Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 22, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT

3:00 pm
conditional use authorization. and what that really means is it's more public input, more opportunity for the planning commission and surrounding businesses in that instance to weigh-in and talk about the impacts that they might have. we feel like this is a balanced approach, we feel this is fair, and we feel it addresses many of the concerns that many of the folks had when they brought that to us. i want to thank supervisor peskin. we worked on this supervisor to being on the -- the committee together, so we've had to work on this independently at a distance now that we are the chair and vice chair of this committee, but i want to appreciate the work and time that he put into this working with all the impacted parties. i'm going to highlight some of the amendments that we made today. you have a copy of those in front of you, but essentially, the biggest ones were we added some of the findings to talk
3:01 pm
about many of the businesses and concerns that their employees have. we amended on page 9, 13, 14, and 19, with the impact and where the -- this particular office use is and what the employee cafeteria is, and we clarified the difference between -- in this instance the difference between a break room where there's a lot of food versus an actual cafeteria, so we talk about that in particular. we also say any of these existing that are approved as of the date of this ordinance will be approved and will be considered legal nonconforming accessory uses. they may exist but if they intend to expand or reinstall after abandonment, they would have to go through the
3:02 pm
conditional use authorization that all the different proposed private cafeterias will have going forward. so that's on-line 8 through 11 on page 5. and then, we had our conditional existing uses -- excuse me, the criteria that we'd like the planning commission and others to consider as part of the c.u. process. i'll just review a few of them. whether the size of the cafeteria is located in the building, whether it's open to the general public and it's conducive to use by the general public, whether it's impacting on the eating and drinking establishments in the neighborhood, whether those meals are free or heavily subsidized by the cafeteria, whether they're subsidized, whether the employer would subsidize or pay for meals outside of the cafeteria, where the cafeteria has committed to using reusable food ware
3:03 pm
on-site and take away dining. and then some , on page 6, the employees of the cafeteria, what kind of impact they have on our city's housing, public transit, health, and other social services related to the demands that those employees create and those that would otherwise be employed at other eating and drinking establishments. and whether -- and this is important, whether the actual cafeteria itself provides all employees that work for that particular company, including janitor's, servers, security guards, all of them have access to that particular cafeteria. we heard stories over the last couple years that janitor's and
3:04 pm
security guards wouldn't have access to those cafeterias. so that's it. the effect tichb date ive date legislation would be upon approval and signing by the mayor. supervisor peskin, if you want to add anything to the legislation. >> chair peskin: sure. i appreciate the additional findings pursuant to the rite real estate and section -- criteria and section 303. ten days -- up to ten days
3:05 pm
later, how about the effective date is tomorrow or today? >> supervisor safai: yeah, that's fine. i mean,i i was going to say --i mean, really, we went to the planning commission back in march, april. >> chair peskin: it seems that everybody has had a blank ton of notice on this, and they're all proceeding at their risk with full knowledge this is a sophisticated industry that has lobbyists, attorneys, land use -- i'd stick with the july 28 date, but i also don't want to wreck this thing any further. >> supervisor safai: we had ongoing conversations, and seeing that everyone was fine with it, so what i would say is we can even do july 1, 2019. >> chair peskin: that works for me. i just don't want to be in a thing where all of a sudden facebook is running in cramming
3:06 pm
something down the planning department's throat and they're supposed to get something done by september 8 or whatever the magic date is. we can do whatever date we want between july 8 and now. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. yes, you can amend to july 1, 2019. you can amend to today or tomorrow. >> supervisor safai: let's just do july 1, 2019, if that's okay. >> chair peskin: that works for me. why don't we hear -- if supervisor haney has no questions or comments, why don't we hear from the public. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on item number two -- members from the city department on planning, mr. sanchez? >> supervisors, as mentioned, this item was heard on march 7. after much deliberation about 30 minutes, the commission could not approve a motion to either approve or continue the item to a future date, and so
3:07 pm
in this case, the commission's recommendation is constituted disapproval, and that is the my presentation. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. we'll open it up to public comment. miss workman, on behalf of the san francisco chamber of commerce. >> the chamber of commerce continues to oppose this legislation. we have several reasons for that. we believe that employee cafeterias provide excellent, well paid jobs to san francisco and bay area residents that desperately need them. that many small businesses and vendors will be hurt by this legislation, and that may encourage some businesses that wish to provide this benefit to their employees to locate elsewhere. we agree with the planning commission's vote to oppose
3:08 pm
this, and we oppose this legislation. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any other public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai, it looks like you're making some short amendments, effective date july 1, 2019, all right. deputy city attorney is nodding his head in the affirmative for the record. >> supervisor safai: and all of the others that i read into the record. >> chair peskin: and we can take that without objection. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: and i would just like to say thank you for all the businesses -- i don't want to say supportive at
3:09 pm
the end, but i think at the end of the day, they were very appreciative, very appreciative of the amendments that we made, save one representative. >> chair peskin: with that, we will move that forward as a committee report with positive recommendation to the full board. madam clerk, could you please read item six.
