January 22 2013 Commission on the Environment Approved Minutes

 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

REGULAR MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013, 5:00 P.M.
CITY HALL, ROOM 416, SAN FRANCISCO, CA  94102

COMMISSION MEMBERS:  Commissioners Ruth Gravanis (Vice-President), Joshua Arce, Angelo King, Alan Mok, Heather Stephenson and Johanna Wald

ORDER OF BUSINESS
Public comment will be taken before the Commission takes action on any item.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call.  The Commission on the Environment meeting convened at 5:08 p.m.  Present:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Excused:  Commissioner Mok. 

2. Approval of Minutes of the November 27, 2012 Commission on the Environment Meeting. (Explanatory Document: November 27, 2012 Commission on the Environment Draft Minutes) (Discussion and Action)  Upon Motion by Commissioner Arce, second by Commissioner King, the November 27, 2012 Meeting Minutes were approved without objection (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).

3. Public Comments:  Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.

Ms. Nancy Wuerfel discussed her concern with the Department of the Environment’s handling of City department funding for administrative support to the Urban Forestry Council.  She inquired why the Urban Forestry Council was not included in the Department’s Organizational Chart for 2012-13 and expressed her concern that Urban Forestry Council volunteers are required to provide their own clerical support to the Council.  She suggested that the Commission urge the Department to include the Urban Forestry Council as a viable part of its organizational structure, allocate City department funding directly to Council support, and provide an opportunity to hold an open discussion about funding. 

Ms. Rose Hillson, San Francisco resident, and volunteer on the Urban Forestry Council, read her letter into the record about her concern with the requirement that volunteer Council members are required to provide their own administrative support to Committees and the time that tasks require.  She asked that the Commission ask the Department to lift the administrative support burden off Council members so that the Council can continue to attract members and serve the citizens of San Francisco.  (Explanatory Document:  Ms. Hillson’s and Urban Forestry Council Correspondence to the Commission on the Environment)

Ms. Dee Seligman, San Francisco resident, discussed her concern with herbicides being used in mixtures for natural area program applications for which no research has been done.  Her concern is that the synergistic effects of tank mixes have not been examined when they are being used at the same time and place and when there are other inert chemicals in the mix.  She asked that a procedure be developed for tanked mixtures to justify them as Tier 1 chemicals at public meetings, and if that is not possible, to identify the chemicals in the record so people can be provided the opportunity to research the mixtures.

Ms. Judith Berkowitz, President, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN), reported that the Coalition reviewed matters pertaining to the Urban Forestry Council in November 2012 and unanimously passed a Resolution urging the Board of Supervisors and Commission on the Environment to fully restore the Fiscal Year 2012-13 funding exclusively to support the operations of the Urban Forestry Council as originally intended by the Board of Supervisors and to ensure its intended funding in succeeding years. (Explanatory Document:  CSFN Resolution)

Deputy Director Assmann reported that the entire $51,000 allocation received from City departments to fund Urban Forestry Council support will be used for its intended purpose in this fiscal year and next.  He stated that he would be in attendance at the February Council meeting to discuss this topic. 

4. Review and Approval of the Department and Commission on the Environment’s 2012 Annual Report. (Explanatory Document: 2012 Department and Commission Annual Report Draft) Sponsors: Commissioner Johanna Wald and Melanie Nutter, Director; Speakers:  Commissioner Johanna Wald, Director Nutter, and Donald Oliveira, Public Outreach Program Manager (Discussion and Action)

Director Nutter thanked Public Outreach Program Manager Oliveira for working with program staff on the 2012 Annual Report.  Mr. Oliveira reported that the content of the Annual Report lists the Department’s high level accomplishments and successes by each program area and captures the ideals and ethos through program images and the graphic design of the report. Commissioners commended the work of the Department that is reflected so beautifully in the design and content of the Annual Report.  Commissioner Wald acknowledged the contribution of Commissioners and the Commission Secretary for their contribution into the Commission section of the report. 

