This meeting will come to order.

I would like to welcome everyone to the February 25th, 2026 meeting of the budget and appropriations committee.

I am Supervisor Matt Dorsey, Vice Chair of this committee, and supervisors Danny Sauter and President Raphael Mandelman are joining me today.

Our clerk is the always capable Brent Halipa, and I would like to thank everyone from the staff of SFGov TV, especially Jaime Saver Usher Berry, who was facilitating today's meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

Should you have any documents to be included as part of the file, they should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

Public comment will be taken on the item on this agenda.

When public comment is called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left, along those curtains and the while not required to provide public comment.

We do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by the television to your left by the doors.

If you wish for your name to be accurately recorded for the minutes, alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the budget and appropriations committee clerk at br e n t.j.org.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall at one.

Dr.

Carlton be good at place room two forty-four, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And um, Mr.

Vice Chair, that concludes my announcements.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Before we get underway today, I would like to make a motion to excuse Chair Connie Chan.

Could I have a second on that motion?

Seconded by Supervisor Sauter.

Uh Mr.

Clerk and we have a roll call.

And on that motion, whether we excuse uh Chair Chant from attending today's meeting.

Uh by Vice Chair Dorsey, seconded by Member Sauter.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Sauter, aye.

Member Walton.

Walton absent.

Uh member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Mr.

Vice Chair, we have three ayes with Member Walton absent.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

The uh item passes.

Mr.

Clerk, would you please call item number one?

Yes, item number one.

Is the hearing on the San Francisco Environment Department's budget for fiscal year 2026 to 2027.

Mr.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

This was introduced by President Rafael Mandelman, who is here.

And uh President Mandelman, I will turn it over to you.

Thank you, Chair Dorsey.

Um thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Um and I want to thank uh the climate emergency coalition, all the folks who showed up outside for um a well attended rally earlier today.

Um my motivation in asking for this hearing um is building on concerns that I expressed during last year's budget process in front of this committee.

Um at the time, and you know uh supervisor Dorsey is well aware, or Chair Dorsey is well of the aware of this.

I think Supervisor Sauter has a sense of this.

Um by the time the mayor's budget comes to us in June, we are very limited in our ability to make significant changes.

Um and this was especially true last year, and I think will be especially true this year.

So, the time for the Board of Supervisors to be having conversations about important budget priorities, uh, in some ways is now, um, while the mayor's office is still working on their budget because um for larger problems, and I would say what is happening to the environment department is in my view a larger problem.

Um, that though need the solutions to those problems need to come from the mayor's office.

Um what we saw last year was a significant reduction, and on which had you know building on prior years reduction in general fund support um as well as uh departmental work orders.

We see that being proposed going forward into the next year's budget.

Elimination of um more than seven full-time FTEs in the department, um layoffs.

Uh and so I acknowledge at the time I was very uncomfortable voting uh for the budget that included that, but I voted for it as many as at least the position reductions were pushed off into the second year.

What will be the first year of the budget that we consider in June and July, supported that budget with the understanding that we were going to have more conversations going forward and that it should not be the last word on what happens to the environment department's budget going forward.

A little bit of history.

It has been the backbone of San Francisco's climate strategy since then.

The city adopted its first sustainability plan in 1997, our first climate action plan in 2004.

The most recent climate action plan was adopted in 2021, and yesterday the mayor and I introduced updates to that to that plan, which this board will be considering.

We tend to say, and this is true, I think, that our climate action plan sets out ambitious goals for San Francisco.

Some of these include zero on-site fossil fuel emissions from large existing commercial buildings by 2035, a 61% reduction in sector-based greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2030, and a 90% reduction by 2040 to achieve net zero emissions.

A 40% reduction in household consumption-based emissions below 1990s by levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050, a 15% reduction in solid waste generation below 2015 levels, and a 50% reduction in landfill incineration incineration below 2015 levels both by 2030, and electrification of at least 25% of private vehicles by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

San Francisco describes itself as a climate leader, and that is largely based on the work that the Department of the Environment has done.

I myself have had the benefit of being able to work with this department on and uh advocates on a number of policy initiative, policy and legislative initiatives that I think are important.

In 2019, we worked with the Climate Emergency Coalition to pass our climate emergency declaration.

We passed an all-electric new construction ordinance requiring that new buildings be built without natural gas infrastructure.

In 2021, we passed non-potable water reuse requirements to expand our use of recycled and purified water in new developments.

In 2021 and 2022, this board, through the ADBAC process and I believe at the time, uh chair budget chair Haney and former Supervisor Maher and I worked together to find $3 million of general fund support to get the climate equity hub moving to build technical capacity and provide building electrification resources for households that would not otherwise have the resources to afford that transition.

2035, even earlier, but between 2035 and 2025, I worked with staff from the Department of the Environment and staff from MTA on planning for installation of the city's first curbside EV chargers, and uh largely through that work.

Last year, we saw the rollout of at least two, it's not enough, but two curbside chargers, um, uh, also with the help of uh the of IBW Local Six next to their property in DeBose Triangle.

Um, and in 2025, just last year, we um built on our 2020 building electrification ordinance to expand it to major renovations.

Um those are the things the items that I have worked on.

But I am one of 11 supervisors, or actually, in the time that I've been on this board of supervisors, one of dozens of supervisors.

And so you magnify that out.

Few of the other things that I'm vaguely aware of that I voted on because other supervisors have been working leading on them, but advancing zero waste goals, implementation of food waste reduction and diversion to uh to use edible food food to feed food insecure people in San Francisco, uh measures on uh to advance commercial garage charging, planning code updates to facilitate EV charging installations, a ban on small gas-powered landscape equipment, and the list goes on and on and on.

Now, I understand the dire financial predicament in which the city finds itself.

I think all of us are acutely aware of that.

And I think it is reasonable to expect that every department be prepared to justify every expense, every project, every priority, and we all need to recognize that everything needs to be on the table as we try to balance our budget in the face of a hostile federal administration that does not share our values or our priorities and seems uh intent on actually making it harder for cities like San Francisco to get our work done for our people.

But my concern is that the cuts that are in the budget we already voted on and the cuts that are proposed for the budget that we will be voting on this summer, uh the cuts in general fund and work order support and the position reductions that are contemplated are going to position the city poorly to build on that legacy of work and to advance the climate goals we've been pursuing since the 90s.

In fact, I believe I don't see how we begin to contemplate achieving implementing the climate action plan without the capacity in the Department of the Environment to do that work, um, real human beings to keep track of the goals and measure what the different departments are doing to advance and achieve those goals.

So without those people and without those resources, these ambitious goals are just numbers that won't mean anything in the real world, and I think that would be a shame.

Um I would note that the environment commission has unanimously rejected the budget that the department presented for their consideration.

Today's hearing will provide staff from that department the opportunity to to explain their budget, explain the choices that they have made.

Uh, but I think more importantly, to help us understand what those cuts could mean for the work that I think is important to the members of this board of supervisors, and I think is important to the mayor's office, and then I do want to have a at least begin a public conversation with the mayor's office about their thinking, hello, Ms.

