are seeing less patients than usual. don't risk your health. my visit was very reassuring. they have all the appropriate covid-19 protocols in place, great professionals, and they're there to help. if you need to go to the e.r., don't hesitate to get the help you need. in fact, since i started this video, i've been back again to get the stitches removed with the same level of care. well, that's it for this episode. if you need urgent care, go to the emergency room no matter what your financial situation is, and call 911 if you need paramedics or can't get there by yourself. the doctors and nurses will get you there and get you the >> clerk: the time is 5:05 p.m. cell phones and pager devices can still happen virtually and

are still prohibited. please turn your devices off. due to the covid health emergency, commission, and staff, meeting room 416 is closed. however, staff and commissioners will be participating in the meeting remotely. this is according to the local order and all state and local directives. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. sfgovtv.org are streaming the number up at the top of the screen. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code

187-086-1685. best practice is to call from a quiet location and speak slowly and clearly. i will now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. president stevenson, we have a quorum. >> all right. next item, please. >> clerk: all right. our next item is item 2, president's welcome, and this item is for discussion. >> hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for this

special meeting of the commission of the environment. we will start off this meeting by the commission's newly adopted land acknowledgement. when the commission last met, we voted to acknowledge that we are on the ramaytush ohlone land by reading a land acknowledgement at the beginning of each meeting. i will now read that statement. the commission on the environment acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral land of the ramaytush ohlone. we recognize that the ramaytush ohlone understand the connectedness of all things and have existed in harmony with nature for millennia. they have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their

responsibilities from living on this place. as uninvited guests, we affirm their sovereign rights as the first peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and members of the ramaytush community. as environmentalists, we recognize we must embrace indigenous knowledge in how we care for san francisco and all of its people. thank you for your attention during that important acknowledgement. now for a little house keeping. it's a new year, and we have new committee assignments. thank you all for your service and for jumping onto those committees. finally, i'd like to comment on why we're here. as you know, per the city charter, commissions are required to approve department budgets, which we recently did at our february 1 meeting. unfortunately, after that

meeting, the department of the environment received updated work orders with funding amounts that differed from what was anticipated. i called for this special meeting so that the commissioners and the public can be briefed and updated on how the budget situation has changed since our last commission meeting. i want to thank staff for working with me in pulling together this commission meeting. let's open it up to public comment. given the interest in tonight's agenda, i'd like to limit public comment to two minutes per comment for this evening's discussion, and if you have comments pertaining to the department's budget, i ask that you reserve these comments for agenda item 5, when we will talk extensively about the budget agenda. go ahead, katie. >> clerk: okay. i will share the instructions on the screen for anyone who is

joining via webex, and i'll also just read them out. so you can dial 415-655-0001 and enter access code 187-096-1685 and be sure to press star, three in order to be added to the queue, and you will have two minutes to make your comment. and give me one second while i check our queue. all right. i'm not seeing any callers in the queue present, but we'll take a brief recess while we see if there's anyone who wants to comment on the president's welcome.

all right. and i'm still seeing no callers in the queue. >> all right. since there's no callers in the queue, public comment is now closed. next agenda item, please. >> clerk: all right. we'll move onto agenda item 3, approval of minutes of the february 1, 2021 commission on the environment meeting. explanatory documents of the february 1, 2021 draft minutes, and this item is for discussion and possible action. >> all right. commissioners, is there any discussion on the minutes from the last meeting? do i hear a motion? >> so moved. >> so moved -- somebody beat me to it. >> okay. moved by commissioner sullivan,

seconded by commissioner bermejo, and i will open this up for public comment. please be sure to press star, three to enter the queue, and you will have two minutes to enter your comment. okay. i do see we have one caller in the queue, so give me a second while i switch screens here. i will pull up a timer for public comment and start the timer now. >> hi, commissioners. this is daniel tejara. good to see you again. i just wanted to point out a couple of typos on the agenda.

my name, as well as [inaudible] i know it's hard to catch, but i'll spell it for the record. it's t-e-h-a-r-a and berecki is b-e-r-e-c-k-i. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. . >> any other comments? i'm seeing no other comments in the queue. >> all right. roll call, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: okay. all right. . >> the motion passes. next item, please. >> clerk: the next item is general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. please remember to press star, three in order to be added to the queue, and you will have two minutes to make your comment. just a reminder that this comment period should be regarding items that are within the commission's jurisdiction but not on today's agenda. >> all right. are there any commenters in the queue? >> clerk: all right. i am seeing that we have a few callers in the queue, and so let me switch screens again here and pull up the timer.

all right. and i'm going to unmute our first caller and start the timer now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is catherine howard, and i wanted to talk about the ferris wheel that's been placed in golden gate park. wildlife needs darkness. light pollution can have an impact on birds [inaudible] golden gate park is one of the few places in san francisco where wildlife can find refuge at night. i'm encouraging the commissioners and other people calling in or listening today to call into the h.p.c. on wednesday, march 3 at 1230 time time -- 12:30 and ask that the

wheel extension be permitted for a maximum of one year. there's more information at www.sfurbannature.org. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> clerk: all right, and i will unmute our next caller now. >> hello. thanks for letting me comment. all the recent accommodations to golden gate park, including soccer fields, tennis courts and more spurred me to request that you help improve the city's lighting policy. united nations goebel assessment on biodiverse and ecosystem services has found a 40% decline in insect populations in just the last 40

years. sky glow, light from populated areas that scatters through the atmosphere and can be seen from miles away disoriented insect's ability to find food, avoid predation, and shelter. biology and ecology of birds and bats are also affected by artificial light. a scientific study on artificial lighting's impacts includes the disruption of circadian rhythms and

disorientation during flight. even plant biology is affected by light, so please ask the city to follow the science before adding light to the city. thank you. >> thank you. is there anymore callers in the queue? >> clerk: i'm seeing that we have one more caller in the queue, and so i'll unmute our next caller now. >> hi there, commissioners. this is chris. i just wanted to discuss previously that i'm been following the land use hearing committee meetings by the board of supervisors pretty closely and there's been an extreme dearth of environment information in this recent legislation, and i wonder when we can expect the debris ordinance and legislation to come back to the board of supervisors and expect other exciting climate legislation given that we are in a climate emergency. i'd also like to say, as i have

in every meeting that i'd like to see a carbon c attachment to every piece of legislation passed. it should be no less than $120 per metric ton of carbon. if we don't pursue this carbon fee, we're leaving about $20 million on the table that could go directly to, you know, communities that desperately need climate mitigation and those that are most impacted by pollution and climate change, so i really hope you consider moving forward with this ordinance with the carbon fee, and that we will soon see some more exciting climate legislation at the land use committee as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. >> clerk: all right. we do have one additional caller in the queue, so i will

unmute them now. >> thank you. my name is helena berecke, and i'm a resident of district nine in san francisco, and i just wanted to second the comments of the previous caller. they are spot on. that's all. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. >> clerk: all right. and i'm seeing no additional callers in the queue. >> all right. then next item, please, katie. >> clerk: all right. we can move onto item 5, presentation on changes to the department budget and vote on whether to approve resolution file 2021-02-cor addressing short-term and long-term funding concerns for critical department programs. the sponsor is heather stephenson, president, and speakers are deborah raphael,

director, and joseph salem, program manager, finance and administration, explanatory document, resolution file number 2021-02-coe addressing short-term and long-term funding concerns for critical department initiatives and programs. discussion and possible action. >> thank you, katie. so because this is a short meeting, i'd like to pick up where i left off on the president's welcome. fiscal year 2021 and 22 and also 22 and 23, this is clearly a significant change. in the spirit of transparency, i've asked staff to present so we can fully understand the change arriving from these work order productions and more

importantly what changes they might be from the staff and department programs. we talked a little bit about this last meeting, as well. everyone is making tough budget choices right now. in our presentation, i've asked staff to present ideas on how we can mitigate the cuts. we can't sit idly by and let a return to the status quo dictate our response to this climate crisis. we're rapidly approaching the point of new return in climate, and this must be a priority in this fiscal year. i'm hoping you'll consider the resolution after the discussion, so with that, i'd like to turn it over to our speakers, joe salem and debbie

raphael. >> thank you, president. good evening, commissioners. my name is joe salem, and i'm the finance officer of the department. i'm here to discuss draft changes in the fiscal year 2021-22 budget that was adopted by the commission on february 1. when we presented the draft budget to this commission, we were anticipating the continuation of our annual interdepartmental services or i.d.s. work order with the p.u.c. at the current active levels. we've since learned that we'll be receiving $248,000 less than we expected from the p.u.c. this, along with the anticipated loss of $98,000 from the m.t.a. reflects a total loss of $346,000 from in fisk of year 2021-22.

