Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 3, 2018 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
us to sign a multiyear contract and prevent us from having to approve a contract amendment every year. and so an affirmative vote on this item would allow us to begin that r.f.p. process. and mr. gibner is here if you have any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. commissioners, any questions, comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that want to comment on this? mr. brooks. >> hello again, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. and our city of san francisco and the green party. so i've been coming to lafco hearings for 12 years now, mostly about cleanpowersf. and i would urge you -- we had
12:01 pm
over those times, especially -- and i will say thankfully the sfpuc is no longer oppositional to us and they're helping us now. there were times when the sfpuc was definitely oppositional to cleanpowersf back in the day. when we had that problem we also had the problem that the legal representation was not helpful and was taking the side of the sfpuc. and part of that was who knows what the reason for that is but a big part was that the legal representation was not connected to san francisco, it was actually in sacramento and had to travel here, it was not consistent, it did not do effective work. now i realize that the way they've shifted their operations, the legal representation now has some local attorneys. that's a step forward. but i'm glad that you're doing an r.f.p. because what we need is a law firm for lafco that
12:02 pm
is very community oriented. that is going to support community values and community goals. that's what we need from a law firm. i urge you just to do an r.f.p. and make part of the selection process -- does this law firm support the community values that lafco is going to make its central purpose? and, if not, even if another firm is a little more expensive or something like that, we need one that is going to stand up for cleanpowersf in a public bank and affordable housing and help the homeless. and i just didn't see that happen in the past 12 years. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, comment is now closed. i'd like to say thank you very much to mr. gibner for being here with us today. commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you very much, thank you, mr. goebel for your presentation and mr. gibner for being here
12:03 pm
today. you know, i think that just having some longevity on this body, i just want to echo what mr. brooks said which is that nancy miller, our prior counsel, was not a resource to us. we paid a lot of money to their law firm and, you know, contrasted miss stricter is responsive and local and has been so valuable over the last year as our commission has changed. but miss miller was our representative for many years from that same law firm. and i found it very difficult to reach her. i wasn't -- my emails weren't responded to. and i was unsure whether she was representing lafco, the body that was paying our bills, and, you know, whether or not she had a conflict of interest with the city and county of san francisco. so that is something that is -- is troublesome.
12:04 pm
and so while we have miss stricter who has been quite, you know, wonderful and just a delight to work with, i think that it really does matter who our, you know, who our dedicated counsel is from that law firm. so i think that is something that we should take into consideration. i agree with mr. gibner that an r.f.p. is something that we would to do. and revisiting this every year and extending it, even with a new scope of work, i think that it is burdensome for the commission. but i -- but i do think that we should have the same ability to terminate the agreement at any time the same with our current contract. you know, this was something that we put on hold as the commission went, you know, for lack of a better term, a little bit quiet with the change in our
12:05 pm
executive officer services. but i would put forth that we do begin this r.f.p. as soon as possible and i thank miss stricter for her help on this and possibly perhaps they are, you know, -- the person or the group that we choose, but, you know, with the understanding that there have been some issues in the past. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other comments? do we have a motion to issue a request for proposals for lafco legal services? great, thank you very much. so without objection the motion passes. madam clerk, call item number 5. >> item number 5 is authorization to amend the legal services agreement with renne public law group l.l.p. to
12:06 pm
extend the term to june 30, 2019. >> supervisor fewer: would you like to present on this item? >> yes, so now we -- now we have an item for your approval and extending the contract with the renne public law group which has been providing legal services and the current contract for legal services actually expires tomorrow, june 30th, 2018. so the attached amendment and the amendment and the contract that i have attached will continue the services through june 30, 2019 or whenever the r.f.p. process is complete. and teresa is here if you have any questions along with john
12:07 pm
gibner. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, and so teresa stricter will need to remove herself but before then are there any questions at this point? seeing none, mr. claire, if you don't mind, and thank you again to the city attorney john gibner for being here to advise. any members of the public that wish to comment on this? seeing none, public comment is now closed. and any questions or discussion among the colleagues? seeing none -- >> actually, sorry, one question. though we're issuing an r.f.p. because that will take some time we're extending this. sorry, wanted to clarify. >> supervisor fewer: and extending our agreement with renne public law group l.l.p. >> so moved. >> supervisor fewer: okay thank you very much. and that was -- that motion passes. thank you. madam clerk, call item number 6. >> item number 6 is krrgdz of a proposed executive officer work
12:08 pm
plan for fiscal year 2018-2019. regarding advanced cleanpowersf and lead a labor study on emerging mobility services and watchdog efforts to establish a public bank in san francisco, and watchdog efforts to establish a public fiber network in san francisco. and elevate the work of lafco issues and identifying funding opportunities and identify opportunities for special studies. manage and complete the r.f.p. process for lafco legal services. and a commission staff and development. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to appreciate mr. goebel for taking the initiative to have an extensive and comprehensive work time to discuss this today and i'm thrilled in a very short period of time that you're demonstrating the leadership to move forward with lafco. with that i turn it over to mr. goebel for his presentation. >> thank you very much, madam chair and commissioners. i'm super excited to present the proposed executive office work plan today.