3:10 pm
[agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: thank you, chair peskin and colleagues for hearing this item again. i'm hoping this third time is a charm. as you know, we've been at this for sometime, working to pin down a satisfactory approach to two active citywide changes, proposed buffers and to eating places. with respect to these two remaining issues, two weeks ago, the committee provided guidance to take a deeper dive to look at impacts on each district in preparation for today. my staff, along with oewd staff, have worked hard to identify the exact impact's proposed changes that bona fide and buffered eating places
3:11 pm
would have on each district. and we think we have -- we think we have -- we really addressed these needs through potential amendments. we also followed up with and had further discussion with the city attorney's office and with the planning department, both of whom raised concerns at the last committee meeting about an opt in opt out approach that used supervisorial district boundaries. based on that, we sought an approach that we hope is satisfactory to everyone, namely where one in each district can maintain any buffer it chooses before the legislation it before the full board. the city attorney's office is preparing amendments to retain buffers in each district and with the right amendment, we're confident we can preserve any aspects of the status quo that are important to supervisors or that they like more time to discuss with their
3:12 pm
constituents, and at the same time, following through with the proposed changes to buffers unanimously supported by our planning commission. and today, we also have aaron starr or audrey merlowe from the planning commission to answer any questions, and also ben van houten from the oewd. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor brown. and i think at one of our previous meetings on this, i think we were advised by council that legislating along supervisorial boundaries was not advisable, which i completely concur with, but there are certainly named n.c.d.s and restricted use districts in those areas. so i think what we have to do is get a handle on it. i know at the last meeting two weeks ago, we both said that we
3:13 pm
would endeavor either directly or through our staffs to go and see which supervisors wanted what for their respective restricted use districts or n.c.d.s. as you said, we've learned a lot in this process. the original maps proposed is what led me to believe all districts had a quarter-mile --
3:14 pm
with that, i don't know, mr. van houten, i think we've heard
3:15 pm
everything you have to say, but you can yak if you want. >> i think i've said everything i need to say. >> supervisor safai: i'm find with removing any buffers. we want any and all business in our district. >> chair peskin: all right. d-6? >> i'm in. >> chair peskin: and d-8, did i put the right words in your mouth? so, are there any members of the public that would like to testify on this item? >> hi. me again, deedee workman with
3:16 pm
the san francisco chamber of kmerz. -- commerce. we greatly appreciate all of the work and collaboration that went into the details of this legislation to help san francisco's small businesses establish themselves and thrive and we're delighted to support it. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tes tesla barnes with the haight-ashbury council. we continue to oppose it because we think the quarter-mile buffer should be retained. other issues not just on the haight street area, but throughout the city, the alcohol zones -- we have too many licenses, and while we would love to have more restaurants on haight street and other businesses, alcohol is not necessarily the path to go, so we need to have more
3:17 pm
input on something like this that's so broad and affects so many people in san francisco, and we think it should be definitely much more thought out. again, i refer to supervisor mandelman's considerable month-long process with regards to legislation for groups that he introduced recently. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> we feel that this legislation is a direct attack on special use districts in san francisco trying to trim the edges by a quarter mile. the entire resolution passed by the planning commission does not mention special use districts. this was never reviewed as being policy that would change the buffer areas. it's not mentioned once in the
3:18 pm
planning department resolution. i have a fear that unfortunately that that policy was completely misleading. it says l.c.u.s in r.h., r.m., and r.t.o.s. i think this was a sneak attack on the quarter mile buffer zones. please eliminate the n.c. 1 and n.c. and l.c.d. legislation from this provision. everything else is fine. we do have a lot of questions along with the haight-ashbury neighborhood council regarding bona fides and how that's treated, but i think it's time to move on.