Kittler, about their thinking, about the relationship of the reductions we've already made in the budget we adopted last year to the budget we are trying to put together for the coming two years, and how the work that I think we all believe needs to happen will go on uh with with the cuts that we're seeing in the Department of the Environment, because I'm not sure it can.

Um we say this a lot.

This is another one of these things we we say that at a time when the federal administration is galloping away from our San Francisco values, that it is all the more important that places like San Francisco not abandon fights like the fight to save the climate, the flight to save the planet.

I think that's true, and I think we need to make sure that as we work on the budget that we're going to pass this summer, that we're not abandoning this important fight.

So I think that what we're gonna do today is um hear from the director of the environment department, Tyrone Jew, who will uh talk to us about the department's budget.

Um we'll hear from Sophia Kittler, the mayor's budget director, um, or she will be available for questions, and I do have questions.

Um, and uh then we'll hear from uh folks who may have come out to talk to us.

Um, and I think that's all I got on this.

And so maybe we'll bring Director Ju up.

Thank you, President Manelman.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Sauter, Tyroneju, Director of the San Francisco Environment Department.

My goal with this presentation is pretty much just to provide a factual clear accounting of what's happening in our environment department budget, what the unique budget mechanics are with our department, which are quite unique in the city, and what's at risk for our 26-27 fiscal year budget.

So I'm going to cover four things.

Who is the environment department?

What is it that we do?

What is it that we deliver?

The budget background and constraints, what the current base budget and impacts look like operationally, and the restoration requests that our commission made when they also rejected our budget.

So I'll try to keep this focused and I'll welcome questions at the end.

As President Manelman stated, voters created this department back in 1995 during the city's last major charter reform effort.

And for the last 30 years, this department has been operating in the background, aligning climate accountability, coordination, and equity amongst our work.

Our work is often described as climate, but what residents experience in their daily lives is something a little bit more direct.

They experience cleaner air, fewer toxics, less waste, lower utility costs, and government that ultimately follows through with its commitments.

Before I go forward, I just want to highlight the challenge that I'll get into a little bit more detail about.

Under the current fiscal year 26-27 base budget, we are at risk of losing 7.81 full-time equivalent positions.

And that work directly is focused on our citywide climate accountability, building electrification, and clean transportation delivery.

So I'll walk you through why this is happening and kind of what the minimum prevention path would look like.

As President Mandelman said, we were responsible for the city's first sustainability plan in 1997, and for our most recent adopted one in 2021.

Our role is to set the goals, but also to coordinate implementation across departments to benchmark and track progress and to keep accountability clear.

So commitments don't become something that lives on a shelf, but something that translates into measurable delivery.

Thanks to this citywide coordination, San Francisco has been a leader.

We've managed to reduce our climate pollution by 48% as compared to our 1990 levels.

We have our ambitious targets that President Manelman outlined of 61% by 2030, net zero by 2040, and these targets require sustained execution capacity year after year.

They also represent a practical shift away from fossil fuels that impact public health and neighborhood air quality.

And this is what the climate math looks like when you look at emissions.

The natural gas used in buildings, the fossil fuels used in transportation, represent 89% of our city's emissions.

These are emissions not just affecting the broader planetary crisis, but that actually impact local air quality and public health.

That is where this plan succeeds or fails.

And this is where the at-risk capacity is concentrated.

The proof of also delivery is important.

And here's one tangible example of what coordinated delivery looks like in a way that people don't know but they get to feel.

Since the department established the first city's uh electric vehicle roadmap in 2017, EV charging access has more than tripled over the past decade.

While we must support a strong, robust public transit and low carbon mobility infrastructure, the city also needs EV infrastructure to meet demand.

Charging is a network unto itself, and networks require planning, standards, accountability, and coordination to work reliably.

We also heard about our leading policies around banning the use of natural gas in new construction, and how that now applies to major renovations.

These are examples of how policy becomes measurable building sector emissions reductions to avoid future public costs when the city has sustained implementation capacity.

And one other uh area that I wanted to highlight is how our department is responsible for removing delivery friction so that new climate solutions and innovations can scale right here in our great city.

This is just one example that I know Supervisor Sauter is aware of because we went out and saw one.

This is battery recycling infrastructure that doesn't exist anywhere else in the nation but exists here in San Francisco.

And the reason it exists in San Francisco is because our staff at the environment department work together closely with the fire department and our company's Redwood Materials and our small businesses to address the safety and hazards concerns so that we could get these deployed and more importantly, offer a drop-off point that has never existed before for embedded device batteries for the public to be able to take advantage of.

The point is not the technology itself.

The point is that the city benefited from the capacity to identify a clear deployment strategy so that these ideas can deliver these systems safely and also help us meet our goals.

Now I'll shift into the budget background and why this risk concentrates in a small set of roles.

This slide shows a core point.

SFE is not primarily a general fund department.

Most of our funds are tied to specific and different revenue sources like refuse rates, grants, work orders, and restricted fees and accounts.

This diverse funding structure is a strength in many ways, but it also means that we can't reallocate dollars around to cover core staff when flexible funding declines.

This is a helpful illustration to show how little general fund our department receives relative to total department sources.

I'm not presenting this to compare departments against one another, but to show just that relative comparative comparison.

The point is that the reduction in just that meager flexible source of funding has an outsized impacts on core high leverage functions.

This connects the climate math slide that I showed you with emissions to the budget math.

Buildings and transportations represent 89% of our emissions, but the dollars we can allocate to them for our climate and clean transportation capacity is only 11% of our budget.

That's actually an inverse relationship of where we should be prioritizing things.

And that's largely driven by the restricted funding sources.

And it explains why even small changes in our flexible cuts have very large delivery impacts.

And this then summarizes that key budget mechanic.

93% of the funds that we get are restricted and tied to specific scopes and deliverables.

Many are time limited, like grants require specialized staff to execute and report.

And these restricted funds can't be repurposed legally to backfill staff outside of these defined scopes.

So when that flexible funding declines, we can't simply shift dollars to other places.

And this summarizes the four budgetary challenges our department is facing this year.

The general fund, we have an indirect general fund support from public works, work order changes, and grant volatility.

This slide summarizes the scale of this decline.

As President Manu Min noted in 22 and 23 in that fiscal year, the Board of Supervisors allocated about 2.6 million dollars to fund the city's climate action plan and those positions.

Under the current proposal, the fiscal year 2627 proposal, that general fund has decreased down to 544,886.

These next slides just show the compounding pattern across these multiple sources that I outlined.

This represents the general fund support.

The second is the decline in indirect general fund support through the public works work order.

And this work order just reflects kind of a rebalancing that was done a few years ago from different funding sources, but has also been subject to budget reductions.

Next comes interdepartmental work order support.

In this line, the SFPC notified us in advance that they were ending a roughly 20-year old work order that would stop in 26 27 in that fiscal year.

And so we incorporated that information in our last budget two year budget submission, and it's also reflected in this proposal going forward.

And the fourth is grants.

Several state and federal grants are ending, and the funding environment has become more volatile due to federal action.

The takeaway is that every single one of these sources is declining all at the same time and hitting the exact same positions.

And I want to focus just a second on the grant part of our story, which I think is one of our strengths.

This is one of the most important performance points for our department.

Since November 2022, when the board allocated that $2.6 million, we've managed to go out and successfully get $84 million in grants for the city.