12:09 pm
i have had an opportunity to meet with a lot of folks and have received a lot of feedback about what the priorities for s.f. lafco should be in the coming years. and my work plan was drafted after reviewing a number of issues that the commission has expressed interest in. and i have also included for the viewing public an outline of the work plan and the objective -- my first objective is, of course, to advance cleanpowersf. san francisco's community choice aggregation program. which has been lafco's focus for the past decade. and the commission was very instrumental in getting cleanpowersf on the ground, off the ground, and will continue its role as watchdog as the program expands and as
12:10 pm
cleanpowersf develops a larger portfolio of renewable energy sources and implements its 2017 growth plan. so i have met with the p.u.c. and it's my second month on the job so i'm still very much trying to define my duties as it relates to watchdog in cleanpowersf. but we're mandated as you know to provide fee feedback and to advise the board of supervisors on all aspects of cleanpowersf's development, operation and management. so this to me is the number one priority for the executive officer work plan. objective number two is lead a labor study on emerging mobility services. the san francisco county of transportation authority issued a report recently called
12:11 pm
"emerging moblght evaluation report." and really trying to get a handle on companies like uber and all of the emerging mobility services that are coming on the scene in san francisco. it's an excellent report that will be approved by the t.a. in the next couple weeks. in that report they identified a number of research opportunities, gaps where the staff have not yet determined how emerging moblght service --y services align with the city's guiding principles. so it will look at emerging mobility services to get a handle on the demographics of the gig economy workforce that's out there. and also investigate how many contractors are working in this sector, which cities they
12:12 pm
reside, and what their commute patterns are. so i plan to work closely with your feedback with the san francisco county transportation authority to really develop the scope of the study, and the outreach, and the timeline, and determine whether new funding is required. >> can i ask you a couple questions about this. first of all, i'm excited about this new topic area. i think that it's an issue that's very relevant, current and complicated. while there is work happening through the t.a. and through the m.t.a., i think we can bring a unique perspective. i think that there's been some gaps in the city's work. so, first, let me address the gaps. and one of the gaps that my colleague commissioner sandra lee fewer has been working on is taxi drivers and the fact that the industry has been decimated
12:13 pm
by the t.n.z.s and the fact that many working-class cabdrivers who saved up their entire lives to purchase a medallion and right when they were able to do so and put their life savings into it, hoping that that would give them a secure retirement and profession for the rest of their lives really had the rug, you know, pulled from under them. and are in dire straits right now. and as a matter of fact these drivers come almost every week to the board of supervisors meeting to testify about the desperate situation that they're in and despite supervisor, commissioner fewer's attempts to go to the m.t.a. board an and, u know, to find a resolution so far there's not been one. so if we could add -- because it's absolutely related to this
12:14 pm
topic -- to your work plan an examination of how we can do right by these workers and how we can mitigate the impact that this industry has had on them personally, how we can get them some restitution for these, you know, medallions whose worth in value has declined so extremely, is something that is a huge interest to me. and i know that it's an interest to supervisor fewer who has taken the lead at the board of supervisors on this. but there's just an absence of will and an absence of priority around this issue. so to the extent that you could take a look at that i think that would be helpful. i hope that sort of the direction is clear enough. if not, please let me know. >> supervisor fewer: actually we're voting on something in item number 7 that i think that
12:15 pm
we can actually expand on, the clarity at that time. which is absolutely in alinement with what -- alignment with what you're saying. >> can i make one more comment about this. and then the second thing is i don't think that we're that far away from autonomous vehicles being the norm of transportati transportation, individual cars and for t.m.z.s and so starting to get ahead of what that does to the workforce and how, you know, whatever, you know, what we're able to do in a short term in terms of improving worker rights in this industry, that that will be -- i think that would be very short term because i think we're headed in the direction where there won't be anymore workers driving these cars. and so however that sort of intersects with this work area i think would be important as well. >> supervisor fewer: great,
12:16 pm
thank you very much. commissioner singh. >> supervisor singh: yeah, i just want to echo what commissioner ronen said and another thing is that i have been paying particular attention to is sort of the erosion of public transit by the public sector. so i'm really interested in what is going on with uber and with traditional taxi drivers. and one thing that i wanted to bring up is that the gig economy is being used for scooter services. so it seems to me that, you know, the gig economy and the treatment of these workers and their conditions is also playing a role in potentially -- i don't want to say threatening but it is -- it is a big part of private intrusiveness or private forays into the world of public transit and san francisco being a breeding ground for that. so it's not just taxis but it's scooters now.
