Packet Materials DATE: May 17, 2019 Item No. 4 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Agenda Packet Contents List Staff Report from Bryan Goebel, Executive Officer Preliminary Research & Recommendations Completed by: Alisa Somera Date: May 10, 2019 (This list reflects the explanatory documents provided.) San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 409 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Tel. 415.554.6756 Fax. 415.554.5163 COMMISSIONERS May 17, 2019 Sandra Lee Fewer, Chair TO: LAFCo Commissioners Board of Supervisors Cynthia Pollock, Vice-Chair FROM: Bryan Goebel, Executive Officer Member of the Public Matt Haney SUBJECT: Item 4 - Presentation by University of San Francisco Board of Supervisors Graduate Students on Research Findings for LAFCo’s Labor Study of Gordon Mar On-Demand Workers in San Francisco Board of Supervisors In January, the LAFCo partnered with the Urban and Public affairs program Shanti Singh Member of the Public- Alternate at the University of San Francisco to conduct research in conjunction with our labor study of emerging mobility services. Today I am pleased to announce that the students have completed their research and will present their findings to LAFCo Commissioners. Bryan Goebel Executive Officer Background Inder Khalsa Legal Counsel Professor Diana Negrin, PhD, developed a syllabus for 22 graduate Alisa Somera students that revolved around themes of growth, practices and the impact of Clerk urban mobility services and practices: Mark Bautista CleanPowerSF Intern The semester will roughly be separated into two units: the first will create a foundation for understanding the role of research and research methods Winston Parsons CleanPowerSF Intern grounded in pertinent questions of urban inequality and change, and in conversation with the semester’s theme of mobility services and on-demand labor. The second unit will be focused on conducting team research and producing a set of recommendations for LAFCO’s study. Finally, each student will be responsible for writing their own policy report based on their team research findings. Throughout the semester we will have opportunities to engage with guest speakers and attend activities in the field that are pertinent to the semester’s research themes. Though the class is focused on learning research methods and developing collaborative research pertaining to the mobility services, students will also be preparing to head into the field for their internship and capstone research project in the second year of the program. Thus we will weave preparation for the capstone and internship into the course. Through it all, our collective task will be to produce a mode of community-engagement that fits the larger vision of the Graduate Program in Urban and Public Affairs: to participate in shaping the Bay Area in positive and lasting ways. Student Learning Outcomes Through successful participation in this seminar, students will: • Critically analyze theories of community-engaged research methods, as evidenced by participation in class discussions and reflection papers; • Develop a working knowledge of basic urban research, including how to developable research questions, and how to utilize and expand upon existing resources, as evidenced by course assignments; • Develop a sense of community and ethics in conducting research, as evidenced by team data collection and collaboration with LAFCo; • Search, develop, analyze and document data, as evidenced by searching archives, policy websites, public records, special library databases, visualizing data through mapping and other tools, presenting analysis through oral and written formats; • Practice urban capstone research methods by undertaking the development of a report on a policy issue of local community concern, as evidenced by final policy memo and oral report. This is an information-only item. A copy of the students’ preliminary report and presentation is attached. Their final report will be posted for the public on the LAFCo website: https://sfgov.org/lafco/. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH & RECOMMENDATIONS ON EMERGING MOBILITY SERVICES AND LABOR University of San Francisco, Urban and Public Affairs - Research Methods Class Labor/Political Economy Findings Ben Peterson, Camila Mena, Grasielita Diaz, Josh Steinberger, Melissa Benik, Sergio Martinez, Zach James Methods ● Survey ○ Demographics, Income/Expenses, Work/Life Balance, Career, Health, Externalities ○ Distributed the survey through “Uber and Lyft San Francisco” facebook page ○ Outreach at several gas stations & driver meetup spaces ● Interviews Work/Life Balance “That’s the real heartbreak of the story - the loss of my children.” Career “B: What were the circumstances around your decision