there are always small changes and reductions to the budget before we submit it to the mayor's office. this year, however, the change is significant enough to impact our crucial work in our ability to fund existing staff positions, so we felt it would be important to make the commission aware of the changes and impact on the department. next slide, please. as you can see from this first pie chart, climates and e.v. funding always represented a small part of our funding, 4% and 2%, and now they're getting smaller. the impacts of this is felt specifically in our e.v. and climate work. for clarity, i'm going to break out the e.v. from the other work and transportation programs, and this is where you will see the impact.

next slide, please. let's look at electric vehicles. of that 346,000 reduction that i mentioned earlier, 271,000 of it comes from our e.v. program. this represents a crushing 84% reduction to our nonplant funding. this is foundational funding that allows us to leverage other grants to support our core work. the other funding from e.v.s comes largely from clean cities. u.s. department of energy program is intended to support the city's work reducing energy from petroleum.

if we are unable to fully support the associated position, we may no longer be able to leverage this federal funding. at this point, we do not have the funding necessary to retain all of our current e.v. staff. this means that there is a position that we cannot fund, and on a small team, one is a big number. our next slide, please. the other area of the reduction in work order funding is being felt is in the climate program. of the $346,000 reduction, $75,000 is coming from the climate work -- coming from climate work, or approximately 20% of our nonimpact panel climate funding. this funding reduction is from a long held p.u.c. work order that supports the core work of the climate program. while $75,000 seems like a small number, especially compared to the e.v. production, it's important to

understand that because the department of the environment does not receive any general fund support, seemingly small variances can have an outside impact on the department, and this is the case here. funding for the climate program, much like the electric vehicles and frankly the department as a whole is dependent on identifying and securing outside sources of funding. this funding ebbs and flows, and historically, we have been able to leverage funds from other sources, but like the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, we cannot makeup this funding from existing sources. as you're well aware, the department of the environment is funded entirely by grants and interdepartmental work orders that are tied dollar for to deliverables and the solid waste impact funding that i highly restricted on where the

funds can be utilized. as a result, there's no amount of rearranging or reappropriating funding for this deficit. again, while the dollar amount seems immaterial, we can't come up with that immaterial funding, it becomes very material, and that's where we are right now. we do not have the funding to maintain all of the f.t.e.s in the climate program, which means there is a position we cannot fund. next slide, please. the budget is currently with the mayor's office, and between now and june, we're working with them to look for other sources of funding. now i'm going to turn it over

to our director, debbie raphael, to provide more impacts on the funding reduction of our program. >> thank you, joe. before we go to the next slide, i just want you to notice that there's a time period between when our budget went public, february 26, this meeting, march 1, and when this goes to the board of supervisors. we expect between now and june 1 to be having extensive conversations with the mayor's office about this situation as highlighted in today's meeting. next slide. so what i'm going to do with my time is step back for a second and look at sort of a 60,000-foot level of the impacts of this and then go down to the 100-foot level in terms of what actually the

impacts are on program and then come back again as we move forward. so looking at the numbers and thinking about impact, i think it's always important to remind ourselves what is the mission of this department that we are trying to fund, and, of course, this department of the environment, its mission is to provide solutions, is to be very, very concrete. to provide solutions that provide climate solution and enhance the life of san franciscans. we are about innovation, we are not implementation, and we are about equity. we cannot separate those three elements. next slide. and as we know, as joe has said, and you're very familiar with our funding, as you saw in the first pie chart, comes in a good amount from the refuse rates. that's a very stable source of funding, and it has a nexus because it's a fee associated

with the service, so the funding that we do outside of that, the program work that we do outside of that nexus needs additional sources of funding because we have no general fund support. and i think the best way to visualize this is in the climate action plan. so the climate action plan is divided -- is going to be divided into these six sections, and you see them on this slide. and what you can see is there are two sections, responsible production and consumption and ecosystems that are funded in the department right now, and we can be working on programs and policies and implementation around those areas, but it's the other areas, where we're looking at energy, renewable energy, electric vehicles, electrification of buildings. that's where we're having a

challenge. we had and have had, since i've been director and beforehand, foundational funds for those efforts, and that foundational funding was provided through work orders, provided from the p.u.c. and provided from m.t.a. and the p.u.c. together through the low carbon fuel standard revenue stream. so that funding was our baseline, and we would augment that foundational funding by writing grants and by getting work orders from other city agencies and entering into contracts. but all of those nonfoundational founding sources, we have to remember, are very inflexible because we are -- they're associated with a particular project, and i'll talk about the impacts of that in a minute. next slide.

so there has been a tremendous impact over the years. there's been shifts, and i liken it to a jenga game, where we keep pulling out little pieces of our structure, and ultimately, you pull out a piece that no longer can support the structure as a whole. so if we look at the past few years, what we've actually seen in terms of the grant world is a big change for us. the number of electric vehicle staff, people working on electric vehicles went from three in 2019 down to about one and now it's less than one, and now it's because of grants that we applied for and didn't get. in energy efficiency work, we're down six staff members in energy efficiency work, and that's because of the public goods charge in pg&e, and they have reduced that to public

agencies by 65%. we're down on energy efficiency, and we're down on electric vehicles. our grants from public funding are down three positions. what we're finding that philanthropy is looking elsewhere right now. they're not as interested in funding local governments, and as you can imagine, the last four years at the federal level have been pretty dry in terms of what federal funding is available to us, and therefore, the state funding that's available to us is highly competitive, you know, extremely competitive, and they're focusing largely, as makes sense, on disadvantaged communities that they feel are less resourced than san francisco. so this change in grant

availability and philanthropy both from state, federal, and local utilities, has joe said, any change to our foundational funding is really problematic to us and really impactful at this moment in time, even if the absolute dollar amount doesn't sound like it's that much. next slide. and yet, with all of that doom and gloom in terms of our funding over the last few years, i think it's worth noting how incredibly resilient and motivated we are as a small department. in fact, just the last few years, when i thought back, what have we accomplished in the last few years, we have the most stringent polluting gas contract in the country. we have innovative e.v. charging requirements that are

now law in private parking garages and innovative contracts that are on the -- in development for municipal parking garages. we posted e.v. workshops for parking garages. we -- we hosted e.v. workshops for parking garages. we hosted workshops for residents on everything from switching out your hot water system to induction cooking, and of course we have legislation to require energy in large commercial buildings. so we're moving forward, and we're piecing it together, but we're at the point now where our jenga puzzle is starting to collapse i fear. and all of that, we could do so much more, of course, if we had more resources. next slide. so where do we stand today? so as you heard from president

stephenson and from joe, we're looking at changes to work orders from two departments totaling $346,000. and as i hope we left you with this understanding that while in the big scheme of the city's budget or even our budget, that number can look seductively low, it's not a surprise. i talked to my colleagues in p.u.c. all the time, and they are hurting. their budgets, their revenue departments have been decimated. they are making really tough budget decisions, and therefore, what we're proposing today is not to go back to that tap over and over again but look at that stimulus money, and make sure that that

stimulus money makes us whole for the next couple of years until we can figure out that longer term solution because broadly speaking, if we step back and look where do those $346,000 impact us, it drastically reduces our department's ability to address transportation and building emissions, especially in communities that are hurting in terms of air pollution, asthma rates, and health. it decreases our ability to engage with the communities who need us most and are most impacted by climate change, and it really inhibits our ability to be innovative, to pivot, and to look forward for future funding. next slide. so now, what i'd like to do is i want to go into some specifics, so that's the general. what does it really mean? what can we still do, and what can we not do in terms of our energy work and our climate