12:17 pm
>> supervisor fewer: thank you. commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you very much. and commissioner singh took the words out of my mouth. i definitely wanted to make sure in in addition to t.m.z.s that we're looking at all moblght services whether it's scooters or bicycles and just in terms of i think a unique position that lafco is in is like our work with sfpuc that as well as sfmta are separate from the board of supervisors in the way that they work and so to be able to bring a unique lens and advise their work and complement it and looping in the board of supervisors. i think these are the reasons why lafco is so uniquely positioned.
12:18 pm
it is something that we're offering some focus and clarity that we'd like to see flushed out in the special study. i will go back also o on the wok plan on objective number one, to see you bring forth the special study that was requested on community choice, 2.0. that that be something that you look at concurrent with the mobility services. that is something that the commission has already approved. i don't know what your bandwidth is on that but i'd like to see that added into the work plan. >> i'd be happy to do that, commissioner. >> supervisor fewer: why don't we allow mr. goebel to go through all of his points first and then we can comment on them. so we don't lose track of your presentation. so we have done two. [laughter] and i also have comments about the first one
12:19 pm
too, so this is great. so, mr. goebel. >> and i point out that item 7, we need your separate authorization on that and warren logan, the senior transportation planner at the transportation authority is here in case i can't answer all of your questions. those are really the two priorities that i foresee in the coming year is advancing cleanpowersf and leading this study. but i know that the commission has an interest in efforts to establish a public bank and establish municipal fiber in san francisco. so objective three is to continue to monitor the work of the municipal bank feasibility task force and they are expected to release their findings some time in fall. so my proposal is to continue to work with the city treasurer's office to explore opportunities where we can, and analyze the task force report when it's
12:20 pm
released, and come back to you with important developments. and very similarly on municipal fiber, in speaking with the department of technology and advocates, i have been trying to explore what lafco can do and one opportunity that emerged is for lafco to lead a study how a public fiber service rollout would occur when underserved neighborhoods are prioritized. there was a blue panel on municipal fiber that looked briefly at this issue and the study would use an equity lens to come up with recommendations to be put to use by the winning bidder. what i propose is that i spend the next year working with the department of technology and the advocates to develop the scope for this study. and whether or not the -- what the department of technology is proceeding on right now remains unclear because as you know chair fewer, the funding is not there for a couple studies that
12:21 pm
they were proposing to do. so i'm not sure which direction that they're going to proceed on, but i would like to remain in touch with them and see how we can develop this study. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> on objective five, it's really to elevate the work of lafco and the issues that we plan on taking on in the next year. develop a communication and social media plan to promote and in some cases turn a critical lens on the issues that we study, promote cleanpowersf, and objective six is to provide support, of course, to the board of supervisors on lafco issues. and seven, manage and complete the r.f.p. process for lafco legal services. and also identify funding opportunities. while there's no specific pool of money available on the state
12:22 pm
oor the federal level for lafco we can apply for grants when we partner with city agencies. this is something that might happen in our labor study on emerging mobility services with the transportation authority. and also over the next year i'd like to spend some time identifying other special studies that we could take on in our next fiscal year. and objective 10, commission staff and development. i'll work closely with cal lafco to share best practices, strengthen and support cal lafco and lafcos across california. and i'd like to expand my knowledge skills when it comes to the city and climate change planning and attend classes on equity and intersectionallity so that i can deepen my knowledge skills around those areas. and that, commissioners, is my proposed executive officer work plan. >> supervisor fewer: okay. any more comments for mr. goebel
12:23 pm
or questions. commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you so much for this, and i think that having a clear, guiding document helps us, you know, as commissioners to talk about the work that we're doing on lafco. and, you know, it certainly helps you in working with other -- with the agencies to talk about the work that we're doing. i wanted to ask specifically on objective 10, is in the current budget does this include funding for the commission to pay for these types of classes and skills enhancement for you? >> i think that there might be a little wiggle room in the budget for these, yeah, um-hmm. >> vice chair pollock: great. i wanted to offer the suggestion that if things come up that were not budgeted for that you bring it forward to the commission so that we could take a look at those and approve those for you.
