to prepare a written response to the questions by the meeting in mid-october. >> okay, that's great. if you have a time constraint, why don't you be in contact with our office and mr. goebel and then we can accommodate you for the november meeting if you're unable to do it by october. any comments or questions from my colleagues around that? seeing none, let's open it up for public comment. >> madam chair, operations checking if there are any callers in the queue. operations please let us know if there are any callers that are ready. if you haven't done so already, press star 3 to be added to the line. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers waiting? >> yes, i have two callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> thank you again chair fewer and commissioners. i'm from the 350 bay area. so i really appreciate their work on this. we understand that the i.r.p. is a planning exercise. so not trying to hold them to this per se, but really focusing on it because i think it's useful for the ideas and values and visions of the program and how people are thinking. you know, ultimately what will be determined what gets built where and when will be influenced by the clean power sf community, the people of the city, the board of supervisors as their representatives, et cetera. i know that the time coincidence and the experiments. what if we lived on an island. we focused on that for a few reasons that could be taken separately and i think banner highlighted. look at the fact that we live on a fault line, at the end of a peninsula. we would love to see more focus on local workforce development and impacted disadvantaged communities we've been talking about, and an eye towards electrification of buildings, which the analysis indicates will require 46% more electricity by 2040. that's a lot more electricity. when you hear them say this other case requires results and not overproducing, that's cut off at 2030. if you look at 2040, we're going to meet 46% more electricity, then we want to build in the fact that we don't want it too early. we want to build in the fact that we're going to have this massive demand increase. i know they will do that as they look at future i.r.p.s. i think we really need to start looking at the value of resilience today. we do have a really big difference -- >> thank you for your comment. can we have the next speaker? >> hello commissioners, eric brooks, california for clean energy choice. i remain concerned about what we're hearing from sfguc staff, first on the timeline. sfpuc knows what it looks like and knows the basic requirements of them. that means we could have -- they could have had a draft in front of us weeks ago, if not months ago that we could be discussing for a long time. that answer before doesn't jive. to the case themselves, the reason we supported the time coincidence case, it's not because it was a lot better, but the point is that it's head in the right direction. it's also concerning to hear that from staff that when we include resources and overbill and have a wind farm connected to our system regionally and have a lot more resources available as capacity, rather than delivering right off the bat. that is not good for resiliency. that is clearly better for resiliency and it concerns me that we're hearing that. the most important thing about all of this, and we talked about this with banner in a stakeholder meeting this week is that the time coincidence case is not good enough and what we need is a sydney, australia style revenue bond finance plan for the entire city and county of san francisco to get renewable energy from local and regional resources from if that was financed, we wouldn't have to worry about that because the economy as a scale would make up for that and it would cost less. we need the full plan. i would say and we talked about this in the meeting, in the future what we like you to do is go far beyond what is choosing what staff is presenting to you and actually speaking for a greater case. >> thank you for your comments. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. madam clerk, i don't think we have an action item on this one, but we did give direction to staff or to mr. hyams quite frankly. we can move on to our next item which is item number five. >> item number five is a presentation and discussion on an e-bike program for delivery workers. >> thank you very much. mr. goebel, i our lafco research associate is here, is that right? >> yes, thank you madam chair and great to see you virtually commissioners. i'm very excited to perform a presentation by jackson nutt-beers. we show encouraging interest between delivery workers switching from driving to doing food delivery on an e bike. this survey result got a lot of interest when i was doing presentati presentations and so to follow up i asked jackson to explore best practices that e-bikes what are lot of people are thinking is interesting. i'm going to turn it over to jackson for his presentation. >> yes, you have the floor. >> thank you executive officer goebel and chair fewer. i think brent will help me with the slide show, if you don't mind. so before i begin, i would like to introduce myself. good morning commissioners, my name is jackson nutt-beers from the university of san francisco. today i will be talking to you about what an electrical bicycle rebate program would look for workers in san francisco. i will provide background information on the survey of on demand ride hailing and food delivery workers by lafco and then examples of the rebate programs that exist and lastly i will provide my recommendations based on the research that i conducted over the summer. just one moment. the next slide please. in 2019, the survey based on demand workers and the emerging mobility sector in san francisco. the goal was to provide the city with insight into this exponentially growing workforce and to determine whether the labor policies of companies such as uber, lyft, and door dash were aligned with the principles. they inquired of ride hailing and food delivery drivers in san francisco at the beginning of the year. however, this survey was cut short due to the global covid-19 pandemic. the next slide please. after data collected, some of the staggering statistics is that half of the respondents didn't have health insurance and were reliant on medi-cal and couldn't afford emergencies without borrowing. half of food deliverers worked over 40 hours a week and three-fourths of the drivers identify as a person of color. the reason behind was an inquiry regarding bicycle delivery in san francisco. next slide please. of those interviewed, 18% said bicycling was their primary mode of transportation and mr. saying they would switch to an electrical bicycle if offered an incentive. 