3:19 pm
there's some good stuff in there, but get rid of the n.c. 1 stuff. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. livingston. next speaker, please. if there are any other speakers for this item, if you would lineup to my right, your left. >> i'm the owner of the wooden coffee house in cole valley, and i just wanted to express my continued support for this legislation. as a small business owner, currently prohibited from expanding due to the haight street restrictions, i am seeing firsthand how these current restrictions can impact businesses in small neighborhoods. it would be a real shame for my business to never see its potential and simply not survive. and for future businesses and others facing similar situations, i hope we can agree that lifting some of these challenges would be a great deal -- we do a great deal to
3:20 pm
encourage -- would do a great deal to encourage small business efforts in san francisco. thank you for your examination in all of this. >> chair peskin: whichever way this works out, you will be taken care of. next speaker, please. >> hank darrow. i'd like to echo the concerns about alcohol. this is just too many places serving alcohol. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public on this item, we will close public comment. supervisor brown, given the statistics of our various walks down the hallway, should we task the city attorney with finding the named restricted use districts and other commercial districts in the aforemention aforementioned d 1, d 2, d 10,
3:21 pm
d 3. i have not heard from d 7, but d 8. can we task the city attorney with that? >> supervisor brown: yes. and i just want to say that i checked in with every single office and with the supervisors and their staff. and one of the things that we did, chair peskin, is we -- every single districts is we gave the impacts -- we let the supervisors and their staff know what the impacts of this legislation would be on their district. and i would love if city attorney jon givner can speak to retaining some of the buffers and taking some away, too. >> mr. givner: deputy city
3:22 pm
attorney jon givner. last week, when we discussed this specific approach, my department and the building department objected to approach by supervisorial district. that's exactly not the approach you're doing here. we redraw the supervisorial districts every ten years. another reason is supervisorial districts are drawn based on a number of factors that are not related to land use, and it would be inappropriate as a land use matter to enact zoning controls related to those boundaries. if you decide to include some n.c.d.s and not include others, that is a valid approach but --
3:23 pm
the sponsors should be able to articulate and can work with my office and planning to articulate that special characteristics of each district that merit having a buffer or not having a buffer so that really the zoning matches up with the neighborhood and we can work with you on that. that -- those justifications do not have to be in the ordinance itself, but we want to make sure with each supervisor that we're able to articulate legitimate land use justifications for the decisions you make. >> supervisor brown: thank you. once again, i'd like to thank my colleagues and especially chair peskin for working with me on this and getting it right because we definitely want to get it right and clean it up and make it easy not only for the planning department but all
3:24 pm
the small businesses and constituents that go in there and really want to get the correct question that they have the first time with this. i'd like to thank ben van houten from the oewd for working on this for a long time and going into the weeds. and all of the planning department have been really amazing helping us dissect this, so i want to thank everyone. >> chair peskin: okay. so as a matter of procedure insofar as the districts are kind of split 50/50, can we task you, mr. givner, to work with the offices, all of which other than district seven, have express themselves one way or another to find those purposes, articulate those districts, and then come back with amendments to this committee? >> mr. givner: you can task me along with oewd and planning to come back with what amendments we've discussed or for the board to adopt -- or for the
3:25 pm
committee to adopt it, depending on whether you forward this out today. >> chair peskin: well, how long do you think that will take? >> if it's sent out of committee today to the july 30 meeting, i think we should be able to put together those listed lists by july 3. >> chair peskin: ok -- 30. >> chair peskin: okay. why don't we send it out with those recommendations, and we will ask you to prepare those by the 30th, and that will not require rereferral to committee because it is lessening the impact, not increasing it. so we will send this item without recommendation those amendments pending, and it will be heard on its first reading, hopefully with those amendments
3:26 pm
on the 30-dth day of july. i can actually offer by way of the northeast corner of the city as couple of -- a couple of definitions as they relate to the third supervisorial districts on page 8, lines 3 to 25, and page 9 lines 1 to 3, the definition of bona fide eating place. i have a definition that i'd like to insert, and that is that paragraph c and e do not apply but actual and substantial sales of meals are required during the normal hours of operation. and on -- i'd also like to say that this paragraph g does not apply to -- i think this is the way you'll write it or other ones, too, a place located or to a property located in the broadway neighborhood