Commissioner Arce provided suggestions for inclusion into the report that include: (1) rename the Outreach and Education section to include “and Jobs” so that it includes how environmental programs create jobs; (2) switch the location of the Environmental Justice and Green Building programs so that they both appear alphabetically as other programs; and (3) include a future work section about the intent to work with low-income, diverse, and limited-English speaking communities on Eco Districts and other Department programs.

Commissioner Stephenson inquired about the intended outreach and audience for the Annual Report.  Mr. Oliveira reported that the Annual Report would be posted on the Department’s website, a link would be included in the Department’s newsletter, and would be shared with the Commission, the Director, and its peers.  Director Nutter reported that the Annual Report would be distributed to community partners, the Board of Supervisors, and Commissioners to distribute to interested parties.  Mr. Oliveira reported that there would be consideration on how activities reflected in the Annual Report could be combined with the Climate Action Strategy and future climate activities.  Commissioner Stephenson suggested (1) adding a section about the accomplishments seen by the addition of the Department’s new website and (2) utilizing a program called ISSUU that provides the ability to view PDF’s in a magazine style online.

Commissioner King discussed the relevance of the Annual Report to people doing environmental work and policy makers and the need to maintain the report so that it is readily accessible and captures its intended audience.  Upon Motion by Commissioner Wald, second by Commissioner King, the 2012 Department and Commission Annual Report was approved with incorporation of ideas in the final product as discussed (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).

5. Review and Approval of Resolution approving the Department of the Environment’s Integrated Pest Management 2013 Reduced Risk Pesticide List.  (Explanatory Documents:  2013 San Francisco Reduced-Risk Pesticide List; Summary of Pesticide Exemptions Granted in 2012; Limited Use Pesticide Use Exemptions Granted in 2012, and Draft and Approved Resolution File 2013-01-COE) Sponsor: Melanie Nutter, Director; Speaker: Chris Geiger, PhD., Integrated Pest Management Program Manager (Discussion and Action)

Dr. Geiger reported on the Integrated Pest Management program’s screening system to review all pesticides proposed for use on City government properties that is also used nationwide by the U.S. Green Building Council as part of their LEED certification process.  Dr. Geiger reported on a work meeting held with all City department stakeholders involved in pest management and public hearing to present the Draft 2013 Reduced Risk Pesticide List.  The goal was to remove unsafe products and to look for safer products to add to the list through dialogue with people involved in pest management. 

Dr. Geiger reported on changes to the 2013 list of products removed, added, and language changes.  He explained that the tier system represents a flag for hazards with tier 1 signaling the worst products, tier 3 the safest, and limited products are ones that take into account exposure to products.  He reported on the summary of exemptions granted during the year for products that should not be used but have been granted exemptions for use due to special circumstance.  Dr. Geiger reported that many changes were made this year because a thorough review was completed on updated data and all pesticides used in the City. 

Commissioner Wald inquired about the performance metric that would be used to track the success of the program.  Dr. Geiger reported that performance is tracked through a database of pesticide use that will be posted on the Department’s website and from the removal of more tier one products over time.
Dr. Geiger addressed public comment about tank mixes stating that a discussion was held on the topic at a recent public hearing.  The position taken was that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates tank mixes and that there is not enough bandwidth to regulate its use at the local level.  Pest Managers had reported that they are not using tank mixes, but are using two products for daubing tree trunks that would be entered into the pesticide tracking database. 

Public Comment:

Mr. Paul Rotter, San Francisco resident, reported that the Recreation and Park Department will be removing approximately 3500 trees from San Francisco public parks, and UCSF plans to remove approximately 42,000 trees from the Sutro forest.  He stated that each of these programs will entail pesticide use from keeping these trees from re-growing again and discussed the impact that every herbicide use for each tree removal has on global climate change.  Mr. Rotter stated that the use of herbicides is being granted to the Recreation and Park Department, and that there are safer choices available to achieve the same result such as manual labor.  He suggested that a policy be developed that safer practices if available must be used in order to protect the environment.

