going down is specifically tied to the fact that a lot of our support for climate work comes from the sfpuc, specifically the power division of the sfpuc they have a major budget issue this year and they have dramatically decreased our work order. so as a result we have also cut our climate work correspondingly. the outreach budget --. >> what is that going to actually lead to? what are we not going to be able to do next year that we were doing this year? >> specifically we have a vacancy in that area. it means that we will not fill that position as quickly as we would otherwise. it certainly, it's -- and the result of that will be that we'll have less capacity to do some of the climate work we've done in the past. i think what we are

looking at now is efficiencies in trying to think if there's a way to streamline the work we do with other deptds -- departments on climate action plans, for example. we're looking at whatever efficiencies we can in terms of the climate work we're already committed to. >> it seems like there's -- so what do you -- i mean do you think we'll be able to find 15 percent of efficiencies if that's the amount of, sort of, reduction in budget? or do you think we're actually going to have to not work on something next year that we worked on this year? >> remember, too, that our budget is somewhat fluid in the sense we're always trying to raise funds. if we come up with a new grant 3 months from now, we might not have this deficit at all. and our budget's never static. so our hope is that we will be able to continue to do fund raising and ultimately not have this reduction. >> yeah.

>> so that we can continue to do the work. >> my hope is that, too, but i think it would be helpful to understand how the budget translates into actual sort of deliverables or programmatic actions or whatever and if cutting the budget by 15 percent isn't really going to change what actually gets delivered by the department then we should all be cutting the budget by 15 percent to a certain extent and similarly for the green building, if we're cutting it by 12 percent and nothing much is changing, that's great to a certain extent. >> yeah, what's happening on the green building sector is that if you notice the reductions are actually in non-personal services. it means we rely more on staff and less on consultants and it remains to be seen whether we'll be able to cover everything we've done in the past with staff without relying on consultants. the other thing about the green building work is that that is an area where we've been fairly successful in terms of raising additional outside

funding. so i'm pretty confident that that one actually will be made up, that we will not end up with a shortfall in green building. in answer to outreach, part of that is an reorganization of how outreach staff was being attributed to program areas. and it's really not a change but more of a realignment. >> okay. >> where outreach should be allocated. so even though it looks like there's a big increase, there really isn't a big increase in terms of staff, it's that some of the staff had been assigned, for example, to some of the energy work. there are outreach staff in the energy program that really should be listed as outreach staff so it's a realignment to line them up where they should be. >> why is energy efficiency and green building in different categories? they seem quite similar to me, but maybe i'm

misunderstanding exactly where the dividing line is. >> well, i mean green building covers more than energy efficiency. we've always tracked it separately. so energy -- also the staff that we have on green building are not in the energy -- well, historically they have gone from being in the energy unit to being in the toxics unit to being on their own. and it's because they cover a range of subject matter and the last iteration it was like, okay, we should really separate them out because we have separate green building staff. they are not energy efficiency staff, they are green building staff. they don't just work on energy efficiency, they work on renewables, they work on waste and water issues as part of green building. so it really is a more holistic look at what they do by putting them in the green building category. now they obviously have to work very closely with the

energy efficiency staff because a lot of what they do is energy efficiency, but it's not exclusively what they do. our green building staff spends a lot of time working on pace programs which are really financing programs is what they're working on. now they are financing programs for renewables. >> and energy efficiency. >> and energy efficiency, correct. so it's really how you want to categorize it and we've had some discussions lately, it may be up to the new director to determine maybe about reamalgamating our energy and green building team into one unit. we really have four kind of overlapping areas, we have the climate team, which is, they do cover a variety of areas. we have energy efficiency, then we have renewables and we have green building and they all have some level of overlap this terms of responsibility. one of the reasons we broke them up is because the unit was pretty big and it was harder to

manage as a large unit. but then you lose some of the synergies when you separate them out. >> this is all very interesting. i guess i would say when there are significant budget cuts to individual departments like --. >> clean transportation? >> clean transportation you said we're cutting by 37 percent so there won't be any electric vehicle programs. i think it's very helpful for us to understand. but it would be great also to understand in climate and renewables and in green building what those budget cuts would actually lead to in terms of programmatic change if we can't actually meet them with sort of grant funding on an on-going basis. >> we kind of go through this process almost every year where we do a snapshot of the budget when it gets submitted but we're always pulling grants in throughout the year and we very rarely actually have had to