3:27 pm
commercial district, northeast pacific neighborhood commercial district or polk street neighborhood commercial district. we don't need to do those now, but i think starting -- that will be the template language that those other supervisors are seeking. so why don't we send that out to the meeting on the 30th without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, will you please read item 9. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: supervisor mandelman, the floor is yours. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair peskin, supervisor safai, and supervisor haney. i know we've had a long meeting, but i think this is important and i want to thank
3:28 pm
you for making time for this today. earlier this year, massive rainfalls resulted in flooding along the embarcadero and other low lying areas of our city. folks, climate change isn't coming, it's already here. last year, a group of climate advocates, some of whom are here today asked my office to work with them on declaring a climate emergency in san francisco. other communities had already taken the steps of declaring a climate emergency and those areas saw san francisco as a local model should join them.
3:29 pm
the resolution called for the san francisco department of the environment along with the mayor's office and relevant city agencies to develop and submit a report on department the findings. i do think it's worth noting that san francisco has already done a good bit of proactive report to combat climate change. between 1990 and 2017, san francisco had achieved a 36% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding the 25% goal set by the supervisors in 2008. about a month ago, the mayor set legislation requiring renewable energy procurement for new buildings.
3:30 pm
despite our significant progress, we clearly need to do more. an emergency situation calls for an emergency response, and this hearing should help us better understand how our city can do its part to achieve the deep emissions reductions without which humans will not survive. the presentation on clean energy will focus on the elimination of fossil fuels as a source of power. for transportation, i understand that staff will focus on mode shift and reducing private vehicle miles travelled, among other strategies. for buildings, which account for 44% of citywide emissions,
3:31 pm
staff will discuss ways to reduce emissions. this hearing is an opportunity to stake stock of the progress the city has already made as well as the work yet to be done and especially to hone in on strategies and legislative or policy proposals to inform san francisco's climate action strategy update coming next year in 2020. i want to thank the staff at the department of the environment as well as the mayor's office. i also want to thank the climate justice advocates who have led this from the beginning, and i want to thank kyle in my office for his work.
3:32 pm
i look forward working closely with this group and advocates in the labor and green jobs community as we move forward. a little bit about the hearing. we're going to start with debbie raphael, the director of the department of environment, and then, we do have a number of city staff presentations. i have asked those staff to keep their presentations to three minutes each. i'm hoping the clerk can set the timer so that we will hold you to those three minutes. and then, we will have an opportunity to hear from the public. so that's about how this will go. it's not going to be a short hearing, but i hope it's not too terribly long, either, and with that, director raphael. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. thank you, chair peskin, supervisor haney for the opportunity to be here today. my name is debbie raphael, and
3:33 pm
i'm the director of the san francisco department of environment. supervisor mandelman did an outstanding job of setting the stage, and i will use some images to reinforce something he said, and hand it off to talk about our department. the crisis is here as supervisor mandelman. during the fire that was in butte county, just want to remind us that 80 people lost their live, 1800 structures destroyed. and the thing that makes this particular fire so indicative of why we're here today is we are about 160 miles from the site of this fire, and yet, the ravage of this fire, the tragedy of this fire actually became the air that we breathe here in san francisco, and this is mother nature's way of
3:34 pm
screaming at us to call attention that even though things may not be happening within our 7-mile-by-7-mile radius, things are still happening. it takes the community behind us, the community that is calling for us to take action together. i'd like to remind us all that carbon is not necessarily the enemy. we are a carbon based species, and we rely on it for our survival. for 400,000 acres, the carbon in the atmosphere has been less than 300 parts per million. and we see where we are today, where we are well over 400 parts per million and rising.