12:24 pm
>> absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. i think that there may also be, if there's cal lafco meetings that you may want to attend with other lafcos, if they have those convening but i think that it would be important for you to represent our lafco there and to learn from them too. so i think that those kind of items we can budget for and we'd like you to bring them forward to us as you identify those opportunities. i have a comment about the first objective. i just want to say that i think that we have some -- we have a new commissioner on board and also there are varying levels of knowledge about cleanpowersf. and i think that singt caknows a lot and hillary knows some and shanti just came on and so i think that there's a need for us to all get on the same page. i'd like for you -- i mean to propose in your plan that you maybe have a study session with us just to get us all onboard so we're all on equal footing.
12:25 pm
because anything that sfuc or cleanpower wants to bring forward it has to come before a board of supervisor approval also. so having said that i'm looking to probably for you to have a little bit more oversight over the c.c.a. process. so we have downloaded information but i feel that we should also be -- having sort of a critique. i think that it is our body as an oversight body also to work with the same goal, but through the lens of the city and county of san francisco and the board of supervisors too so that we can have a voice in sort of how it's being rolled out or if we have a critique or a suggestion or a recommendation that i think that -- so we normally, i mean, cynthia has been been the most knowledgeable and very vocal so she has recommendations. i think that as a committee for
12:26 pm
us to all bring forward because we're hearing they're having the biggest rollout and we think this is going to be that we need to actually have a firm footing as a lafco and helping to set direction and also some guidance along the way. and to be able to critique. and then you're our voice and communicator between the two. so it would mean that you would have to, you know, thoroughly understand, of course, what's going on and have more of an oversight so you're able to tell us that we're as a body able to critically look at how the rollout is going and to give these sort of suggestions as a body. and then, let's see... i think -- yeah, i think that is it. so any questions about that or is that clear? >> i think that is clear. and, you know, i so far have had one meeting with the p.u.c. but i think that i need to meet with them more and i need to sort of establish what the -- what the
12:27 pm
level of transparency is with the p.u.c. because right now i have to say that after two months on the job i'm still getting a handle on that. and i have gone back and reviewed the language in the original m.o.u. and i reviewed the ordinance that mandates lafco oversees and for feedback on cleanpowersf and i feel that language is outdated, frankly. and it's something that we'll need to revisit, to clearer define what lafco's role is in the oversight of cleanpowersf. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. are you referring to the 2008 m.o.u., yes, and it does state that the m.o.u. calls on san francisco lafco to advise the searcsfpuc and the board of supervisors on all aspects of cleanpowersf's development and operation and management. i believe that commissioner pollock has a comment. >> vice chair pollock: thank you so much. this is helpful i think.
12:28 pm
perhaps in the future that we would like to revisit the language on the m.o.u. though it looks like we probably in doing a special study might exhaust the funds in that m.o.u. in the next one or two fiscal years. but i just want to clarify lafco's unique role in this is because of the way that the city and the county have set up the board of supervisors, and it does not have oversight on the sfpuc. and it's the sfpuc's commission that provides it. the only way that the board of supervisors is going to be able to do -- to weigh in would be by resolution or by a budgetary line item. and then approving the budget. so i think that it's important when you prepare information for lafco that those commissioners that also serve on the board of
12:29 pm
supervisors could take a memo from lafco to their other supervisors. that might be a helpful way to bridge the gap and, you know, and maintaining the independence and the differing roles that lafco has from the board of supervisors. but also providing a document and some clarity that, you know, chair fewer and commissioner ronen can take to the board of supervisors and then say, you know, because of the work that we have done here on lafco we'd like to bring this forward as an item of discussion on the board. that would be helpful. just sort of to have a second step that you could help to prepare a document. >> supervisor fewer: right. and to complement also the work of what cleanpowersf is doing too to work in conjunction with the city partners. thank you. and any other comments or questions for mr. goebel? thank you for this. and this is open up for public comment now.
