committee so that these kinds of questions can be asked before we do our actual elections. >> so, i did broach the possibility when i talked to commissioner king and he informed me that he was not going to make it tonight. i said that, you know, we're choosing officers and your name could come up. and he said, if it was the will of the commission for him to serve, it was the will of him to serve as well with honor. ~ and enthusiasm. >> great.

environment code and the legislative digest and fact

sheet sponsors the commissioner wald. the speaker is [speaker not understood] policy communications director. this is a discussion item. >> this is one of the people that's been very interested in pushing this for a long, long time. i'm delighted to have it in front of us and welcome staff to give us an update. >> commissioners, guillermo rodriguez. before you is the support resolution that was presented at the policy committee. the committee debated the item, amended the resolution, and it now stands before you for action on the full commission. a couple of key things just to share. since the policy committee a couple of keon endorsements that have come in. i understand from the supervisors' office that the sierra club officially came out and endorsed the ordinance as well as proposed. in addition, the item is come -- is going before the small

business commission for discussion, and the department itself is reaching out to event organizers to provide more information about the ordinance and help explain the provisions in there and gather their feedback and address any kind of concerns or issues that they may have. so, those are just a couple of the quick updates since the policy committee debated the item. >> thanks, guillermo. >> commissioner wald. >> thank you. i just wanted to add that we did, indeed, have a very extensive debate about this measure and a number of improvements, i would say, were discussed by members of the policy committee at great length and with members of the public. and i committed to see if i could get a meeting with

supervisor chiu to which i, at least one and hopefully more of my colleagues would have voted to discuss with him and his staff the kinds of improvements that we felt would make this an even stronger and better and more environmentally responsible measure. so, i was out of town all last week, but i intend to do that and i extend an invitation to all the members of the commission to join me when i get that meeting scheduled and i'll let you know when it is. >> thanks, commissioner. what's that? >> right, i can't have too many people -- >> there will be less than a quorum of the commission. >> unless a quorum of the policy committee as well? >> yes. oh, oh, thank you, tom. perhaps i could consult with you about the appropriate way

to carry out the commitment that i made to my fellow policy committee members. >> i could roll with you in the operations committee member, right? if we have a member of operations, rules, and me since i'm not on any committees. >> that would probably work. let's double back later in the week, though. >> we could have people from the department as well, right? >> that's correct. >> that would be good, too. okay. >> commissioner stephenson. >> this seems like something we >> commission should start with something at the port. i'm in favor of the resolution and [speaker not understood]. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor -- i'm sorry. okay. is there any public comment on the item?

thank you. thank you so much. my name is kate krebbs. i'm a resident of the city of san francisco. i'm also an environmental strategy consultant. i've worked in washington for the last 15 years before moving to san francisco, and i moved here because of the kinds of vision and sustainable initiatives that are developed here. so, it was very important for me to live in a city where i could walk the talk and the way that i lived. i worked with a climate group which is a partner of the city of san francisco before moving here. and now i'm working with some of the companies that were members of the climate group, including beverage companies. and, so, i want to be very clear that my relationship with those companies does come into what i want to speak with you tonight. i think one of the things that has been difficult for me as i've gone over this policy and discussed it with the staff as they've been developing it is

that there's -- i couldn't tell if it was about bottled water or the wonderful water that we have here or about plastic and plastics use and waste. in a city that has an 80% recycling rate, it's hard for me to imagine that there really are millions of bottles that are being thrown away. so, in looking through the digest and the information, i noticed there wasn't a waste composition study that would call out what kind of plastic are we throwing away. is it pet bottles? what does it look like? with an 80% diversion rate, we're probably pretty high at our recycling of pet. if there was a concern about the recycling, then i would hope that we would focus on public space recycling and make sure that throughout the city there's a good waste and recycling infrastructure everywhere. if it's about the water, then that's a different conversation and a different kind of

strategy that we need to do to really change behavior because that's what this is. it's about how do we change people and how they choose their water. what i didn't see in this was a strategy, a plan details on how we're going to build out a hydration system in the public space in the city of san francisco. it doesn't go into any sort of cost factor. it doesn't go into what's the best hydration system to put in place, where should we put it, what are our priorities. and i think if we don't do that, if we don't look at that, then this is really a plan -- a ban without a plan and that, to me, doesn't make sense. so, i'd encourage the city to really step back -- i wasn't privy to the conversation and the discussion at the policy committee. it sounds like there is some improvements. i think those might be improvements for us to look at. thank you. >> thank you.