31% of delivery drivers said they would consider switching if they were offered an incentive. ambitious climate goals and efforts to provide safety for bike care -- yocouriers. because of the majority of the food workers identifying as people of color, san francisco has an opportunity to provide an exquitability solutions to real issues that san franciscans face. when asked what a rebate program could look like in san francisco, i conducted my research through an equitable lens. i talked to program administrators, department heads, and bike manufacturers to understand how their programs work and how we could do something similar in our city. this research led me to several different electric bicycle programs across the country and around the world. next slide please. the first program i want to cover is the rebate program from a not-for-profit company in boulder, colorado. they offer a $200 rebate towards the purchase of an electric bicycle. it was implemented to meet their own environmental goals, which is 70% renewable energy by 2030 and marketed as a way to get people out of their vehicles and on of to the streets. it come from a 2% we care surcharge on every members' bills, designed to slow the growth of co2 emissions. the manager at holy cross energy says since the beginning of the pandemic, they seen a huge increase in interest in their rebate electrical bicycle program. next slide please. the second program i want to talk about is in burlington, vermont where rental organizations known as locomotion imagimanages their o electrical bicycle program. they offer a $200 rebate to eligible participants. by offering a point of sale rebate, they're reducing the up front cost for families that are not interested to purchasing an electric bicycle or can't afford one. this came as a way for the state of vermont to achieve their environmental goals. next slide please. electric bicycle rebate programs exist in other countries as well, offering 50% off the price of 2,550 usd for electric cargo bites and accessories that the bicycle may require. the transportation agency implemented their electric bicycle program back in february to achieve progressive environmental goals and to mitigate traffic congestion in p p paris. it offered long-term bicycle representativals that -- rentals that can be subsidized by their employers up to 50%. the last program i want to talk about the is from southern california. operated by san gabriel valley, the organization offered a rebate up to $700 towards the purchase of an electric bicycle. the program was funded through a $70,000 grant collected from the tolls on the i-10 freeway. when i was interviewing the education director at active saint gabriel valley, he informed me the original program offered a $350 rebate. after there wasn't much interest from the community, they increased it to $700 which resulted in a massive increase in interest from low income communities in the area. this is one of the few examples of an electric bicycle program that was geared towards surveying under served communities and shows that these programs can gain a lot of traction if they're accessible to all communities. next slide please. with each of these programs in mind, i recommend the city of san francisco should establish a p pilot program. it will offer flexibility for workers in san francisco. this would allow san francisco to collect data from food delivery workers to better understand who the workers are and what resources they might need. ideally this rebate would completely cover the cost of the electric bicycle for workers in san francisco and be offered in partnership with local bicycle shops throughout the city. it is required to qualify for an electric bicycle rebate. while conducting my research for this project, i came to the conclusion that many of these programs were not actually geared towards assisting food delivery drivers or had equity at its focus. by implementing a worker pilot program, san francisco had the opportunity to become one of the first cities in the country to meet the needs of food delivery workers in san francisco. next slide please. additionally, the city should establish a citywide rebate program accessible to all san franciscos. this could be administered through the department of environment. it would mitigate traffic congestion and increase mobility to low income communities. a bicycle safety course should be required to certify that participates understand the rule os -- of the road and bicycle safety. additional research through these focus groups and outreach to the community to include their perspectives will be required to understand the needs of san franciscans. with that, i conclude my presentation. thank you again chair fewer, commissioner pollock, commissioner haney, and commissioner mar, and mr. goebel, and ryan and leah who were instrumental in crafting this report. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues any comme comments or questions? >> thank you madam chair. thank you so much jackson for all of your hard work on this over the summer. i also want to thank brian at the san francisco bicycle coalition for suggesting that the survey team asks the e-bike question in the survey. we had a decision discussion one day and he said it would be good to have this data. the department of environment has taken an interest in developing a pilot e-bike rebate program. to talk a little bit about that i am pleased to introduce suzanne. she is the clean cities coalition coordinator at the department of environment. suzanne. >> great, thank you brian and commissioners for the opportunity to speak with you. my name is suzanne. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> great. i'm from the department of the environment and along with m.t.a. and p.u.c., we're tasked with achieving the commitment to zero emissions transportation by 2040. that won't happen until we expand those modes. there is not a lot of data out there and what we found is that 30% to 50% of electric bike trips replace car trips. we were super excited and impressed with this study because it provides transportation insight from the contractor's point of view. we think the study is important and we want to share with with our colleagues grappling with the same issues. as brian mentioned and i don't want to be too specific yet. we are in consultation with m.t.a. to develop a rebate pilot program focused on food delivery workers. that would provide e-bikes to the participants for low or no cost, collect transportation data and data about the workers and working conditions. scope and typing, they depend on the funding and the partnerships we can attract early in the process. i don't want to say too much. stay tuned and follow up with me with specific questions or updates about our planning and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you and supporting this study. >> thank you very much susane s. zan. -- suzanne. >> thank you for the study and the recommendation jackson. this is exciting and i'm hugely in support of this. i have a question which is partially answered by the last presenter fr presenter. so, is the pilot we're exploring providing the bike completely or would it be some sort of other kind of point of sale rebate? one of the things i was wondering about from this survey is you know, if there was a difference in how people felt about this, if the bike was provided to them or if they got some sort of discount, which maybe didn't cover the entire bike, or if it was a shared bike model that paid for them to be able to use some of the shared bikes we may have out there. i'm a little confused about how and who the bike is being provided to. >> suzanne, do you have an answer to that? >> i don't at the moment. we've been working on this three our forweeks so it depends on the partnerships we can develop. i think we envision it as putting the bike in that worker's hand in exchange for some data collection. so we really don't know what that means. i'm not sure that we would go through the bike share programs that are existing. >> okay. i would just say also suzanne, if you find that you are able to get a very good price on electric bicycles if you buy them in bulk, i think that could be also a consideration. i see commissioner there in the queue. sorry commissioner haney. >> one follow up on that and maybe this is for jackson as well. did we think at all about our shared bike program? so what about just making those free for delivery workers or working with some of those providers or subsidizing it that way? was there a difference in people's interest or your analysis of using a shared bike program versus providing a rebate or purchasing of bikes directly? >> i can speak to that commissioner haney. so, i think that is something that i know i've been talking about with suzanne is using shared bikes. i can tell you that having done the work myself, there were some challenges along with that. i was part of a pilot program with jump bikes when i was doing delivery work and sometimes the battery would die on me in the middle of a delivery. then it would be difficult finding another bike. so if there is enough coverage and depending on where a person has to go for a delivery, if something happens with that bike, if the battery runs out, it could be a challenge like finding another bike. the other consideration that we're taking is this fluidity of the work and we want to be able to collect data on the workers, but folks are often looking for a better opportunity. we started a pilot with a group of workers and one of them dropped out. i think that's also a consideration into whether or not we want to give workers bikes or we want to have them use it for a time. this is all something that we're trying to figure out and you know, before anything is finalized, we want to do some focus groups with focuses -- focus sh folks that express interest in e-bikes. >> and they have funds in particular revenue sources that could be devoted to this as well. i hope it's something that we could get going soon. thank you, appreciate it. >> commissioner singh. >> yeah, i just wanted to say i'm really, really excited about this. thank you so much jackson and brian for this presentation. it's really fascinating. i'm particularly interested in the saint gabriel program was fascinating to me because it reminded me of racial disparities and equity disparities, particularly the issues we had in san francisco regarding bicycle share programs, private bike share programs, venture capital funded ones and the association with bikes and gentrification, although it's really important low cost sustainable piece of public infrastructure we desperately need. i had a couple questions. i don't know who's the best to answer both of these. this might be too soon to ask but i love to hear any thoughts on what effective funding sources may be for car, traffic, infrastructure that may be able to fund such a program here. you know again, i was thinking of the fact that the san gabriel program was funded from tolls. i think that's a direct progressive tax to take something away from car infrastructure and put it into bikes and public transit. that's the first question if anyone thought through that or have suggestions on sf or particular recommendations that may work in san francisco. then the second piece, i think commissioner haney touched on this a second too, are we working actively with other city agencies? have other city agencies or commissions expressed interest on partnering with us on this? >> who do you think is appropriate to answer that? is that you jackson? >> i can speak to the first line about the active san gabriel valley. i know they received their funding through the tolls on the freew freeway. unfortunately that program is now defunct because it was a one time payment. so what these programs are looking for something more consistent that doesn't just happen in one without, even though they weren't able to provide the rebate that i was able to find unfortunately, the program is no longer working. >> got it. >> and commissioner singh, i can say that we've been having early talks with the department of environment and the m.t.a. and the sfpuc has been involved in those meetings as well. we are looking kind of -- right now we're looking at a specific grant that i can't talk too much about. we're also looking at other funding to potentially complement that and so it's a little early to talk about that but i'll be happy to brief you offline as well. >> yeah, that's great. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. i see commissioner pollock and then commissioner mar in the queue. commissioner pollock. >> thank you so much. i was just wondering if there is a discussion on subsidizing insurance for the bike rider, the owners and users of these bikes because given that in the city, it seems that additional insurance would be required. >> i have to say that's something that has not been on the take y-- table yet. i do appreciate that suggestion and we will incorporate that in. >> thank you, commissioner mar. >> i appreciate these updates, or the presentation and all the good discussion about these exciting ideas. i'm really excited about it myself like everyone. i just had a couple additional questions, just to clarify. so it sounds like there are discussions and planning happening with the department of environment and the m.t.a. around creating a worker rebate program for food delivery workers to use e-bikes. is there also similar planning happening on a citywide -- i mean the broader citywide rebate program that is recommended in the report and then my second question is there for both of these recommendations, do we have a rough estimate of how many rebates or how many -- like yeah. the scope of the program, like how many folks would potentially benefit from it? >> commissioner mar, thank you for those questions. the first question about the broader program. i think that's the ultimate goal and this program with food delivery workers would serve as the pilot for how the city could operate a rebate program and then it could be expanded to commuters or families and then much broader after that. so i think the idea with this pilot is we would get about potentially 20 or more workers to participate in the pilot and then we would gather data, all kinds of data and then i think the pilot would be -- i'm not sure how long it would be, potentially up to a year, a little as three months. so those are details that we're trying to hash out. i think the ultimate goal is to to push the city towards a citywide rebate program with a pilot as the first step or one of the first steps. then the -- i think i answered the question in terms of what the pilot was going to involve, right? >> yeah. thank you for that. thank you for all your work on this. >> thank you commissioner mar. with that i want to echo my colleagues that i think this is really exciting. i want to thank jackson for bringing all of this information to us. i also had the concern of bike staff, considering this is their livelihood, that these bicycles are much more expensive than a regular bicycle and i'm concerned about their ability to keep them in our city when we know that we have -- what i heard from people who actually do that bike share is that the wonderful thing about it is that they don't have to worry about their bicycles being stolen because they had multiple bicycles stolen in the city. anyway, with that i would like to open it up for public comment now. >> yes madam chair, operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please let us know if there are any callers that are ready. if you haven't already done so press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers waiting? >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment is closed on item number 5. we want to thank our lafco research associate for all of his work and thank you so much for bringing this to us. i hope you will follow it and perhaps continue working on this. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number six. >> and there was no action taken on number five. >> thank you madam clerk. >> item number six, presentation and discussion on cooperatives as an alternative to gig economy platforms. >> welcome mr. powell and mr. goebel. >> thank you madam chair. brian goebel. in the lafco report addressing the issues identified in our survey, we recommended that the city explore establishing a ride hailing and delivery co-op as an alternative to the big platform based companies. we know that san franciscans value these sfervices and the labor models are not sustainable. the troubling finding in our lafco survey demonstrated these front line workers are tremendously vulnerable. to follow up on this recommendation, i brought on research associate ryan powell and asked him to look into cooperatives and i think the idea here was to figure out how the city can facilitate homegrown solutions and worker owned cooperatives as an alternative to big companies. i'm going to turn it over to ryan for his presentation. >> thank you mr. goebel. >> thank you. let me share my screen. good afternoon commissioners. my name is ryan powell. i was brought on as a research associate after spending the spring researching the topic of permitting and that could effect the services. now cooperatives can provide relief to the essential workforce. as i conducted this project, i have truly come to believe that we can have a positive impact on the economy workforce. during the covid-19 pandemic, it has become necessary that we do all that we can to help our delivery app drivers, who are essential front line workers. i was asked to research how cooperatives work and what conditions they operate best under. while doing this research, i was guided by the scope of what the santa cruz study focused on and those elements were labor, equity, and job benefits. i acted under