If you just take the general fund dollar allocation and you split that across our climate and clean transportation teams, our return on investment has been $29 for every dollar that has been invested in our department.

So the general fund support isn't extra, it's actually leverage, as we like to say within our department.

It's the enabling capacity that allows us to apply for these grants, to plan, to coordinate, compete for, and to manage the grants if we're successfully awarded.

And it also supports multiple departments across the city and our community-based organizations.

This table illustrates the volatility and timing risk in the current grant environment.

Some federal grants have indeed been terminated, but a number of those federal grants have simply been paused or stalled, and others are just pending implementation.

The takeaway is not to focus on the politics, it's actually the timing and delivery risk.

And the volatility increases the importance of that stable core capacity so we can adapt, comply, and deliver on awards should they actually move forward again in the near future.

And there are more grants that we see coming in the horizon.

Now that the federal landscape has become very clear, the state is moving forward with a number of grant opportunities that we think the city is primed for applying for.

So maintaining that credible citywide governance, emissions data, implementation capacity, and ability to apply is a prerequisite for competing for these grant dollars coming this year.

Now I'll translate all of those budget mechanics into the operational impacts on our department.

The precise number is 7.81 FTE.

The reason why it's a fraction is because these positions are funded through a variety of different sources, and so there's no one source funding 100% of these positions.

But the impact is concentrated in citywide climate accountability, building electrification, clean transportation delivery, biodiversity, plus cuts that were already made in our multilingual outreach in our last budget cycle.

On climate, the base budget would eliminate dedicated capacity to coordinate and track our climate action plan, eliminate capacity for emissions tracking and modeling, and eliminate the city's dedicated climate equity hub, which is a community-led model that supports low-income electrification and workforce training to prepare the next generation for this type of work.

It also eliminates the city's only citywide biodiversity rule and the capacity to implement electric landscaping ordinance requirements.

In plain terms, this disconnects climate commitments that we may have made from governance, measurement, and neighborhood delivery.

On clean transportation, the base budget would eliminate the people and capacity to advance the city's EV charging policies and accelerate deployment for sites and charging providers.

It would slow down our curbside charging work and our desired work on urban freight electrification.

It would also eliminate capacity to implement existing policies like our commercial garage EV charging ordinance.

The practical impact is slower charging access expansion, weaker delivery support, especially for low-income communities and multifamily neighborhoods that don't have private garages.

And even before these additional impacts that are in our budget for 26 27, prior prior year cuts and reductions were already made.

And these cuts eliminated our ability to conduct any multilingual outreach and engagement related to climate, clean transportation, and energy due to those funding restrictions.

This is a practical equity and implementation risk.

The programs exist, but residents and small businesses do not consistently learn about them and cannot access them as intended, and compliance becomes less equitable.

As I wrap up, this slide is just a summary of the commission's adopted funding request.

The total restoration request to stave off the uh elimination of those positions is three, three hundred and ninety-one thousand five hundred and sixty-six dollars.

That prevents the layoffs that would go towards our core climate and clean transportation capacity and restore uh minimal outreach capacity so programs could be accessed and delivered.

Uh next slide.

And I just want to wrap up.

Uh we have been working very closely with the mayor's office, so I want to thank them.

This is not an easy conversation because we know how challenging this budget situation is for the city.

Uh and there are no easy answers.

And so I want to acknowledge just the work that we've been working on with our office for many months, trying to figure this out.

And I also want to thank the board for having this hearing to have this public conversation.

I also want to close by recognizing something simple.

I think people are paying attention now to these cuts because climate is no longer abstract.

Yes, there are the global issues that we have related to greenhouse gas emissions, but we're feeling it already in our day-to-day interactions related to extreme heat, wildfire smoke, utility costs, and just the reliability of daily life.

For most people, the question isn't whether the basics hold anymore, it's whether what they take for granted holds clean air, less toxics in their community, reliable systems, and just costs people can manage.

And I want to take a moment to just thank the uh team that I get to work with at the environment department that I'm very proud of.

Uh, you know, these are our positions and people that and livelihoods that are at stake here.

And we've had to deal with this budgetary challenge as a department year over year.

Uh, President Manuman and everyone who's been with the city will know that we almost have the same conversation every single year as it relates to our department because of our unique funding structure.

Um, but I want to acknowledge the staff uh who have faced these budget challenges each and every year.

And even when that budget was adopted last year, which called for these cuts in these positions, the members of my team have consistently showed up.

They've consistently done their jobs under real pressure and weight and uncertainty about whether their positions would exist going forward.

And that is not easy, and yet they've continued to do what we expect of all of our public servants to uphold the values that we have as a city to make sure that we're delivering for San Franciscans with professionalism and care.

And so I want that to be part of the public record as we begin to talk about just numbers and positions.

Our job here is simply just to be honest about what it takes to deliver measurable outcomes on the priorities we have as a city, and hopefully, that I've made sure to emphasize what it takes for accountability in those actions.

And so I want to appreciate I know there's a number of people from the public that are here for elevating their voice in this conversation.

Uh, this is something that is important to a lot of people, and want to appreciate the time that they've taken to show up as well.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um, I will jump in.

Um thank you for the presentation.

I guess I want to zoom out a little bit and ask of the sort of basic question that's sort of I framed up in my remarks of my anxiety.

I think the anxiety that a number of the climate advocates feel about the ability of the city to pursue our climate action plan goals with the resources that are currently budgeted for Department of the Environment.

Can you talk a bit about that?

Um, the impacts on capacity directly hit those two emissions forces that I outlined.

So the impacted staff would be in currently our climate action planning.

So in order to do effective climate action planning, you have to have the staff to be able to coordinate across more than almost a dozen city departments and outside uh stakeholders.

That capacity gets severely diminished.

On top of that, in order to make sure that we have accountability and we have tracking so we know what targets we're hitting for, where we're missing the mark, where we need to adjust, that requires staff to do the modeling and inventory to show that emissions data that I presented earlier to tell us where we need to focus on and where uh we need to maybe move away from uh that staff uh is eliminated through this uh current proposal on the building electrification side.

There is the elimination of the climate equity hub through lack of funding, so we will not be able to directly support that model, nor will they be funding to do that.

And the staff that are necessary to also support the climate equity hub are also being eliminated under the proposal.

On the clean transportation side, it's the it's the same situation.

So our entire team uh goes away.

So the the city will not have any coordination on uh electric vehicle charging infrastructure going forward, and so I can't say with certainty like how we will manage to hit our goals.

It will just be very, very challenging to do so without those resources.

So I heard three prongs.

I heard um there's a function in the Department of the Environment that involves tracking what the city, what the city is doing and seeing what the other departments are up to and making sure that kind of everybody is pursuing policies that are gonna bring us in line with our with the with the goals that we've set in the climate action plan.

And so your concern, if I could repeat this back, is that eliminating the people who do that modeling, tracking, and coordinating is a problem for implementation of the climate action plan.

Does that sort of sound about right?

That's correct.

All right.

Can you talk about the climate equity hub?

What it is, it's never been what we wanted, right?

We we put funding in to like in the hopes that we could kind of grow the thing.

You've done some things.