Ms. Rupa Bose, representing Save Sutro, thanked the Department and Dr. Geiger for having an IPM program to reduce pesticide use.  She discussed her concern about the increase in pesticide use in the Natural Areas Program (NAP) since 2008 and in the functionality of the pesticide- tracking database.  She stated that the NAP is using two tier one and two tier 2 products, one of which has been reclassified as tier 2 that is less toxic, but more persistent, and was banned by the European Union.  Ms. Bose provided data on the hazardous components of these pesticides (reference explanatory document on NAP Pesticide Use received).  She asked that the Department work on reducing pesticide use in natural areas.

(Public Comment Explanatory Document Received:  “Why are we poisoning ourselves?”)

Ms. Anastasia Glikshtern asked that the Recreation and Park Department not be allowed to use tier one and two herbicides.  She questioned the safety of products such as Roundup that manufacturers claim to be safe but later found to present safety and health concerns to humans, birds, and the environment.   She stated that there is no proof that native plants are better for the environment than non-native plants that are considered to be invasive species and chemicals should not be used to remove them.  Ms. Glikshtern asked that tier one and two herbicides be banned from use particularly from vast areas all around the city. 

Commissioner Arce inquired whether there is an existing policy for use of herbicides as a last resort.  Dr. Geiger reported that the primary goal is to reduce chemical use, and the Reduced Risk Pesticide List should be used as a last resort after other physical and cultural methods have been explored.  Commissioner King suggested scheduling a more in-depth discussion about the use of shortcuts and cost-cutting measures in place of safer methods to achieve the same result.  Commissioner Gravanis stated that a broader discussion would be needed to include the use of chemicals in golf courses and concern with pests appearing in public places.
 
Upon Motion by Commissioner King, second by Commissioner Stephenson Resolution 001-13-COE adopting the 2013 Reduced Risk Pesticide List was approved (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).
6. Approval of the 2011 San Francisco Buy Green Ordinance Program for City Staff Annual Report. (Explanatory Documents:  2011 Annual Report and Presentation) Sponsor  Melanie Nutter, Director; Speaker: Jessian Choy, City Toxics Reduction Specialist (Discussion and Action)

Ms. Jessian Choy presented the 2011 Buy Green Ordinance Program for City Staff Annual Report that is a list of green products that City departments are required to buy by Ordinance.  She discussed 2011 accomplishments and presented on ideas to influence the City to buy green products.  A discussion was held on how outreach and education may not always be effective in influencing behavioral change, but that in 2011 there was more participation by City staff.  Thirty-eight Departments attended consultations and thirty-eight buy-green leaders were chosen through the outreach efforts of the Climate team.  Additional topics of discussion included results of new strategies; cost spent on green products, prohibited and limited use chemicals; communication methods used to influence behavior change; and percentage of chemicals not tested for toxicity that are used daily.  

Ms. Choy reported that a directory of green products called the SFApproved List is located at www.SFApproved.org and discussed current efforts to update the list and website.  The website contains a list of City-approved vendors, guidelines for City departments, and the ability to rate green products as well as other relevant information for buying green.  In 2011, competition was created by influencing City departments to earn the Buy Green Club of the Year Award and scorecards were used for rating Departments and staff for buying green.  This year’s focus will be on influencing City departments to purchase LED bulbs instead of CFLS and incandescent bulbs.  Top ideas that City staff presented were to award staff through performance appraisals, influencing vendors to offer online stores of green products and blocking prohibitive products, and creating a new purchasing system to steer staff to green products.

Commissioner Stephenson commended Ms. Choy for presenting on areas that are falling behind and need improvement.  She inquired whether there are plans to improve the purchasing process either through automation or adding a green leaf beside green products.  Ms. Choy reported that ideas were shared with the Controller’s Office, Office of Contract Administration, and other City departments, but may be out of the City’s control because of the cost to overhaul the purchasing process.  Commissioner Stephenson suggested that the SFApproved List website include an area for providing feedback as products are being checked or as staff is logging in to purchase products.  Commissioner Gravanis suggested that a future discussion be held on identifying which Department is authorized to make the required changes to improve the system. 