any other members of the public? yes. hi, my name is alise [speaker not understood] and i'm speaking as a member of the public. i was present at the policy committee meeting and it was an interesting robust discussion. and i just wanted to reemphasize the power of language in this ordinance. we've seen with the plastic bag ban that the term reusable can get totally manipulated. now we have these stiff plastic bags instead of the plastic bags we had before. so, i just don't want to see the same thing happen with bottles. and obviously there's a lot of ambiguity over what terms to use, but i think it's really well worth thinking that out and [speaker not understood] over it. and i do support this ordinance because it's source reduction.

in my mind recycling is still waste, and the important thing is not to use something rather than just figuring out a way to reuse it once it already exists. so, thank you. >> thank you. other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, thoughts, discussion? commissioner gravanis. >> we do have a motion and a second. just wanted to make sure people understand that following up on what commissioner wald has said, that there are still detail that we are concerned about that our resolution right now doesn't say that we endorse this ordinance drafted exactly as it is in front of us, that there are ways in which we will be talking with supervisor chiu about strengthening it. and also just to remind everyone that it's kind of a first step in a long process

because here we're only talking about city property and there are many ways to get exemptions and exceptions and there are some [speaker not understood] in here. and over the next five, ten years i expect to see that it will apply to a much wider range. but for now we are recognizing the fact that we cannot insist on a ban where we don't have an available supply of water that public health and hydration remain very important to us. >> other commissioners? any other discussion? all right. a motion is on the floor to approve and can we hear all those in favor please say aye? >> aye. >> those opposed please say nay. ayes have it. thank you. [gavel] >>

>> department of the environment director search process and candidate qualifications. this is a discussion item. >> colleagues, can we get a motion to move item 9 to come after we hear item 13 on the agenda? >> motion to do that. >> a second? >> second. >> all those in favor please say aye. >> aye. >> opposed say nay. all right. so move item 9 to after number 13. [gavel] >> thanks, colleagues. >> briefing on the previous year's implementation of the healthy air and clean transportation ordinance. speakers are robert hayden, manager of commutesmart and clean vehicle, and william zeller, clean vehicle program coordinator. this is a discussion item. >> thank you so much for coming to talk to us about this. [speaker not understood] is a policy that has phenomenal inat thectiontionxes to reduce the city's vehicle fleet and reduce

the, i guess as a side impact the amount of vehicle miles traveled and all that stuff and [speaker not understood] and the problems all that causes ~ intention. and at the same time save money because the city isn't using cars, doesn't have to buy cars and all that good stuff. but i'm not quite sure it's working a planned. so, why don't you tell us about it. [laughter] >> thank you, commissioners, all. appreciate this opportunity. i know this was an item that was originally scheduled in the fall for a report on the previous year's fiscal year's implementation of hacto and that had to be rescheduled. so, i appreciate the opportunity to come and do it now. with me as indicated by monica in introducing the subject, bill zeller is with me on our staff who manages the vehicle

parts of hacto and also liam [speaker not understood] is with me in the audience with me. she work on the transit first parts of the ordinance. and i'll explain more about that as we go through. first, just generally, what hacto is and it's an acronym that not many people were familiar with, frankly until fairly recently. the healthy air and clean transportation ordinance, is what the acronym stands for, it and similarly named but little bit differently named versions of the ordinance have been in effect since the early 1990s and it has long been the main -- the platform, the policy tool by which the city has worked on bringing its fleet of vehicles. in 2010 there were some significant amendments to it and it took on its current name

of hacto. primarily some of the bigger changes was it did add a component about transit first and also the whole concept of fleet reduction. i'll mention a bit more about that in a minute. one important thing to realize about hacto is that the way it was established is enacted by the board of supervisors. it applies to light duty vehicles within the fleet. so, it's not the entire fleet of vehicles that the city owns, does not include heavy duty vehicles. it is vehicles up to 8500 pounds, gross vehicle weight. so, that means basically passenger vehicle, primarily passenger vehicleses and light duty trucks. and -- nor does it include because effectively waived by one means or another public safety and emergency vehicles.