I think it's sort of been a bit of a pilot, really, to prove concepts.

It hasn't been scaled.

Why does it matter?

Why should it be, you know, for people who think, and I guess members of the public can speak to this, but like, why might this be something that the city would want to invest in?

I think typically when we undergo any sort of major transition, and it's not even related to the environmental space.

Uh, we tend to leave behind those communities with the least margin thinking that the market will fix everything.

And we've seen time and time again through just even US history that is simply not the case.

People who get left behind get left behind while others advance.

The climate equity hub model was born not from this department, but born from community, environmental justice leaders, advocates in the space who said we cannot afford to leave people behind as we know we're gonna be electrifying our city and getting off of fossil fuels.

And so this model is a community-led model uh that we worked in partnership with community to develop, and the board chose to fund through this pilot.

And it's a beautiful synergy between trusted organizations that can go out into communities that ultimately have the trust of residents and businesses to be able to talk to them about the electrification that's needed, workforce development to train up this next generation and pipeline of jobs so that we're creating career pathways and and career pathways for people to be able to do this work.

And the synergy has been nothing short of outstanding.

We've done 55 installations uh in low-income communities as a proof of concept.

What are you installing?

We're installing uh heat pump water heaters are the primary focus of of that, thank you.

Uh and we've leveraged all of the various incentives and funding available.

So this isn't just the city putting in incentives.

We put in some money, but we've managed to to leverage resources from the region, from the state to also do these installations.

And so we've created a one-stop community-led shop that is deploying these projects and could be scaled.

And when you say leverage that means you've gotten grants from somebody to help low income households get heat pumps or solar or whatever the thing is that you're doing to make the building a green a green home in a low income neighborhood.

That's correct.

I mean there are available state and regional incentives to help people transition.

On top of this the way that the model works uh which was purposeful in its design is that the climate equity hub can solicit and go after their own grant funding outside of relying on the city, which they have done as as a group and won awards from the Bay Area Air District as one example.

And so this model is scalable in that sense that they can leverage community expertise get outside funding have support and technical support from our our staff and move the work towards communities that ultimately need to benefit from it.

And you've already done the I mean you're doing the work or you have been doing the work to get the money and help the people get their heat pumps and their other um transition kinds of improvements to their homes.

You talked about the sort of building capacity and sort of workforce aspects of this as well have is that a thing that you've been able to do so far or is that something that's on the you know on the on the dream plan.

We have been hard at work doing that already I think there's a actually a contractor workshop today that's happening.

And we're focused in an area that the city doesn't focus on right now we have an amazing Office of economic workforce development that has workforce development pipelines and they're focused on kind of larger projects and kind of union scale projects.

The workers that we're helping to transition are the small contractors right when you need to do replaced your uh hot water heater you're gonna go call your contractor to do the work and that's the training we're focused on is making sure that those small contractors uh have the certification and the training to be able to scale and do these improvements as they as more and more of them become necessary with the regional air district roles coming online as of next year we will need to have a larger workforce not only in San Francisco but in the region to be able to do all of the work that's forthcoming and so our work doing workshops over the past several months you know we've had excess of 200 small contractors and business small businesses here learning the trade uh to be prepared okay um the third area that you talked about okay and then just to close the loop on the hub so the hub is 2021 and 2022 we got you money board of supervisors got you money to get this thing started funding has been you know being reduced and dwindles out I think this is the last year that there's general fund for that right that's correct and um and you don't have a replacement for that and the positions are going away.

So this pilot rather than growing and what whether because we put more city funds into it or successfully leverage outside funds that's not you know if we keep going as we are currently going that work that was a nice exploration you've demonstrated your concept San Francisco but you're stopping the work.

That's correct we won't have the staff capacity nor the funding to continue the the hub.

Alright and then can you talk about the work that you your department has done on EV charging infrastructure and how one might say you know isn't that the MTA's job.

I think the MTA plays an important role as the asset and infrastructure owner and their focus is on public transportation and low carbon mobility solutions.

Where we've defined our roles is we're leading the charge pun intended on uh electric vehicles.

And so that is where kind of we split our work.

We work closely with the MTA, and so everything we're doing around our climate action plan is in partnership with all of the city departments.

But it is our department that is leading that work from the 2017 electric vehicle roadmap that I mentioned to convening this electric vehicle working group to aligning how we go after grants.

And so one of the grants that you saw on the list of stalled federal grants was a $15 million award to bring more charging into our city.

That was an effort that we led coordinating all the city departments to make sure that we put together a successful grant proposal.

Those are all the staff that that would go away.

And so there's there's no duplication of function in terms of what we do.

Everyone has a specific role, and our specific role is to lead both the policy and the overall coordination and implementation of electric vehicle charging.

Broadly.

Although I would say that on the curb side.

That the Department of the Environment has been doing most of the thinking about how this might happen.

But when it comes to the point of actually needing to roll out a curbside program, that has been the people who will be doing doing that are over at the MTA.

That's correct.

As when I highlighted that battery recycling bin, that's an example of kind of the innovation that we try to unlock for our city.

And so the initial efforts around like bringing curbside charging to our city and getting those two charges that you referenced was largely driven by our department staff working together with MTA and the utilities to figure out where we could deploy this.

And it's not like, but we're not the asset owner, right?

And I think that's the approach we try to take eventually.

It should go to the infrastructure asset owner as to manage it and to make sure that it makes sense for them to do so.

And that's where MTA has really stepped up to do this on curbside charging, where we might have done the pilot working with them, and now we're transitioning into a different role where they're leading the implementation of the overall program, and we're providing still that technical support because it's not just like installing pedestals on the street, it's figuring out rate mechanisms that might be working in other cities.

It's figuring out where should we geographically locate these and figuring out all of those issues, and that's where the expertise of the team that we have at the environment department plays a role uh in that process.

Right.

I think my last questions for you relate basically these charts about the grants.

Um, because that seems like another function that um not clear to me who's gonna do that if you guys aren't.

On the other hand, on one of these pages, the biggest grants here look you know stalled.

So you could say, well, they're not happening, so why do we need staff in the Department of the Environment to deal with grants that aren't happening?

Um, the reason why we do still need that function is because there are still future grants number one that I mentioned on the slide afterwards.

But more importantly, the staff that are allocated for these grants uh they wrote the grant.

They've also been assigned to the implement the grant should they move forward.

Stalled means we have not received confirmation one way or the other whether or not the funding is going to come through.

The point with that this slide in particular is that the volatility of the timing is not ideal, right?

With all of the other things that I showed around the decline in work orders, general fund, and grants, it's all hitting at the same time.

So we believe that there's opportunity for these grants to come online potentially in the future, but we won't have the staff capacity to actually implement them because those staff capacities are the part of the capacity we would be considering laying off.

Um I do actually have two more questions for you, but I'm gonna get out of the way and let uh Supervisor Sauter ask some questions.

Thank you.

Um and thank you, Director.

Uh I wanted to um take a moment to dig into the um the general fund um allocation that you get.

And I know that you presented that slide and it wasn't meant to be a comparison, but um it poses a lot of questions for me.

Can you walk through why you think it is that way and maybe a bit of background on funding?

Were there points?

