those that will get set to builg and don't use it oregon get load don't use it all but spend it ot measures and even candidates. it ought to be stopped. and that's why i'd like it put n calendar next week with the usuf analysis. the other one deals with public financing money which is left o. and that's not in ordinance fort i'd ask staff to put it in ordie form. i was given a one-sheet summaryt which i gave to the executive dr and i didn't retain a copy for . so i am speaking from memory. but it is a proposal which is meritorious, dealing with what s to that mon -- what happens to t money so it isn't used for non-l purposes or non-intended purpos. and i think that concludes my cn that, although i wanted to talkt state legislation. i don't know, mr. chairman, if s appropriate here or under new b. >> it would be under item 10. state legislation on item 10, tf report on policy. >> okay. >> so if there is no objection t commissioner kopp has proposed,l have that on next month. >> so the commission just to cly would like the staff he's analyr recommendations in regard to boe previous proposal by supervisorl and the proposal on page 1 aboue of public comments by superviso. >> that's what commissioner kops suggesting. i'll in accord with that. we'll have that on next. >> a brief question to commissip about supervisor farrell's prevs proposal. you had mentioned you wanted it presented to the commission at t month's meeting for further acty the body. have you given further thought t this body would take? >> gentlemen. yes, adopt it. do we have the power to adopt i? >> there are two ways you can m. >> do we have the power to adops or no. >> there are two ways to make iy law. first is to send it back to thef supervisors which they've alreay rejected it. the second is to make it a ballt measure m. >> that's what i want to do. >> in terms of timing, would yot on the same ballot as the other legislation? >> yes. as soon as possible. >> so we'll be discussing next n regard to the two matters whetht we want to put those on the balr the june election. public comment on that? >> commissioners, peter cohen. are we expect to the legislatiom supervisor farrell which was rey the board 8-3 dl tha 3, thattalt nonprofit housing organizationsh our organization has made them s members. aside from the policy discussiod perhaps differences commissionea lot of concern about the intentd that ordinance and lack of discn about it as a policy matter. at the time of the of that, we k housing that kind of administrae policy should rest. we suggest that if there is a cn about a lack of clarity around s for refinancing which what it is refinancing affordable housing s and fully paying out the city it those proadz proceeds are use pd be which many other policies abt developer fees and other such te crafted. that's how we suggest it be hand rather than legislatively or the ballot. i would secondly ask as staff ig their investigation, to report o you next month, that you do reao the affordable housing nonprofit organizations that do this worko understand the intricacies of refinancing of the projects as s the mayor's office of housing. these are the professions. -- professionals. i would flag a great flag of con about tackling something without understanding how this works. >> i will comment on that. i expect we'll fully understande don't now, with the staff reporh covers all aspects of it includg examples of how it's been used. >> i would request that the stat also focuses on whether or not n area within the jurisdiction ofe ethics commission. >> further comment on this item? we go into item 10, discussion f policy report and monthly yo upe commission's annual policy plan. >> i'll keep it short considerie time. you see a laundry list of itemse attempting to work on with a coe added for next month. the legislation, we had the fulr included but obviously it did nt included with the documents thae in front of you. we'll send that off to commissis with a complete list of the stae legislation that highlights sore jurisdictional areas that the cn oversees. so conflict of interest, lobbyi. we'll additionally post that ont spend it specifically to all ofo you can see the legislative tra. i don't have a lot of highlighto under the specifics of northwess that were chaptered at the stat. the ones that we did review here some local implication all in ss review it is fairly minimal. so with that, we'll take questis obviously with the understandint we'll submit to you as soon as e the full legislative tracker wie summaries of the bills. >> commissioners. any public comment? >> david philpel. items 9 and 10. when staff refers to local legin that is at or has been before td of supervisors, if they could ce number and not just say supervim or farrell, but have the file n, that would be helpful for us. and for state legislation instef just referring to a-b-187 to int was 2017 maybe who the author it was chapter -- >> they do that. >> in the future will the tracke included as an attachment? >> yes. >> all right, just so it's clea. some just read the staff memo. and it's good to have all the rs there. thanks -- references there. and thanks to kyle for his good. >> further comment? we'll go to item number 11, disn of the enforcement report. >> in the interest of time, i'le this open for questions. >> commissioners. >> any public comment? >> item 12, discussions of the e director's report. >> the only highlight i would lo draw your attention to is on paf the monthly report, the status f commission positions and recrui. since our last meeting, we had r positions posted on line, threee positions closed today. and we have one more of them clg next week. so we have a total of five posis that are in play at the moment. so we look forward to reportinge updates to you at the november g on those. >> commissioners, any discussior questions? >> yes, i thought i understood t maybe i don't. of the five, how many are inves? >> one. that position closed this aftert ak p.m. -- at a 5:00. >> 