Public Comment: 

Ms. Lurilla Harris asked for examples of chemicals that have not been tested for toxicity.  Ms. Choy stated that phthalates that are not always listed as ingredients on products are an example. Fragrance, personal care products, and #3 and #7 plastics are examples of products that contain this ingredient and should be avoided.

Dr. Espanola Jackson, prior member of the first Commission on the Environment, stated that the Commission’s responsibility is to the Mayor as well as the Board of Supervisors and suggested creating a Resolution in order to recommend that actions be taken to improve the system.

Upon Motion by Commissioner King, second by Commissioner Arce, the 2011 San Francisco Buy Green Ordinance Program for City Staff Annual Report was approved (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).

7. Review and Approval of the Department of the Environment’s Fiscal Year 2013-14 Draft Budget. (Explanatory Document:  Draft Budget) Sponsor: Melanie Nutter, Director; Speaker: David Assmann, Deputy Director (Discussion and Action)

Deputy Director Assmann presented on the Department’s Fiscal Year 2013-14 Draft Budget to date reporting on total expenses, total revenues and sources, variances by program areas, and efforts to close gaps (reference explanatory document draft budget). He explained that there will be constant revisions to the budget due to money being raised throughout the year and amount allocated to benefits.  This version presented will be updated up until February at which time the budget is presented to the Mayor’s Office. 

Commissioners Wald and Gravanis inquired whether the Operations Committee had reviewed and approved the budget.  Deputy Director Assmann reported that the final version would be presented to the Operations Committee at its February 13 meeting. Commissioner King reported that the Committee had reviewed and approved the draft budget at its November meeting.  Commissioner Arce confirmed with Deputy Director Assmann that the budget allocation for publicizing Commission meetings on SFGTV would be included.  Commissioner Arce requested additional detail on the Energy Watch program before final approval of the budget in February.  He discussed his interest in leveraging and creating partnerships throughout program areas to support Community Based Organizations (CBO’s) and inquired whether there was a way to identify in the budget the amount of funding being allocated to these partnerships.  Deputy Director Assmann reported that there are grant line items for Environmental Justice and Zero Waste that are allocated to CBO’s.  Director Nutter reported that the Annual Report includes a page on the Zero Waste section that discusses the amount that CBO’s receive and work that is being done.

Public Comment: 

Dr. Espanola Jackson stated that the original Commission on the Environment was formed to address toxins in San Francisco’s southeast sector because of the shipyard.  She asked to be provided with the Department’s employment figures for persons that live in the southeast sector, diversity of staff, and pay scales.  She reported on her meeting with the State Park Commission to discuss toxins in community parks and asked the Commission for their support in addressing this problem.  Dr. Jackson also discussed the new digesters that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is installing in the southeast sector, and that the area is receiving all of the sewage from other Bay Area communities and the Presidio.  Commissioner Arce provided race diversity figures on Department of the Environment staff. 

Ms. Nancy Wuerfel asked that the budget always be presented at least twenty-four hours before a meeting is held, that numbers be read into the record, and to add the number of staff by program area.  She expressed her support for planned efforts to outreach to other City departments to request added support for the Urban Forestry Council and stated her amazement that the City cannot locate money from their budget to save city trees.  She questioned how City department revenues are being allocated to the Council and suggested that the Department find creative cost-effective ways to provide administrative support to the Council.
  
Upon Motion by Commissioner Wald, second by Commissioner King, the Department’s Draft 2013-14 Fiscal Year Budget was approved subject to revisions and final approval by the Operations Committee (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).