12:30 pm
okay. our friends from the public, hi, bruce, come on up. >> speaking under a different organization, public net san francisco coalition and the ash bury neighborhood council. and we welcome mr. goebel to lafco. and we very welcome him and we had the opportunity to speak on a few items. i want to speak about the fiber, municipal fiber. as you know this is kind of been now almost dead right now. and so i would urge you to continue this. this is something that our group has been working on for 12 years since the earth link wifi debacle. and so one of the main things that's important to make this move forward is the dig once ordinance. that ordinance was introduced to be a mandate and at the 11th hour it was turned into
12:31 pm
something voluntary. in order to be able to get more correspond wit and more empty pipe in the ground, dedicated for fiber or dedicated for anything else, it could be for electric if we wanted to. that was suggested by the then supervisor zambiano and daly at the time, that "dig once" is really important. anytime that the city digs up or any contractor digs up the ground as we have seen with the sewer renovation projects, we could have had fiber in so many neighborhoods. this isn't just about the underserved neighborhoods because if for some reason something happens at the board of supervisors and that doesn't happen, then we don't have anything. so we have to start at the top. we have to start with the big huge project. this is a utility, like any other utility that we have to deal with. and it is going to be expensive. but the longer we wait the more expensive it gets. this is something that we feel,
12:32 pm
everybody feels that we absolutely need. this is the way of our world now. so i would urge you to expand the subjective. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, bruce. >> all right, i'm with public net and with san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. first to reiterate what bruce said. and i would even go farther in saying that now the public broadband is not happening from the mayor's office. and the fact that this -- that lafco took the lead on this 12 years ago and it has been leading on it ever since. this is now in your court. lafco can take this on and make it happen and make it a real public broadband system that's good. so the work plan is really exciting. it's good to see a good proactive executive officer in here that's planning to help you to make lafco to put lafco
12:33 pm
back on the map and make it a driver of city policy again. that's excellent. and i want to give a thumbs up to the request about inclusion and intersectionallity. i think that even if that costs us some money that is the focus of everything that we're working on right now, sectionallity. so we need bryan to get that training. on cleanpowersf there's two things that we need you as a commission to do on cleanpowersf. remember that the bill that created the choice put the board of supervisors in charge as the body in charge of cleanpowersf. so though it's an enterprise agency the board is in charge and can pass ordinances and has done so. we need you to get the board of supervisors, not sfpuc, to do a sydney, australia, style buildout plan for clean energy. and the other thing that we need you to do is that on these bills
12:34 pm
that we have been fighting in sacrament, cal c.c.a. has not been good, they've been neutral in support of ab813. and we need lafco and the board of supervisors to put pressure on and to direct the sfpuc as its membership of cal c.c.a. to oppose these. >> supervisor fewer: seeing none, public comment is now closed. so, commissioners, can we have a motion to adopt the work plan of our executive officer? >> so moved. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> seconded. >> supervisor fewer: great. without objection we can take that action. thank you. and madam clerk, call item number 7. >> item number 7 is the authorization for executive officer to conduct a study on emerging mobility services and the effect on labor partnering with the san francisco county transportation authority. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so, mr. goebel, i thank you. >> thank you, madam chair and i
12:35 pm
presented in my work plan, this item would authorize me to begin the study as i mentioned and mr. warren logan, the senior planner at the transportation authority is here as well in case you have questions. i know that you wanted to add taxi services to this. >> through the chair, just to clarify, there's a specific goal i have in mind so it's not just taxi services in general. i want to figure out how to address the -- the workers, the tax taxi drivers, that purchased medallions right before they declined dramatically in value and are now in a crisis in their lives and with their families. >> supervisor fewer: i think that how it might relate to this is how this emerging mobility
12:36 pm
labor force -- just the whole company sort of what they're doing -- is really affecting the labor force here in san francisco in particular those people that are also providing these kind of transportation services. how is it affecting these taxi drivers? i mean, we know sort of anecdotally that they come to our board meeting every tuesday and they lament how they are just barely making it and they can't make it. on top of that they have bought these medallionses for $250,000 for the m.t.a. and so not only -- they said at the time that they thought that it might have been good to buy it because there was a taxi business that was very viable here in san francisco. so i think that how this relates is how these emerging technologies have actually affected our own workforce here. a workforce that actually reflects the values of san franciscoians unionizing.
12:37 pm
and to go to commissioner singh's comment also how it's affecting the labor force of public transportation. so our drivers, those -- that we had actually a stable workforce here before these emerging technologies came in. so i think that it is a partnership about -- also talking about the scooters and about all of these emerging mobilities and how it's really affected the labor force that it has displaced in a way. with maybe to back up with some data. is that making it clear, commissioner ronen, that we can tackle the next issue about? >> supervisor ronen: i think that you articulated that perfectly and the only thing that i would add is that in the overall analysis if you could start to take a look at possible solutions to the impact on that
12:38 pm
workforce, that would be fantastic. >> i have been reading, for example, that uber in new york city was required to pay a hardship fee to taxi drivers in that city. so one of the things that we'll do is examine best practices in other cities. before i continue though i want to invite mr. logan from the transportation authority. >> supervisor fewer: hi, mr. logan. >> to share what their vision was for this particular research. >> supervisor fewer: sure. >> hi, commissioners. my name is warren logan. i'm a senior transportation planner at the san francisco county of transportation authority. soon enough our separate commission which is also the board of supervisors, will be hearing our final report, excuse me -- our final report for emerging mobility evaluation and i'm excited to present that to you soon. our vision is to partner with bryan and we're very excited to hear the enthusiasm for understanding the gaps around labor. primarily our focus was on how these different services were impacting congestion.