5:00. the deadline closed at 5:00. >> now it will take another nins to go through civil service? >> i'm more optimistic than tha. more like three months. >> okay. >> any public comment on this? okay. item 13, discussion and possibln regarding status of complaints d or initiated by the ethics comm. possible closed session, does ay commissioner wish to have a clod session? commissioners, any comments or s relating to this item? any public comment? we'll go to item 14, discussiond possible action on items for fue meetings. >> go ahead. >> commissioner chiu: i think in following and i think many of yd our last two hardy stalwarts thn the audience have been followinh mounting dismay the stories -- s stories about the intervention a in our election in 2016. the use of targeted on line adso influence the outcome of the we. i would -- election. i would like to ask staff to pra white paper or in whatever formu think is best to present the isd what action we might take as a commission here in san francisco prevent the hjing o hi jacking l process. >> do you have a time behind? >> what would be expedition butt month. >> thank you. >> rvery topical and timely. >> commissioner kopp. >> are you finished. i have a couple of matters. qualifying as possible action fe meetings. one is not new. and originates in may. and was part of our june meetind that is a charter amendment to r this commission to have its ownl council. independent of the city attorne. a legal council exempt from civl service selection processes. with a provision that the city y will represent the commission at proceeding in which the commissa party. the deputy director of enforceml be responsible for legal matterg from the context of investigati. and enforcement. mr. chairman and members, i notn the monthly report of pending complaints. one of the items which i can't - yes i can put my hands on now, s been pending for some period of. and i respect the rule of confidentiality. but i note that the settlement e form of a draft of a stipulatios been sent to the city attorney. could anything better describe a prohibited conflict of interesth penalizpenalizes us in its exect kind of circumstance. i won't reiterate because of th, our unhappy appearance over ther of the planning commission was g advice from deputy city attorneo also gives us advice. the time is now, and i would lio request that that be placed on r agenda for action in november. >> that relates to the next bal. i suggest that -- >> december. >> december would be better. >> i accept that logical sugges. secondly i would like to ask thf procure preparation, i guess itn ordinance, which would abolish e sunshine ordinance task force. this was created apparently in y legislation from a then supervi, when i asked him the rationale t it was to keep its eyes on the s commission. that's a heck of a reason to cre another city bureaucracy. granted it has limited staff, bs its responsibilities duplicate e responsibilities of this commisn namely the brown act of the staf california, it's local counterpe california public records act, d matters which relate there to. enough is enough. so i would ask that staff prepat and i'd ask that it be placed on december. >> i think mr. chen has -- you'e indicating you have something te on what commissioner kopp said? >> just this is probably not the for a full discussion of the pr, but to clarify, the ethics commn cannot place a charter amendmene ballot, that would be somethingt needs to go through the board of supervisors. >> both of those changes requira charter amendment. not sunshine? >> that would be an ordinance. >> on what grounds? >> so section sa 15.102 of the r is the provision that allows ths commission to place measures one ballot. that specifies that the etics cn only places ordinant ordinance . >> what do you recommend as our attorney? >> if the commission wished to e such a charter amendment, it wod forward to the board of supervir further consideration. >> what is that suggest as a recommendation from you to us? >> that the commission can still consider it and that the commisa is -- is amenable they can forwo the supervisor. it can be any recommendation the on a matter of recommendation. >> what would the form of the recommendation be? >> a vote in favor from the memf the ethics commission. >> all right. i ask that it be calendared fort purpose. >> okay, let's do that. any further -- >> i have one other. >> certainly. >> unfortunately, the letter-wrs anonymous, but i received a communication with a draft reson that dealt with opposition to ag assembly bill. it was mo mooit was moot becausi received it, the bill had been d and signed by the governor and chaptered. but i would like staff to consia method or methods for keeping tf state legislation which affectsr responsibilities. and i haven't paid attention toe board of supervisors does now, d to have a state national affairs committee which dealt with pende legislation and federal legisla. i think it originated from city departments who would bring it e attention of the clerk of the b. then it would be on a calendar e committee of three would then lo arguments about itfje and make recommendations. but this was a bill which made t certain meetings, i guess, relao negotiations and it recited thay california communities adopted s of civic openness in negotiatio. c-o-i-n. the california first amendment n missed this bill entirely, but t created an exception to the bron ways that didn't result before. so, legislative session doesn'tn until january, maybe there is pf time to figure out a way for use about state bills. >> if iif i might, as kyle indit of his monthly staff report, thl be a legislative tracker attacha matter of kors. it was an oversight from us thi. that tracker will include itemse relevant to our work and by thae mean items that would have an in our work and programs we adminid laws we enforce. you'll start seeing those at tht month's meeting. it is important to acknowledge y be items of general