work with respect to this funding, so we're not looking at other sources of funding. just what happens when we lose this $346,000? so on the energy efficiency side, we still have some of that money, and we will be doing work with the p.u.c. with the work order money that they are giving us. we are going to work very closely with the p.u.c. to get additional funding from the california public utilities commission to try and offset the money we lost from pg&e. that's going to be a big source of our work with the san francisco p.u.c. we're going to be working with them on energy efficiency programs because we're going to start-up programs together. we're looking ahead. on our electric vehicles, as joe said, we're able to do a tiny bit of electric vehicle work because of this department of energy funding, but it's very, very targeted and restricted, and it's going to be looking at fleets and some

heavy duty vehicles. so that's the good news. we're not going to be completely out of the picture, but that's what we can do. next slide. but what can't we do on energy efficiency? and this is what we can do -- this is what we would do with that money. it's not what we need to do on the big scale of a climate emergency, but these were the things that we were planning to do this coming year that we're not going to do anymore. we're not going to be able to seek funding for large scale charging projects. we're not going to be able to really develop those juicy public-private partnerships, all the entities that want to put electric vehicle charging in our city, we don't have the staff to meet with them to brainstorm and solve problems with them. we're not going to be able to convene citywide working groups to overcome systemic barriers to electric vehicle adoptions. we're not going to be able to implement some of the programs

that i'm so proud of. we're not going to be able to work with our colleagues to look at municipal parking garages and how are we going to get those contracts in place? we're not going to be able to track what's going on regulatorily or in terms of funding. the list goes on, but that's pretty devastating. that's a lot of xs of things that we thought we were going to do that we were excited to do that we're no longer going to be able to do because of the lack of low carbon fuel standard funding coming from m.t.a. and p.u.c. on the climate side, we're also not going away to zero, but we're reduced, and as joe said, it's that 20% of our nonimpound funding that is cutting some significant work that we're not going to be able to do. this is what we can do, so we are going to work on meeting our obligations for benchmarking on municipal

buildings, working with p.u.c. to dashboard energy use. it's very important to p.u.c. we love to be their partner on that. we're going to be able to do our inventory work that we're required to do. we're going to finish our climate action plan this fiscal year, and maybe we'll not able to develop some updates to that next fiscal year and track changes. we'll be keeping an eye on things, basically. that's what we will be doing, and we will be developing some dashboards, as well. next slide. but here's what we're not going to be able to do. we're not going to be able to look ahead. as soon as we finish our climate action plan, it's time to look ahead and say, well, what are we doing to get to 2030, our initial goal? we need to have working groups inside and outside the city. we need to monitor how we're

doing. it's great to create that action plan, and we will be doing that, but in terms of having the resources to follow it over time, we don't. and also the outreach and policy support for existing buildings, that is so critical to what we need to do next. we don't have the resources to staff that, even in a very small way. we'll do as much as we can, but not what is needed or what we were expected to do, so next slide. so in closing, and looking ahead, you know, i've offered you sort of the who we are, what the value is, how our funding is structured, what these changes mean on a big scale and what they mean on a detailed scale so you can see we've done the careful analysis. we know where we are right now, and so this path ahead is pretty clear. we've got a climate emergency. we've got that in a resolution, but we also all know it in our

hearts, and we know it in our personal experiences, and our department is ready and willing and motivated and passionate to address those challenges and to bring together city agencies, to bring together the private sector, to bring together our motivated residents to work toward that common sense vision. so when i look at what we need to do next, the first order of business is to allow us to do in this coming fiscal year what we were planning to do, which is bring us whole, that $346,000. but we believe and what i understand is our best bet for that is that the stimulus money, the package has gone through the house. it's now in the senate. we should know by middle of march whether or not the package goes out. if it does in somewhat the current state, san francisco is set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars. we need to make sure that some

of that money goes to our programs to at least make us whole so that we can do the work that we were planning on doing in this fiscal year. and lastly, we need to finally own the fact that this model of having foundational funding that is not stable is really unsustainable, and we've been living with this for 20 years, ever since all general fund money went away. and not only is it unsustainable for our department, it doesn't give us a path forward to fund the work that really needs to be funded to implement the climate action plan, and that's not going to be by arm wrestling other city departments over the general fund. that isn't the end game here. we have got to find another way to find sustainable funding and sustainable revenue, and it

might be a cost of carbon, just like we heard from some -- we've heard that from lots of people who have come in on public comment. i am already working with provider mandelman and having conversations with the controller's office to figure out how do we put together a path forward to make that funding -- supervisor mandelman and having conversations with the controller's office to figure out how do we put together a path forward to make that funding. that is where i'm committed to working, but in order to even do that bandwidth, we need to have a stable funding source so that we can have a staff to ask those questions and bring people together. so with that, i'm optimistic that with all of us, with the commission helping us, with the general public helping us, with the nonprofits as well as the business community weighing in, that we can convince the board

of supervisors and the mayor's office that this stimulus money has a home in our department, and that's just the beginning, so thank you very much. >> thank you, debbie and joe. i really appreciated the jenga analogy. that sounds really familiar. you know, i think did ten years ago, i joined the commission, and i was put on the operations committee, and i remember the first time the budget came to us. change the layout so i can see all your faces. i remember the first time the budget came to us, and i remember the strange shock of sort of realizing we didn't receive any money from the general fund, and the conversations that we've had over the course of the years, whether it was in the committee or the full commission how it would percolate up to the top

of our consciousness when it was top priority. we had to scrape around the edges to figure out how we would cover things. there were all sorts of times where unfunded mandates would come up where all of a sudden the department was given a task to do but no money to do it but magically, through the great skill and i think the passionate commitment of everybody on the team, we've made it happen. you guys all made it happen, and i think that that's a testament to everybody that's working in the department right now. there were even times where, you know, general funded departments had to make budget cuts that we didn't want to make, but i think that, like, lying beneath all of that through all that time was a very clear understanding that, you know, if not here, where?

we're a city who believes in the risk of the climate crisis. we are a city that understands the impact on all of our communities, and sooner or later, we're going to have to have this conversation, and this is the time, and we're going to need to have this conversation. so i want to open it up to -- to the rest of my fellow commissioners for comments and discussion around this, but i just want to say that i think we've all heard clearly from members of the public who spent time with us in our last meeting that there's a time right now where we need to start talking about what does the long-term funding of this department look like, and yes, we need to plug the hole here right now, but i would like our conversation today to figure out how we get to that longer-term goal, so i want to open it up to my fellow commissioners so we can have a

discussion. go ahead, commissioner ahn. >> so i agree with, also, everything that prevent stephenson has said. i don't know how we can claim to be in a climate emergency and face these devastating cuts to our climate programs which also deal specifically with work and transportation emissions and air quality, environmental justice communities. i hope we can get part of the federal stimulus money because it would be helpful to understand from staff if what is the scope of federal stimulus being proposed for the city and how other departments are also approaching it, as well. is staff able to answer that? >> when you say the scope of it, how many hundreds of millions of dollars? >> right. >> you know, i don't know, but it's -- it was -- it seems to be about -- so the city has, in the next two years, about a 600 -- this is -- i'll do rough numbers here.

$600 million short fill all over two years. the mayor's office is hoping that what comes from that stimulus money will fill the shortfall because what's happening right now is every department is putting in a budget of hurt right now, and so what the mayor's office is hoping is that stimulus money will bring everybody up to less -- much less hurt, and so everybody department is, my understanding, is sort of having a similar conversation with their commission that this stimulus money needs to fill the hurt, and this is what our hurt looks like, so that is my sense of that. >> and i'm sympathetic, of course, to other city departments that are facing budget cuts. i mean, these particular budget cuts that we're discussing today, they're bad for the environment, they're bad for equity, they're bad for

communities that face disproportionate air pollution. i'm really concerned, and i really think this commission this take strong action today, but perhaps i'll leave it to other commissioners to ask questions and make comment on this, as well. >> commissioner sullivan? can anyone else hear commissioner sullivan? okay. i think you're muted, mike. i don't see a mute symbol, but we can't hear him. we could hear you earlier. having some technical difficulties. oh, hold on -- nope.

is there any way to do it through your computer, like, not the head phones? >> i would try with where the mute button is. at the bottom of the screen, there should be a way to adjust the sound and do some troubleshooting. or he can call in on the phone line. >> you can't see the screen if you're with the public. commissioner sullivan's going to call in on the phone line so we're able to hear his audio. >> perhaps while we wait, one additional question. i know our g.h.g. emissions,

the inventory of that, it does talk about the other cities were undercounting their g.h.g. emissions. we've talked about this not being just about direct impacts to what's being done, but on the side? >> yeah, that article was actually interesting about -- there was a study done, looking at different g.h.g. inventory numbers, and there's a lot of dispute about how that looks at inventories, and actually in that article, san francisco looks like one of the most accurate in the country, so i don't -- so, you know, we will still do that inventory because we're required under international agreement, and so that is something we will continue to do, and it's also -- so the way work orders work is the requesting

department -- it's a negotiation what's important to them, and it's very important to p.u.c. that we do that work, and they will fund us, and we will do that work. however, we will not see as great reductions in those numbers because we won't be able to do the work itself, so yeah. >> commissioner sullivan, i've just unmuted your phone, so you should be open. >> okay. so can you -- >> yes, great. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> hooray. sorry for the technical difficulties. what i was going to say is i agree completely with everything that president stephenson said. i don't know whether the right word -- i don't know whether this is alarming or heartbreaking, but it's

probably both. we do have an emergency in the city, and the definition of an emergency is when you have one, you prioritize, and we've got to find a way to prioritize our climate work and also our e.v. work. when i was looking at the list of things that we aren't going to do on the e.v. project that debbie showed us, it's just alarming. disband the working group, no word on partnerships, the work on the large scale e.v. stuff that's so important, i really think that of all the things we do in this department, everything is important, but i think the climate work has just got to be the most important. when it comes to climate, i really think the e.v. work is the low hanging fruit. it's the way to make the biggest difference in the shortest amount of time.

we've got to find a way to plug the gap. the stimulus funding makes sense in the coming year or two, but i also agree with the previous speakers and commissioners, that we've got to find an opportunity for long-term funding for the department. this work is so important, we can't have it subject to the whims and chances of what grant's going to come up or go in a particular year, so i'm very supportive of the resolution. i wish there was a way to restore -- the evftes for the department went from through to one. it's amazing that we can do the work that we have with one, but i'd like to see it restored to

three. maybe we can use this adversity as an opportunity to find a long-term solution for dependable funding for the department. >> thanks, commissioner sullivan. commissioner wald? >> thank you. i'm, of course, in agreement with everything everyone has said. we do need to start with the resolution. that appears to me to be the short-term answer to the short-term problem that we are facing. i'd like to say that in one sense, in a really important sense, it's a really extraordinary action that we as a commission are being asked to

take. we've never done anything like this. in all the years that i've been a member of this commission, it appears to me to be the kind of document that we need to use for this [inaudible] during these budget negotiations to deal with this crisis. i have one amendment i want to propose, and i hope that it will be accepted by my fellow commissioners, and that we will pass the resolution. but that said, the resolution, if not, to be perfectly honest, what i would have liked it to be. it's extraordinary on the one hand but really, we're making a

very small request to the board or the mayor. this is the request that we're asking, it seems to me, is not the kind of action that has made san francisco a leader nationally, internationally, and it's not the kind of request that's going to necessarily keep us on that leadership petition, so i want to say, which others have said, that i hope it's only the first step, and that the next step -- i don't know what the end step is, but the next step will be the kind of letter that we talked about at the last meeting, a letter that sets out the existential crisis that we are facing with climate now and the need for the city to be a

leader not just in setting policy but also in the implementation in implementing the policies that are set forth in the climate action plan. without implementation, we are not going to achieve our policy goals. without implementation, we are not going to fulfill the critically important responsibilities that the board has given us. without implementation, the communities that we -- the city we, will continue to suffer the disproportionate effects of climate and air pollution and the pandemic and other actions. and without sufficient funds, there's not going to be the

implementation that is so important and so critical, and we have to help the board and the mayor understand the seriousness of this situation. debbie cannot do it alone. we have to help her. last month, as some of you may recall, i saw a letter from president stephenson do this month. i was thinking about a letter that each and every one of us sign, maybe with our supervisorial district indicated that really tells the board where we are in terms of our ability to address climate, to carry out the responsibility that they've given us to do the work that needs to be done to

achieve the goals that we've set out. so i want to make a pitch. i'm sorry to add more work, but i want to make a pitch to staff so they could figure out how we could create such a letter. i don't know if it needs a -- a special drafting committee. i don't know how to do this, but there has to be a way that we can send the kind of letter that i think we need to write. and i hear you all say we need, and then a follow up to that kind of letter is that we individually, where possible, attend some of the meetings that debbie will be having with

members of the board and the mayor. we are their constituents as well as the commissioners on this commission, and i think we need, where we can, to speak to this about our feelings on the issues that we're facing. so i hope we can make the resolution at least stronger in one respect, and i think we'll get to that. but i also want to urge us to start thinking about some concrete actions and the development of a plan that will help us get to where we all agree we need to be. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner

wald. i'm wondering -- there's a lot to unpack in what you just said, which is excellent, as always. i'm wondering if there's an opportunity -- but we'll get to that resolution amendment, as well. i want to get to that, as well, but last time with the budget, we wanted to send a letter over, and then, this happened, so we have not yet drafted that letter? i'm thinking that there's probably an opportunity for us to pull a very strongly worded letter from all of us that can come from me to go with the resolution, however we want to do that, that speaks to a lot of what we talked about last time around the plan that says this is what we're going to need long-term to be able to do this. i love your framing of the plan versus the implementation of the plan, and i think breaking that out very clearly that this is actually the kind of funding that we're going to need to get to that point, and i understand there's some interim stuff that needs to happen before we can put that together. but i think a letter like we

talked about last time would be great. i'm very intrigued about the idea of individual letters to our supervisors, and i would love to kind of open that up for conversation and discussion from everyone else, as well. i certainly like to bother my supervisor. i would be happy to go bother my supervisor in this capacity and be loud and noisy. i'm also loud and noisy about the schools in that capacity, but let's -- i'd love to hear other people's thoughts on that. go ahead, commissioners. >> thanks, heather, for sharing many of the feelings of many people here tonight. i am happy to draft a letter as necessary, whether it be a letter to the mayor, a letter to all of our individual

supervisors. i wanted to pose a question to debbie, like, are letters enough? like, letters, i'm sure that everybody is inundated with letters upon letters, but what, from your position and your vantage point will get the attention and best serve our efforts? >> well, the world is run by those who show up, so the more people who are showing up -- and there's different ways to show up. a letter is one way to show up. as commissioner wald said, going to a meeting with the supervisors is another way to show up. getting other people to show up also, and -- because clearly, in the long game, there's the short-term on how are we going to fill this hole, but in the

long game, we need political will, and we need political will. so we need political will in electives, but we also need the political support of the voters because my guess -- i mean, every conversation that i've had, is that to do anything meaningful, it's going to go to the voters, and so to do that is -- is a campaign, and that starts with letters, but you're right, commissioner chu, that in the long game, it's organizing, and i don't know what that looks like because i don't know yet what the options are legally and strategically. there's a lot of work that needs to happen in the next, let's just say six months, where we have to gather this information, take a look at what the options are, where the appetite is. so it's bringing together -- and the commission might be able to have that role of convening some thinkers around this, having policy committee

meetings where you invite some thinkers around carbon fees or other mechanisms, and the commission could start to help the department figure out how we put together the plan for this and then bring it to the elected officials as options. and then, also, the commission could help with fundraising, and i don't mean funding for the commission, but seed money. if you know people that would have those connections, that would also be super helpful. i've been talking to u.c. berkeley, how they can help us. they have the center for law and the environment, and they want to help, but it gets to a

point where it needs organizing. like commissioner wald said, it's beyond me, and it's a matter of how much do we need that as a city, so thank you for that question. >> so debbie, just to make sure that i'm understanding what you're saying, when we start talking about funding, funding that's going to help us understand what kind of organizing campaign thing gets put to the voters in what way that would create a stable source of revenue for us long-term. >> that's exactly right. >> so it wouldn't be the city give us a bunch of money out of the general fund, it's to do the work from a voter perspective to figure it out. >> and maybe there's a way we don't need the voters. maybe it's interesting credit sale or other opportunities that we have legislatively that we don't need to go to the ballot.