so, the main components, then, of the ordinance as its was adopted by the board of supervisors and as it has been placed with the department of environment for primary responsibility for implementation, first as a transit first requirement. putting forward the, the whole concept the departments should work with, their employees provide means for them to do any work travel but don't require vehicles. so, this is a whole new concept to have departments actually work on transit first plans. the second component deals with fleet reduction and what the ordinance specifically provided

is that over a four-year period fleets -- departments that have fleets should remove from their fleets 20% of the vehicles that were in their baseline fleet. i'll explain baseline in just a moment as well. and then thirdly, after transit first reducing the fleet is the concept of green vehicle purchasing. so, that's kind of the opposite side of fleet reduction and in cases where the departments are authorized, they are given budget authority to purchase new vehicles, there are procedures set up for them to purchase green vehicles. so, to where we are in the status of the implementation. concerning the first concept of transit first, 50 departments have now submitted to us plans.

they're reweird to do this annually to submit plan to describe what their transit first strategies are for their own employees. ~ required the range of programs -- it doesn't prescribe specifically what they need to do, but there's a laundry list of item that they might employ. and what we are seeing from the reports is that -- indicated here, 44% of the departments are now offering either muni tokens or flickr cards to encourage their employees to use those transit means rather than taking a car for meetings or other work-related purposes. separately from the plans that are submitted to us, but by virtue of a transportation survey that we conduct with city employees, we see that 64 employee -- 64% of employees who report that they do travel

on work purposes, 64% use transit at least some of the time. another strategy that fits within the transit first group of activities is use of city cycle and that's the program where we are able to provide to city departments a fleet of bicycles for their employees to use for work purposes. 56% of the departments now have those. and, again, by our separate survey efforts, we're seeing that 15% of city employees report that they actually do use the bikes. so, a lot of departments are getting the bikes and they're starting to get a good deal of use. 64% of the departments have moved to having some sort of pooled vehicle so individuals aren't assigned individual vehicles, and that is a way of obviously reducing the amount of vehicles in the fleet and unnecessary travel.

promotion of teleconferencing and providing equipment for video conferencing is another way of, again, encouraging, promoting, pushing people towards not traveling for work purposes, planning some other means of doing it. so, those are the reports of where we are with the transit first strategies as of the last fiscal year. on fleet reduction, again, the ordinance requires that each individual department have a strategy for reducing their fleet by 20% over a power year period or 5% a year. ~ four-year period the reduction of -- measuring that percent of reduction is based on what the baseline fleet was for that department as of 2010. so, we have a fixed number and

are moving towards reducing that amount on a yearly basis for four years. the ordinance does also have a provision that allows for a waiver to be granted by the department of environment and it specifically states, the reduction or the waiver can apply if removing the vehicles would "unduly interfere with the discharge of official duties." now, that moves into an area that gets really beyond environmental evaluation and, so, we have worked with and worked in consultation with and received assistance from city administrator's office and the mayor's budget office in judging the evaluations to try and get that since -- like i say, it isn't just an environment alley valuation that's required under the ordinance. ~ environmental evaluation

required under the ordinance. in the last fiscal year, out of the 30 departments that do have fleets -- let me just indicate the range of fleets is rather incredible. for individual departments, they range from over 500 vehicles to a handful and in some cases only one vehicle. so, there are a large number of -- there's a wide disparity in the number of vehicles and equally what we have found is there is quite a disparity in the types of data, the management systems that the different departments have. and coming up with a uniform system for all to use has been -- has been a challenging process. but nine departments did receive waivers last year, one-year waivers. other than those vehicles that were removed from last year's calculation by virtue of those waivers, we're way ahead of the

game in terms of the number of vehicles remaining that are to be removed. the formula for the ordinance would call for 55 vehicles to have been removed last year. actually removed were 9. ~ 99. so, in that sense we're ahead of the game. >> how many vehicles were supposed to be removed in the 9 departments that received waivers? [speaker not understood]. >> yeah. we're at a point where 10% of vehicles should be removed. we're half year through the four-year cycle. which, bill, correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that would be about -- a little over 100, 130 vehicles would be covered by that formula. >> [inaudible]. >> right, yeah. that would result in 1300 --