8. Review and Approval of Resolution 2013-02-COE Amending the Department of the Environment’s Record Retention Schedule. (Explanatory Document:  Draft and Approved Resolution and Amended Record Retention Schedule) Sponsor and Speaker:  David Assmann, Deputy Director  (Discussion and Action)

Deputy Director Assmann reported that the Record Retention Schedule is being further amended to take into account corrections proposed by the Controller’s Office to their own department’s schedule for the retention period for contract/grant documentation from two years to ten years. 

Public Comment:  Ms. Nancy Wuerfel inquired what required ten years of retention and if the rest of the data is as presented.  Deputy Director Assmann reported contracts and grants documents such as invoices and backup information requires ten years retention and confirmed that the rest of the data is as presented.

Upon Motion by Commissioner Wald, second by Commissioner Stephenson, Resolution 002-13-COE was approved with the understanding that any subsequent changes as required by the Controller’s Office be approved automatically (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).

9. Nomination and Election of Commission on the Environment Officers. (Discussion and Action)

Commissioner Arce expressed his interest in serving as President discussing his perspective on environmentalism that he will be bringing and advocating for as Commission President.  Commissioner King expressed his interest in serving as Vice-President.  Commissioner King nominated and motioned to elect Commissioner Arce as President, second by Commissioner Stephenson. Commissioner Arce was elected as President (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).  Commissioner Stephenson nominated Commissioner King as Vice President.  Upon Motion by Commissioner Arce, second by Commissioner Wald, Commissioner King was elected as Vice President (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).   

10. Discussion on Commission on the Environment’s Potential Community Meeting in May.  Sponsor and Speaker:  Commissioner Joshua Arce (Discussion and Possible Action)

Commission President Arce reported on ideas for bringing the Commission out to the community in order to expand engagement, awareness and community buy-in for the Department’s and Commission’s policy initiatives. He discussed the possibility of holding meetings in limited English speaking communities and low-income communities of color that would create a learning experience and outreach tool for programs.  He asked that Commissioners consider how to make the meeting successful and select a potential date, location, venue, and program.
Commissioner Arce discussed (1) venue and capacity to have an ideal amount of participation as key to the meeting’s success.  An increased cost would be included for providing audio equipment to publicize the meeting on SFGTV and to include free educational and informational material to add to the venue; (2)leverage outreach to gather attendance and participation—request that Community Based Organizations showcase work they are doing in neighborhoods on either their own programs or Department programs; and (3) create a shared learning experience in the community to discuss environmental issues critical to the community.  He suggested the possibility of holding a meeting about the new Eco Districts concept in order to gather interest.  Commissioner Arce also provided ideas for potential locations and neighborhoods to hold meetings.  Deputy Director Assmann discussed previous participation in community meetings and urged that meetings be spaced out so there is enough time to promote them and that topics be engaging. 

Public Comment:

Dr. Espanola Jackson questioned why District 10 was not mentioned as a potential meeting location.  She reported that Board of Supervisors and joint Commission meetings have been held with the Southeast Facility Commission and suggested contacting the Commission to hold a joint meeting.  She spoke in support of publicizing Commission meetings on Channel 26 and 78 to increase awareness about the Commission. 

Ms. Lurilla Harris, District 10 resident, stated that she served on the SFPUC Advisory Group and suggested that the Commission contact that group to inquire about meetings they have held in the community.  She also suggested contacting all neighborhood newspapers who are activists in their areas.

Commissioner King stated that the Commission Operations Committee would be discussing ideas at its February meeting and would be providing recommendations.  He suggested that the Committee work on the mechanics of the meeting first before selection of a meeting date.  This agenda item was continued for discussion to the February 13 Operations Committee meeting.