i just don't know at this point, and we need some context to understand, in the context of 218 -- california is unique in its guardrails or its boundaries, and we need legal minds, and that's not me, so we need science me to do that. >> that's helpful. commissioner? >> thank you. i wanted to say about the need to increase our efforts to also let the good work of the commission and the department, and i think it seems like a really good time right now with there are new members on the board of supervisors that probably could use a 101 on

what does our commission do, so i think that those kinds of meetings and letters do help because at the end of the day, you have to put something in writing to answer back to those folks, so that is also a trail, but also a commitment in one way of somebody articulating even where their priorities are, and what is it that we need to do to make sure what we do, why it's so important. so i know we're all tired of the zoom meetings, but maybe there's either phone calls, but definitely writing a letter and following up with phone calls is a way to reach out especially to the new members of the board of supervisors and -- to talk about the need to fund climate change and all of these things where san francisco has been a leader, and this is no time to stand down or to hold back. thank you.

>> commissioner wan? >> hi. just more technical questions on the position of the budget this year? i feel on the resolutions that we try to ask the mayor and the board of supervisors use of funding from the stimulus allocation. i'm just wondering, has -- has there been any conversations between the department and the mayor's office yet and what the response? because i know the mayor needs to present her budget first before the board of supervisors to approve? we need to work with the mayor's office first while we've still got some time with the board of supervisors to see who might champion this request, right? >> yeah, and that's an excellent point, commissioner wan. first is the mayor's office, but the mayor is already hearing from the board about all these plans to spend that stimulus money, right? they're already hearing about all these great ideas, so it's a little bit iterative,

although it is linear in the case of the actual budget. and yes, i have notified the mayor's budget office. i've been vocal. they understand my -- the predicament, and how i read between the lines is it's helpful for everyone to be aware of how painful and what the impacts are, and that the more voices that are sharing that information, the better, so the resolution is helpful because the resolution will go to the mayor's office first. it'll also go to the board, as well any other communication that you make, and that will let the mayor know that hey, there's a constituency out here that's going to me, but they're also going to the board. so if the board is saying i want to spend that money in some other direction, the mayor has some -- somebody backing her up to say no, the climate's important to me.

so you're 100% correct in terms of my first focus is on the mayor's office, and yet, we're not going to wait until june 1 to talk to the board. [inaudible]. >> on the resolution that we want to ask the mayor and the board to increase the department's funding? it's always good to have a thought on how much we want to ask them to increase the funding just because everybody's going to ask them to increase the funding, so they will have an idea of how much and for what reason. i just want to make sure that we prepare, that if we ask for more, what is it for and how much we're asking more? >> yeah, president stephenson, we need to make sure that the resolution is clearly worded because i'm not sure -- >> it's just to increase the funding. >> yeah, is it long range or short-term? >> well, honestly, i think

we've got, in the conversations that have come up from a lot of the commissioners, which i agree with the sentiment is we've got to get this year fixed. we've got to make whole the loss that we have in the budget that we've put forward that we've already approved, but this longer term -- to me, i think the resolution addresses the fact that we need the short-term fix. we also need a sustainable supportable long-term plan for this -- for our budget. that's not something that's going to come out of this budget cycle in my mind. i think that is something that's going to have to be a broughter focus that we have some incident him steps to take before then, and i don't think we know, from what i hear you saying, debbie, we don't know what those steps all are yet. we've got to do the work yet to

figure out what the steps all are, but to me, the resolution is plugging the short-term piece, plug the hole, and then the long-term goal. i think it might be a good time to talk about commissioner wald's amendment, as well. we're not asking for a dollar figure specifically beyond plugging the hole. >> which is fine. i just want to make sure it doesn't drop because a lot of time when we talk about budget advocacy, if we don't have solid amount, it pretty much means nothing a lot of key stakeholders. >> 100 -- 100 %, yeah. if somebody at the mayor's office asks us to do that work, we may need to know how much we

need to do the work, and that may happens in the budget discussions where a supervisor says i like your ideas, but i think you should be doing this in addition, and that would give me a chance to put something on that. you're absolutely right, commissioner. if we're asking for additional money, if we're not specific for what does it and how much, it's nothing, yeah. >> and then, the last question i have is if the department has any plan to let general public know about this cut and the impact on san francisco, like, media attention and everything? >> well, this is televised. this is a public meeting, and it's televised. there may be media that are paying attention to what you talk about, and there may be media that come out of that, and charles and i are designing our strategy for helping people

understand the realities of the budget impact. >> and it may not be san francisco, it may be more of an impact. i wonder if it could be more of a collective impact, a collective initiative, and it would drop -- help the bucket. >> so it sounds like a good time to move to the resolution and talk about that. commissioner wald, did you want to talk about -- we'll have to have a motion before we -- i think actually, before you can move to amendment the motion, we have to move, second, and the amendment. >> and then we have to have public comment.

>> public comment will come after the motion. >> okay. right. well, i'm happy to move that we approve this resolution. >> okay. seconded by commissioner ahn. >> i'm sorry. can we vote to approve it before -- >> we have to amend it first and then move it [inaudible]. >> okay. the rules of order just fell out the window. [inaudible] do i hear a motion -- actually, why don't you walk-through the amendments. >> okay. but before i do that, i want to share another idea, and i want to say something in response to

what commissioner wan said. here's a list of all the things that we're not going to be able to do because of the immediate short-term crisis that we're in. second -- >> sorry. could i add one small thing to the amendment? i'm just trying to think of stuff the department would like to do but hasn't been able to do. as part of that appendix that commissioner wan just suggested, maybe there's a specific funded equity piece, too, that the department and future policy makers can think through around, like, say addressing a particular program in maybe hunters point or the

tenderloin or south of market. i think thinking that through with the appendix, adding that to that number. >> mm-hmm, and related to that, i want to say that i think the paragraph that raises the -- the one paragraph that, in my mind at least, raises the question about whether we're talking about short-term money, interim money, or if we could put it in if we had it, a specific number, is the paragraph that begins on line five on page 20. that's where we make a general request, that the department's funding, in addition to the reductions, be increased.

it's just -- it's a very open-ended request. no sum -- no sum and no -- and no concrete actions, so that's where i think the confusion comes into mind of the commissioners who are -- who are unclear as to what all the purposes of this are. >> so johanna, so commissioners, the 346,000 that's mentioned earlier in the resolution i think is what's being referenced, and i think that -- does it -- in terms of the short-term gap, let's talk about that. in terms of the short-term funding gap, if we reiterate in the section that you're talking about, commissioner wald, if we reiterate the $346,000 to plug

the hole -- >> you don't have to, commissioner stephenson, because it's referred to in the preceding paragraph. that's the resolution that should make the department whole. >> yes. so i think that what gets hard here is i don't feel that we're in a position, i mean, i don't think that i'm in a position to say that these are all the things that we should be doing toward our climate action plan, you know, the big picture towards long-term funding. i feel there's a lot of work that has to be done to get to this is the long-term vision for funding. i don't want to water down a future ask or this big picture by being too specific.

i think this stimulus money makes us whole this time, and then, we figure out how to do the work that director raphael referred to earlier with regards to fundraising around getting some clarity around something like something to go to the voters. >> right. so my amendment is directed to the later point. a solution is to eliminate this paragraph entirely, and if we don't eliminate it, my -- my proposed amendment would come immediately before it. >> and what would that amendment be? >> okay. so i'm going to read it, unless i send it to charles -- >> yes -- >> earlier. can you share it with us? >> yes. katie can share her screen with

the new paragraph, so why don't you read it, and people can see it right there. >> okay. so -- oh, you have -- you -- you accepted all of my proposed amendments, okay. i was trying to prioritize. >> right. you can prioritize. you have the option to say what you want, and we can go from there and delete the other stuff, and you and your colleagues can go back and forth. that's the beauty of doing this virtually, we can actually do this virtually, so go ahead. >> okay. so my first priority would be to add an entirely new paragraph, which is the one that begins now on-line eight -- i was wrong.

[inaudible] okay. i don't know why the line -- [inaudible] i don't know why the lines are different, but further resolved that, in the face of the climate crisis and the urgent need for san francisco to continue to lead at home as well as nationally and internationally, it is critical that action be taken to address the department's on going lack of stable and sufficient funding to carry out the essential climate and e.v. work that it has been tasked with. that's my best document. >> and your preference would be to add that without removing the next paragraph?

>> no, i hadn't thought about removing the next paragraph until this discussion. >> right. >> i thought it was -- i thought it was a little weak for the reasons that commissioner wan raised, but in the absence of a -- i think in the absence of a concrete figure, and because it may detract from the privacy of the need to fill the short-term hole and to get started on the long-term prospect, that we should delete that -- >> okay. so your amendment is -- your proposal is that -- in what we're looking at on the screen,

that we keep 8 through 11, and we get rid of lines 12 through 16? >> yes. >> okay. >> and then, i would -- now that i see it, i would make a tiny change in seven -- in what is now line 17 that says that given -- and i'm making this up on the fly, given the department's current funding situation, that the commission also ask the board and the mayor to collaborate to help get a long-term -- on the development of a long-term -- >> commissioner wald? >> yes. >> commissioner wald, i may be

missing something, but it seems by deleting the paragraph that starts on-line 12, we're eliminating the request to increase funding for the department, aren't we? is. >> we are, but that's because we don't have a concrete number for that. >> don't you think it's important that, even if we don't have a number, to maintain the concept, which is that we need to do more, and if we're going to be doing more, we need more funding? >> and here, i'm the devil's advocate. now i'm being commissioner wan, but it's like a throwaway without a real number. it's -- it will not have an impact on the audience to which we have -- are addressing this because we don't have a specific request. i mean, we could make one up.

we could say increase the budget by 10% -- at least 10%, or maybe higher because it's an emotional document, but the -- there was an expressed feeling which i personally find myself in sympathy with, that in the absence of a concrete number, we both delete -- diminish the power of our request for $346,000 to make the department whole and minimize the importance of finding a long-term solution. if i thought that keeping that in would give us more money, i

would keep it in, but i don't think it's enough, and i thought i heard both debbie and commissioner wan agree on that point. >> commissioner wan, do you want to weigh-in? commissioner sullivan, are you [inaudible]. >> sorry. can you hear me? >> now we can hear you, commissioner wan. >> sorry. i think what my point is not putting a bigger [inaudible] they probably won't pay attention to there? i should say we having another resolution in the future to talk about what long-term funding we should have, but kind of just leave it there,

the fact that, yes, somehow, the mayor or the board of supervisors will figure out what long-term funding or how -- how much that we going to put as additional funding. in other words, it won't serve a purpose unless we have [inaudible] how much that we're asking. >> and president stephenson, if i may? >> yes. go ahead, commissioner ahn. i'm sorry. >> yes. just to add onto that, in the absence of a specific number because it's hard pulling that out, maybe just setting a timetable, in the future, the commission will request an increase in funding by this date. just some -- like, if we can't come up with the exact financial number, maybe it makes sense to come up with a date in which to expect that number. >> or, if i may, commissioner

stephenson, president stephenson, another option would be that we would just ask the mayor and the board to acknowledge that the department needs more money and a stable funding source to do the work that they've set out able

to create the ultimate ask. commissioner wald, i love the idea of an acknowledgement. i don't know what anyone else here thinks that will do, if it will actually drive feedback or action. has anyone had any experience with resolutions asking for an acknowledgement? we're alone out here, forging our own path. commissioner sullivan? >> so i think maybe the disconnect i was having with commissioner wald, i wasn't suggesting an increase in the

current budget because i agree, if we're going to ask for an increase, you've got to -- you've got to name your number. my point was that we signal to the board and to the mayor that we need to have increases in future funding if the department is to do all the important things that it is to do. so a suggest would be to take the paragraph that was deleted, and rather than say the commission asks the mayor and the board to increase funding, to say, instead, to support future increases in funding, something like that for the department, to ensure the department's ability to consolidate efforts. we are trying to do the most important thing that the city has to do, which is deal with this emergency, and we just don't have funding. it's not just the $346,000,

it's the chronic problem that we've had. in the face of a climate emergency, we can't afford that anymore. >> president stephenson, can i do a [inaudible] in here? yeah. katie, you're editing the long clause, so i think you need to stop, and i think we need to maybe have you work -- maybe it's time for public comment, and we need to work on this a little bit so it's not in live time, and i can work with katie on it because i feel like now it's becoming a little mushy, and what i'm hearing, and katie, just make sure you understand this, and charles, too, is that the -- what's on the table now is that johanna has put a new paragraph in, period. there's a new paragraph, and then, there's an existing paragraph that we're talking

about -- i hear what both commissioner sullivan and commissioner wald suggesting is that the ask, the action, because this is the result or action, is that we're asking for an acknowledgement, we're asking for recognition that the department needs more money. so maybe that's the biggest, most concrete ask we can do in that paragraph if we don't want to eliminate it. did i summarize that pretty well? >> yes.

>> we need an acknowledgement of an increase in the future to do our work. if that's the idea, i'm totally on board. >> so why don't katie and i do a little bit on that and we can move the meeting forward. >> i agree, i agree. all right. so while that is being done, can we move to public comment, unless, commissioners, that there's any other thing that you want to discuss before we move to public comment? all right. let's do it. >> clerk: all right. i will put the instructions up on the screen for anyone who is joining via webex, and i will also just readout the instructions for anyone who would like to call in and make a public comment on this agenda item. just a reminder that you will have two minutes. if you would like to make

public comment, dial 415-655-0001 and enter access code 187-096-1685, and one second while i check our queue. all right, and i am seeing that we currently have 16 callers in the queue, and so i'm going to switch screens. >> thank you, commissioners.

my name is [inaudible] your resilience in facing uncertain funding conditions and their commitment to this department will get us to a future where the city remains inhabitable. these are the individuals that the city should take its queue from as we determine what our budget priorities are. we know for certain that we have just identified a $125 million surplus in the city budget from which the city can support the needs of this department, and we also know the city has passed the -- the country has passed a funding plan where we'll have access to $600 million in unrestricted funding. our commitment has to go further than tackling the policies. it needs to be accompanied by a

level of investment that allows us to continue to develop plans like a climate action plan and be able to implement these plans. i speak for all of us at local 21 when i say we'll be partners in this effort, and we look forward to dedicated long-term and short-term funding for this department. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. all right. and i'm going to go ahead and unmute our next caller, and i just want to say thank you to everyone who's currently on hold in the queue. please hang in there until it's your turn to speak. okay. i'm going to unmute our next caller. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is hui lee.

i'm a local 21 member, and i work on the local [inaudible] at the department of environment. i want to speak today to also support the resolution and to support my fellow colleagues, who will be impacted by the budget cuts. the climate and e.v. team are invaluable to the department and the city as a whole as highlighted by debbie. it doesn't make sense to fund this department with a patch work of one-time grants. between our city aid and aid by congress, we can't afford to stop funding the department, and what we can't afford is to stop funding for a green planet. i encourage you to continue provide funding for the

department. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i'm going to unmute the next caller. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm [inaudible] with local 21. i feel that it is extremely important that the department receives more stable long-term funding to help low-income communities that have disproportionately impacted by climate change. on a personal note, i have experienced the stress of securing funding on top of imp imp -- implementing funding. i hope that the city will provide more stable funding to the department. this will help ensure our programs are sustainable, and we can retain our amazing staff, and thank you,

commissioners, for always being incredibly supportive of all of us. >> thank you for your comment. i will unmute our next caller now. >> hello, and thank you, commissioners. my name is brian reyes. i'm a local 21 member, and i also work as a 5638 climate [inaudible] with the department of environment. i've been incredibly lucky to work with debbie and everyone up and down the staff in the department of environment. i'd like to thank everyone responsible for providing the funding for this department. [inaudible] as many know, i'm a climate analyst responsible for developing the city's climate action plan as part of the team and engaging all stakeholders in the agency and public and global networks, all of which

are responsible for giving san francisco its reputation of being an avant garde city when it comes to climate -- avante-garde city when it comes to climate protection. we can't continue to rely on provisional funding to support our team's efforts and build staff capacity to address the growing climate emergency. so there is a very real chance that the city will receive the $600 million, and we also learned this month that the city actually has a budget surplus of $125 million that does not include federal funding or additional fema reimbursements the city will receive. the city has the funding to support this department. commissioners, enjoy working

with you all, and i urge you to vote yes on this resolution. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. i will unmute our next caller now.