legislationl not be tracking because we haveo authority to administer or enfoe laws. the same may be true of the is e legislative items that may be it to our work or open government t we don't have the authority to administer and enforce. we need to make sure that we mor what we can and be responsive to questions that the commission h. it will likely have a narrower e of all potential bill bills that things we touch on in our work. >> thank you. anything further? >> no, just -- >> public comments? >> i have one more thing. our chief programs officer askei ask you all if it would be okayd sent you an e-mail previously wn example of a proposed electroni- method for sending you the agena packet. instead of receiving the agendat as attachments to your e-mails , you'd receive it as hyperlinks e website. i'm wondering. >> as long as we get our copies. >> all right. thank you. >> public comment. >> thank you david philpell. to commissioner kopp, the boardf supervisors does not have a cury state and federal affairs commi. the city has a state legislation committee and i'm sure staff cam the commission as a future meett how that process works for the o take a position on state legisln which is an important arm that w people know about in city gover. the second is touching back to t of deputy city attorney chen. a charter amendment would requix votes from the boar board of suo be placed on ballot. the commission has no authoritye a charter amendment and the mayo formal role in the placing of cr amendments on the ballot. the third was the suggestion the sunshine ordinance task force be abolished. that will be a controversial su. that can be done by ordinance oy the electorate. the commissioner kopp is slighty incorrect. the task force was actually cres part of the original sunshine oe in 1993. it was amended several times ass name and composition in the lats then amended further with prop n 1999. it was a feature of the original sunshine ordinance in 1993 as dy then deputy city attorney randye and was a big usual for then sus akton burg and shelly principal. there can be and perhaps will be on the merits of the task forces to live with and without the ta. but it's not simply 67.30 that e amended or repeals but other prs in 67.21-e and 36.35 and a numbf provisions. lots of things. be careful what you ask for. finally, if you eliminate -- >> what is happening? be careful what you ask for? you ask for an elimination of dd fending of taxpayer money? >> if the taskers to is eliminad there would be a complaint procn it is entirely possible and pers likely this commission would hef those sunshine complaints at grt length and hear lots of people f who you've seen and haven't andt want to take on that burden of g all those various sundry compla. that's why i offer a caution toe favorable. right now you get -- to be care. right now you get a limited amot fimenterred tfiltered to you. >> thank you, any further public comment? any additional opportunities? is there any additional public t on matters appearing on not appn the agenda pursuant to the ethis commission bylaws? hearing none, is there a motiono adjourn? >> to moved. >> second. >> all those in favor. aye. motion carries. motion carries. thank you. good morning and welcome to to san francisco county transportation authority board meeting for tuesday, october 24, 2017. our clerk is mr. steve stammows. if you could please call the roll. clerk clerk commissioner cowen. absent. farrell absent. fewer present. commissioner kim is present. peskin is present. reasonnen is present. safai is absent. sheehy is present. commissioner tang is present and commissioner yee. we have a quorum. >> i will give the chair report. item two. colleagues let me press our support to the north bay communities that suffered great loss during the recent fires. we are all thinking of them and we stand ready to support the northern bay communities as they rebuild in the days ahead. i am pleased to share good news that the ta sold the first long-term bonds last week raising $248 million for the vehicle purchases and other projects city wide. five under writers participated in the sale and they offered the award with bank of america with award of 2.9%. financial and poors upgraded the credit ratings on the ta. we are proud of the new aa rating and aa plus rating from s&p. this reflects the diversity of the economic base and strong financial position. as a result the ta was able to realize a low coast of borrowing. congratulations to to bond team including the deputy director and lombardo and the director chang. i would like to thank ben rosen field who advised the agency on this first ever transaction. the other group that deserves thanks is the task force which held the fifth meeting yesterday i want to thank sonny from my office they are focusing on new revenue measures. among the options are sales tax, vehicle license fee which has been identified by previous task forces and new items such as grocery receipts tax. i note with interest the proposed tax on uber and lift trips by emanuel could raise $20 million per year for the chicago transit system. in november the transportation task force group will continue the revenue discussion and focus on expenditure plan structures. sf transportation 20.45.com. my office is working to develop independent oversight task orders to review the sales tax program and paymentsems and budget to ensure the best practices of the operations. i am looking forward to hear about the peer review on the analysis of the caltrain down down extension track. with that iconcludes my remarks. any public comment? public comment is closed. item three. executive director's report. >> good morning. i want to echo chair's remarks and thank the bond team for the excellent work last week and proceeds of $250 million for city wide programs. on senate bill one this is the account of road repair and accountable act signed by governor brown this summer we are working to ensure the guidelines are supportive