11. Department of the Environment Budget Allocation and Feasibility of Videotaping and Publicizing Commission on the Environment Meetings on San Francisco Government Public Television Station (SFGTV) and Discussion on the Outreach Component. (Continued Discussion from the November 27, 2012 Meeting) (Explanatory Document:  SFGOVTV Budgetary Projections for Videotaping Commission Meetings for 2012-13 at City Hall and Offsite) Sponsor:  Commissioner Joshua Arce; Speakers:  Commissioner Joshua Arce and Melanie Nutter, Director (Discussion and Possible Action)

Director Nutter reported that publicizing Commission meetings on SFGTV would be an additional outreach tool and would provide access to Commission meetings for those who are not able to attend City Hall or outside venue meetings.   Funding has been identified in the Department’s budget to televise the March and May Commission meetings for this fiscal year assuming that meetings are held at City Hall.  Publicizing offsite meetings would require a Commission policy discussion because of the added expense if audiovisual equipment is not available at the location and for filming offsite.  Funding for publicizing all Commission meetings in the next fiscal year would be included in the budget. 

Commissioner Wald asked to consider reasons for wanting to publicize meetings and to identify a metric to determine whether the expenditure, effort, and possible burden on staff would be worthwhile.  The two reasons stated for publicizing meetings was to engage more people in the Department’s work and make it possible for more people to attend meetings whether virtually or in person.  She discussed the added staff time and effort it would require for planning, preparing, organizing, and participating in these meetings in order to maintain people’s interest.  Commissioner Wald asked whether the viewership would be enough to justify expenditures.  She stated that it would be more important to spend limited staff resources into bringing Commission meetings into the communities on a regular basis. Director Nutter reported that the Department has existing presentations that can be repurposed for meetings so that there is limited added staff time or effort.   

Commissioner King discussed the positive feedback he received from a viewer about his participation in a Committee that was broadcast on KPOO, a community-radio station.  He stated that publicizing meetings would provide an opportunity for everyday people who are unable to attend meetings to watch broadcasts on their own time.  He suggested advertising or marketing an environmental green product or program in order to include an education component.  Commissioner King suggested formulating an assessment and developing metrics after a year of actually publicizing meetings.  Commissioner Wald suggested defining measurements, what is intended, and what the desired outcome should be at the beginning. 

Commissioner Stephenson suggested reviewing viewership numbers in order to determine how much of the cost would be allocated for outreach to each individual.  Individuals also may have the potential to become advocates for the Department.  If viewership is limited, then it would not be a good use of funds.  Commissioner Arce reported on information received from the Department of Technology and Information Services (DTIS) on cable viewership, broadcast range, number of Commissions and Committees broadcasting, and the main intent of Commissions to increase participation and public access to Commission matters. Director Nutter suggested assessing the effectiveness and impact at future Commission or Committee meetings. 

Public Comment:

Ms. Nancy Wuerfel spoke in support of Commissioner King’s comments and publicizing Commission meetings as soon as possible.  She stated that the most important metric of success is the Commission’s ability to communicate with the public so that more people will become engaged and awareness is increased about the Commission’s and Department’s work.

Dr. Espanola Jackson discussed the need for transparency and agreed that people who may be interested in meeting proceedings and citywide activities may not always be able to physically attend meetings.  She spoke in support of publicizing Commission meetings as soon as possible in order to increase awareness of Department activities and the Commissioners who are acting on behalf of the citizens of San Francisco. 

Upon Motion by Commissioner King, second by Commissioner Wald, the budget allocation was approved with the condition that the commencement of videotaping and publicizing Commission meetings is dependent on the discussion at the February 13 Operations Committee meeting (AYES:  Commissioners Gravanis, Arce, King, Stephenson and Wald; Absent:  Commissioner Mok).  
12. Public Notice of 2013 Subscription and Renewal of Commission on the Environment and Committee Notices and Agendas as required by the Commission on the Environment Bylaws. (Explanatory Document: Subscription Request Form) Staff Speaker: Monica Fish, Commission Secretary  ( (Information and Discussion)  Ms. Fish reported that the public notice has been issued in accordance with Bylaws, Article 13, Requests for Notices and Agendas requirements.

