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 slide? >> yes, thank you. >> all right, thank you very much. comments from colleagues? commissioner wald. >> unless commissioner josefowitz wants to go first. >> thank you. >> i was overly enthusiastic. >> she's getting a little better than last year. >> it's been a learning process for everybody. all of the fleet -- everybody involved with the fleets -- this has been a learning process, to try and figure out how to get similar types of data and how to make it work. >> great. i think, you know, we still -- below a lot of our targets, i guess. but i mean, it's great improvement from where it was before. so, congratulations and keep up the good work. >> thank you. >> hope to continue moving it

in that direction. >> thanks, commissioner. i just have one question. when it comes to fleet reduction and green vehicle purchasing, i'm wondering if there's any departments that kind of rise to the top as shining stars and maybe some that are still kind of getting there. and don't worry, it's not like this is a public meeting. it's not recorded. nobody will know. it will be between us. i mean, is there a general sense -- everybody wants to comply obviously if you're going for a waiver. but is there anybody who is really just standing out as a department of the 9 or so that are -- >> obviously there's variation in there. the way they're approaching this, would have to say across the board there is a great deal of improvement and willingness to figure this out and to come to grips with the fact that they all need to have similar types of data collection systems of how their vehicles

are used. and some of them are stepping up more willingly and aggressively. but all of them are moving forward. >> maybe we could talk off line because i'm getting kind of interested in the subject matter, you know. i was really looking forward to this. and thanks to you guys for sharing this information. maybe we could even talk off line because maybe it would be nice to figure out if we can up lift the work of one of the departments, maybe even in the future commission meeting do a little ~ let's not tell anyone, a surprise award between vehicle trophy kind of thing to really highlight somebody's performance. >> i think that's a great idea and there are some departments that really do have good stories. >> okay, thanks. commissioner wald. >> thank you for that report. it was very encouraging, and i congratulate you very sincerely on the progress that you made. i had just two questions.

the first is, is the list of green vehicles publicly available? in other words, is there a way to make people in san francisco who might need to buy a new car or replace a car, if they could benefit from the work that you've done to identify green vehicles? >> i'm going to let bill answer that. >> we'd be happy to share it. the most limiting factor is what's on contract, but the city is already contracted with. i wear another hat called clean cities, daily clean cities, and we have access to a lot of data through the united states department of energy websites that we can share with the public to help them make those kind of decisions. >> we might want to think about doing something like that. not that we want to promote car

use, but that we do want to ensure that when people buy cars, that they buy the best cars that are available. that's an idea. and i did want to ask about the possibility of unintended consequences. with respect to your waiver requirement, and particularly the one that asks people to justify low mileage vehicles and whether or not that might have the perverse effect of getting people to use those low mileage vehicles more so that they can justify keeping them? >> i suppose that could happen. i think, you know, we're in a situation where we have to get information about the use of the vehicle and we're starting

with an assumption that if a vehicle is putting on less than 3,000 miles a year, that it's likely not to be needed. now, there are some departments that can come back and justify why they do need to have these vehicles that put low mileage on them. but we put it out there as a -- that triggers you having to explain to us why they couldn't be used for the reduction amount that are required for your fleet. bill, did you want to add anything? >> the 3,000 mile or low mileage under utilized vehicle rule has been in place many years. that's the city's fleet -- that's generally understood to be a requirement in the city's fleet. we just picked that up as our benchmark to identify low mileage vehicleses. and one of the things we learned as we went through this process is there's a huge divergence in the way our

fleets are used. an example of wherefore sfpd, 3,000 miles a year is a vehicle that's pretty much never used. if you go to sfo, if they have a vehicle that has 3,000 miles on it, they initiate an investigation because nobody drives that far out there. they still need the vehicles. you have a vehicle that's a pick-up truck that has tools in it. well, the guy goes from his shop where he needs the tools and he drives 2 or 3 miles a day, you can see that there's justifiable reason to have vehicles that have very low mileage on them, but just keep them forever. we don't get rid of vehicles until they have 100 to 150,000 miles-ish on them. but we're keeping a real close eye on that. and i can assure you that that thought has crossed my mind and we're learning how to, shall we say, keep a closer eye on the way vehicles are being used. one of the things we've done, too, one of the first time we've asked across the city