of our local goals and delivery objectives. we have been pleased with response from ctc and appreciate the incorporation of the program guidelines that came out as well as upcoming solutions. we are working together with regional agencies to ensure that we can bring nor funds to san francisco projects including the 101 corridor. that is named in the legislation as one of five monthtential corridors to be assisted by the funds from the programs. overall just accounting for the re-surfacing we expect $60 million to come to san francisco from senate bill one. that does not account for regional programs that could also come to us through those channels. there is a potential threat to the program. a repeal effort happening led by representative denham and others in southern california to mount an effort to repeal and we hope to resist that and maintain the critical funds statewide. turning to the subject of tnc which the chairman shared i want to thank the california public utilities commission for holding the work shop on the public of data and data sharing. this is something we have been calling for throughout the state. there were two panels one tnc folks and one transportation and government planning folks. the deputy director for technology participated on the transportation panel. he said it is not possible to be well informed if we don't have the benefit of the critical data. we posted a note on where to find the video of the workshop. i found that a rich exchange. i want to thank the cpuc for holding the hearing. we were pleased to win a grant from the 11th hour foundation for 125,000 to support the tnc research to collect data not included in prior tnc works demographics, occupancy of vehicles, trip purposes and reasons for their choice of tnc. was it to change modes? was it to meet other needs? our planned research will address congestion impacts and transit demand impacts and other issues around equity. on school transportation we want to thank the mta, public health and range of safe routes to schools. topics is discussed in that working group. we will schedule a hear on the request of commissioner kim on school transportation that is scheduled for november 28 at 11:00 a.m. following the great conversation at this board last month. we are aiming to bring back recommendation of 2.8 program money for safe routes to school funding to the december board meeting. to the city wide topic we connected with the second workshop on the long-range planning that is asking for impact on the vision for the savannah future transportation -- san francisco transportation system. 70 folks in the workshop including city staff and groups throughout the city. there were 2400 pants in the series of -- participants to supplement the workshop participants. this vision will be completed and we will bring that back to the board later in the year. finally, on project delivery i want to note that the hills tax is put to good use in replacing the mini fleet sfmta is replacing this through the rubber tire system. in september they took delivery of eight more motor coaches as well as last quarter two out of the 24 expected light rail vehicles. we are very pleased to see the dollars hitting the system as we speak. on our oversight on another large program the downtown extension. i want to report back as chair peskin asked for a peer review of the proposal to build the downtown extension with two versus three tracks. this is a topic that needs to be, i think, drizzled down on and reviewed carefully. it will include review of operation study defining the need for the three track system and other studies to reconcile differences of opinion among experts. we will look for someone not conflicted. many of the firms that would be good to do this are working for one of the various number of agencies or operators. our plan to complete this in three to four months bringing the recommendations of the peer review back to you all to make the final determination on that question of two versus three tracks. on sbrt the construction update. there will be an upcoming water and sewer construction phase taking part of the traffic shift expected. that will happen in early november. for the traffic shift, i think, in the southbound direction november 2. northbound november 13. work zones on the western side and the eastern side between jackson and lombard. it will be in these locations. in the nighttime work will commence starting october 23rd with the potential reduction of traffic to one lane in each direction. mta has notified local businesses throughout the quarter through e-mails and advisorandadvice committee meetk on the website to request a presentation to your neighborhood group. we are working with mta to develop monthly progress reports to this board to keep us all informed. on the presidio parkway we are talking with cal trans on the very final phases of the project. it was open to the public in june 2015. since then we have been in negotiations on the final land scaping, environmental litigations and coordinating with the trust land parklands which will be a wonderful over leak on the tunnels. we hope to reach agreement next soon and will return next month with a update. it offers a divided roy and direct off way to the presidio that did not exist before. we are pleased to wrap that up soon. the chair mentioned the bond. i want to welcome alberto. do you want to raise your hand? new clerk of the board. congratulations and welcome. he comes from the nonprofit sector where he spent six years with the international institute of bay area providing immigration legal services and communications manager worked with the management team to coordinate the marketing of a wide range of activities across the offices of that organization. a native of san francisco and looks forward to working with us to achieve the mission. i want to thank steve stamos who has long served as clerk for three years. he will be training alberto to ensure a smooth transition before taking on the new position as a management analyst in the finance and add min position. with that iconcludes my remarks -- icon conclude my remarks. >> thank you both for your service. is there any public comment on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item pleased. items 4 through 7 consent. 