vehicles, up to date, as of may of this year, we still have a citywide these included suvs, half ton pickup trucks, and passenger vehicles. within the number we have broken down it into general, government, and safety, enterprise departments. alternative fuel, not alternative fuel. our approach in looking at these particular numbers in detail is we believe there is 20% to be gained by focusing on those vehicles that are over 12 years old. we believe those are the most dangerous to our environment, the ones that need the most maintenance as well as emissions. by focusing on the 12-year or older vehicles and all departments, we believe we have

sufficient numbers to reduce or replace with less emissions vehicles. in discussing in particular with departments like the department of building inspection, there needs to go up and down based upon the economy. certainly at the present time, for example, we can find better use of vehicles because they are not used as often. when the economy turns, there will be a higher use for those vehicles because it calls for a lot more inspections. i believe the department has asked for some flexibility for that reason and also for the reason that they are the balding there err mordancy role. they have argued with us that there are a certain number of

vehicles that they may still need to have for those reasons, until the economy batters and for disaster recovery of emergency. wali plan this out, one of the difficulties we have had in mandating this 20% across the board, we need to understand all the uses of these vehicles. just as we had a conversation on item 8, the two vehicles that the police is looking at, with your support, adding to their fleet for undercover use. there are a number of those vehicles that are being used for undercover and engaging with the right officers on how that is best used by different districts and apartments. we still believe we focus on the right vehicles. we think it will reduce our maintenance costs if we do so. those are some of the reasons we

are going department by department to understand the exact use of these vehicles, to see if there is a need, and proposing replacing these with better emission vehicles, but as you know, we have an agreement with citicorp share. we have sharing abilities that allows our department to do this at and cost-effective price. we are still in negotiations with other car companies, zipcar, and there are just about to present to us their agreement as well. we have alternatives for the departments to use. that is our update. that is what we are learning through our investigation. >> we are going to go back -- supervisor chu: we are going to go back to the amendments.

first, the waiver on page 28, as well, the change in date. are they substantive in nature? they are not. ok. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak on a healthy air and clean transportation ordinance before you today. considering over 50% of the city's carbon emissions come from the transportation sector, the divisions to chapter 4 will help san francisco meet its climate reduction goals of 20% as well as reduce the size and cost of the city's municipal automobile fleet. under current chapter 4, cities are required to purchase alternative fuel passenger vehicles or light duty trucks or light duty emission vehicles. if no vehicles are available in

the requested category, the department request an exception. the boards would allow departments to purchase cultural low emission or zero emission vehicles regardless of fuel type. the city would be able to purchase the cleanest vehicles available in each category and we would no longer have to give exemptions if an alternative fuel option is not available. these restrictions do not apply to public safety vehicles or you the buses, and as the director of the department of the environment, i would be able to grant exceptions based on cost, potential disruption to city operations. the provisions of the proposed ordinance would not apply to the puc, airports, port, or mta, were application would conflict with law or in -- otherwise interfere with the direct jurisdiction of these

departments. additionally, proposed amendments require a city administrator and individual department heads to remove some service without placement at least 5% of the motor vehicles under the department's jurisdiction each year through fiscal 23rd team -- 2013, beginning in 2014 and 2015, individual department heads would be required annually to remove from service all passenger vehicles and light duty trucks 12 years and older. finally, the amended ordinance will require each department to adopt a transit first policy that maximizes the use of public transit and minimizes the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. in summary, the department of the environment would support that this be forwarded to the full board of supervisors for consideration. thank you for your considered -- continued support to reduce our cities carbon emissions.

supervisor chu: thank you. i know you spoke earlier to address the question regarding waivers. anything else you would like to add regarding that? >> we believe this ordinance would be helpful in directing the departments to pay attention. one of our difficulties has been, it has always been a clash between what they believe they need and how they can use the beat -- vehicles in a better way. oftentimes, it is a discussion around a better use and cooling of the vehicles. we have had a lot of success pooling vehicles together as well as the beginning of car sharing. we think we need this goal to get people focused on it. on a day-to-day basis, a lot of people feel comfortable if their vehicles are being taken care of, if they have a single use, but it may not be the most efficient use.

that comfort level will have us sit back and not think of the better use of the vehicles or share them in more appropriate ways. i think this ordinance would be very helpful. it would allow us to engage department at the fleet of all in a more precise way and get to the reasons on why this could be a more difficult or easier goal to accomplish. supervisor chu: a quick question for the city administrator. there is a comment that this program, at least the effort to reduce the fleet had been in progress for some time. i know there was work to reduce the fleet through your office. when we talk about the passenger vehicles in use at the moment, you mentioned this is a cumulative amount and it includes the enterprise department. do you know what percentage is

the general fund compared to the puc? >> not by department. if i could give you the breakdown of the numbers. 824 r general government. 933 of them are safety departments. 936 our enterprise markets. -- enterprise departments. supervisor chu: what we are talking about the 20% reduction, is this 20% off of 2693? is this from of a different number years ago? does that make sense? >> let me give you some exact numbers. of the 824 vehicles in general