12:39 pm
so we recognize, however, that during our initial scope of our guiding principles for emerging mobility, that several of the commissioners encouraged us to include labor. and so, obviously, we're super enthusiastic to partner with you on this and i want to herald this effort. but i hear you loud and clear not only understanding how this is impacting the folks in that gig economy, but also how they're impacting other labor forces in the city. my understanding though is that to your point, commissioner ronen, the sfu is documenting the impact for taxi drivers so i'm happy to encourage them to provide more information about that study. i don't know when it's planning to be reported out but i'll connect about that. >> supervisor ronen: that is great but i don't see solutions and action and that's -- >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. >> supervisor ronen: that's the piece that i'm asking mr. goebel to focus on.
12:40 pm
>> supervisor fewer: and during the budget committee i would say that the airport is saying now that there's 800,000 single rides, i mean, to the airport on a monthly basis. therefore, increasing the workforce that pulls the police department services, and pulls to the airport now because of the added enforcement that is needed. so we're looking at it on a lot of different perspectives on real true costs of these gig economies in san francisco. thank you very much. any other questions for mr. logan, commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: just a quick question. when you look at the labor piece specifically, is it a focus at all that we look at labor practices of companies that receive either contractual or public land designations, like i'm thinking of curbs or
12:41 pm
right-of-way in turns of the use of the roadways. i know that the city and the county has set up when you sign a contract with the city that you have to have certain labor practices. you have to have certain, you know, benefits for employees and that sort of thing. i don't know if partnering for curb space or, you know, bike racks and that sort of thing is also a contractual obligation in terms of labor practices? is that a sort of gap that's also been identified? i don't understand the labor sort of piece in terms of contracting for those things. >> that's a great question. i think that one of the mechimisms that we have in the city to sort of push our goals and agenda for good labor practices is, in fact, through the permitting system that operates through the public works department. and so one of the things that i have been doing with our team is
12:42 pm
to work out how to harmonize the different permits that we operate here in the city, for standing scooters and electric mobeds and bike sharing etc. and you will see this coming up with the standing scooters the way that we're pushing our labor practices and our 10 vetting principles for emerging mobility. they're excited. so our different permitting systems. i'll get ahead of this too is that we have been working with the m.t.a. again to harmonize all of those structures to address the gaps that we're identifying. so we'll see it through the new permits and circling back to the old as well. does that answer your question? >> vice chair pollock: i think that it does. so you're saying that it's a permitting process rather than a contracting process? >> that's my understanding is that would be the contract with this company. so if they have any business with the city that's one way to enforce it. and, on the other hand if we wanted to conduct a pilot with any one of these companies that doesn't necessarily have a permit with us and that's another way to, you know, increase that viability there.
12:43 pm
so an example in our research and in our payment section would say, you know, let's seek out partnerships with companies that are good actors in these other ways. so if we did a pilot in the bayview which is something that we managed a while ago, can we not find a partner that has good labor practices and has union employees, for example. that could be a contingency that we add into those partnership requirements. >> supervisor fewer: i think this is something that actually mr. goebel can actually present on next time. yeah, actually, because i think -- yeah. >> vice chair pollock: thank you so much, that answers my question. >> supervisor fewer: so the questions are open for public comment. any members of the public, please come forward and you have two minutes. >> hello, brenda lynch and i wasn't here for this but i would like to respectfully suggest that lafco include not only sorely needed data analysis and recommendations for the board of
12:44 pm
supervisors, but also suggestions for positions that both the city attorney and the board can take to the city of san francisco's position at the state p.u.c. and other state agencies. as we know the state p.u.c. has circumscribed the city's ability to really deal with this problem, but there will be a new change and transitions at the. u.c. so perhaps with good data analysis and actions by this board and the recommendations, for instance, what the city's attorney should be at the state p.u.c. and other health and other agencies you could get a broader impact within the next year. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, thank you for joining us. yes, mr. brooks. >> yes, hello again, eric brooks. this time speaking on behalf of our city of san francisco and the san francisco green party. first, i would reiterate everything that miss lynch just said, and getting our input on the state level is crucial.