to start driving for Uber?” “K: Being a P.E. teacher, I had the summers off. So I thought I could do it on my time, my schedule. Um, just make some extra money.” Income/Expenses “Well at the moment it does Survey Response: (gas prices) affect when you’re *75% of drivers responded that they believe the rate of pay Uber/Lyft pumping and stuff. I pump provide is unfair, while only 14% frequently like once a day, believed they were earning fair wages every time I’m going to drive I * fill up, so it adds up. So let’s say it’s a random $120 on gas that I’ll spend on the weekend or something like that.” Health and Safety DATA “He got pissed off. He called me, you know, he said ‘fuck you, you piece of shit... and then like he grabbed my water bottle and threw it at my face.” Externalities “They are not taking a “normal capitalistic” responsibility for the overhead of their corporation. We are just pawns and numbers, and as long they keep us independent they don’t have any responsibility for us.” Recommendations for Research: ● Reach out to a wider set of organizations, continue outreach, and create survey link cards to gather more and diverse responses. ● Focusing on: ○ Work/Life Balance ■ Create specificity in the survey to adequately distinguish between drivers who drive for one TNC or two to understand the impact of the “be your own boss” mentality ○ Income/Expenses ■ Is it common for drivers to take out debt in order to drive for the TNCs? ■ Are drivers aware of their income after their expenses? If they don’t track this, why not? Recommendations Continued ○ Career ■ Track the reason why drivers begin driving and how long they remain driving ○ Health ■ Track medical visits/healthcare/employee Benefits ■ Explore the frequency of verbal, physical, and sexual assault experienced by drivers ○ Externalities ■ Explore the fear of deactivation ■ Investigate the Tech Support inefficiency in responding to driver’s needs Geographical Dimensions of TNC Workers in the San Francisco Bay Area Cara Annese, Anthony Caceres, Pierce Forgione, Luwam Kahassay, C.J. Olton Jr., Justin Pearson Inquiries Methods ● What are the reasons TNC drivers come to San ● In person interviews Francisco? ● Surveys ● Why are they not working in their own city? ● Data plotting, MapLine ● How long are they driving? Map 1: Representation from surveys of where drivers are coming from based on their zip codes. Maps Continued (Based off interviews) Maps Continued Income Inequality Bay Area Income Breakdown (2017 U.S Census) Median Household Income Per Capita Income Population Alameda $96,265.00 $41,363.00 1,666,753 Contra Costa $88,456.00 $42,898.00 1,150,215 $66,748.00 259,666 Marin $104,703.00 $40,632.00 Napa $79,637.00 139, 417 $59,508.00 San Francisco $96,265.00 884,363 Santa Clara $106,761.00 $48,689.00 1,937,570 Solano $72,950.00 $31,934.00 446,610 Sonoma $71,691.00 $37,767.00 499,942 U.S Census Bureau (2017). Median Household Income, Per Capita Income, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Miles Driven Per Shift Through the data ● It is important to think about why San Francisco is the central destination for so many drivers ○ This may stem from the city’s growth in jobs as well as the greater prospects for jobs in the thriving tech industry. ○ This must also be compared with the high cost of rent in San Francisco that has caused the wider Bay Area to exist as a super-city of sorts, in that, many people that may work in San Francisco must commute from outside the city. ● Because of wealth and income disparities, many workers in general having to work multiple jobs in order to afford the cost of living in the Bay Area. ○ In the case of TNC drivers in San Francisco, they are being incentivized by higher earning potential to commute into the City, while living in lower cost areas on the outskirts ○ These commutes can be upwards of 100+ miles and over 2 hours. The gig economy fills a gap in the hinterland-city connection that had existed prior in the Bay Area Politics & Lobbying Karen Aceves, Maria Amezcua, Lydia Cho, Juhi Khemani, Elijah Williams Inquiry & Methods ● How should city officials and community leaders factor in Transportation Network Companies when enacting policies and legislation on regulations? ● What are merchant’s groups and elected officials’ impressions of Lyft and Uber’s lobbying efforts? ● What can SF do to mitigate Uber and Lyft’s impacts on the city? ● Email communications ● Interviews: ○ Legislative Aides (3) ○ Merchant’s Association (2) Findings: Legislative Aides ● California Legislature: CPUC ● Labor: Taxi and contractors ● Environment: congestion and emission ● Safety: double parking and vehicular housing ● Labor regulations ○ Full-time benefits ● Traffic regulations ○ Regulate pick-up and drop-off zones ● State level power