the supervision of mr. goebel. i researched the history of cooperatives to piece together a broad picture of what principles to adhere to. i conducted interviews with couriers, scholars, and innovators within the sector. while ukt can -- conducting these interviews, i looked at how san francisco can benefit from a worker owned cooperative. we can start by mentioning that cooperatives have been around since the industrial revolution and has been a means to counteract oppression. usually out of necessity to meet the needs of the workforce. cooperatives are alive and well in the united states. one in three americans are a part of a cooperative and per year, they account for $652 billion in annual sales and $3 trillion in assets. the principles of cooperatives are a version of the principles, adopted in 1937. there it is follows. voluntary membership, democratic member control, concern for community, economic participate, autonomy and independence, education, and cooperation among other cooperatives. by design, cooperatives have many different forms. they are unique with what they seek to accomplish. when it's consistent, that cooperatives are user owned businesses that are controlled by and operate for the benefit of their members. when i talked to melissa hoover, she gave me an insight to cooperative structures which could be paraphrased as when we think of a typical company, a cooperative is horizontal and focuses on equality amongst members and places an emphasis on participate -- participation. the number of cooperatives in the united states is staggering and the amount of industries in which they exist in is comparable in that size. when i talked to mr. cruz from ruckers university, he mentioned how worker ownership in many industries. to name a few, there are delivery cooperatives like candlestick collective here in san francisco. taxi cabs are also popular co-ops in our country. my conversation with the deputy director of research talked about the cross section of labor unions in cooperatives. grocery markets on fulsome street is a popular type of cooperative. one model that jumped out while conducting this market is a platform cooperative which is popping up around the world. this type of cooperative emphasizes using the internet and there's been a few successful companies abroad that made quite the impact. mr. goebel and i talked to someone about that cooperative. under my findings, i found that cooperatives in the industrial revolution, dangerous work, under payment, and irregularities in schedule. similar to the industrial revolution, we're in the midst of a large scale shift in labor. this means that the right to fair pay, access to benefits, or even access to the restroom after working 30 to 40 hours a week is not guaranteed. the third finding is if we provide the principles, we potentially mitigate these qualities throughout the economy. finally, under the findings, after conducting these interviews with various organ e organizers in the labor sector, consultants for cooperatives and labor studies, i concluded the city has a chance to make a difference by promoting worker ownership within the sector. so now the recommendation. i recommend that the city establish a pilot cooperative. the city of san francisco should establish a plan to deliver a pilot delivery cooperative and this will be run, operated and financed by its members and be given special treatment to mitigate the challenges. the three stages i set out are as followed. identify key stakeholders within the delivery workforce which will be willing to identify others who want to form a cooperative. this aspect was highlighted during my interview from upsidedown consulting. she stressed how important it was that this cooperative is made up of workers and the city ought to do all they can to make participation of workers within the sector a top priority. second is this subsidized workforce training. this could include administrative assistance like payroll, assistance in the platform f that would be used or helping with consulting costs. the idea is to help with the overhead associated with small businesses and it can play a crucial role to have access to these types of business services. finally it would be to utilize local government agencies and offices to ensure fiscal liability. the professor stated that examples of these types of measures could range from tax relief, ensuring a protected market, cutting through red tape on permitting, allocating public land, and establish relationships with the restaurants. in conclusion, it's a tradition in our country that's been around for hundreds of years and by and large it's a market success. after conducting this research and talking to so many that have been involved with unions and cooperatives, i have been left with a sense of anticipation and excitement to see the cities take a stand for the delivery workforce and usher in a chance for fair pay and worker ownership. if you would like to see my full report, it's included on the agenda items and could be red online. i would like to offer a thanks to jackson and leah, and brian goebel for all their help in making this come to fruition. now i'm open to take any questions you may have. >> thank you mr. powell. colleagues, any comments or questions? yes, commissioner singh. >> first of all again, thank you so much. i am super excited about the very, very excited about this. i share your enthusiasm, particularly for cooperatives and labor issues. we are right in the middle of a very heated battle over labor rights and the attempt to appeal them, so i think this is an especially critical issue right now. i wanted to ask your thoughts and this is general. i may be getting ahead of myself but how would you envision -- at least in terms of the mechanism in which this cooperative delivery service, if this will compete with the gig economy, all of this is website based. so in terms of handling the development of those things, would that be something -- and maybe there are examples in the past. i know we developed an app too, and we run into challenges, but it also works well. would that be something that you would envision that the city would have to