make cuts. so this time between transportation, if we don't get general fund support we definitely will have to make cuts. however, in the other two areas i'm still hopeful we will match the track record of previous years and be able to pull in extra and not have to cut programs. >> commissioner stevenson. >> just quickly, can you tell us tomorrow when you meet with the mayor are you also going to be talking about eventually moving the hacto implementation person over to the city administrator's office? >> i'm sure that will be part of the conversation, yes. >> you know, piggybacking off of commissioner josefowitz, yeah, it just seems as if some of the things that are kind of focused in the same way, it

would be interesting at some point in time in the year maybe to talk about that with the director seeing there is some budget savings in terms of outreach and things of that nature. because it seems to me that, you know, having all these multiple departments when they still kind of intermingle in the same area seems a little inefficient for people doing efficiency. yeah, so i think at some point in time i think in concert with the director one of our committees may want to take that on looking at the budget and the program at different times we have had different committees to look at this and look at that and change those things up. i don't recall it actually engaging the department in the structure of its departments, but it may be one of those things we may want to take a

look at next year. >> i also think that it would be great to assign outreach according to the program areas that they are supporting as opposed to having it separated out from sort of a business unit perspective. i think then that makes more sense that we're going to be spending x, clean transportation if x percent of that is outreach, that would be a neat way to look at it in the future. >> actually there was a time when we did that, when we didn't have a separate outreach budget, it was all embedded in the individual program budget and maybe that needs to be revisited again. if we did that i can tell you right now that the majority of our outreach funds are spent in zero waste and toxics reduction. that's where the major funding comes from. but, yes, it would be a more accurate reflection of the resources put in each program area. i would be the first one to say this is an ideal time to

look at how we organize our staff and structure because we have some overly large programs and then we have some really small programs. our largest program is 40 people in it, that's the outreach program. our smallest program has one person in it. obviously that's not the equitable way to divide things up, so we may want to look at every area and figure out what's the most appropriate synergy and ways to put things together. so it would definitely be something that would be worth having the commission take a look at in conjunction with the new director, what's the most efficient way to organize the 115 people we have into a structure that makes the most sense for working together. it's always going to be somewhat changable as our funding changes and sometimes it fluctuates pretty dramatically but certainly our staffing doesn't change that dramatically. there are certainly ways you can organize staffing that may make more

sense. and to tackle the issue how does climate relate to renewables, those kind of questions are always worth asking and it's always a good opportunity when there's a transition it look at things with new fresh perspective. >> yeah, because, well, definitely. because even when we had the discussion about rfp's and how, you know, people would call other departments because they were familiar with them, it just seems like there's some overlapping. okay, that being said, this is an action item, folks. is there -- wait a minute -- we need to take public comment before we take the vote? so public comment on david assmann's report? >> yes, good evening, commissioners. eric brooks, i'm representing san francisco clean energy advocates, also the san francisco green party

and the local grass roots organization, our city, and i want to speak to the specific budget impacts and potential budget benefits of the clean power sf program which ended up not being included in the climate action strategy. the san francisco public utilities commission and the mayor's office have dramatically dropped the ball on this issue. thankfully the local agency formation commission is proceeding with planning out the local installation program for clean power sf, because they know, as the organizers out in the community know, that this program is going forward no matter how much resistance the mayor's office puts against it. the issue of the budget is that this program has the potential when you are in the middle of budget losses, to bring you those funds back and more. and you can talk to the director of cca at lafco, jason

fried, about this. once we get clean sf moving forward we will have access to millions more dollars of energy efficiency funds through that program. it's easier to get funds through the ccup once you have a cca going forward. that's one of the big ones and it's a good example. the san francisco public utilities commission, we've said this to them in public comment, they seem to be not recognizing it and they are continuing to not do any work on clean power sf, even though the lafco is proceeding because the lafco gets it. we know that you get it and we also know your staff get it, i'm not up here to demonize staff. staff has been very clear that clean power sf is necessary to the city meeting its action