12:45 pm
we can't just let the cpuc doing thdoits own thing on this and we have to push the way that sfpuc pushes them on clean energy. this is one of the things that i work on. and i have been meeting with taxi drivers. and there are a lot of things that we might be able to do that should be included in this study. one of the problems that we face is out-of-town drivers. well, i believe that you may be able to put a fee out to-of-town drivers to make it so expensive for them to do that that they stop coming in. because that's one of the main problems. and another problem is the situation of uber being kind of the middle person or the middle entity on this, and collecting profits for now good reason. one thing that's new that should be included in this study is electronic currencies. we're moving away from credit cards and cash to electronic currencies on phones and things
12:46 pm
like that. and some of the new electronic currencies that are emerging could literally be created as local currency in san francisco for transportation. and there's something called a smart contract that can be built in through computer code and into these currencies so that you could do things like require the drivers to be local, require them to get paid a certain amount of money. things like that. and so that it would favor the taxi drivers. and another thing that the city should definitely look at and i don't know why we haven't done this yet is to make all of the drivers, city employees with city benefits, so that they fall under the city. and that's another way to get them out from under these rapacious companies like uber and lyft. and with respect if the m.t.a. was going to... >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks. mr. wolf?
12:47 pm
>> thank you, bruce wolf speaking for myself just on this particular issue and i think that the problem that started with all of this was that uber and lyft and the others went to the state. i think that it would be good if maybe you think about drafting some legislation to push at the state level to bring it back to local control. so i would urge you to do that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and any other people of the public that would like to see some public comment is now closed. i believe that we don't need to take an action on this item. is that correct, mr. clerk? >> i defer to miss stricter on this. >> yes, i understand that the executive officer is looking for direction to proceed with the study and so i think that a motion to allow him to proceed would be appropriate. >> supervisor fewer: all right. is there a motion to authorization our executive officer to do this study on
12:48 pm
emerging services and partnering with the transportation authority. so moved. great. seconded by commissioner ronen and we can take that without objection. thank you, that motion is passed. thank you. madam clerk, please read item number 8. >> item number 8 is an update on the state legislation and the california assembly bill 813. >> supervisor fewer: i know this is very complicated and so as simply as possible, thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. the item that i'd like to call your attention to is assembly bill 813 by chris holden. i wanted to prepare a staff memo for you on this but, frankly, it is a complex issue and a complex piece of legislation. but i'll do my best to describe it to you in a nutshell. the legislation by definition would begin the process of creating a western regional transmission system and it's not
12:49 pm
the first time that it was proposed. they tried to get it passed in the 11th hour in san francisco and it's been on the radar for the past several years. on its face regionalization sounds like a good idea and supporters view it as a great way to expand renewal energy across the west. for example, instead of drawing energy from our fossil fuel plants when california is at its peak use, we could, say, tap into wind energy from other states. california could sell off instead of turning off solar farms when we have more supply than demand. and it would be a great way supporters argue to help california to meet its climate and clean energy goals. however, opponents of the bill, and the list is long, have pointed out a number of risks. many see it as a threat to consumers because there's little
12:50 pm
protection from rate increases. a threat to solar power jobs and disadvantaged communities. a threat to c.c.a. programs because it could increase the transz missiotransmission costst to our climate and energy goals because it could open the door to more coal energy in california increasing greenhouse gas emissions. and another big worry about this legislation is that it would take away direct oversight of our grid from california and instead transfer it to a committee where other western states would have the biggest say and which would be directly controlled by the federal energy regulatory commission under the trump administration. our current governance structure is under the california independent system operator which has a board appointed by the governor with confirmation by the state senate. after the energy crisis in the 90s, california had to actually fight in court to retain the power that it has now
12:51 pm
over california's electricity grid. firc has jurisdiction, most definitely, but if this bill passes there is a threat that caiso, the independent system operator, could lose what control it has. a number of cities are opposed to this, including west hollywood. they've expressed concern that the legislation would eliminate the ability of cities to maintain governance and procurement decisions related to c.c.a. programs and the city of west hollywood is on record against it. commissioners, the opponents of this legislation i think make very compelling arguments and nothing that i have seen from the supporters have convinced me otherwise. based on my review i'm recommending that sf lafco direct me as the executive officer to write a letter to the legislature opposing a.b.813. >> supervisor fewer: any
12:52 pm
questions for mr. goebel. yes, commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: i just thank you so much for the concise description of the legislation because i know that it is quite complicated. i will be in support of this letter opposing a.b.813. i would be interested in having -- having you also prepare a memo from lafco to the board of supervisors to see if that is a position that the city and county would like to take as well. and then to report back to lafco any feedback that you received from the representatives of san francisco's state legislature. so people representing the city residents to report back to us what, if any, action they took on this legislation.