government, we have identified 165 of them to be 12 years or older. of the 933 public safety department vehicles, we identified 200 of them to be 12 years or older. 936 of enterprise department vehicles, we have identified 328 of them to be 12 years or older. if you add that up, all those 12 years and older vehicles -- 693 vehicles. that is why we believe we have an adequate goal of 20% reduction in that area. supervisor chu: i know the department of the environment spoke earlier about the difference with how we are treating the enterprise departments versus general city

departments. could you speak about that? >> i think -- for us, it is the same approach. we are trying to understand exactly how the vehicles are used, how they may get used in a better fashion. regardless of whether it is enterprise or general fund, we broke this down because there might be specific types of uses that they educate us about that they have special needs for. but in terms of approaches, the way that we can answer their concerns, many of the enterprise department is talking about then need to meet the customer services. that is the same across all the departments, enterprise or not. some of the departments have

argued because these vehicles are not necessarily paid for through the general fund, it ought to have some flexibility. we have not taken that as a direction simply because our focus here is not just a reduction of the vehicles we use but also for the environment. that is where the conversation has come city-wide. it is virtually the same for us. >> supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i wonder if you could do me a favor. for the police department in the coming year, their plans to purchase vehicles. how would you see them having to adjust their plans around purchasing vehicles? how would this change things in subsequent years? >> certainly, we would follow up with negotiations.

supervisor avalos: if you could discuss with me materially, what would their plans look-alike for purchasing new vehicles for next year, and if we were not, how will things be different? >> i think the purchase of their pursuit vehicles, public safety vehicles with all of their equipment would probably not change that much. those are going to be dictated by the market of vehicles available for that use. should major manufacturers have police pursuit vehicles that are more energy efficient, that is probably where our focus is on, whether they can do the job or not. our focus is how we permit them to place purely administrative vehicles, passenger vehicles, if you will. that is where the discussions with the different parts of the

police department have been going on. they have to justify with us and department of environment how those vehicles are used, who is assigned them, whether that use will have something that will require a particular type of vehicle, whether they can go to electrified vehicles or higher standards of emissions. all of those are done on an area by area difference and we engaged with the department of environment. we have the approval top authority for the purchase of vehicles. we are in that through our purchasing department and fleet manager and department of environment. all three entities are in the approval path. we have the ability to control that once we control -- understand the nature of the vehicles. supervisor avalos: you are counting passenger vehicle separately from pursued

vehicles? >> that is correct. supervisor avalos: what is the overall number for pursued vehicles? >> i have a general category called equipment, which we would consider not in this field. everything from trucks to have the equipment, police vehicles with a bunch of equipment on there. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public that would wish to comment on this item? >>♪ you asked me if my city air was clean and true blue and then i knew i replied you know what happens when you drive smoke gets in your eyes i know someday you will find electric cars that will drive

and i know you will do well time will tell smoke will not get in your driving ieyes ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other member that would like to speak -- members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. one final note, we ask different bodies, a different government departments to weigh in on decisions. in this situation, if the department has the authorization to do so, to go ahead and do so with the purchasers office. at and in between staff before any approved process is -- before anything is approved, you want to make sure that you are meeting in line with the required block. are the vehicles going to be these types of emissions?

should it be replaced at all? tell me how your department is going to handle that and not create what we would consider another administrative burden, bottleneck in the process. >> i believe it is not a change in the traditional standards. >> --supervisor chu: we havcane take the amendment as a whole? without objection. supervisor dufty: item move forward to the full board with recommendations. supervisor chu: can we do that without objection? ok. without objection. thank you. can you call the last item, item 9? i also want to announce that

supervisor david chiu is with us for this item. >> item 9. hearing on the san francisco municipal transportation agency's transition to the clipper card on the following topics: 1) implementation of the clipper card; 2) 25-cent surcharge for single-use tickets; 3) technological problems with fare gates; and 4) outreach on the transition to the clipper card. supervisor chu: thank you. i just want to thank supervisor chiu for bringing this forward. we have heard from many citizens about the implementation of this card, how people purchase it, how it is implemented. very glad that we have this hearing before us. >> thank you for hearing the item today as well as to the mtc, mta, and our vendor for attending this presentation. today's hearing is about the

clipper card, which we hope will be in short order ubiquitous and something well known to every household in san francisco. let me first start by saying i absolutely support a single fare card use for transit. the concept of one car to ride them all, to ride the alphabet soup of transit agencies, the mtc, mta, bart, golden gate, caltrain, vta, etc. we know all of our riders on the systems should not have to face numerous barriers for each agency. we know we need to make it more convenient for people to travel through the bay area. the clipper card has been in the works for more than a decade. i certainly appreciate these transitions are challenging and we know we are asking millions of people to change the way they get around every day. that being said, those of us on