goals, necessary to the clean action strategy and had it not been from signals from the mayor's office to kill this program when it shouldn't be and when you can get more funds from it, staff wouldn't have felt like they had to leave it out of the climate action strategy. with that said, we and others spoke at the policy committee meeting a while back to make clear that the climate action strategy needs to have clean power sf put back in it. the staff is great but the staff made a mistake in responding to the mayor's pressure by removing the program that's the most important program in the city for clean energy for the city to reach its goals and for your department to reach its goals. and like i said, this specifically impacts this budget and future budgets because it gives you an opportunity to reprais the money you are losing because of the cuts you are facing because sfpuc has not got its house in order, to be blunt. it should have known about that water tunnel problem long before,

long ago when they first looked at the tunnel. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. brooks. seeing no more public comment, i am going to close public comment now. i'd like to entertain a motion to approve the budget or any discussion you may want to have. >> i move we approve this budget. >> second. >> any objection? the budget has been approved. going back to item 3, public comments, member s of the public may address on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. >> well, i was going to wait for item 7 because it sort of fit because it mentions this. but i might as well do this as i think it's more appropriate to raise this as public

comment, which i thought you were done with. let's get to this issue of the fact that, you know, the mayor clearly -- i'll just say i'm willing to say this out loud. the mayor's office is heavily in bed with the pacific gas and electric corporation. former mayor willy brown is a $200,000 paid political consultant for them and helped in a big way to get mayor lee in office. mayor lee has received donations for his campaigns from pacific gas and electric and other parties that are involved with pacific gas and electric. everybody that's worked on this issue for the last 10 years as i have or even the last couple years knows what's going on here and knows that clean power sf is being held up by political maneuvers from a government that is compromised by its relationships with the fossil

fuel energy corporation. and like i said, to your staff's credit, they have said against that pressure for years that clean power sf is the, one of the primary tools to reach the climate action goals of the city and without it, the city can't reach its goals. so on march 31st supervisor avalos has called a hearing which may be uncomfortable for this commission, may be a little uncomfortable for staff, but i'm arguing should be a lot more uncomfortable for the city and what we need for you as a commission is to stand up to the mayor's office and tell the mayor that this is unacceptable and as you do so, communicate to your staff, you have our permission to put this back into the climate action strategy where it belongs in a 17 principal role. the newspaper reports about how

just a graph got eliminated, there was more about clean power sf in original graphs of this climate action strategy. we need to make sure the climate action strategy reflects sanity, reflects the fact that this planet -- new reports come out every week, there was a new one last week where scientists are clearly saying that the climate crisis is much worse than we thought it was going to be, it's approaching much faster than we thought it was going to approach and meanwhile there are thousands of workers out of work in the city of san francisco that could be put to work by clean power sf so this isn't just an environmental issue, this is a worker issue. and the current commissioner that's, you know, that are holding the mic, we have talked before how the southeast side especially needs these jobs.

it's time to stand up to the mayor and say mayor, even though you appointed us we have to tell you you're wrong and then let your staff go forward with doing the right thing. thanks. >> thank you. any other comments about non-agenda items? seeing none. >> next item is commission secretary's written report and unless you have any other questions, the written report is in your packet. in addition to what's in the report there have been over 300 emails received from sierra club members. >> yes. >> asking about the climate action strategy, that it should be, that the clean power sf should be included in the climate action strategy and that is also in your packet today. >> okay. >> next item -- is there any public comment on commission secretary's report? next item is director's written report.

>> who would that be, exactly. >> acting director assmann, there is a written report in your packet also. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on the director's report? any discussion on the director's report? hearing none, the next item is -- oops. >> i was going to ask some questions. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> commissioner josefowitz. >> the carpool to school week, i know that we'd be trying as a department to encourage sustainable mode choice around school commutes maybe with not quite as much success as we would have hoped for. how did that go? >> well, it certainly -- let me just pull that section up.