3:35 pm
at supervisor mandelman said, we aren't take -- we are taking this quite seriously, and we've already reduced our own emissions by 36%. that is laudable and not enough at the same time. so when we think about climate action, it's very important that we remember that all of our actions must deliver benefits for all san franciscans, that when we talk about equitiable climate action, we're talking about paying attention to public health, to affordability, to jobs for all. this is what we mean when we say we need an equitiable strategy. our strategy is often summarized in these four words. zero, 80, 100, roots. i like to say 0, 80, 100 is how we do less bad in the world, and roots is how we're going to
3:36 pm
heal this planet. so when we talk about healing the planet and thinking about roots, we're thinking about biodiversity. a recently study says if we plant a billion trees, we will reduce two thirds of our emissions. in the dense urban viemplt env of planting in san francisco, it's about green bins. it's about composting to absorb carbon out of the air and heal the planet. i like to say that everyone who is fully committed to their green bin is truly an -- a climate champion. so this technical report that was asked of us focuses on 0, 80, and 100.
3:37 pm
it talks about carbon sequestration, but the analysis is telephone itself is focused on transportation, energy, and waste. so in closing, we are in this together. there is no way that any one party can accomplish this on its own. so i want to just take a very quick moment to thank some people who are very important in our work. i want to thank mayor breed for her leadership, and i also want to thank tyrone for being my right hand in everything that i work on. my fellow city department heads and their staff, my colleagues at the department of the environment and most importantly, the community groups who are showing up today because they can't imagine a more important place for them to be at this moment.
3:38 pm
and supervisor mandelman and kyle, thank you for your attention to this, this leadership, and our opportunity to work together, so with that, i'm going to introduce goodfriend who will talk about the report itself. >> chair peskin: wendy, we've just one piece of housekeeping to do. i've been informed by council that the changes -- the amendments to item number two were substantive, so i'm going to make a motion to rescind the vote on item number two, and we'll take that without objection, and we will continue the item one week to our meeting of the 29 of july and we'll take that without objection. and now we can go back to our regularly scheduled program. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much, director raphael and supervisor peskin. i'm very pleased to stand before you today to talk
3:39 pm
briefly about this technical report that was called for. it was a wonderful present for the city to work on this, the departments, the staff. so the report really is the answer to the question is what does it look like to achieve net zero emissions in san francisco. it was a question that the director asked me when i started at the department, and this report is the beginning of that answer. we know where our emissions come from. about half of the emissions come from buildings and about half from transportation, and so therefore, we have a path forward. we know where we need to make those deep reductions. and i'm going to get to the punch lines first and early. we have about ten years to ask.
