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 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