I I believe that the funding for your department has always been, well, it's always been underfunded, and there's always been challenges, but have there been points where that allocation has been higher?

Why do you think why do you think it is this way?

So this has been a long-standing historical challenge for the department.

When the department was first conceived in 95 and then actually uh instituted in 96, there wasn't a clear funding mechanism to fund the department.

And so folks got creative and kind of established kind of moving different pieces of the city together, different sources of funding, and that's kind of been the history of how this budget has always been for the department.

Um, what the city has has benefited from, and what we've been able to do is to take that and like the leverage point I made, go out there and get grant funds to bring in dollars and support funding the actual staff doing the work.

And so we look for that alignment of here's our goals, whether it's on building electrification or electric vehicle charging, we'll go out for grants that can also deploy that infrastructure and also help fund some of the staff.

So again, we get creative with leveraging those little bit of dollars to fully fund the positions.

The budget challenges are the same every single year for the board and and the city.

It's hard to allocate funding for something you've never had to allocate funding for.

The infusion of dollars back in uh 2223 was the first time uh the department had really received an infusion to implement the climate action plan.

And and a couple of the reasons why that infusion was made.

Uh one was definitely to start up the climate equity hub and to prove this model.

The second was the we knew there would be grant opportunities from the inflation reduction act and from these federal grant opportunities that would be coming online.

And so we needed the staff capacity to even like put together the applications and go after these grants.

And so we did that, and yet now these are stalled uh because of the current administration and and their policies.

And so again, it's just it's just a confluence, and I think it's just always a tough decision if there's not a direct problem, unlike what's in front today.

You tend not to prioritize it, would be the simplest answer uh to give you.

And now there is a there's just a direct problem that we cannot solve for um that we have been able to solve for in the past.

So it's fair to say that in you know, in the decades since your formation, since the body's formation, there's never you don't think there's ever been, I mean, we've never gotten the funding right, and it's never been kind of to a more stable, sustainable place.

That that that would be fair to say.

And can you share other cities when you look at, you know, a department of environment or similar agencies in other cities, how do you see that they're funded?

What do you learn from how they get their support?

Um, I think we might even have a uh I presented a slide at the request of our of our commission doing that exact comparison.

Yeah, that slide.

Okay.

Um so this slide shows how our funding compares to other peer cities.

Right now, even at our current staffing level, uh you can see that we don't stack up to our pure cities in terms of what we've been able to allocate towards both building decarbonization, transportation decarbonization, and climate action planning.

Uh, we're at the bottom of this chart as compared to Boston, Seattle, DC, uh, and Portland.

If the capacity gets eliminated with the 7.81 FTEs, we go down to that second bar, and we fall even further behind.

I think this chart shows just two things.

One, just how amazing our staff are at the environment department to do so much with less.

Um, and two, that we have never been able to get the budget correct uh to focus on these issues, unlike other cities.

And what uh this chart actually doesn't show either is many of these cities have additional research.

This is just these are just the staffing numbers.

Uh Portland, for example, has a roughly 200 million dollar fund that they put out towards climate solutions to decarbonize buildings to do green tree plantings and more.

Seattle has, you know, tens of millions that are allocated similarly in their city.

So those functions are greater in other cities and the allocations of additional resources are greater in other cities for a comparison point.

This is really helpful.

One last question.

Can you remind me or give me some more details on the loss in revenue from the work orders with with public works?

What's behind that?

So that that work order is essentially was a net zero impact.

It was simply a rebalancing uh exercise that was done with refuse rates and general fund.

And so that rebalancing just took place uh a few years ago.

I think the challenge is that as that rebalancing took place, which was a net zero impact to both departments, as budget instructions have come forward and and uh necessity and need to cut general fund, that work order has been cut in the corresponding fashion.

And so that's just the decline that you see over the last uh year and then projected for this upcoming year.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Uh, President Mandelman.

Uh, thank you, uh Chair Dorsey.

Um, can you put the gra the chart back up that compares the and who knows what's on maybe you do know exactly what's going into each of those um lines?

But I I am curious, I mean, it seems like the area where San Francisco is sort of, I mean, it's not it's it actually seems like on transportation decarbonization, we're maybe like kind of doing all right.

Um, climate action planning, everybody's kind of like all over the map, and we're sort of in in there.

What accounts for us being so far about like what are we not doing that they're doing on building decarbonization?

The staff that we were able to bring on board uh were a direct result of the funding allocation that the board gave in 2223.

Right.

I mean, that that explains why that why we have some of that light green as opposed to no light green.

So are you just saying they're doing more people, more grants, bigger hub, more hub-like activity?

They have more budget and allocation for this function as a priority.

These cities are all implementing similar types of building electrification programs, and they're putting resources.

And do you have any idea whether they're pulling that out of their general funds or they have designated somehow?

Yeah, I think primarily I would say their equivalent general fund is where the funding is coming for for the staffing.

And then the funding that I mentioned that funds the programs and all the grants that they do are coming from various taxes that the city uh voters have imposed uh in different shapes in those cities to fund the work.

Yeah.

Um I guess, you know, I I do have a thought on Supervisor Sauter's question about the sort of the history of the Department of the Environment's budget.

And I do think that that adback funding we got in 21 or 22 or 21 and 22 was the first general was that the first general fund funding that's.

Uh, yes.

Yeah.

So I mean, historically, this department has had to sort of like eat what it kills and um go out, find things.

The bloodied beast.

Anyway, uh no, it's um but it it is uh it has not been at least prior to 2022, 2021.

I keep 202 there was actually some money in 2021.

But anyway, it hasn't been a general fund priority for the city until rather recently.

That was again through the board's adbacks.

So it was a board priority, not necessarily a mayoral priority.

I think it is no secret that the prior administration, although they were interested in some things around the environment.

I mean, they didn't stake their, you know, their legacy on environment necessarily.

And a lot of the environmental activities, you don't have to in any way acknowledge the things that I'm saying, but I do think the energy around the environment often came from the members of the board of supervisors as much as or more than from the mayor's office.

EV curbside charging is actually an exception to that, because they got very interested in that.

And there may be, and there may be other exceptions.

But there has not been a consensus across City Hall that investments in building decarbonization and um uh and climate should be should be a general fund priority.

I think it should.

There may be others on the board of supervisors who think it should.

The mayor, this mayor landed in the middle of a budget crisis, they had to balance the budget last year, figure out how to do it, they did it.

I think this is the year in which they're gonna have to make a decision about what they think about this and whether they believe that the environment should be a general fund priority and whether these activities that other cities are investing money in around things like building decarbonization are worthy of funding because you're not gonna fund you know you do actually need to fund that stuff out of your general fund, I think.

I don't know where else you fund it out of.

Um, and that and that's a choice, and hence here we are.

Um I get so confused by the work order conversation, and I think you just talked a bit about and the re I I don't, I mean, and and you just talked a bit about the public works kind of shuffling and how that's led to a but I but can you talk about the PUC?

Um and how it and why it is that they are reducing their work order so much and what's what's the theory underlying the work order with relationship with the PUC and how has that changed in a way that would justify a significant reduction now?

Yeah, I won't uh speak for the the PUC and their motivation, but uh they did just inform us in the past that they were planning to cut this work order that's been in place for roughly 20 years.