13. Operations Committee Chair’s Report.  Highlights of the November 29, 2012 Meeting and Review of the Agenda for the February 13, 2013 Meeting.  (Information and Discussion) Commissioner King reported that the November 29 meeting included discussions about the office move, Fiscal Year 13-14 budget, and presentation from the SFPUC on the SFGreaseRecycle program.  Agenda items for the February 13 meeting have been discussed throughout the meeting.

14. Policy Committee Report. (Information and Discussion)
Chairs Report:  Highlights of the December 10, 2012 and January 14, 2013 Meetings and review of the Agenda for the February 11, 2013 Meeting to be held at City Hall, Room 421. 

Commissioner Wald reported that the December Committee meeting included discussions about (1) the Draft Climate Action Strategy update; (2) the proposed Outreach Plan for CleanPowerSF, and (3) continued work on the Commission’s Annual Report.  The agenda for the February meeting has not yet been finalized.  Commissioner Arce reported that the January Committee meeting included revisiting the proposed expansion of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and removing the exclusion of the San Francisco Coast. There were implications around the SFPUC wastewater system and the report led by SPUR on the Ocean Beach Plan.  A proposed amended Resolution will be discussed at the February meeting so as to take into account that there is still support of the expansion but that it would not interfere with the other operations.  Financing incentives for Department energy efficiency programs and efforts to secure financing for distributed renewable generation was also discussed.
 
15. Commission Secretary’s Report. (Explanatory Document: Commission Secretary’s Report) (Information and Discussion)
Monica Fish, Commission Secretary
• Communications and Correspondence
• Update on City Legislation
Ms. Fish provided a written Commission Secretary’s Report reporting on citywide legislation, correspondence received, and other Commission business.

16. Director’s Report. Updates on Department of the Environment administrative and programmatic operations relating to Budget Planning, Strategic Planning, Clean Air/Transportation, Climate, Energy, Public Outreach and Education, Environmental Justice, Habitat Restoration, Green Building, Zero Waste, Toxics Reduction, and Urban Forestry. (Explanatory Document: Director’s Report) (Information and Discussion)

Director Nutter highlighted the following Department activities from the Director’s Report (reference Director’s Report for a full report) (1) Staff and Commissioner Open House at 11 Grove on March 4 to say goodbye to the old space and celebrate the Department’s move to 1455 Market Street; (2) April 24 date confirmed for the Earth Day Breakfast with the Mayor at City Hall; (3)participation in the City’s new anti-litter campaign with the Mayor’s Office, Department of Public Works and other city agencies leveraging the green schools program and Zero Waste merchant outreach to outreach to schools and do education around litter; and (4) Community Action Plan draft completed on the Healthy Homes project.  Commissioner Wald asked for a report on the Healthy Homes project at the next Policy Committee meeting.

17. Announcements.  (Information and Discussion)  There were no additional announcements made at this time.

18. President’s Announcements.  (Information and Discussion)  There were no President’s announcements made at this time.

19. New Business/Future Agenda Items. (Information, Discussion and Possible Action) Commissioner Wald asked for a discussion about the Recology rate raise as an informational item at the next Commission meeting.  Commissioner Arce requested a written report on the Department’s diversity policy that addresses staff salaries, residency, gender, and race.  Director Nutter reported that a discussion would be scheduled on Commission correspondence protocol either at Committee and/or the full Commission.   

20. Public Comments:  Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.  There was no public comment at this time.

21. Adjournment.  The Commission on the Environment meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.

Monica Fish, Commission Secretary;
TEL:  (415) 355-3709; FAX: (415) 554-6393

The next meeting of the Commission on the Environment is scheduled for Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Room 416.

** Copies of explanatory documents are available at (1) the Commission’s office, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., (2) on the Commission’s meeting website at http://www.sfenvironment.org/commission/agendas included with minutes by meeting date; (3) upon request to the Commission Secretary, at telephone number 415-355-3709, or  via e-mail at [email protected]  For an audio recording of Commission meetings, access this link https://sites.google.com/a/sfenvironment.org/commission/environment-commission/audio-archives and select the meeting date.

Approved: