items two through three only of the agenda? president one we have no speakers or hearing no public comment. public comment is now closed. could you please call the roll for item three president one eye. >> vice president sullivan i commissioner on high commissioner bermejo i. commissioner hunter i. commissioner tompkins i. commissioner u.n. is excused. >> the motion passes the next item please. >> the next item is item four general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not already on today's agenda. >> are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? only? madam president, we have no speakers. >> all right. public comment is now closed. next item please. next item is item five nomination and election of the commission on the environment president and vice president.

>> this item is for discussion and possible action. >> three hours. could you please provide a summary of the process for commission elections? >> yes we will begin with the presidency and we will accept nominations for this position only following nominations and discussion there will be public comment and a vote. we will then repeat the process for the position of vice president including nominations, discussion public comment and a vote commissioners can nominate themselves and nominations do not require a second in order for the commission to vote on a nomination. are there any questions regarding the process for president and vice president elections. seeing no questions we will now entertain nominations for the position of president. >> i'd like to be recognized. >> i'll go ahead, commissioner. so as fellow commissioners have observed now over the history of the commission, we have now moved to two year terms for president and vice president of our body. commissioner one is served

honorably by my estimation the first year of a two year term so i would like to re nominate commissioner president sara one for you know a second two year term. i think more generally we live in dark times for the environment for the department, the commission there are a lot of challenges ahead and in my mind there are probably no better leader we could ask for in sara one in her dedication to communities particularly immigrant communities that are under siege by this administration. and i've always appreciated president one's understanding and stickler feel for how environmental policy can be connected to the grassroots. i think we need that more than ever to be able to tell the story of environmental and environmental policy in a way that relates to people will be the fundamental challenge of our department and commission ahead. so with that i'd like to submit that nomination. >> thank you for your kind words, commissioner. yes, commissioner. >> well i wholeheartedly agree with commissioner on and i like

to second the nomination of sara wan to continue for a second term as our president of the commission and the environment for all the reasons that the commissioner has stated. >> thank you. i just want to chime in. in addition to what the other commissioners have noted, these are dark times and this is going to be a tough year and i think someone with commissioner one's experience and especially the experience and the operations of this of this commissioner will be really welcome in the year ahead. so i am happy to support the nomination. >> thank you. thank you for nominations. i will have to say that i'm glad you accept the nomination but then also i want to take this chance to say that it's really my great honor to be working with very competent department staff as well as where we're always who always put the committee interests in front that would four commissions that always work on agenda for the best of the committee interests. so i really it's really my honor to be on this commission

and thank you for everyone. >> i don't know if there's any other discussion or questions. >> if not, then we're open for public comment. >> are there any members of the public who wish to comment on the nomination of commissioner one as president? oh okay. >> madam president, we have no speakers. the public comment is now closed. please call it a roll. president one i. >> vice president sullivan i commissioner on i. commissioner bermejo i. commissioner hunter i. commissioner tompkins i. >> commissioner uno's excused. thank you. and with that the motion passes and again once again thank you for everyone's nomination and thank you for all your great work serving on the commission . >> we will now entertain nominations for the position of vice president. and of course i would like to bring my really my better partner on this commission, vice president sullivan to

accept this nomination to be my vice president once again for the commission. >> any other comment? >> oh, okay. i do as as one of the newer commissioners i have appreciated the leadership of commissioner sullivan as our vp and with all the transitions happening both at the federal and local city level now more than ever we do need this steady leadership most knowledgeable and experienced leadership as well. and i know in his role of vp of the commission commissioner sullivan has brought this exact leadership up upon commissioner sullivan's appointment to our commission. he remains laser focused on addressing what is required to help san francisco reduce its climate impact and enhance energy efficiencies as well. he supports the san francisco department of the environment's diversity and equity goals.

additionally, he has recognized us as the commission's champion for urban forestry reining true expert on trees and the only tree author. for these reasons it's my pleasure to nominate him for a second term. >> thank you. thank you very much for the nomination and the kind words. i joined this commission shortly after president trump took the country out of the paris accord and i guess that was 2017. and i just thought i needed to do something to contribute. and now here we are again some years later. so this is going to be a year where it's more important than ever to double down on environmental goals and especially climate goals. so i'm very happy to be able to do my part for that in the year ahead. >> thank you. vice president sullivan is there any other discussion to open up the public comment?

are there any members of the public who wish to comment on the nomination of commissioner sullivan as vice president? madam president, we have no speakers pick public comments now closed. please call the roll. president one hi. vice president sullivan. hi commissioner on hi commissioner vermeil i. commissioner hunter. commissioner tompkins. >> commissioner u.n. is excused. great. and with that the motion passes and we have our commission vice president sullivan. >> congratulations. thank you. >> next item, please. >> the next item is item six review and vote on whether to approve resolution file 2020 5-03- co a resolution authorizing our planet recycling crv contract extension. the speaker for this item is elina beckerman crv zero waste coordinator. the explanatory document is resolution file 2020 5-03- chloe resolution authorizing our planet recycling crv

contract extension. this item is for discussion and possible action. >> good evening commissioners and director joo thank you so much for hearing this presentation. my name is elina beckerman. i am the sierra bees zero waste coordinator and i'm here representing the residential team to discuss the san francisco beverage container recycling program and our contract extension for our program operator i. our planet recycling has been the program operator for the last three years coming on three years and since the initiation of the program the city which had experienced a

desert of redemption sites in san francisco has turned around crv redemption around the state has slowly been decreasing over the last decade and since january of 2022 the bottle buying program an innovative mobile and cashless crv redemption solution has been operating in the city in almost all districts and has returned over $500,000 to residents to date thousands of residents are using the program and it has received initial funding from the state and is currently also going to have funding through the annual city county payment program an annual allocation from the state. so the contract amendment that we're seeking your approval on is to move the contract from its current state of 500,000 up

to a million with this contract our intention is to expand access for crv redemption to more san francisco residents through innovative solutions and collaboration with san francisco residents. >> the modification of the grant will help us enable more hours of operation collaboration with partners like reverse vending machine operators as well as consideration for reusable bags as part of the solution. the grant timeline will remain unchanged at this moment so it will remain through june of 2026. to date our planet recycling has been steady and consistent partner in our programing. they are the only certified full scale crv redemption center in san francisco approved by cal recycle and our

incredible collaborator helping us create more redemption solutions throughout the city. >> this next slide is a lot so i'll go through it quickly and just give you the highlights. basically in 2012 we saw the start of a big decline in the number of recycling centers in san francisco and that decline continued through 2022. we slowly began to see what customers saw as tax instead of a crv deposit so residents were not able to access redemption sites. they were closed and the state had created this funding pool for recycling center pilot programs. san francisco took that opportunity and worked with cal recycle and the our planet recycling recycling center to establish the bottle bank. and since then we are starting

to see a continued upward trend in terms of redemption by residents and the number of recycling sites operational. those five there at the end are four of them are the planet recycling operation including bottle bank. >> so with that in summary, the environment department is asking the commissioners to approve the resolution to increase the contract amount from 500,000 to 1 million and the goal the goal as previously stated is to continue to expand access to san francisco residents. thank you very much. now take any questions if there are any. >> so so quick questions so increase domo from 500,000 to 1 million. that's a pilot operator has the capacity to implement is program in such a scale up they

do yeah they're currently operating with a budget of about 400,000 annually on their own with the addition of some of these improvements like reverse vending machines and increased scale of operation they will be able to take in that budget. >> i see and in is there do five recycling centers we mean in san francisco and yuma do you know where do they usually locate in mostly in one location or one either the east side of the city of the west of crews are over different parts. >> yeah. great question. so the the main headquarters of our planet recycling is in the bay shore. there's another small recycling center besides our planet recycling that's represented in that five but they're not a full scale they're just a container and they're a southern california operation and that location is also in the bay shore at the food co. the remaining certified recycling centers are part of the bottle bank program and

they are throughout the city. so the the four sites that are part of the bottle bank are actually represented by the mobile recycling program that is the the bottle bank program that is throughout most districts in san francisco though operational limited amount of time and then the additional 500,000 sorry already secure the funding. >> yes yeah the funding is through the city county program allocation and it is annually over $200,000 at a commissioner. any questions? yes, commissioner. >> i'm trying to make sure that i understand what bang for buck with out this money if we did end approve this could the program continue into 2026 with its current funding the current program unfortunately has lost some of its operational work as a result of of other partners

that are part of it for san francisco conservation corps for one, we wouldn't be able to expand the program further so we wouldn't be able to test out new technologies like reverse vending machines and we wouldn't be able to add additional staff hours. so there's been a decrease as of this month as a result of the san francisco conservation corps exiting the program and can get into a lot of the detail. >> but that's that's part of the funding increases to be able to expand the program so the program could operate at its current level with the cuts this month until the end of 2026 or sorry until it ends in 2026. >> the contract the contract ends in 2026. there's no more funding in the contract. >> um okay. that's why i'm terrified. okay so then this funding would basically fund the program and then get us the additional

implementation of you said reverse vending machines and additional collection efforts. >> all right. i think i answered all the questions. thank you. thank you. thank you. is there any other questions or comments? uh, do i have a motion to approved a resolution file 2020 5-03 the seal i'll motion to approve. can i have a second on seconds ? >> thank you. we have a motion by vice president sullivan and a second by commissioner on let's open up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? >> madam president, we have no speakers. okay. public comment is now closed. >> please call the roll for item six. president one by vice president sullivan i commissioner on high commissioner bermejo i commissioner hunter high commissioner tompkins i commissioner yuan is excused correct a motion passes.

>> thank you. next item is the next item is item seven presentation on the 2025 update of san francisco's climate action plan. speakers are cindy comer for climate program and her and elizabeth stamp senior climate action coordinator. this item is for discussion as commissioners as cindy and elizabeth come up for over to come on. i just wanted to provide a little bit of context. as president juan noted, this is the second of our budget hearings before we submit our budget and we've been engaged in conversations with this commission regarding our strategic delivery plan. also noted today by several commissioners is that there clearly is a step being taken away from our federal and leading on climate with the current administration and we've seen that in the form of websites being taken down referencing climate freezes on grants that we have contracts with both in the city and this is happening throughout the nation with many other cities that we're talking and in collaboration with.

and so with this kind of attack on on climate issues which is our core function here as a department and as the commission, it's equally as important that we continue advancing this work advocating for the funding that's necessary to continue this work because in these kind of dark times everyone is looking to cities like san francisco to lead the way and the times we choose to step away when things get difficult that gives other cities the excuse to also step away to because if san francisco can't do it, they oftentimes they feel what chance do they have to move forward? and so as we have been beginning this process to update our climate action plan which sets forth our goals which cindy and elizabeth will talk about, it is very deeply tied to all of the funding conversations we've been having with this commission over the last several years and the decision point we're at of whether or not during this critical time when the federal steps away are we going to

continue moving forward or are we going to continue in reversing course and moving in an alternate direction? and so with that, i'll turn it over to cindy to kick us off just quickly for the record, commissioner, on how to be excused for a portion of the meeting. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. again, i'm cindy commerford. i'm the climate program manager. i'm here with my colleague elizabeth stamp and we're going to give an update on the climate action plan just to give you some quick context. i think some of you were here in 2021 but not all of you. so our last climate action plan was released in 2021. it was supposed to be 2020 but because of the pandemic it was delayed and so our commitments to kind of our professional organizations and to the city is to update our climate action plan every five years. our last update was quite immersive. we kind of redid the entire framework for how we look at

climate actions establishing very concrete goals, strategies and actions and also grounding all of our work and equity. so this update is a little different that we're we're we're looking at the same framework and using the same structure but we're really trying to hone in and kind of polish our actions and how we approach the next five years. so here's the agenda. so in a nutshell i'm going to give a little bit of an overview and talk about what we've accomplished where we are . and then i'm going to pass it over to elizabeth to talk about the work that's been done on our 2025 cap and where we're going. so just to kind of set the stage and start off with some context. 2024 broke some new records and not the kind of records we want to see. so unfortunately 2024 was the warmest year in our modern

times. and it also is a year that signified we went over the 1.5 celsius threshold that was established by the paris agreement as kind of the trigger point that scientists have established that going over this threshold meant that we were going to start to see very severe climate impacts which we know we've been seeing for the last couple of years. and i think the fires in la really exemplify the magnitude of destruction we're seeing from climate change. >> and so here in san francisco we have made a lot of progress. you know, since 1990 we have reduced our emissions by 48%. this slide illustrates, you know, where our emissions are coming from predominantly from the transportation and building sector. and i think as taylor said, it's really important that san francisco remains a leader in

the climate space. and the next five years are going to be really critical in doing that. and so i want to talk a little bit about our accomplishments since the last climate action plan. we've done a lot of work after we released our climate action plan. the first thing we started to do is look at how we fund and finance that plan. we released a report in collaboration with uc berkeley around which we refer to as a clear report to look at how we can fund and finance the climate action plan. that is where we came up with that $22 billion price tag for the implementation of the plan. and i know that sounds like a lot but if we just look at the economic cost of the l.a. fires, they're estimating it to be $250 billion. and that's one climate disaster right there. we have also done a lot around tracking and accountability and developing websites and implementation tracking with

other departments. and then also a lot around public awareness marketing campaigns doing outreach and trying to be as inclusive as possible in our approach to our outreach. >> so as we move forward this slide shows the focus areas we need to prioritize in our climate action plan. so first to start off with transportation which is our largest source of emissions, we need to make sure that we are prioritizing saving our public transportation system. many of you might have seen that it's there. maybe there is going to be cuts to our public transportation system. and that foundation is really important to reducing climate emissions in san francisco. over the last year you've heard a lot of the great work from our clean transportation team. we need to continue to advancing our ev charging infrastructure in san francisco to allow for the easy adoption of evs. >> and then we also need to

look at strategies such as pricing that would help reduce the demand for driving and help with mode shift transport. >> and then we go to the building sector. you know some of our important things we need to look at in the building sector is public awareness making sure people know about the impacts of buildings and climate change are up coming back mid ruling around natural gas appliance replacement. also making sure that we're providing incentives and one thing that's not listed here is we will we are developing an upcoming policy called a building performance standard which you heard about for large buildings and so that will be important over the next year as we kind of go through other focus areas. housing's going to be incredibly important. we need to make sure rezonings san francisco to build the housing we need. this is a really important climate strategy also that downtown recovery is going to help reduce emissions in our

energy sector. we need to move towards rate reform. we need to make sure that we're making it affordable for people to electrify their homes. and we need to figure out how we actually decommission our gas system. we also added on our water supplies we have to make sure we're securing our long term water supply for san francisco and diversifying those sources . and then lastly, looking at healthy ecosystems, we want to make sure our city has the tree canopy that we need. we're investing in green spaces and biodiversity. and last but not least, we need to make sure we're doing all of this work in a circular manner and we're creating a circular vision for our city. and so next i'm going to turn over to elizabeth and she's going to talk about how we're going to do all this. >> thank you, cindy and good evening, commissioners. i'm elizabeth stamp. i started in the fall and dove right into the climate action plan update.

so the approach that we're using as cindy outlined, the last plan was very comprehensive. so with this one we're building on a strong foundation and trying to move quickly and streamline both the process and the plan so that it's easy for people to understand and hopefully support and hopefully fund. we are definitely staying bold and ambitious for all the reasons director chu laid out and cindy laid out as well. >> we're having flooding right now outside. and then the approach so it's a little hard to see but we're focusing we continue to have a net zero goal in 2014 and we're focusing on actions through 2030 sort of near-term clear concrete actions we're going to take soon. we're making those measurable working with other departments to try to make the actions as measurable and time bound as possible so that we can clearly report progress against goals.

we're working with all these departments to update again the goals, the strategies and the actions in the plan. this is the project timeline right now we're kind of at the tail end of updating you know, doing this initial proposed update of the goals strategies and actions. we're turning to the next couple of steps which are doing a racial and social equity review looking at the impacts and potential impacts potential benefits and how to mitigate any impacts, improve any benefits for people from underserved communities particularly. we're also starting our public outreach and i'll talk about that a little bit more and then we'll continue to revise refine present the plan, share it, finish it, publish it before the end of the calendar year. >> new sections in the plan

include one on funding and financing as well as one on governance, one on innovation and we'll be doing kind of an initial exploration of carbon removal. >> some sectors that have changed slightly we've moved land use from going with transportation and to going with housing and renamed to responsible production and consumption as circular economy . >> the rest stay the same. the emission targets also stay the same. >> and here you can see more of the nitty gritty of the updates we're doing. so there are seven sectors this is the first transfer or the first time talking about right now the largest contributor to our emissions. >> there are two two goals within this. one is mode shift which cindy mentioned earlier and one is vehicle electrification.

>> this one has been in the last plan the the mode shift was to low carbon modes and that has led to a little bit of confusion because it was a lot of modes it was shared you know carpooling it was evs. we've decided to just move from and this is again working with a lot of departments also still just proposed. >> but for now what we're proposing to do is to to have the mode shift goal be going from driving basically to walking biking and transit those sustainable modes not including vehicles. so for that reason then the percentage of trips that we're aiming for gets lower because again we're not including all these other vehicular trips. so it's 60% by 2030 and 80% by 2040. and then for the rest of the trips that are in vehicles where the goal is to electrify those those vehicles, the 25%

and 100% goals remain the same. and then we we're adding a goal for medium and heavy duty vehicles. so it's 25% by 2035 and 100% sorry that should say 2045. and these are five years later to reflect the fact that this technology is still developing . >> the next sector housing and land use. this comes directly from the city's housing element of the general plan and it lays out planning for 82,000 new homes by 2030 and 36,000 of those in well resourced areas. so that the new development is more equitably distributed in the building sector. the goal in the last plan was for all new buildings to be zero emission by 2021. that happened and we need to

continue to maintain that as new developments are proposed as exemptions may be requested . we're still looking to keep new buildings here. our mission the large commercial buildings goal has been rolled into that third goal there for all buildings going zero emission by 2040 partly to reflect economic conditions there have not but there has not been a lot of new development and so that is moving out a little. >> energy supply remains the same 100% renewable electricity. this is completed for clean power srf if there is still some customers who are not on that and so we want to continue to make that electricity supply renewable as well. and then move to all renewable energy by 2040. and then water supply these are largely the same basically reduce water use, continue to

have gravity fed a water system which is zero emission and develop new water sources as we deal with drought when we're not dealing with flooding to diversify our suppliers and increase our resilience. and then the last two sectors circular economy. this one these are the goals from last time we're still discussing these these may be refined or added to but reducing solid waste generation 15% reducing disposal to landfill 50%. and then finally healthy ecosystem was the goal last time was to sequester residual emissions through nature based solutions. research has found that the amount of carbon that can be sequestered in san francisco through nature based solutions is relatively small. it's not going to make up as much of the proportion of emissions that we need to cut as we had hoped. so we are moving our focus away

from sequestering emissions but still advancing the conservation of biodiversity. so again these are still somewhat under construction but we're looking at having a goal around biodiversity, a goal around greening and access to it and a goal around trees which is 30,000 new street trees by 2030 as a key part of a healthy urban forest. >> we're starting engagement very soon. this is a tentative timeline. the events are somewhat tentative as well. there's been a pause on contracts which is pausing some of our planning but we're moving forward what we can and we invite you to participate in any and all of these that you would like. my understanding is that commissioners participate in some of the outreach. last time and we very much invite your feedback how this

plan can be stronger, how to build support and action. >> anything else and then particularly on the public events if any of you would be interested in participating in the kickoff and in language virtual meetings. >> again, you're very welcome. thank you. questions. questions? >> yes. thanks. thanks for that presentation and really important as we're heading into 2025. one question and one comment. so the the the electric vehicle goals 25% by 2030 100% by 2040 the i think that's that's not registrations right that's actual cars on the road that is vehicles registered in san francisco and actually it's both the private fleet so just cars people own and the public fleet right.

>> but there could be we could be by that point like every single new car that's coming onto the road is electric but there's still older cars that are that are not. >> so it's a it's more aggressive than just the registry. yes. that are happening. yeah. okay. and i think almost all these goals seem achievable with in my view one exception which is all building zero admission emissions by 2040. that's 15 years from now. i wonder if we really believe that. so i think that might be something to take a look at and i know it's easy to to have aggressive goals when they're far out but that's one that i'm a little skeptical about. yes, commissioner, thank you for coming. >> i'll second your point. you took my first comment. >> i think if we're thinking all buildings in san francisco i would love to see the math on how we're going to get there. i'm not sure it's possible.

moving on from that though to the circular economy are really keen to update some of the goals there as well. i'm curious if the department thinks it's feasible to go towards a true zero waste not just a reduction of 50% of 2015 numbers and what kind of time frame that would look like? i don't expect an answer right now but as we look at refreshing the climate action plan, i do think it's something to consider. >> hmm. thank you, commissioner. >> anyone else? >> i do have a couple of questions. so when you go over all the different sectors are they all seem to have very clear goals except the water supply that i'm not so sure is there like a certain percentage or any metrics that actually show that we achieved sonego because you say maximize the water use but what does that really means? >> um, i think that's that's true. we don't have metrics for those

goals yet but we're continuing to talk with the departments involved about it. >> okay. i'm just curious because all other sectors seems very clear and precise what we're trying to hit the goal but then for water supplies we don't have a clear indicator so it'll be great. >> i think there's some. sorry. i think there are some state goals that there. so like for the water use reduction there's a per capita water use per day metric that is and sort of lower down in the actions but yeah. >> thank you we can. yeah. and then the other question i have. i see there are two in language virtual meetings one for spanish and one for chinese where those cantonese and mandarin it could be complicated. i'm just wondering would that be only one opportunity for limit english speakers who are able to engage in this meeting? sometimes it does take longer time because they might not be familiar with the concept and all the stuff that time to digest. so i'm just wondering if that's

possible to have more than one opportunities for each of the speaking non-english speaking community to be engage. yeah. thank you. >> yes, that's right. there's one other thing i wanted to mention which is as we're adopting these goals i think it would be great if the commission could have in some kind of a regular cadence an update as to progress against the goals. >> i mean it could be once a year maybe a different cadence but i'd love to see how we're doing against these goals as as the years grow out. >> yeah but this is very helpful. definitely. yeah. >> i can't believe is five years already? yes. know i do want to revisit the housing and land use. having a plan feels as if we're not committed to actually putting these facilities in place. and so how did we move from a commitment of affordability and actually having built

facilities to just a plan? >> i think if i'm understanding the question i, i think what and this was you know, this is largely the planning department's work and the housing element. i think the thinking here was rather than to commit to building a certain number of houses which was for homes, which was how the the goal was stated in the last plan the city is not necessarily actually the one building the homes in most cases. so the city's power is to do the zoning. and so that's that's sort of what it is is rezoning land to make room for a lot more new homes. but the development does have to need a lot more actors than just the city. does that answer your question? >> so basically with what's within our control. >> right. or maybe another way is to create the environment where we can support the development and

creation of those 80,000 homes. so using our powers as to create the zoning changes or other changes in permitting or other things to facilitate those 82,000 homes being created because the city isn't building those 80,000 it's a private developer. and so what steps we take in terms of requirements around affordability land use all those things factor into how many homes eventually get built. >> thank you. >> thank you. any further discussion or questions? seeing none let's move on to public comment. >> are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this specific item? >> if you wish to comment. please come forward. you have three minutes to speak for yourself. my name is susan green.

i'm with the san francisco climate emergency coalition. thanks for this opportunity to speak. >> as you know, we can only limit the social and economic costs of climate damage if we invest strategically in measures to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. the longer we postpone significant investments, the longer the more it will cost to simply adapt to continually worsening climate situation. >> as the clear reports findings underscore, the city's climate action plan has been what i think of as laughably underfunded for a number of years. >> the instructions for this year's city budget only make matters worse. this needs to change now. if the city is serious about meeting its climate goals, i very much support the environment department's and this commission's leadership by pushing to stabilize and increase funding for housing and vehicle electrification for

greening the city for our zero waste goals and for investing in measures that support transportation mode shift. the biggest emergency san francisco faces by far is the climate emergency and our goals the timeline for meeting those goals and our spending priorities all need to reflect that. thank you for your efforts to make that happen. >> hello. my name is julie lindow and i represent san francisco climate emergency coalition as well. as well as san francisco bay physicians for social responsibility. so today i am actually representing hundreds of health professionals in san francisco. many at ucsf and kaiser and i also worked at the foundation for deep ecology where i was an assistant reviewing grant proposals by climate organizations. and i can say from that experience that we are so

incredibly fortunate to have tyrone zhou and the team at sfe and an outstanding climate plan. and i want to second the comments that tyrone and cindy made about how important it is at this moment for san francisco to lead. we must lead and i want to thank all of you for everything all your support of funding the full funding funding full funding for the climate plan no matter what it takes. we need to fund the climate plan sfe bev zero waste and especially the climate equity hub. >> and i was very struck at the capital planning committee meeting recently that if you defer fixing potholes it exponentially costs a ton more. with the climate it's even worse right? as sue just pointed out, we're not talking about having to spend more money. we're talking about health and lives. and the doctors i work with

know that more than better than almost anybody else. so i think you for not only being local leaders but you will be national leaders if you can fund this plan. you will also be world leaders. so thank you. >> hello commissioners. my name is jennifer haggie. i'm a member of 350 san francisco and also the golden gate electric vehicle association. >> as a supporter of the cap goals, i appreciate all the work that's gone into updating the the plan. we need to continue the programs around building decarbonization transportation, electrification, fashion and responsible consumption and zero waste. also call or now called circular economy and healthy ecosystems. as a member of the golden gate electric vehicle association i have a particular interest in

the implementation of the pilot curbside charging program accessible charging. it's important to enable those without a garage for charging access who have a need to drive to be able to transition from gas to electric cars or vehicles. having this access near where people live is critical to their vehicle decision making. moving forward forward with all these programs requires funding and resources and to reach our 2040 goals. just having a plan is not enough. please ensure the cap is funded. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? madam president, we have no more speakers. >> thank you. public comment is now close. next item please. >> the next item is item eight presentations on refuse rates planning process for a new

refuse rates period of october 2025 through september 2028. explanatory documents for this item are a recology rate application narrative for eight years 2026 to 2028 and recology rate applications summary of assumptions for rate years 2026 to 2028. there will be three presentations. the first will be the presentation by the comptroller with speaker julio profuse rates administrator. the second presentation will be from representatives of recology. the last presentation will be from the san francisco environment department with speaker alexa keelty residential zero waste senior coordinator. this item is for discussion. >> good evening commissioners. >> jay liao comptroller's office referees rates administrator evening dr. chu. >> before we jump into the more substantive presentations with recology environment i wanted to give this commission a little context around referees rate setting process why this is being heard today at this commission. so in 2021 the voters passed

proposition f which made the controllers the refuse rates administrator and took the regulation of referees rates from the department public works and put in the comptroller's office established four principles cost effective service that meets service standards with consideration for environmental goals, rate stability and fairness. transparent. accountable and publicly accessible process high professional ethical standards. also an f is that the refuse rate administrator must present proposed rate order to the environment commission. >> so we plan on being in front of this commission twice today is our first meeting to give some context to the commission. >> also a chance for the commission to hear what colleges proposal on the rates. what we'll do is we'll take your comments about recology proposal into consideration as we develop our own proposal which ends up in front of the board. we'll be back in april to fulfill this mandate to present

our proposed rates to this commission. a few other background pieces. we're currently only setting residential rates and then considerations in this rate setting include costs related to impound accounts so that impound account is funding from the refuse rates that go to certain city services which include programs within the environment department, public works and then our office as well. >> so the four main goals are those principles established cost effective service rates, ability rate fairness. but in addition to that some things that we set out in terms of goals for this rate setting process first was more robust ratepayer input. we found that kind of the rate parent input from commission hearings and from our report hearings we weren't getting a whole lot from that and so we've actually set out to do some focus groups and some community meetings to get some input into this our rate setting process. we have an improved rate order

structure that would be rolling out that looks more like a set of service level agreements so we can kind of spell out exactly what services will be provided from recology. we are going to be rolling out a new performance metrics monitoring program and then the other piece is there are you know, a lot of capital costs that ran dissipating in the future and looking to use rates to to mitigate some of those long term costs. >> so those are some of our goals when we set out to start this process. i'll try to be brief on this one. it's just some context for the timeline of the rate setting process. we look at this in three phases the first phase is the rate change request phase. so we introduced an application in september of last year recology had well anyone had up until january 3rd to propose changes to the rates recology submitted an application january 3rd so now we're in phase two two rate order

proposal development where we analyze recology proposal we do research and rate comparisons with other jurisdictions. we have a public record building process through a formal interrogatory through referees rate administrator hearings and then we have a public input process that includes written objections. we have a portal for that up to 18 mailers, focus groups, community meetings and then we also have these commission hearings and these all help us kind of develop our proposed rate order. phase three is basically our rate setting hearings. so we propose our rate order the rate board will consider our proposal and over the course of probably 2 to 4 hearings they will come to decisions around what's in the rates. >> this last slide is just to give you a summary of recology

proposal and i'll let them go into the details around this but as you can see for what they're proposing for this upcoming rate years and 18.18% increase in the first year 7.53% in rate your 2027 and 3.86% and rate your 2028 that first 18% increase represents for a single family home with the default service around 850 an increase $8.50 in our initial analysis and this may change but in reviewing and validating the application we're seeing about 8% of that rate year 2026 increase as structural and due to three factors. one prior year over projection of revenue. so in the last rate order recology assumed and we agreed on some level of recovery after the pandemic was modest 2% a year that wasn't realized. you know people are still

working from home and so the revenues didn't come in as expected. so a large chunk of this is make up. there was a payroll projection mistake from colleges and they ate some of that cost during the rate order. and so in this new one they're looking to make up that cost in the last we would say a structural is the voters passed a new business tax that increase that increased their tax burden by around 2.5 million a year. and so we consider that also structural. >> you know while 8% of the structural the 8% increase is high gives us some pause from a rate stability standpoint. so given the level of the proposed rate increase, we're looking at everything and our colleges rate application to see where we can find savings and bring rates down. so this includes model adjustments like growth and

cost increase assumptions, account adjustments. so this includes the impound account as well program operational adjustments, any new program proposals and ultimately we just want to make sure that any costs incurred are to the benefit of the rate payer. so there any questions about the rate setting process? i'm going to hand it over to recology to go into the details about their proposal in a question. well commission i'll just ask a quick clarifying question for extreme clarity come 2028 we will not be able to change the rates if it's approved of this year. >> so we're locked in for the next three years basically, yes. this is a three error rate proposal so prop f allows us to propose 2 to 5 year rates. this is a three year rate cycle. so what happens is when we do a prop 218 notice it sets a maximum rate and so we can go below that but we can't go

above that. thank you. yep. now the question good evening commissioners and director joo my name is evan boyd region vice president for recology. i'm going to give you kind of a brief overview of our rate application and then my colleague will also help present portion of this rich lancer our region controller. >> so a brief overview of the application itself. >> we'll go to a few program enhancements a trash processing investment that's a priority for department of environment which we will talk about rate increase summary and break down what you saw a small portion of

in presentation and then some of the cost drivers that are behind our rate application. >> so just looking at the rate application overview at a very high level as you look at the residential rates, the residential rates have remained flat for the last two and a half years and and will remain flat through september 30 of this year as the refuge rate administrator mentioned this is a three year rate application so rates would become effective once approved on october first of 2025 and would run through september 30th of 2028. >> our rate application which you will see include input and priorities really from three different departments department of public works, department of environment and