>> hi, commissioners. good evening. my name is sylvia plat, and i am a local 21 member, and i am one of two climate change analysts at the department of environment serving the entire city of san francisco. i want to say that i cannot imagine working for a better department or living in a better city where we do have a strategic vision, and our impact can have such a positive impact on san francisco residents in an unmatched way. since coming on board in 2016, i've led the effort to develop the methane mass report, which

is the basis for the city's unanimously approved legislation to enforce the city's natural gas ban in new construction. i engage and provide technical assistance and climate advice to other city agencies, and currently, i'm coordinating the development of the city's climate action plan, which is a key road map to enforcing actions and strategies that allow us to be proactive in the climate change front. as part of this climate work, we also have a commitment to advance our racial equity goals and science overlap with this climate emergency and identify the real ramifications in our marginalized at-risk communities. unfortunately, it is work like

this that is currently at risk if we don't get budget funding for departments. like stated earlier, now it's -- our job's on the line , but a few months ago, it was other people's.

>> it would be very easy to put down 10, 50, $100 million per year. we might not get it now, but we will get in front of the board of supervisors and the mayor, and we know that they will have to pay attention down the road to us. it's not acceptable to put a number down now. i know how politicians work. if you don't get their

attention now, they will ignore you going forward. we don't have time to research all the various plans and how we're going to get the money, we need the money now. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. i will unmute our next caller now. >> hi, this is daniel tehara, district eight, member of the san francisco climate action coalition. [inaudible] and after is an indictment of our elected officials to claim that climate change is an existential threat and yet do nothing to address it except offer their words. that includes the mayor who asked us to made cuts in this budget -- make cuts in this budget, after which the easy first step of banning natural gas in negate construction, they haven't addressed climate change as quickly as they should. the climate system in which our

current goals do not have a stable source of funding and are dependent on other funds or external grants affects our position as a climate leader. this is a mockery of our climate goals and the work the department does. if we're debating about the short-term funding gap and primarily asking to be made whole, we're losing the war. if we're praying for stimulus money as a get out of jail free card, we're playing the wrong game. we need to stop thinking about the money that we're given from recology and others and start thinking about the money that we can claim. we need to start moving the process along. the process is broken. my parting message is this: ask for the world or there won't be any left, and commissioner, if you'd like our help in asking

for a meeting with the supervisor, we'd be happy to help. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. i'm going to unmute the next comment now. -- unmute the next caller now. hello? [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. if you have the meeting on another device, you might need to mute it. >> okay. can you hear me? >> clerk: go ahead. sorry. try one more time. >> okay. i think you can hear me, so i will speak now. >> clerk: okay. i will reset your timer. >> hi. my name is sarah greenwald, and

i live in supervisor stefani's district. the paris climate accord asks what countries the conditions will fall in the amount we need by 2030. they're on course to go down by 1%, and i know you have -- the city's priorities, the city is dealing with three major catastrophies: the pandemic and climate change. with climate change, there will be introductions of new diseases. we know that many things cause homelessness, but with more and more weather catastrophies, many more people around the world and country will see disasters from climate change, destroying their home. i see san francisco's climate action plan having to beg the

city to restore this department's portion of the city budget to its previous level of less than 100th of 1%. this is madness. now people in houston still don't have water today because their pipes froze in the storm and they didn't have enough plumbers and pipes to fix it. it's not just the storm, it's that the city had no plan. we are heading into a chaos without precedent -- this is what i want you to tell the city, okay? that we are heading into a chaos without precedent, and we will not be able to handle it unless we've got plans, so we damn well better invest and make sure that these plans are as good quality as humanly possible, so your task is to make the city give s.f.e. what

it needs to put us in motion against the climate emergency following well crafted flexible plans, and i wish you the very best, and we'll do what we can to help you. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. i will unmute our next caller now. >> hi. my name is helena buricke, and i'm a member of the climate reality project. i couldn't agree more with all of the public comment that has been made today, and i want to thank the department of the environment and the commissioners for sounding the alarm that we need stable emergency level funding for climate action and climate justice. quoting supervisor wald, without implementation, we can't achieve -- are not going to achieve our policy goals. it is devastating to see even the city where i live and was born fail to meet its actions on the climate emergency.

i should have 50 to 55 more years to live. my niece, born last year, would be 80 in 2100. the san francisco climate mission, adopted by the city in 2000, says climate change poses a threat to human stability and existence, yet san francisco's climate budget is 1% of 1% of san francisco's budget. that's 1/10,000th. that's a tiny amount. it is ludicrous that we are not getting funding from the city for the emergency that it declared. i am imploring my mayor, london breed, and my supervisor, hillary ronen, to put its money

where its mouth it. we need to not just add back to cuts, but we need to analyze the costs and resources required to implement an emergency response, to eliminate global warming to 1.5 c, identify durable long-term funding sources for san francisco environment, a clean energy building hub, and the city's climate action broadly, and we need to properly fund staff at the level needed to do this urgent work so that they can stop spending 25% of their time scraping together grants to implement their programs. this is about the future and it's about healths and equity right now. how many deaths would have been avoided if people living near freeways would not have been breathing in the particulates from cars. we need real -- >> clerk: okay. your time is up. thank you for your comment.

i'm going to unmute our next caller now. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is mora mcknight, and i am executive director of the business climate change in san francisco. we have a long-standing history of collaborating with the department of the environment around climate ambitions. i strongly support both restoring this funding in the short-term and finding long-term sustainable funding streams in the future so san francisco can continue to be a global leader in addressing this threat. this moment is exactly the wrong time to take our foot off the gas on climate leadership and program implementation. to achieve an economic recovery that is rooted in the health and prosperity of all of its residents, the city must

continue to prioritize sustainable actions and climate actions. we need strong programs on the climate space in order to implement elements of president biden's recovery plan and to build back better, and we need to align with this and have the staff to do the work. we also need the staff to provide technical support around the very challenging goals that lie ahead of us. all the low hanging fruit has already been picked. the challenges ahead are very, very complicated, and i know i'm preaching to the choir. at bc-3, we focus on building transportation and decarbonization recovery. many businesses located in san francisco take great pride in the pioneering work of this department, and we know that a number of residents and employees of these businesses based here are hungry for the kind of leadership that is laid out in the climate action plan.