5 through 7 approved at the october 17th board meeting final approval. they may be removed and considered separately. >> any public comment on the minutes. it is closed. motion to move consent agenda made by commissioner tang. seconded on commissioner breed. roll call. >> commissioner breed, commissioner cowen, commissioner fewer. commissioner peskin, commissioner o commissioner safai, commissioner tang, commissioner yee. farrell. it is approved. those actions are finally approved. next item, please. i team 8 the san francisco demand management plan an action item. >> this was presented at the last meeting. mr. hobson. >> thank you very much, chair peskin and commissioners. i want to take a moment to describe what changes were made in response to the commissioner's questions last week. happy to as any questions about them. in your pocket if you look at page 103, you can see that in response to commissioner yee's concern about transit capacity and the relationship to the tdm programs on page 17 of the plan under geographic we revised the text to clarify in which the programs are to be most effective. designated the highest priority locations in which to conduct the programs as geographic tier one places with high rates of driving, adequate transit service with available capacity but lower than expected usage as well as near bike network and close to vehicle sharing sites. in response to commissioner fewer's request about more comprehensive public engagement we included a note under strategy one on page 27 of the plan. a statement that the partners working group will commit to conducting engagement where in the stake holders are engaged in all projects in a proactive and meaningful way. we included a reference to an example of this intended approach from mta's public outreach notification standards which are now included in the plan as appendix e, i believe. we hope that explains how we will make sure transportation demand management is done well. we see this plan among the four agencies working on it as a living document. it is a work plan more than anything else. we will be using this plan to inform work among the ta, sfmta and department of environment. all boards and commissions will be asked to accept it. the planning commission did this past thursday when they accepted this same version in front of you today. with of that, i ask you to accept the plan. happy to take any questions. >> we took public comment on this item last week. are there any questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none. is is there a motion to accept the tdm plan. commissioner see he and seconded by commissioner yee. we have the same house. >> commissioner farrell left. >> chair peskin: roll call please. breed breed i, cowen iiaye. commissioner kim, aye. peskin aye. commissioner safai, commissioner tank, commissioner yee. aye. it is approved. >> item number 9 update on the san francisco transportation climb action strategy information item. mr. daugherty. >> i was under the impression the climate action strategy was a function of our whatever it is called, department of the environment, san francisco environment. it is now housed at the sfmta. the floor is yours. >> i am ti daugherty and i am he to present on the climate action strategy in close partnership with staff from the planning department and the department of environment. despite all of the recent distressing news about the changing climate system, san francisco has two climate goals in 2017. the firs first reduced emission% since 1990. that is significant. second over half trips in san francisco were made using environmentally sustainable travel modes. as we look to the mid century climate goals it is clear a transformation of the transportation sector is required to meet those ambitious goals. this strategy provided the framework and identifies priority actions the city family should advance to meet those climate goals. there are two main drives of the development of this strategy. first and historic one is the proposition a in 2007 to develop this climate action strategy. the mayor's release of sea level rights action plan in 2016 provides an tint to look at both sides of the climate edivision. the work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as well as reducing the climate adaptation work. let's look at some greenhouse gas numbers which are developed by the partners at sf environment. you can see the city wide emissions from 1990 to 2015, the last year emissions were quantified for san francisco. there are two general things in the slide. first the significant reduction overall. 28% reduction. very significant when you consider the economic growth that the city has realized since 1990 and the growth in residents and housing giants without a huge increase in emissions. the other thing to note from the slide on the blue box there on top of every column that reflects the transportation sector emissions. this sector has largely been quite stubborn and not decreased at the same rate as other sectors of the city. in large part because the sector is so reliant upon foss it is fuels. -- fossil fuels. the 2050 climate goals request that san francisco reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. there is no way to realize those goals without a significant reduction in emissions from the transportation sector. many of you are probably familiar with the city's climate action framework developed by our partners at the san francisco department of environment. 050100 routes. 0 is around reducing waste and increasing composting and recycling. 