12:53 pm
>> i'd be happy to, commissioner. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. yes, commissioner singh. >> supervisor singh: i think that cynthia stole my idea, now we're even. no, i'm wondering if there's any action on this? >> i don't think that there's been an official position on it. i have been in touch with their offices and i'm not aware they have taken a position on it yet. and i have also been in touch with the officer of the state senator scott wiener but so far i'm not aware they have taken an official position. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other comments or questions? seeing none, open it up for public comment. any members of the public wish to speak on this? mr. brooks, come on up. >> eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. so i just want to thank the executive officer for that excellent report. it really hits the nail on the head. i don't think that you need many more reasons to oppose this
12:54 pm
legislation but i will bring up one other one. and this is much like pg&e that makes its money off of building a lot of unnecessary infrastructure and transmission lines and then charging customers for that stuff. brookshire hathaway that would be controlling this grid makes its money exactly the same way. so this is not just about coal or electricity that they sell, this is about giving a cash cow to warren buffet so that he can make money building powerlines that are unnecessary and cause forest fires. and so that's another reason to oppose this. and we might want to include that kind of thing in the letter. the main thing that we need you to expand on is to not just communicate to the board of supervisors, but communicate to the sfpuc. on a very narrow seven, yes, five abstention vote, this
12:55 pm
legislation that would devastate community choice clearly. i can't go into all of the shenanigans why i think that happened but it's not an appropriate result. one of the commissioners from one of the community choice programs has said that they're not sure that they made the right vote when they voted "yes" and they want this reconsidered. so the members of cal c.c.a. are crucial to this and the sfpuc has been neutral and not pushing. we need you to ask them to push for a "no" vote on this bill and on sfb27. and one note with regard to wiener, he has the same concerns that have been announced by some of the opponents but he did vote "yes yet just to move it forward and not necessarily because he supports it. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much, miss lynch. >> thank you for considering this. this is a key and critical change in california's energy policy. basically it's going to repeal
12:56 pm
two important energy crisis protections that we got in in 2001. one was that california appoints the board of directors that runs the grid and our electricity markets. and two was that it's a california public benefits corporation. both of those key protections will be repealed almost immediately. now the proponents say that it doesn't matter, we're under federal law and we'll be under federal law tomorrow. the difference is who enforces and interprets that federal law. and if we didn't think that it mattered who did that we wouldn't care that ryan zenke with the interior and scott pruitt is at e.p.a. because all they're doing is enforcing and interpreting federal law. and this would cede our power to the western states. think about who they are. they're coal states. they are economying dependent on not only using coal but producing coal. the only state that is not a coal state is washington. now we know that the trump administration is taking extraordinary measures to
12:57 pm
subsidize coal both at the ferc and at the courts and now with their emergency powers. california is almost coal free and we use 4% year and we'll be coal-free in 2025. right now is a critical transition point for energy in california and really in the country. because of improved technologies it's actually possible to be 100% renewable soon. so what we would do instead is to hitch our wagon to huge regional fossil-based infrastructure projects. the ratepayers can't pay for a local energy democracy with clean power and also huge fossil-based energy projects. there's not enough pennies on the dollar. it's a choice. and the choice is ours. and you hopefully will add your voice to the sierra club and the environmental california environmental association, all of labor, because 110,000 green jobs will drain from california because if they can they'll build it in the right-to-work states that have cheaper land,
12:58 pm
and renewable power. but right now they have to build it in california because we're a single state i.s.o. and i'm happy to answer questions and i'm sadly intimately familiar with the details of this bill. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you very much. i would just -- i think that i don't have any questions for you but i would just say that in directing staff on this letter that you work with miss lynch and other advocates to make a complete list of who should be c.c.ed on the letter so that is out there. and just work then perhaps in making this more public letter that we perhaps could, you could work with the chair to perhaps publish our letter as an op-ed. >> supervisor fewer: let's close public comment on this. public comment is now closed. i would like to also suggest to direct our executive officer to
12:59 pm
prepare a resolution before the board once we take a vote on this. and noting -- right, yeah. noting our motion to either oppose or to support, okay. so is there a motion on the table now to either oppose or support ab813. yes. is there a motion to support or oppose? >> move to oppose. >> supervisor fewer: seconded by commissioner ronen. and we can take that without objection. now i think that we should direct our executive officer to prepare a resolution to be put forth to the san francisco board of supervisors for adoption. thank you very much. and madam clerk, please call item number 9. >> item number 9 -- is the executive officer's report.
1:00 pm
>> supervisor fewer: is there anything that you would like to present? >> just briefly, because this item was continued at our last meeting. i just wanted to thank everyone here with city hall who has been so helpful in my coming onboard as the executive officer, and the staff of the board of the clerk of supervisors has just been amazing. so i'd like to thank angela calvillo and wilson ing, and chelsea boyvard and your office for just rolling out the carpet for me here. it's been an amazing time and i'm super excited to get started on the work plan. and i've had a chance to meet with many of the advocates who have had engagement with lafco now and over the years. but i look forward to sitting down with those advocates who haven't been involved in lafco and reaching out to them so that we can have even more members of the public show up here to engage with this body. >> supervisor fewer: this is