our organization looks forward to collaborating with the department and the mission on the long-term funding strategies that you are planning. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we'll unmute our next caller now. >> hello. my name is katie [inaudible], and i recently retired after 12 years of the sustainability manager at genentech. i now serve as the chair on the business organization on climate change. i both support restoring this funding in the short-term and finding long-term funding so that san francisco can continue to be a model for california, the u.s., and the world in addressing climate change. i believe the s.f.e.s climate

work has been instrumental in enforcing san francisco's leadership and make san francisco be the kind of company that our member companies want to be located in. also our member company employees are demanding climate action and want to live and work in a city that share their concern for the environment. i thank you for this resolution. thank you so much for your efforts. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i will unmute our next caller now. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeff whitesall, and i live in district nine. i'd like to add my voice to the voices speaking here tonight. i do want to echo something that many of the callers tonight have said, which is that the existing funding model

for the department of the environment, with no sustainable reliable sources of funding, that that's a ridiculous way to fund such an important work, and the paragraph and the resolution that was most discussed that include -- included the language, the c.o.e. asked the mayor and the board to increase funding. i have to say i found that incredibly polite given how important and substantial that is, the funding model is so inadequate, and i felt like commissioner wald's amendment or extra language improved its own, but i think you could set up even more because someone really needs to get punched in the nose about this. there's so much important work that the department of the environment has to do. we just had this incredible success moving to all electric

new construction, but there's next steps where we have to, like, start working on our existing -- how are we going to fund that work? if the board and the mayor wants to show that they're sincere about addressing the climate emergency, they need to come up with a serious way to fund this department. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. i will unmute our next caller now. >> hi, this is joanie eisen, a

resident of district 10 and member of climate action coalition. thank you for convening this meeting. director raphael's presentation about everything that can't get done really scared me. a city's budget reflects its values. how can we tell our kids and grand kids that we didn't value or health and safety or anyone else's for that matter to meet our climate goals in time to avoid catastrophy. with no accessible levels of funding, san francisco doesn't have any idea of what implementing the financial plan will cost. that can't be allowed to happen, and we certainly can't allow reducing its current budget, which is so inadequate

any way. so when the city allows the department charged with overseeing climate action to have pathetically low money, all other departments can feel free to ignore its mandates, all of which are urgent. i believe this is both fiscally and morally wrong. please, commissioners, make your case to the mayor and supervisors that for s.f.e. to depend on work orders from other departments and for them to squander valuable staff time writing grant proposals is appalling and will have tragic results. this wealthy city in the wealthiest country in the world should be leading by example. the climate emergency deserves nothing less than its own line item in the city budget starting this year. at the same time, we should be putting a price on carbon emissions. show the world what real san francisco values look like. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comment, and i will unmute our next caller now. >> good evening, commissioners, and director raphael. i'm very encouraged to hear the discussion tonight about the recognition and importance of more funding. i'd like to reiterate the comments of helen bericke earlier. the climate crisis is incredibly complex. the interactions are incredible and often hidden, and the opportunities with new technology to take advantage of low energy heat for increasing efficiency for lower costs has not been investigated.

it's critical and particular that s.f.e. develop the plan to make the plan, so understanding how to get the dedicated head count now to map out what's needed on a revolving basis is absolutely essential, and i think i heard that recognized in the discussion, but i wanted to be explicit about that important thing. it's also important to recognize that, as a leader, if san francisco identifies opportunities, there is the chance to partner with other cities and counties to get the budget needed for larger project, and that should be explores, and i thank you for your time, and i thank you for raising this issue tonight. >> clerk: thank you for your comment, and we do have one additional caller in the queue, and so i will unmute our next

caller now. >> hello. my name's jeremy brenner. i live in the mission district. i'll keep it short. i just want to reiterate what i've heard that we need a more stable funding source for this department. to only have two climate change analysts for a see of this size and budget and more important for a see that wants to be and has a great opportunity to be a global leader in this area is simply unacceptable. we need a much more stable and healthy budget, so thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your

comment, and i'm seeing no additional callers in the queue. >> all right. then public comment is now closed. thank you all for your very thoughtful and well articulated feedback. we really appreciate the members of the public that show up time and time again to tirelessly work on behalf of the climate and the citizens of the city. really, really appreciate your time for waiting all this time for your turn in line. appreciate it. all right, commissioners, charles, do we have an amended bit of copy that we can take a look at? >> yes. and so while public comment was happening, i've been working on it to try and encapsulate commissioner wald, commissioner wan, and commissioner sullivan, so that's what i did, so i channelled my inner all three. katie, i worked on the shared document. can you share the document?

>> clerk: yes. give me one second. >> so while katie is putting that up, commissioner wald, i took the paragraph and put that on there, and then, based on the comments that i heard from everyone, i tweaked the other paragraph, which we were getting caught up on, and what i have is obviously a suggestion, so we'll take a look at that shortly. so this is the first paragraph that commissioner wald has suggested as an entirely new paragraph. i'm going to read it quickly. further resolved in the face of the climate crisis and the urgent need for san francisco to continue to lead at home as well as nationally and internationally, it is critical that action be taken to address the department's on going stable and sufficient funding to carry out the essential climate and e.v. work that it has been tasked with.

that's brand-new. as you can see, the next couple of lines are all struck out. that was the old paragraph and there was some new things put in there, and it's all been struck. here is the sentences of what we were -- we're talking about, so let me see what you think. so further resolved that the commission on the environment also asks the mayor and board, in addition to restoring the reductions, to acknowledge the importance of increasing funding for climate and e.v. initiatives and to work accordingly to accelerate the effort to combat global warming, so i'll pause there. that's the newly revised paragraph. >> commissioners, any feedback on the paragraphs?

we should probably take them independently -- on commissioner wald's amended paragraph? i can't see everybody, so you may want to holler out. it looks like everyone's thumbs up. >> looks great. >> all right. and then on the -- what looks like now, the line 18, after the struck paragraph, the piece that charles just readout, any feedback or discussion? >> i think charles did a great job of synthesizing and addressing our need in the future, so that's great. >> anyone else? >> and ditto from me. >> commissioner wald says thumbs up.

she's our word smith. >> so thank you. i do have one thing that's a little less complicated. it's the appendix of what we're not going to do. i can walk you through that. it's really simple. we're going to take that language and essentially not make it a powerpoint slide but take that actual language and put it in, what you've already seen in the powerpoint. >> commissioner ahn, does that [inaudible]. >> it does, but it doesn't address the increase in funding, which is, i think, where a lot of our conversation gets muddled. what i was thinking about

making the wording more generalized, like list of other programs. this is such small wordsmithing, but yeah, just to make it another category. are other commissioners open to that, about discussing an increase in other types of programming or other areas of department that may need resourcing? >> what i think i'm interested in is discussing the programs that we need? is it a time crunch that we need to pass the resolution that we can start the discussion from now on? and then, the further discussion that we will have to table the request of the operation committee or as a full meeting next time, which is at the end of this month, i think. >> right. so maybe the really important thing to add here is that

this -- it's a partial list of programs that won't be funded under, you know, the current circumstances because that allows us to add both other concrete examples if we have them but also to add the kinds of expansions that we would want to be able to do. >> we can add the word partial in there, partial list of programs. >> i was going to suggest that, as well, for me. >> yeah. >> if i may, president stephenson, yeah, this -- what's critical about line 19 is that it's a partial list of programs that will not be funded unless the cut is restored. i think we just need to be really clear that this is a very small universe. this is not programs that won't be funded because we don't have increased funding, this is that

cut, so i just -- yeah. unless -- yeah. >> yeah, i think that -- i like the language. i also want to say that i'm fully committed to -- we can have a conversation about our need for funding. i don't expect this conversation to stop any time soon. i expect we're going to have this conversation until we fix the climate crisis, but hopefully, we'll get it taken care of. this is work that i'm committed to doing, and that obviously the department is committed to doing. i hear from the public and from all of my fellow commissioners, that we all -- we see this as the work of this time, so i -- you know, my strong belief is that we need to pass this resolution, we need to support our department, get the money in the door to make sure that we don't lose the programming that we do have and do the hard work of making sure that the

leaders of our city understand that we're serious, and we need -- the time is now, and we need help now. >> and on that -- >> how about a motion -- sorry? >> no, on that note, i agree, president stephenson. we've heard today from climate activists, union workers, and department staff, so i'm in favor of pushing this out as quickly as possible and pushing forward what we've heard a lot of speakers today call for. >> thank you, commissioner. all right. so i think what's next up is for a motion to be made to make the amendments as they were stated by charles. do i hear a motion? commissioner wald. do i hear a second? and i can't see everybody. sorry. seconded by commissioner chu, thank you. and then, we vote on the

amendment, and then, we're going to have another motion after that. so can we do a roll call vote, please, on the amendment? >> clerk: yes. okay. i will call the roll call vote on the amendment. [roll call] >> all right. the amendment passes. do i hear a motion to approve the amendment -- or not approve the amendment -- to push the resolution forward -- the resolution? >> the motion? >> yes. >> a motion. >> commissioner wan moves. do i hear a second?

>> i will second. >> commissioner sullivan seconds. a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: all right. [roll call]