>> it's the bottom of page 2. >> the bottom of the page, the bottom of page 2, very last item, last bullet. >> yeah, i mean we did have 11 schools participate so that's not an insignificant number of schools. and then there was a launch activity at two of them just to promote it. >> yeah. >> this is not going to be a one-time thing, the idea is to do this on a regular basis to encourage carpooling to schools. it's kind of a follow-up to our safe routes to schools project. >> you're replacing it or in addition? >> it's an addition. we're still doing the safe route to schools, it's an addition. it's all aimed at getting away from single occupancy vehicles taking -- well, it will never

be single occupancy vehicles if you are taking a child to school, but trying to combine trips so we are more efficient in terms of getting children to school. so 11 schools, i mean there are 250 schools in the city, it may seem like a drop in the bucket but it was an initial attempt and i would assume that we will have a lot larger participation the next time we do it. >> great. >> yeah. >> it's one of these things it's one of many, many ways to try to encourage efficiency in transportation and it's a step in the process. >> then the other thing that i was interested about was the zero waste enforcement. >> uh-huh. >> i think we've spoken a bit about this before. what happens if buildings don't comply with sort of their zero waste obligations? >> ultimately fines are an option. we have not gone down that road yet but we certainly have that as a part of our tool

kit to try to get those buildings that are not participating to comply. so far voluntary efforts have been successful. >> great. >> when we get to the stage where we've gotten everybody to do it who is going to do it voluntarily then we will have to look at fines to be able to deal with those who just say we're never going to do this no matter what you say to us, and there are people like that. >> how much are the fines, are they enough? >> they are graduated. they start fairly small and go up. >> for the number of days you are noncompliant? >> it's not per day but per violation. i believe it's first time, second time, third time. >> any other comments? seeing none, item closed.

>> public comment on all matters pertaining to subsequent closed session on department of the environment executive director interviews. >> good evening, last time, eric brooks, san francisco green party and our city san francisco. just want to say that i don't know who you are interviews or what the interviewees are going to be like, but i want to bring this back to march of last year when our presentation on clean power sf was given to you and your staff and interim director assmann wisely and rightly said he and his staff were ready, willing and able to go forward with this office and this department doing extensive work on clean power sf, even above and beyond energy efficiency. and so my call on this is that if you have trouble deciding who to hire or you've got

candidates that are not quite where you want them to be, i would just ask you to do everything in your power to convince interim director assmann to stay on. i don't know what it will take to convince him to that, he probably is looking forward to getting up into the mountains and hiking and stuff but it sure would be nice to have somebody that is clear in their head about an important program like clean power sf to be staying on in the direction of the department. thanks. >> are there any other public comments to the closed session that we're about to have? seeing none, i will close public comment regarding the closed session and so that leaves us on item 9, while we're in the break i just want to say i've done everything except blackmail and extortion

to keep mr. assmann. i'm a law-abiding citizen so i'm not willing to go there and mr. brooks apparently is asking too much of us coming here asking us to keep mr. assmann against his will. but, hey, you know, we're the can-do department commission so what can i tell you? that being said, item 9. >> vote on whether to hold closed session to hold department of the environment executive director interviews. this is an action item. >> i move we go into closed session to conduct the interviews. >> second . >> public comment on the vote? you are now going to go into the closed session. >> let the record note that closed session will not occur here. >> and it is 4.40pm >> thank you. all right. >> the commission will be

going into closed session pursuant to government code section 54957, administrative code 7.10b, personnel action executive director interviews. >> okay. so it is 7920 open session we'll convene an open session to disclose all the items and the administrative code 12 b this is an action item that. colleagues motion to disclose or not disclose >> i mom. >> there's no public present without objection. >> all in favor, say i.

>> the next item is adjournment 922. >> i want to commend the selection committee the h l committee or whatever you guys are called sarah and david and george on doing all the heavy lifting on getting us those great candidates. >> thank you, commissioners and thank you monica and welcome to

francisco municipal transportation board of directors department of the authority please call the roll. director brinkman, heinicke, nolan, ramos, director rubke is present. directors, please be adviced that director lee is not going to be able to be here at today's meeting. annunciation prohibition of electronic devices are prohibited. any person responsible for one going off in the meeting maybe asked