3:40 pm
and what this graph -- to act. what this graph says in that red dashed line, that is the business as usual. it doesn't mean doing nothing. it absolutely means continuing with the climate programs and policies that we have to date. however, in a growing economy and with a growing population, we could see our emissions from 2017 to 2050 rising up about 21%, and we all know that is the wrong direction and not what this city needs or wants. on the other hand, there is really good news. if we continue to move forward on the goals that we have set for ourselves, as director raphael has talked about, we could see a 68% reduction in our emissions versus our 1990 levels, which is how we set our targets currently for the city of 68%. that is an astounding amount, and what i'm going to share
3:41 pm
with you next is a few ways that we think we could get on this 98%. the way that we looked at this report and the technical analysis, i want to say is it's a model. we modelled the scenario of what san francisco should look like in the future. how did we do that? we based this scenario on the commitments that we've made to environment and sustainability. all new buildings, net zero emissions by 2030 and existing buildings, 2050. 80% of trips sustainable, and 25% of private vehicles electric by 2030. and then, continuing to reduce the amount of refuse or waste that we generate and dispose in the light of growing city and population and economy. so while we did the technical analysis on the core sectors
3:42 pm
that are driving emissions, building, transportation, and waste, we also took a look at the broad and inclusive benefits of taking action because we know that to be the city that san francisco wants to be, we need to provide those broad and inclusive equity benefits, environmental, economic, and resilience benefits while we are driving down emissions. we will be thinking more deeply about that in the climate action strategy to come. so for buildings, buildings are about half of our emissions today. what portion of that comes from commercial and residential? about half. the majority of emissions from building we know comes from natural gas. we have a very clean electricity supply. you'll be hearing about that in a minute from the sfpuc. so what did we look at that? the business as usual is we
3:43 pm
just maintain our business as usual, and we see an increase in the emissions. for the buildings, we see a decline from natural gas emissions, increasing building efficiency and making sure we continue to supply renewable electricity to all buildings. what about transportation? transportation is a very important sector for san francisco. it's not seeing the declines that other sectors have seen, but i want you to know that we are declining our emissions while the state is increasing. you'll hear from the transportation folks in a moment about what moves they're making to continue to cleanup our transportation infrastructure and those vehicles on the road.
3:44 pm
again, we could see an increase in our business as usual if we do not take action, and in the transportation sector, if we mode shift, if we move to bike-walk transit and get out of those vehicles, we could see a nice decline in emissions coupled with all vehicles on the road need to get off of diesel and gas and on to renewable fuel. so this is a nice waterfall graph and it shows that we need to take action in all sectors, building, transportation, and waste. by 2050 if we remain committed to those goals that we saw earlier, we can see a strict reduction again a growing economy. our emissions could trend upwards, and we could act against them to reduce emissions. what you'll notice at the far end of this graph is residual
3:45 pm
emissions. those are the emissions that we can't eliminate or abate today. that doesn't mean that there won't be other emissions that -- missions that help us eliminate those emissions. so with that, i just want to close my remarks by saying it has been such a great honor to shepherd this report to you. i'm so appreciative that you called for it? and we are so honored to be able to have led the charge for the city and for the supervisors to bring you this report and the findings. and with that, i will turn it over to the next speaker, correct? >> supervisor mandelman: yes,
3:46 pm
who i believe is mike hyams from sfpuc. i am, as i said, going to request that our clerk put on the three-minute timer. we have about eight city staff making various presentations, so here we go. >> okay. good afternoon, supervisors. my name's michael hyams. i'm the director of the cleanpowersf program. i'm here today on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission to share with you information from a public emissions standpoint. as a city, we've made significant progress in shifting the sources of our
3:47 pm
electricity to renewable energy. for context, i wanted it known from the outset that multiple agencies provide electricity supply through multiple agencies in san francisco.
3:48 pm
3:49 pm
>> -- and you can see a mark -- a marked improvement. we're now we're ae now 70% renewable as per 2017. this slide is a projection looking out to 2025, and we're predicting that the city will be using # 5% renewable power at that time with average
3:50 pm
emissions that's almost 90% less than the 1990 levels for the city's power supply. i know my time's running out here -- >> supervisor mandelman: how many more slides do you have? >> this is the last slide, and this is the segue to -- i wanted to include this really to put in perspective how much more this is than burning gas or natural gas. electricity service from hetch hetchy power and our cleanpowersf power product is emission free, so transferring to these sources would limg nate greenhouse gas emissions, and that -- eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, and that's my time, and i will turn
3:51 pm
it over to my next. >> supervisor mandelman: i will be talking to folks about how to get more people on supergreen because clearly that's an important next step. so next up, we have m.t.a., the transportation authority and department of the environment presenting, but first up, we have sarah jones from the m.t.a. >> good afternoon. the sfmta thanks the supervisor for introducing the resolution and all the work on the focus 2030 report. so where we are is that today, too much travel in san francisco happens by car whether it's people driving themselves, people using ride hail or the growing use of delivery services, this is the most harmful transportation choice that people can manke, and it's making other forms of travel less appealing, which is further restricting our
3:52 pm
emission issues. transportation currently generates approximately half of all citywide emissions as you've heard, and our city's transportation infrastructure itself is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. so we have a big problem and there's both bad news and good news about it. the bad news is that what we're doing right now is affecting our climate, and even with all we've accomplished, the business as usual solution isn't a solution at all. but the good news is that we together can change this. so first, let's start by thinking about what we have accomplished. our 2017 travel decision survey showed that san francisco reached its old mode share goal with more than 52% of all trips to, from, and within san francisco using bicycling, transit, and walking. what this means is that over half the trips in the city are generating just the tiniest sectors of emissions.