develop and manage in terms of the technical infrastructure to make that happen? >> sure, thank you for the question. i also get ahead of myself when looking at the potential of a cooperative and what that actually means. i would say that it's so important for the city to enter the ring for this cooperative and to be there to facilitate as a developer of the app. i would say that it's crucial to have their input first and fore most, the members of this cooperative. in terms of resources that make a functioning app, it exists elsewhere in europe. i talked to an organization called cycle co-op in france and they were able to develop their own app that is used in other countries. it's more of an open platform based solution, but having said that, the resources that would be at hand would be someone like trevor, the professor i talked to. his organization is specifically designed to help with these kinds of issues that cooperatives might come across. that is technology based or application based issues they need to overcome. i'm not sure if that answers the question, but there are a plethora of resources we can access to ensure it's a good cost and meeting the needs of that cooperative. >> that's great, that answers my question, particularly thinking about one of the things i think about a lot, which is how much knowledge and labor we have with skills like these that are not going to -- that are currently not being directed towards efforts that would really help our most vulnerable people. >> yeah. and just another thing to mention, the candlestick courier, they have an app they developed themselves. there are resources we can utilize to ensure we can develop the best app in the case that we fall through with this recommendation. >> and should we move forward with this, i think we should, and i don't think it's going to be a massive budgetary issue at all to establish a cooperative. i do think that we should think as we're moving through this and talking about how the city can support in promoting a cooperative that exist, if possible or cooperatives that we helped establish in building a real base for that to make it competitive. thank you. >> thank you for your questions. >> thank you, commissioner haney. >> i am excited about this and hope we can move forward. you spoke a little bit this. the potential of bringing together restaurants and sort of the business side of it is also very extensive. i think that the level of fees that people are charged in businesses obviously has been very well documented. so thinking about how to engage them is really critical. is that something you thought much about or talked to folks? how -- where do you start on that? >> so thank you for that question. i am a service industry member myself. you will hear every restaurant talk about the exorbitant costs of using app-based deliveries. that is one of the crucial elements to this idea is fostering relationships with businesses and restaurants. if you can imagine, it is like an all-cohesive way of the restaurant austria -- they could use a delivery co-operative to carry out the deliveries for these restaurants especially like in a time like today. it is a challenge, but it is a great opportunity to drive home the san francisco element to deliver from the city as well. it is a challenge, but it gives an opportunity to challenge the small businesses and workers alike. >> commissionerins, are there a other comments? i want to say, i think this is super exciting. if i was chair what i would have suggested is starting a fund or a grant to start the infrastructure to actually create something like this. i think something like the golden gate restaurant association could actually have this as an arm of them working together and an arm of supporting businesses. we then could give these grants and start the infrastructure and developing the app and all those kinds of things and actually starting on this. that would be great. i can see this really taking off. it is true, during this economy, all the delivery that is happening and i'm looking at these restaurants offering this through these economies, not only compensating their workers and also job security. also, our small businesses are dependant on them. yet, they're gouging their small businesses. i want to say that our city should actually put some skin in the game. we have the huge deficit and everything else. this is something we could have brought in. i am so glad that you brought this process to us. normally people say something different, but these things are super hopeful. and also to come up with real solutions. instead of just complaining about stuff, that we heard a lot, these are viable solutions that have been brought to the table today. i want to open this up for other comments from my colleagues. are electric any other comments my colleagues would like to offer? seeing none, could we open this up for public comment. >> for those listening, if you have not done so, press star three to be added to the queue. for those on the line, please wait to be added to the queue. is there anyone ready to speak? >> yes, i have two callers waiting in the queue. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> i'm speaking as an s.f. resident for 20 years. i feel like someone facing global-scale problems, i often get pretty worked up that we're nibbling around the edges that there are problems. this is doing what we need to do. i'm incredibly excited that it needs to be proposed. as the commissioner pointed out, this is an ongoing issue that even our system of government cannot seem to fault. our corporations will pay sacramento. when that didn't work out, they pay the legislature and now they're paying money to tell voters to do the thing that they want. the only thing i would add to the great work and thanks to the researcher who did this work is to think about the competition. as we saw with queen tower s.f. and with these corporations, they will do anything to maintain their profits and their market power. so as you're starting up a much smaller entity, i think how to deal with the large corporations who are going to be trying to shut you down immediately will be a part of the