130 vehicles would have been removed had there been no waivers. had they been able to comply. it's a large number. see where we are here. so, in granting the waivers, they were done with some very specific conditions attached. number one, they're one-year waivers. so, it's putting in abeyance one year that formula of reduction that's required for that department. for the portion of vehicles -- i should point out also that the waivers can be in whole or in part is the wording in the ordinance which we interpret to mean either their entire fleet by a department or certain segments of the fleets. so, for the segments of fleets

that did receive a waiver implies only for one year, puts in abeyance that one-year reduction. we expect them to move ahead with the reduction schedule and/or reapply for a waiver. but we have worked very carefully with the fleet manager, gsa fleet, with the city administrator and purchaser's office in coming up with very clear types of information the departments have to provide in order to justify the waiver. so, it includes the things they have listed on the slide. they have to have detailed data on the mileage and use of the vehicles. they have to be able to justify very specifically why very low mileage vehicles are actually needed. and why those couldn't be removed from their fleet. they have to describe very thoroughly the type of work and the quantity of that work that

couldn't be done if certain vehicles were actually removed from the fleet and then finally they have to explain to us why using some form of transit first time policies couldn't substitute for those vehicles. so, again, when those waivers are evaluated -- we are just now beginning to receive the waiver applications for this cycle, but we will work with the city administrator's office and the mayor's budget office to evaluate them and see how they stack up with the requirements. we have worked very carefully with all the departments that have had waiver requests in the past and we anticipate will this year on working through any of the issues and the definitions and making sure we get the right kind of data that an evaluation can be made.

and finally, the third portion of it is -- of the ordinance is the green vehicle purchasing. as i said, that' kind of the opposite side of the coin from fleet reduction. ~ that's if departments are authorized to purchase vehicles -- not authorized by us, but by the whole budget process, to purchase vehicles either to replace vehicles that they currently have in their fleet or for new expanded work requirements, they are required to work from a list of green vehicles that we comply -- or that we compile annually together with the purchasing office and the fleet administrator to define of the types of vehicles that our departments do purchase. they need to select the most energy efficient and cleanest vehicles that are readily available. and those are included on the list. if the type of work that they need has to be done by a vehicle that isn't on that

list, they can again apply for a waiver from the department of environment for that. and if we're satisfied that a vehicle on the list doesn't exist, then we work with them on getting something as close to it as possible. i would say that that process is working very well. it also took quite a number of years to really workout and be smooth and be sure that everybody was really complying and knew how it was to operate. it is now working well. last year there were 150 vehicleses that were purchased by different departments that were from that green list. there were 46 for which waivers were granted and those were pretty unique circumstances, and i don't anticipate that there will be that many in the coming year. so -- >> can i ask you a question? >> yes. >> the 99 vehicle reductions, is that net reductions? or is that -- so, that's like 150 bought and -- >> i'm sorry.

>> 249 sold? >> it is not a net reduction. it is a reduction from the baseline fleet of that fleet that was in place in 2010. >> got it. so, for all the new ones that they bought, they would have had to get rid of old ones? >> those are replacement vehicles. >> okay. >> those are replacement vehicles. those are replacement vehicleses and they're counted separately from vehicles that are removed without replacement. >> got it. >> and, so, when it's a replacement vehicle it's just a one for one. the total number of vehicles doesn't change. and also -- i'm sorry. also, some of the departments acquired new vehicles that were necessary because their work load changed. that was outside the scope of the base -- the hacto base fleet which was a snapshot in june of 2010.

an example of that would be parking enforcement. they had a significant increase in the amount of work they were doing as far as -- i think they started having sunday enforcement, parking enforce. : they needed more vehicles. >> and they'll be getting rid of -- >> we're working on making those electric right now. >> so, then, the vehicles that are reduced out of the fleet reduction, those were noncompliant vehicles? ~ most likely? what is it, they reach a certain stage of mileage and they're vehicles we wouldn't find on our compliant list, right? they're vehicles that we want to get out of the fleet anyway, right? [multiple voices] >> they're the oldest, yeah, the oldest vehicles. that wasn't our fault. the department decided which vehicles they were going to get rid of. they were generally the oldest thing they have. >> thanks. all right. is that the last sli