50 is how we move around san francisco. the mode share goal. the 2013 climate action strategy called for 50% of all trips to be made outside of autos. basically trips made by environmentally travel modes bike, walk and transit. this calls for 80% of all tripstosh made by 20 -- to be made by 2030 by sustainable travel modes. then the energy goal a way to use more renewable energy across all of the sectors including transportation to reduce emissions. lastly the work around carbon sequestration, planting more trees and green infrastructure in the city urban fabric. look at where the emissions are coming from within the transportation sector. the 2015 emission numbers. you can see the vast majority of emissions are coming from cars and trucks moving around the san francisco streets. 91%. then you can see at the top that wedge reflects muni and the other regional operators. all of which makes up 9% of the rest of the sector emissions. if you think about the hundreds of thousands of people in and out of san francisco every day on the transit services. you realize transit is one of the city strongest climate strategies going forward and bark bone of the -- backbone of the framework. looking at emissions from cars and trucks this presents challenges going forward. there are a number of opportunities, in particular we would like to see more mode shift to environmentality sustainable travel modes and renewable energy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels going forward. this is an overview of the climate mitigation program areas that are really the core part of the strategy. there are seven of them here. i will walk through them. transit, land use, pricing and congestion, demand management. complete streets. zero mission vehicles and services and technology. san francisco is fortunate to have a diverse and deep toolbox of climate actions that it can rely upon to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. those with a astrisks are where they are a leader and is identified as a key partner in implements the actions going forward. i would add many of the program areas within the climate action strategy are actions that can increase equity and improve public health. this is an overview of the climate adaptation areas. these are new programs for the climate action strategy. they are education, capacity, communication. capital plans, vulner ability, adaptation strategy and partnerships and collaboration. the work is done in coordination with the mayor's committee chaired by the port and planning department. we are currently awaiting initial findings from the vulnerability assessment of the transportation system. as i said in my opening comments. san francisco is a global climate action leader. it is possible and realistic for the city to realize its mid century climate goals. however, it will require a transformation of the transportation sector. this begin was the implementation of this climate action strategy which does contain priority actions the city family should implement to pivot us toward mid-september tree climate goals. -- mid century climate goals. it is possible to realize the goals through projects, investments and sustained leadership. with that icon conclude my presentation. i am happy to take any questions. >> are there any questions. commissioner tang? >> going back to the last line. i don't know if you can elaborate more on what the bold vision or policy ideas are. >> excuse me you are looking for clarification on bold policies? >> i mean going through the presentation. it sounds like the ta has been taking leadership on different issues. you mentioned transportation is a sector we need to work on in terms of climate goals. are there any other initiatives coming up to the ta to address that? >> one think of note that i think will help with reduction of emissions from the transportation sector is the reconvening of the city electric vehicle working group. this will beaconvened at the end of this month with collaboration from city departments. i anticipate that will move us in a direction to allow us to integrate renewable energy to the transportation sector leading to a reduction of emissions from the sector. >> is it when we talk about transportation, i wasn't clear. are we talking about buses or are we talking about mta staff that drive cars? what is the main segments of vehicles we are targeting here? >> the sector i just went back to the slide that captures all of the emissions. it includes all cars and trucks moving. that includes city owned as well as municipal owned vehicles. it is captured in this piechart that reflects all of transportation sector emissions >> i did work on the legislation regarding ours >> it including privates vehicles >> we have a city ordinance regarding the municipal fleet as it applies to light duty vehicles. i have been told we are not able to have a requirement for trucks and so forth because there aren't the kind of vehicles that would allow us to convert to zero emissions. it is not on the market. these ev working groups are going on. i will say that i really hope that we can really push all of our city departments to think outside the box and push for, if there isn't something available on the market that we work towards creating or having something created. they have been doing that fo for example. gathering with la to do an rfi to make sure there is a truck that would be zero emission. this is ongoing work. we have ordinances in place and i wish it would have gone further than i would have liked to. i know it will take time for adjustments. i am going to look out to make sure as departments are purchasing certain equipment that they are considering zero emission standards that we have set in place. >> yes, thank you for moving that legislation this year. that is correct. battery technology is improving year by year, and i think as we get to the future there will be larger vehicles that could be converted

Related Keywords

California , United States , Oregon , San Francisco , America , Chen A Charter , Ben Rosenfield , Peter Cohen , Steve Stamos ,