product design and trying to be part of this work. >> thank you for your comments. could we have the next caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks. first of all, it's a great presentation and this shows the importance of lafco, that this is forward-looking and helping to design what the future of san francisco should look like instead of fixing problems currently on the fly. i would like this to be seen as a first step and eventually all businesses and housing and many other things in san francisco should be run by co-ops. this should be the first stepping-stone towards that. specifically to the app issue, i think this is really crucial and want to dig deeper on that. the only reason airbnb and the other companies make money is because they have a proprietary app. if this city took responsibility for helping folks create a city-owned app which is expressly not-for-profit, that's open source so it can be constantly proved by the workers itself, but was always housed in the city so any co-op could use that app for any airbnbs, then those big companies would go away in san francisco. i think it's good to have others develop the app, but housed in san francisco so it can be done not-for-profit and eliminate these vampire companies that victimize victims and workers and the city. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. that completes the queue. >> yes, that completes the queue. >> public comment is closed on item 6. mr. goebel, i want to say, you should be proud of this work you've brought before us today. i just want to say this is very encouraging. this is thinking outside the box. i just want to echo what the public speakers said. this is exactly what we should be doing. i'm not sure whether or not it should be a city-run app, but i just want to say that these are really exciting ideas. i have my staff texts me that it's an exciting time. even though this has been a long meeting, this is substantive and encouraging and so hopeful. i just want to say if these research associates would like a letter of recommendation, i am happy to create one to help them on their journey and in their career opportunities. i think to the lawmakers and the city and county of san francisco, this is fabulous. i want to thank you but also all of our research associates. they should be proud of their work, as you should be, mr. goebel. we don't need to take action on this today, but i want to speak on behalf of the whole committee and the research associates. this is very hopeful. and i think in this time of thinking outside the box this is exciting. >> clerk: item 7 is the executive officer's report. >> there is one main item i wanted to share with you. i'm in the process of developing a racial equity plan for san francisco. because we are not a city agency, we don't fall in the oversight of the office of racial equity, but i recommend that lasco work with the city to develop a guide book. it will start with an assessment of the current conditions. i serve as the sole consultant to the commission, but i help to bring on consultants. i help to identify where we can improve and bring greater diversity to the team. i am educating myself on anti-racism and i know it has to be continuous and to take anti-racism training and developing policies in the research work that address structural and institutional raci racism. we recommend policies that seek to correct past and present injustices. in the work that we've commissioned in the on-demand sector, we have the opportunity to recommend equity and a living wage for those of color, immigrant communities, and others struggling to make ends meet. i studied the plan and hope to bring you a plan later this year or perhaps early in 2021. i'm doing this within current staff and budget capacity and working with the clerk of the board's office since we function under their umbrella. of course i would welcome all the feedback that you have as we develop this policy. the other item is there is an update in your packets and the spending is on target. >> thank you very much, mr. goebel. i want to say in all of the work that you've done, there has been an equity lens and i think this has bettered the work of the organization much more equitable. thank you very much for bringing these issues forward and taking it upon yourself to have a plan that is bringing it to our attention that we were lacking. thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, madam clerk, can you open this up for public comment. >> clerk: we will be alerted if any callers are ready. is there anyone on the line? >> operator: yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, eric brooks. in the meeting with the executive member, we identified that it will definitely become necessary for more funds -- >> excuse me, excuse me. we are not at public comment yet. we are on public comment on the executive offices error report. we are going to be calling public comment next. do you have any public comment about the report? >> what i was -- yes, what i was saying is we need you to focus on finding funding solutions under clean power sf. we need you as commissioners to help identify funding sources for more contract work to develop a clean power s.f. clean energy renewal plan. >> clerk: does that complete the queue? >> yes, that completes the queue. >> public comment on item 7 is now closed. madam clerk, can you please call for public comment item 8. >> clerk: for the record, there was no action taken on item 8. mr. coo, can you please let us know if there are any callers. if you haven't already done so, please press star three or wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. is there anyone in line? >> operator: yes, there is one caller in the queue. >> i think it's going to be important to have a hearing on. the planning staff has been working on preparing legislation for you as board supervisors that would give the planning department the power to waive environmental review for almost any developer project. it would basically eliminate the environmental quality act in san francisco. this is the most serious attack i have ever seen coming from planning and i just want to call attention