of the citywide campaign. a lot of dumping is people who either do not want to pay for getting rid of the materials or who do not have our bridge service. that campaign would involve many neighborhoods. we will also teach people how to call in reports of illegal dumping. supervisor chu: with regards to the garbage service, this has been a problem in the past where weather with businesses or residential facilities, they did not necessarily sign up for or have garbage services, so folks would illegally dumped at the corner of public trash can or not. do we have a sense of whether or not we have been able to change that situation much? do we have most people, most residential, most commercial now vying compliance with having

garbage service -- do you have a sense of that? >> we are in the process of educating people for commercial residential but it is mandatory to have service. the department has issued citations to people that they are aware of. the department of public health actually can structure this for many of these businesses and residents. there is a high number, but upon notification, we are seeing more people sign up for the service. supervisor chu: is there a scavenger working with you to identify who does and who does not have service? >> scavenger actually provides us a list, and we do go to those chickens. supervisor chu: with regard to the fact that you have now got additional resources through this grant to focus on this commercial area in parts where people are on their way in

dumping commercial waste or perhaps things from construction jobs along the way to a dump site, does this mean the dpw will have resources available to address some of the other areas? in my community, we have a lot of residential, so the type we are seeing is not necessarily folks hauling off and unloading concrete per se, but folks calling off their couches and things they no longer want. i'm sure if this is happening across the city. how are you addressing the residential component of the illegal issue? >> the grant is definitely in the application phase. city-wide, we are in the process of putting out a mailer to all the residents of san francisco. and how to discard of their material. if you have garbage service, you are entitled to a certain level of pickup, so people should utilize the service.

it is not being used as much as it should be. our department of environment is following up with our own bill from the department of public works, primarily because of the relationship. we were able to have our trucks go with the people and help move some of that stuff. we really have to educate many of the residential and business owners, so that is kind of where we are. supervisor chu: just to say, one of the things we have learned as we dealt with the illegal dumping issue is the even renters in our apartment buildings have the right to call a scavenger and request

services for bulky item pickup. as residents are thinking about moving from spot to spot, if they have mattresses or big bulky items they would like to have picked up, they can call for pickup. >> that is right. supervisor chu: and that service is free? >> yes, it is free. supervisor avalos: a couple of quick questions -- the grant is not paying for the outreach you just described? >> it is a little piece of it. the bulk of it is actually paying the staff of public works to make two visits every week to the 25 locations. supervisor chu: just to follow- up on supervisor chu's question, the grant provides some follow- up for dpw to do its work city- wide. can you qualify how that helps

the department do its work city- wide? >> the first thing it be doing is an extensive outreach on developing the network where if we do catch people in the act, it would help send a message as to really nailed the people who are actually doing the dumping. we believe by frequent visits and talking with the neighbors that we will be able to learn something from that. in many of these instances where we have a lot of dumping, there is not a number we can chase down, so having neighbors educated and trying to get the information to us will allow us to conduct an investigation. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor dufty: thank you. i just wanted to reflect, and there was discussion earlier that many years ago when i ran

neighborhood services, mohammad and i worked closely because we had legislation carried over the problem of industrial dumping that takes place, and i have never seen anything of the magnitude that takes place in district 10. it is absolutely unbelievable. tens of thousands of dollars of waste from roofers and others are taken to that neighborhood, and i definitely think that this hopefully will help to heal the neighborhood from this types of dumping, and i appreciate the work that you and your team does constantly to address this, and hopefully, this will provide an even better tool bar for you. supervisor avalos: i support this because i understand that there is huge dumping problems in district 10. i think we need to have a special program in district 10 to deal with it, but that is not how this is being characterized. our material we have today, saying that we're going to have the grant to pay for these 25

sides, and i looked at these sites, and i understand there is a big problem, but now, it is talked about as a pilot program, and i think it is great. you want to be able to talk about particular problems in district 10 and have us support that, i would be glad to do that, but i did not hear that in how it is being characterized. i just hope that as we move forward, we can talk about things as plainly as possible, about how we need to have a special program to deal with illegal dumping in district 10. supervisor chu: thank you. i would just echo that i think the issue of illegal dumping is in city-wide issue. it might be particular for certain neighborhoods because of the geography and where people are passing through, so i do support the measure or this brand before us today, but at some time in the future, we would like to perhaps bring back