family how are you using your vehicles. individual departments have been responsible in the past and i think we have identified reasons to look closely at the way city -- we've contributed to that conversation. >> thank you very much. >> thanks, bob and bill. members of the public that would liketo comment on this item? seeing none, thank you, bob, thank you, bill. [gavel] >> and can we go to the next item? >> review and approval of resolution approving the department of the environment's integrated pest management 2014 reduced risk pesticide list for city properties. the guide to the reduced pesticide risk is a draft resolution. sponsors melanie nutter, speaker chris geiger and pest management program manager. this is a discussion and action item. >> director nutter. >> i passed out to you, i know

this is an annual item so this is your time to [inaudible]. >> thanks. >> thank you, commissioners. and thank you, melanie. [laughter] >> i get to say that. so, this is indeed an annual item and my intention tonight isn't so much to give you a complete survey of what our program does as to, number one, give you an update on pesticide use trends on city properties, which is something i was not able to do last year because we were having data problems with our database. now the database is usable finally. i'm very happy about that. and, so, i can give you some of those numbers. and also, of course, it's our annual chance to revise and improve what we call the reduced risk pesticide list. for the benefit of commissioner wan and others, who might not have heard my whole spiel last year, i'm give you the briefest

description we do in the integrated pest management program. we have -- we've been around a long time, 1996 is when the ordinance was passed, and it started with a complete ban on all pesticides. we soon realized it wasn't going to work for a whole long list of reasons. it evolved into what we see today, which is a list of pesticides that we've screened very heavily to make sure that they are the safest products available for the purpose and also that we really need them in the first place. and always -- and always, always, always and i think everyone in our program across the city agrees these are used as a last resort. pesticides are intended only as a last resort when other methods can't be used. i also have one of the star ibm coordinators with me tonight from the recreation parks

department, kevin roland. and i can't sing his praises loudly enough, but he has been doing really wonderful things with rec and park. and he'll be available for questions when we get to that or if you have any now. so, the goal really is to minimize environmental health risk from pests and pesticides. it's not just about reducing pesticides because there are problems we have to address out there in the city unfortunately, and these are tools sometimes that we need. the program itself really revolves around a stakeholder process, it involves all the city departments that use pesticides. we meet monthly. this is really the heart and soul of the program. and i think it's fair to say that there are hundreds of people, hundreds of city employees involved with

landscape maintenance and building maintenance who are not just on board, but really passionate about this program. it's really a great sort of institutional culture, i think, for the ipm program. what goes into the -- well, let's see. let me start off with the slide. hopefully the subtitles will have mercy on us and won't [speaker not understood] anything critical. so, what i'm showing right now is long-term pesticide use trends. and this is what you'll see is, even if you just squint your eyes, you'll see we made some big gains early on, and then it's leveled off. the red dotted line at the top is total pesticide use. and the solid red is herbicide. so, some people don't think of

weeds as pests, but actually weeds are our number one pests and what we spend most of our time on here in the city. for a wide virginia right of reasons. ~ variety of reasons. [speaker not understood]. it's still very imperfect measure. and what i'd really -- i really hope to do in future is have something that more relates to the actual toxicity of the various chemicals that we're youthxing. there are some measures out there we might be able to apply some metrics we can apply. i just want to point out quickly, the blue line is insecticides that aren't used for public health. hiding that, i'm sorry you can't really see the detail of it. we've actually had a 99% reduction in insecticide use since the beginning of the program, nonpublic health insecticides. but you notice some bumps there and those bumps are golf

tournaments. the other big driver in pesticide use in the city really is tournament golf. and this is kind of a separate issue on its own. i think what we've concluded in the ipm program is you really can't have tournament golf without having a lot of pesticide use. and, so, it's a community decision as to whether we want to have these deals with golf tournaments. i know there are a lot of benefits as well from the tournaments themselves, but i have to sort of treat that as a separate category of pesticide use. and to their credit, the rec/park golf team has been very, very committed to finding every way we possibly can to reduce pesticide use at harding park golf course. the -- i think that -- i also should explain we don't put public health pesticides in here because that is