to you, specifically to you, chair, because we did just speak about this on this week. pleased -- please do talk to your staff about this and we're going to be reaching out to other supervisors about this as well. it might be helpful to have a hearing about this so we're having a good discussion about the environmental quality act and how it needs to be implemented properly in san francisco. thank you. >> does that complete the queue? >> yes. >> public comment is now closed. mr. brooks, duly noted. i will speak to my staff. madam clerk, do we have any business? >> clerk: that completes the business today. >> thank you to my colleagues and madam clerk and mr. coo for assisting us today and all the public speakers and mr. goebel and our research assistants. thank you very much. i hope so see you. thank you and we are adjourned. [♪] >> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning >> after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach out to and i signed up for the below-market rate program. i got my certificate and started applying and won the housing lottery. [♪] >> the current lottery program began in 2016. but there have been lot rows that have happened for affordable housing in the city for much longer than that. it was -- there was no standard practice. for non-profit organizations that were providing affordable housing with low in the city, they all did their lotteries on their own. private developers that include in their buildings affordable units, those are the city we've been monitoring for some time since 1992. we did it with something like this. where people were given circus tickets. we game into 291st century in 2016 and started doing electronic lotteries. at the same time, we started electronic applications systems. called dalia. the lottery is completely free. you can apply two ways. you can submit a paper application, which you can download from the listing itself. if you a plo apply online, it wl take five minutes. you can make it easier creating an account. to get to dalia, you log on to housing.sfgov.org. >> i have lived in san francisco for almost 42 years. i was born here in the hayes valley. >> i applied for the san francisco affordable housing lottery three times. >> since 2016, we've had about 265 electronic lotteries and almost 2,000 people have got their home through the lottery system. if you go into the listing, you can actually just press lottery results and you put in your lottery number and it will tell you exactly how you ranked. >> for some people, signing up for it was going to be a challenge. there is a digital divide here and especially when you are trying to help low and very low income people. so we began providing digital assistance for folks to go in and get help. >> along with the income and the residency requirements, we also required someone who is trying to buy the home to be a first time home buyer and there's also an educational component that consists of an orientation that they need to attend, a first-time home buyer workshop and a one-on-one counseling session with the housing councilor. >> sometimes we have to go through 10 applicants before they shouldn't be discouraged if they have a low lottery number. they still might get a value for an available, affordable housing unit. >> we have a variety of lottery programs. the four that you will most often see are what we call c.o.p., the certificate of preference program, the dthp which is the displaced penance housing preference program. the neighborhood resident housing program and the live worth preference. >> i moved in my new home february 25th and 2019. the neighborhood preference program really helped me achieve that goal and that dream was with eventually wind up staying in san francisco. >> the next steps, after finding out how well you did in the lottery and especially if you ranked really well you will be contacted by the leasing agent. you have to submit those document and income and asset qualify and you have to pass the credit and rental screening and the background and when you qualify for the unit, you can chose the unit and hopefully sign that lease. all city sponsored affordable housing comes through the system and has an electronic lottery. every week there's a listing on dalia. something that people can apply for. >> it's a bit hard to predict how long it will take for someone to be able to move into a unit. let's say the lottery has happened. several factors go into that and mainly how many units are in the project, right. and how well you ranked and what preference bucket you were in. >> this particular building was brand new and really this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. in my mind, i was like how am i going to win this? i did and when you get that notice that you won, it's like at first, it's surreal and you don't believe it and it sinks in, yeah, it happened. >> some of our buildings are pretty spectacular. they have key less entry now. they have a court yard where they play movies during the weekends, they have another master kitchen and space where people can throw parties. >> mayor breed has a plan for over 10,000 new units between now and 2025. we will start construction on about 2,000 new units just in 2020. >> we also have a very big portfolio like over 25,000 units across the city. and life happens to people. people move. so we have a very large number of rerentals and resales of units every year. >> best thing about working for the affordable housing program is that we know that we're making a difference and we actually see that difference on a day-to-day basis. >> being back in the neighborhood i grew up in, it's a wonderful experience. >> it's a long process to get through. well worth it when you get to the other side. i could not be happier. [♪]

Related Keywords

San Gabriel Valley , California , United States , Burlington , Vermont , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia , Fresno , Colorado , Austria , Bay View , Spain , France , Saint Gabriel , Basse Normandie , San Francisco , Americans , Spanish , Melissa Hoover , Michael Hines , Sandra Lee , Gordon Mar , Zan Suzanne , Jenny Whitson , Ryan Powell , Brian Goebel ,