to some time in our committee at some point just a hearing about what our illegal dumping efforts are. because it is such a baby she and takes such a use of our resources that i think it is worthwhile to talk about. why don't we open this up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items six -- in some -- item 6? >> ♪ no more rolling in all of the oil no more wasting away with all the garbage in the city now looking for my lost matches somewhere some people claim that it is just garbage to blame but i know we need money to fix it up, all the same ♪

supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendations. without objection, thank you very much. let's go back to -- or let's call item seven, please. >> item 7, ordinance of many in the san francisco environment code and san francisco administrative code to establish an emblem of a new health the air and clean transportation program, providing for the gradual conversion of the city's vehicle fleet to clean air vehicles and the gradual reduction of the overall number of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks in the city's vehicle fleet by 20%. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we have a number of representatives from various departments who will be here representing today. >> thank you. in the climate change director

for the mayor's office --i'm the climate change director. thank you for the opportunity to speak on this ordinance today. as you know, air pollution endangers the population of san francisco and around the world. emissions from motor vehicles are the leading cause. it aggravates lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancers, and our continued reliance on petroleum for transportation field jeopardize his san francisco -- jeopardize this san francisco -- jeopardizes san francisco's ability to achieve energy independence. maintaining air quality is crucial to the public health and economic vitality of sanford system. the city's climate action plan

establishes the goals of establishing a climate -- this ordinance is an attempt to add a tool to our toolbox to be able to achieve those air pollution -- to address those air pollution issues and to achieve greenhouse gas emissions as it relates to the city's fleet. he held the air and clean transportation ordinance is intended to assist the city in achieving its greenhouse gas reduction goals by promoting the use of vehicles that have zero or low emissions, achieve high energy efficiency, and use alternative fuels with a low carbon in fact, in a limited policies to minimize the use of single occupancy vehicles, and reduce the total number of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and municipal fleet, maximizing the use of outside sources to fund such programs, encouraging the creation, expansion, and maintenance of

alternative fuel infrastructure in the city and adding utilities and encouraging trip reduction, car pooling, and public transit. we have two amendments. i believe the clerk has passed those out. i would like to read them into the record. in consultation with department, we have added some language which authorizes the director of the department of the environment to waive the fleet reduction requirements in whole or in part if a department demonstrated that the reductions would unduly interfere with its ability to discharge its official functions -- supervisor chu: could you indicate the page with the changes -- >> i apologize, page 23, adding lines 7 through 12. in the case, the director in consultation with the city administrator could require the department to implement an alternative plan to reduce the department who see greenhouse gas emissions. the second amendment does is that the various date for

compliance by one year, and that appears in several places in the version you have there -- the second amendment pushes that -- the second amendment pushes back the various dates for compliance by one year. supervisor chu: do you have a question? supervisor avalos: trying to understand the need for a waiver. because he did they have the goal or we do not have the goal. not quite clear why. >> in consultation with city departments in which cases their inspectors need to have a vehicle, there are not opportunities there for car sharing because each inspector worked the same hours, so therefore, we cannot have inspectors use one vehicle from 10:00 to 2:00 and have another inspector use the vehicle at a

later time during the day, for example. in some departments, that is not a possibility. so we are trying to implement this legislation with hopes to bring the greenhouse gas the missions down but not inherit the department's ability to do their mandated functions. -- but not impair the departments' ability to demanded functions. they could work with the department to achieve greenhouse gas emissions in an alternative way, so to come up with a plan that would help achieve those through an alternative means. supervisor avalos: that is an actual mandate? there has to be an equivalent amount of alternative the mission reductions that you have to find? >> i might refer to ed lee, who

has done a lot of thinking on this topic, if i might. >> good morning, supervisors. as you know, our office is in charge of the city's fleet, and as part of that responsibility, we have been studying in the greatest detail we can in cooperation of the departments, focused particularly on their use for and need for passenger vehicles, and we have, in consultation with the mayor's office and department of the environment, supported this ordinance in goal, which is to reduce the passenger fleets of the city by 20%, and we believe that is doable with a degree of flexibility. just to update you on the vehicles, focused on passenger 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 department of environment how those vehicles are used, who is