the board of supervisors have all heard concerns about the transition. if i could categorize, there are four categories that i have heard. first of all, concerns about the overall timing and staging of the transition. next monday on november 1 there will be no more paper as it passes sold to adults. all of them will have to be loaded onto cooper. but at this time a little more than 25% of the passes are currently loaded on clipper cards. i am concerned muni and mtc will have significant issues on their hands next week. secondly, as our chairwoman just noted, many complaints around customer service out reach, not just on how people can get the cards but how people use them. the reduced number of places where the cards can be purchased. i have heard many issues raised by communities about language access issues, from the chinese

community, spanish-speaking community, and others. another set of concerns around technical issues, the fact that new muni fare gates are easy to evade and they are slowed even when they work. i have personally seen a number of them out of service already. i want to understand with agencies are doing to address them. the last category of concerns have been around policies. concerns that many of us have had about the new proposed surcharge for limited use muni tickets. i am pleased that it was suspended after it was initially discussed but i want to know what the plans are going down the line. i requested this hearing about a month ago. i want to credit agencies for the progress that you have made in the last couple of weeks. i understand even as today there is a press release about how muni past the lip -- distributors will sell clipper

kurds in november with the fast pass. i think we are making progress but i think what i would like to hear from the mtc, and tsa, is what sorts of things you are thinking about and how we can have a conversation so that we can transform how san franciscans and bay area residents get around and ride transit. with that, i know there are two presentations from the mta and mtc. at that point, we can hopefully have a good conversation. >> i work for the metropolitan transportation commission. the plan is for me to cover the first two items. the last two will be covered by mta. to ensure we are fully responsible, we have a member of the executive team here. just to briefly start off by talking about the over all

clipper implementation, as mentioned it is the all in one transit card and it is currently working on five of the largest transit areas in the bay area. bart, caltrain and golden gate are currently accepting golden -- clipper kurds. with that, the seven agencies represent over 90% of bay area transit rider ship. that provides a great opportunity for interoperability and convenience to the customer. the clipper card has been accused of being complex. part of that is our willingness to extend the willing fare structure that transit agencies have. as we brought these transit agencies on, we except that their products at discount. all told, the clipper card except for thousand unique their combinations, so it is a powerful card. it can be seen as complex but the argument can be as easily made that it is easy to use.

lastly, i want to talk about what is happening with overall usage. the former name of the program was the translate card. that was in play for a number of years. this year, 2010, we relaunched not only a new car but a new name, the clipper card name. since then we have had a remarkable natural growth of people moving over to the clipper card. we are averaging a 10% growth per week of the number of transactions. this discusses october 18 but as of october 15, we are averaging 225,000 daily transactions on the program, which is phenomenal growth. this represents a natural adoption from bay area transit users. we are still at the stage where people can choose to use. we will be talking about plans for time going forward as we work with transit agencies as

they eliminate paper passes. our strategy really is to manage that success with them. just briefly, how you can get and use the clipper card, it is available online. as well you can go to the phones and any participating retailers. in san francisco, most locations will distribute cooper cards as well as value. the other unique aspect that san francisco has with a vending machines, they dispense not only limited use cards, but others as well. i did also want to mention a feature on the clipper card called -- the automatic reload. you register your credit card to your credit card. every time your fare expires, it

automatically replenishes it. what is great about that is you do not need to go to your retailer again or call. it automatically gives you your value or replenishes any cash that you might want to use. that is something that a smart card can uniquely offer. >> could you talk about the number of vendors that are selling this compared to the number of vendors selling other fares? i think there is a sense it is a small subset of what is currently being sold. at a walgreen's in my district they ran out of clipper kurds within a few hours after it went on sale. i want to get a sense of how they are managing it. >> right now we have 88 vendors in san francisco. how we select those, first, we are trying to achieve geographic equity so that we have good

distribution throughout the city. it is also important to know, we are helping people who really needed the service, including people with limited english proficiency. as well, in chinatown, we have 14 retailers offering clipper services. as i understand it, the top three sellers of the fastback are already benders and we are in the final stage of setting up. right now, the merchants in san francisco represents 75% of our retail. we think we are doing a good job because -- >> my main question is how this compares to buying a new the fast pass. it is significantly different. >> because our strategy, the retailer is just one of our

tactics. you can get it online or you can go to the vending machines. so there are different options for that. the mta staff says it is 180. so roughly half. >> is there a plan to ramp up? >> we are continuing to ramp up and vendors. one of the interesting situations which you mentioned, the clipper system had been around for a number of years. early vendors dropped off because of lower rates. so there is this fatigue that we need to get out of as we tried to recruit. our focus is really on the limiting of proficiency, low income communities. those communities is where our focus is. we will continue to work on retailers there. if we find there is resistance,

we will look to see what we can do to sweeten the pot. we agree it is something we need to be concerned about and it is a work in progress. >> conversations about giving the communities access is important, i think. i was just in the mission. no one there seems to be aware of the clipper transition. i looked at your map. it looks like there are one, two sides in that neighborhood. again, it did not seem as if there was much understanding about what we would see. i looked on the map and it does not seem to have the amount of density that we are looking for. i appreciate the focus. >> this is a question for the automatic reloading. if individuals are purchasing these monthly figures, is there an option for them to reload a