3:53 pm
muni alone has the greenest fleet in america. it carries 26% of trips and is responsible for less than one half of 1% of emissions. san francisco has operated transit first for over 50 years. from transit to clean taxis to the safe routes to school program, nearly everything that m.t.a. does has a strong nexus with the city's climate goals. but as important as this work has been, focus 2030 indicates that business as usual won't make much of a dent in car use. we need to recognize the goal of 80% of sustainable tripped tripped -- trips by 2030, and we need to take big steps to do that. we need to pursue approaches
3:54 pm
that will all contribute to the critical goal that is the only answer to our climate, our safety, our liveability and our equity issues, reduce dependence on cars. i won't go through all of my examples on that, just one, which is you're going to hear about pricing from my colleagues at sfcta. an equitiable pricing system must be accompanied -- >> supervisor mandelman: miss -- >> so i'll just wrap up. this is my final slide. we've been a climate leader in the past and we're uniquely positioned to do so. what i've said here today is not news to anyone. it is going to take transformation and change, which is a difficult process. even when we're doing something that is going to result in a
3:55 pm
more livable city for all of us. we're going to implement together the 2030 strategy which is going to implement -- 2050 strategy, which is going to implement the 2030 report. >> supervisor mandelman: and i believe we're going to hear from the transportation authority. >> so san francisco relies on federal, state, and local options to meet our goals. m.t.c. is -- currently has just kicked off his plan bay area -- its plan bay area process. this is something where in the prior strategy it also says greenhouse gas emission goals for the whole region. in the last plan, many san francisco projects were
3:56 pm
identified as high priorities, and planned area also sets the regional funding goals for state, federal, and local funding. as we know, funding is one of the things that we need the most to advance our own key priorities to advance the region and the state, things like san francisco's core capacity program, a second tube across the bay, high speed and toll lanes, and also high speed rail to connect other parts of the state.
3:57 pm
it in addition to funding, it's important to look to state and federal government for the policies they're setting. these also impact our abilities to set climate goals, including regulations around emerging mobility. so pricing programs, those encourage mode shifts from solo driving to transit walking or biking but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions, particularate matter emissions. it has important cobenefits in
3:58 pm
that it increases transit reliability, speeds, frequencies, and reducing bicycle and pedestrians conflicts which was included in the vision zero action strategy. another thing is you can invest the net revenues from the program that -- i have one more slide to say. in -- and then, the transportation authorities t.n.c.s report estimated that ride hailing has generated almost 300,000 new miles and causing 47% of the rides congestion in 2010. pricing would allow us to manage this use, and hopefully
3:59 pm
moving forward, as well. thank you, and i'm turning it over to lowell from s.f. environment. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is lowell chu from the department of the environment, and i'm here to give you all a snapshot of the transportation future. we need to continue prioritizing transit, biking, and walking, but at the same time we have to shift the focus to zero emission vehicles by -- we need to direct the people towards other modes of transportation while simultaneously -- as you can
4:00 pm
see, over 450,000 vehicled registered in the city and over 135,000 commutes in daily and with 45,000 network company vehicles operating on our roads, it's quite challenging. at the same time, the medium and heavy duty vehicle sector, as well as our neighbors and residents in the multivehicle dwellings, face a particular challenge in vehicle charging in particular. speaking of multivehicle families, their multibuildings have challenges -- as a result, they really depend on the publicly accessible charging network. we have over