Um and so that's what we're doing.

What's the theory of the work order?

Who what's it paying for, who's doing what?

Why, why does PUC have to pay for why why did they?

Did someone think they should pay for it at some point?

Uh yeah, I mean, for these work orders, just like for any work order, we develop uh pretty detailed scope of work with any department that we're doing work orders with.

Uh the work that it funds is a small portion of the climate action planning, but primarily it's funding the electrification work.

So it's the transition.

Ah, they're a power provider.

You are thinking about building electrification, and so you do work for them because they are the power provider.

I think that was that was part of the justification and part of the scope of work that we had with the department.

Uh, and there was also interest in the work that we were doing trying to go for grants to make sure we could expand our infrastructure.

Um, all right.

And you can't speak for the PUC.

Um, no, that would not be that would not be appropriate.

Again, like uh the PC, like every department is facing their own budget challenges too.

So I I don't want to like diminish what challenges they're having.

I can only speak to what impact it's gonna have on our department.

It's bad times.

All right.

Well, unless the chair has questions, nope.

Then I you may sit down, Mr.

Director Jew.

Um, I would like to ask, so if it's all right to uh invite our budget director, wherever you want to be.

Just get yourself a microphone so we can have a conversation.

Um, and you know, the the environment department got their instructions and they've had they've done a budget and they're they seem not that happy.

The advocates are really unhappy.

I'm concerned, um, and uh you are beginning to think about this problem over in room 200.

Are you concerned?

Sophia Kittler from the Mayor's budget office.

Thank you, President Mendelin, for the question.

Um I think that the nature of the Department of the Environment's budget, putting aside like the amount and the reductions, which are a challenge, um, but the nature of of how grant funded it would be and to use your words that they need to eat what they kill, I think has forced the department in a direction that has not necessarily always served like the strategy or the um or the buy-in that it gets from other departments.

And so I I do think that the general fund infusion that they received with your leadership a few years ago has been what has enabled them to start to pull out and become a more strategic department.

And I I think that the mayor's office understands that without that general fund support, um they are greatly inhibited in their ability to be strategic in that manner.

Um that is not something we take lightly.

The the process by which we run our budgets is we first give everyone a target, then we evaluate the impacts of what they have offered up and make our general allocation decisions in mayor phase.

And so I um I think this is this is kind of like the way it needs to go almost.

Um I guess it doesn't need to, but this is this is the way the process works.

Yeah.

Um and I think that I I would really appreciate your leadership and the leadership of the advocates to kind of bring this forward because I think all of these conversations that we can have sooner um kind of really shed light on on how to think about those priorities and shape the budget before it gets before you in June.

Um one of the things that's kind of come up in conversations with um uh the mayor's office about this is this sort of overall question about like what should the Department of the Environment be doing, what should it not be doing, what does it make sense to have some of these functions separated from the departments that are actually doing more of the implementation?

Is there benefit in having a department like the Department of the Environment that's overseeing you know that's kind of like bird dogging things in multiple places?

Um what seems what I s do feel pretty strongly, and I mean, you know, you the administration may not have an opinion about this yet, but but I I do think we need to keep that that chunk of green that other cities are doing more than we are, and that we are only doing because of the ad backs from the Board of Supervisors, I think is important to being, you know, to to your membership in blue city category.

Like I I do think, you know, and I think we I think everybody, I think we three agree, I think the administration agrees.

The most important things that blue cities can be doing right now is govern effectively and get the basics done, and we still need to do the stuff that represents our values and advances our goals and sets kind of uh an example for what the state and the country ought to be and the world ought to be doing.

And I would love to find a way for our light green to grow.

Um some of that could be through grants if there are people around to apply for those grants.

I don't know where that function belongs, but it does seem like we're sort of eliminating it.

We're set up to eliminate it now.

And you have to cut hundreds of millions.

I mean, I've said this to you in my office.

I understand that the task in front of you is cutting hundreds of millions of dollars.

Um, and if we're gonna solve what I'm describing as a problem, it means you have to cut another three million or some amount to like keep that green line going.

But I think it's really important, and I think it's worth doing, and I think my colleagues agree.

So that's kind of why we're having this conversation here.

Heard, understood.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Um, I'd also like just to express my gratitude to President Mandelin for calling this hearing.

Uh thanks as well to Supervisor Sauter.

I think uh this was enlightening for the climate priorities that we share, and I would thank both of you for excellent questions that left me with uh nothing to ask myself.

Uh thanks as well to Mr.

Ju, Mr.

Sheehan, um, Ms.

Kittler for engaging so thoughtfully and informatively in this uh discussion.

Seeing no further questions or comments on the roster, I would ask that we now invite up public comment on this item.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for uh on this hearing regarding the environment department's budget.

If we could line up along those curtains, and as soon as the first speaker approaches the elector, and I'll start your time.

Hi, my name is Nick Kestner.

I lead San Francisco Environment's Building Decarbonization team, but I'm here on my own time today.

Less than three years ago, San Francisco's building decarb team was formed thanks to SF Environment's first major allocation from the general fund.

Since that time, our small but mighty team of three has become a pace setter in the Bay Area and beyond, regularly fielding inquiries about our innovative programs from other cities.

We launched the climate equity hub, which engages EJ communities about the benefits of all electric homes, provides free heap on water heaters, as you've heard, and trains uh small local minority contractors to install them so they can be part of the green transition.

Our efforts have been rewarded with over $650,000 in grant funding in the past year, including for resident outreach and the expansion of our climate equity hub program to family child care providers in San Francisco.

We launched a series of contractor electrification workshops last year that have since become the model for monthly trainings around the nine county Bay Area.

We developed guidelines for heat pump water heaters and food service establishments that were featured in a training attended by 138 Department of Public Health officials representing almost the entire population in California.

We have dramatically increased our outreach to tenants, home and property owners, architects, contractors, real estate agents, and others to ensure they are prepared for the transition that we seek to foster.

We've developed and passed an all-electric major renovations ordinance that minimizes the cost of electrification by aligning upgrades with natural renovation cycles.

And we've inventoried natural gas equipment in municipal building stock and made plans to decarbonize those buildings.

I could have written a similar list for our colleagues on the transportation and climate action teams who are just as capable, passionate, and innovative as we are.

Together we are working to reduce 90% of the city's climate emissions.

90%.

As you've heard, the vast majority of SFE's budget comes with strings attached and cannot backfill the cuts proposed to our general fund.

That's why I respectfully ask you to save this tiny slice.

But thank you much, Nick Nick Kessner for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

I do apologize if we cut anybody off, but we are timing each speaker at two minutes.

Thank you much.

Okay, you can cut us off.

Um my name is Chris Seelig.

Um I'm with Polair, which is an environmental economic justice organization that organizes primarily Latinx families in southeastern neighborhoods of San Francisco.

And I'm the director of the Healthy and Resilient Homes Program at Polair.

And we, I just wanted to tell you how important the Department of Environment is for us, in particular, the climate equity hub, but also the climate action plan and everything that's vulnerable to these cuts.

We work with, and I personally work with the staff every single week to try to figure out effective solutions to both disparity and the climate crisis, including safety, transportation, buildings, everything that you care about.

And we're doing a really good job of creating effective solutions.

The other piece of the puzzle is that we also do statewide work.

We think about the what the work of the California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission and the California Air Resources Board.

And we work hard at developing state funding that can be used in San Francisco.

And we've done a really good job of bringing that money to San Francisco.

As you know, San Francisco is selected as a priority focus area for the Equitable Building Decarb Program, which is the CEC's flagship program.

We're angling to get a 1221, which is a gas decommissioning, but we really, really, really need the Department of Environment staff to be able to leverage these state resources and apply them effectively in San Francisco.

Without that, we it's like beyond our ability because it's complex, and it's, you know, working with all these different programs.

So it's actually to build on the story of return of investment.

It's the way to leverage state funding and bring it into.

Thank you much, Chris Seeley.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Stamp, excuse me, and I'm senior climate action coordinator with San Francisco Environment.

I am actually working on pulling together San Francisco's climate action plan.

That's my job, although I am here on my time off.

And the climate action plan is the plan for exactly what actions, San Francisco departments will take to meet the city's climate goals that were adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

The process has involved coordinating with the 18 departments that are taking actions laid out in the plan.

Sorry.

It has also involved an extensive public engagement process as well as a focused racial and social equity review.

It looks in detail at seven sectors, especially as you saw the sources of the most emissions, buildings, and transportation, and it sets out specific measurable actions that each department is committing to take.

We have also been working on modeling those actions to make sure that if departments take them all, we meet our goals.

Spoiler alert, it looks like we do.

We plan to publish the plan for Earth Month or Climate Month in April.

And then we move to implementation to tracking those actions and reporting so that we have transparency and accountability that demonstrate actual climate leadership for San Francisco residents for the public.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elizabeth Stamp.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Paul Wormer.

I first started working on climate issues for Intel in 1993 and have drifted through various aspects of it.

The Climate Equity Hub is a truly significant and important organization.

Why?

Well, you know, the air resources or the air quality district has uh two regulations which will require buildings to get out of using gas-fired heat for water and space heating.

But they know people can't afford it.

And because they're a district regional district operation with no money, they can't do much about that.

But what they did or are doing are considering exemptions for people who can't afford it.

So if you can't afford to decarbonize, you won't have to.

Okay, that's nice.

Except that means the low-income communities where nobody has money are the last ones who will be able to decarbonize.

What the what the climate equity hub is doing is finding out how to serve those communities, how to leverage those resources so they are not forced to poison themselves because they don't have the money for it.

And this requires a lot of expertise.

It would be really great if we could be really efficient and have these experts spread out in every different department.

That's really expensive because you get a lot of duplication of expertise, and you don't get the casual discussions among the experts in the office where they share ideas and learn from each other.

The idea that you get brilliant efficiencies that save money and lots of time by distributing experts everywhere in different departments, doesn't really bear out.

And I say that based on my experience as a past expert working in a large tech company where we really benefited by being in the same central organization sharing ideas.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Paul Warmer.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Courtney Carew.

I work on climate at San Francisco International Airport, and I've been fortunate enough to work with a talented and dedicated team at SFE.

But today I am speaking as a private citizen on my own time.

San Francisco is a climate leader with so many ambitious goals and accomplishments that you've already heard today.

For the eighth year in a row, San Francisco received an A-list climate rating, the highest environmental rating through the climate disclosure project.

In response, Mayor Lurry noted in January of this year, last month, that San Francisco has long been a leader in climate action, and this A-list rating shows that our administration is continuing that legacy.

I hate to say it, but that sounds like an empty promise, given that that legacy cannot be continued if the SFE budget is cut.

We cannot reach net carbon by 2040 without the staff and expertise of SFE to implement climate programs.

The city has felt impacts of climate change, poor air quality, flooding, wildfire smoke, power outages, supply and chain disruptions, and cancellation of insurance policies.

Defunding of SFE is short-sighted.

The cost of an action is tangible and costly and will impact our most vulnerable communities.

We must continue San Francisco's legacy of climate leadership and improving the quality of life for all San Franciscans.

This can only be done through funding SFE and retaining the talented staff and climate expertise.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you much, Courtney Carew.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name's Julie Lindo, and I am representing, I am the associate director of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, representing hundreds of healthcare professionals today.

I'd like to first ask your help explaining what we're explaining today to the mayor, because I don't think he understands yet.

The Bay Area has the sixth worst air pollution in the entire country.

Air pollution does not just affect our lungs, it harms our entire bodies.

We are, as we all know, in a fiscal crisis.

That means that we must invest wisely.

That means investing in San Francisco environment expertise because it benefits our entire city.

We need their expertise for every department to be able to implement the plan, the climate plan.

The doctors I work with know that investing in reducing air pollution is the most efficient way to improve health outcomes for more people than treating individual patients.

It is a wise investment, particularly in the climate equity hub, which we as uh an organization have secured three two different grants to help support those grants could potentially go to waste if SFE does not have the funding to continue the climate equity hub.

The air district has asked us to seize the climate equity hub as a model for the rest of the country.

In fact, not just the Bay Area, but possibly the rest of the country.

So thank you, SF, for investing our money wisely.

Thank you.

And thank you, Julie Lindau.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Susanna Porti, and I am the volunteer coordinator for the Solar Rights Alliance, the Association of California, rooftop solar owners.

I'm a volunteer, I'm here on my own time.

Pollution mitigation is infinitely more expensive than environmental protection and planning.

Making cuts to SF environment would not only be fiscally irresponsible, it would be fiscally disastrous.

Just think about the ramifications down the road.

We are in a climate emergency, and things are about to get even worse unless we continue to fund climate programs.

Please, no cuts to SF environment.

Thank you.

Thank you much to San Jorge.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, President Mendelman, Supervisors.

My name is Antonio Diaz, and I'm with Poder.

I'm the organization's director.

Just this past month, we celebrated the completion of the first phase of a building decarbonization project in the mission district.

Electrified a four-unit residential building.

The Latino Latina building owner and the attendants celebrated the fact that they're off-gas.

That week PGD came in and cut the gas for the building.

I say this because obviously this is important for those tenants in terms of their health, but also for San Francisco to be able to meet its uh its goals under the Climate Action Plan.

That project though would not have been possible without the uh strong collaboration of Poder and the USF Environment Department.

Quite frankly, the expertise that they brought to bear around the incentive programs out there that could be tapped into and the funding that the city provided, as if he provided, as well as the technical expertise that they brought through the engineers to do the analysis of the measures to be incorporated into that project were incredibly impactful and useful for the success of um of what we did in in this one building in the mission district, which, as my colleagues said earlier, we want to build to scale in in the um in the neighborhood and across the city.

It's this kind of city and community collaboration that is crucial to meet the uh city's climate action goals because we need to work together, as we all know.

And it's unfortunate that if the cuts come to the department, that the things like the climate equity hub that are advanced in advancing these work, this work will be eliminated.

I urge you to please think about, as you said, uh President Mendelman, to grow the little green a bit more.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Antonio Diaz.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Joanna Gubman, and I'm a member of the Sierra Club San Francisco Group Executive Committee.

The environment is an important issue to San Franciscans and to San Francisco, and from your comments to you as well.

Thank you.

The Sierra Club alone has over 5,500 dues paying members here in the city, as well as another roughly 5,000 action takers and supporters.

There are a lot of us who do care about the environment.

While the goals and targets of the Climate Action Plan update are for the most part laudable, they mean little if they are not achieved.

Through decades of grassroots organizing and advocacy, the Sierra Club has learned that meaningful environmental progress requires institutions with real power.

If SF environment is underfunded, the city will be unable to serve as a responsible environmental steward and satisfy its statutory requirements.

Particularly as the Trump administration actively obstructs environmental action, it is time for San Francisco to step up, not step back.

The Sierra Club is concerned that without sufficient funding, our zero waste, circularity, and climate action plan ambitions will be unfunded mandates or even just suggestions.

This is a recipe for empty promises.

Thank you, Ms.

Joan Goodman.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Susan Green.

I'm with the San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition.

Thank you very much for holding this hearing.

I'm sorry your two colleagues are missing this important information, and I'm frankly disappointed that our city's climate policy chief or staff don't appear to be here today.

Um every month, sometimes every week, we read scientific the news of scientific reports about how we're rapidly approaching climate tipping points that can lead to runaway global heating.

In that context, our federal government is doing all that they can to stop the transition to clean energy and accelerate the burning of fossil fuels.

And what is San Francisco's response?

Are we going to effectively shut down the only city programs dedicated to implementing our climate action plan?

Are we going to say, well, San Francisco's San Franciscans don't really care about the safety and future of our kids and our grandchildren because we have too many more immediate concerns to worry about?

Or are we going to step up, like our peer cities, Boston, DC, Seattle, and Portland, all of whom face similar urban challenges and budget constraints like San Francisco, and all of whom have map found ways to allocate tens of millions of dollars of revenue each year to climate mitigation programs.

If we can't find a few million dollars to fund the strategic brain trust that San Francisco environment represents, I don't see how we can find a way to move forward and generate even further funding, scale up investment that we really need to meet our climate action plan goals.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Holmes.

I'm legacy resident and community organizer for All Things Bayview, and we are in support of the San Francisco Climate Action Plan submitted on behalf of the residents of Bayview Hunters Point, represented by All Things Bayview.

For decades, residents of Bayview Hunters Point, which is a fence line and shoreline community facing some of the highest direct cumulative health impacts in San Francisco, including elevated rates of asthma, cancer, and other pollution related illnesses.

Like myself, I carry two of these around, which is essential every day.

So what I'm saying is we really need this, and we want to we want to, I submit this comment in strong support of the climate action plan.

For generations, our neighborhoods have lived beside contaminated sites, industrial operations, and heavy diesel corridors, conditions that climate change only intensifies.

The Climate Action Plan must not only acknowledge these inequities, but ensure that frontline neighborhoods like ours lead the solutions, shaping priorities and implementations through lived experience and community expertise.

We urge the city to embed neighborhood leadership, community-owned air monitorings, which is what we do, and resident-driven decision making as core requirements of the plan.

Strong accountability, transparent enforcement, and sustained funding for community-led monitoring are essential for protecting public health and ensuring that real conditions on the ground guide policy, a climate plan that truly serves San Francisco must invest in and be co-governed by the community most effective.

We encourage the city to adopt strengthen and fully enforce their climate action plan so Bayview Hunter's Point can move forward towards a cleaner, safer, and more resilient future.

Speaker's time has expired.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Angelique Tompkins.

I serve as Vice President of the Commission on the Environment.

And I'm speaking today in a personal capacity as a San Franciscan and Bayview Hunters Point resident and community advocate who cares deeply about our city's health, resilience, and future.

I'm here to emphasize salient points in support of restoring the environment department's climate clean transportation and outreach capacity, as called for in the resolution adopted February 4th, 2026.

For nearly 30 years, the Commission on the Environment has represented San Francisco's leadership and integrity on climate and environmental stewardship.

That legacy is now at risk.

The department cannot simply shift funds to retain staff.

Over 90% of its funding is restricted to specific programs and deliverables.

Losing this capacity isn't about trimming inefficiencies.

It directly weakens our ability to meet commitments we've already made.

It also limits our ability to leverage general fund dollars, which currently return roughly 29 dollars in grant funding for every dollar invested.

This is especially concerning because buildings and transportation together account for nearly 90% of San Francisco's emissions.

These are exactly the areas where departments's expertise is most essential.

With that adequate funding and staffing, our progress will slow the moment we need to accelerate.

At the same time, federal climate rollbacks make strong local leadership more important than ever.

When we step back locally, we don't save money.

We defer cost, increase risk, and undermine public health.

I urge the mayor and the board of supervisors to act.

Investing in climate capacity now is an investment in San Francisco's long-term resilience and responsibility.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Commissioner Tompkins.

Next speaker.

Hello, I'm Teresa Dulalas with SamCan.

I live in Soma Filipinas, District 6, an environmental justice community along the freeway corridor.

My family was a participant in SFE's climate equity hub.

Before joining the program, we experienced respiratory illness and serious health concerns.

Through CEH, we learned that gas appliances release pollutants inside our homes.

Something many families do not realize.

That knowledge empowered us to make informed decisions about our health.

SFE staff went beyond anyone's expectations.

They coordinated inspections together with their contractors, walked us through appliance replacements, and followed up to ensure the process was complete and smooth.

They did not leave participants behind.

That is not bureaucracy.

That is effective public service.

We are hearing, you know, that this is about efficiency and not cuts.

For undecided commissioners, I ask you to evaluate efficiency based on structure and outcomes.

SFE centralizes climate coordination across electrification, toxic reduction, zero waste, and urban forestry.

In SOMA, we are working with community partners to increase tree canopy to correct historic disparities.

These efforts require unified oversight.

When responsibility is diffused across departments, accountability becomes harder to measure.

That is not political.

Thank you, Teresa Delales for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Elliot Hellman.

I've lived in San Francisco for most of my life.

I'm currently a resident of Mr.

Dorsey's supervisorial district six.

I'm an active member of 350 San Francisco, a grassroots environmental organization fighting climate change.

I live right on the Bay Shore, which I love.

As I'm sure you know, or at least Mr.

Dorsey knows, the sidewalks in Mission Bay are sinking at an alarming rate.

King tides and storm surges come at an increasingly frequent level, and every spring, our sidewalks are a little bit lower.

We all know that this is driven by burning fossil fuels, and we have to take tangible steps to effect change that we need.

San Francisco Environment is the only city department that has worked on underfunded as it has been to figure out how to survive and thrive with the climate changes that science tells us are coming.

San Francisco Environment led in developing our city's comprehensive climate action plan for achieving net zero carbon emissions while focusing on social justice and equity.

But without adequate funding, the climate action plan will just be a plan and no action.

San Francisco must fund real climate action.

So please do everything you can to permanently fund our city's best chance for surviving a climate future that none of us want to see.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for this hearing.

My name is Mishwa Lee.

I'm a 36 years resident of Bayview Hunters Point.

And I acknowledge what the previous speaker just told about the impact of sea level rise.

Yesterday, my grandson came to spend time with me.

He's a graduate of School of the Arts and Engineering.

And we took a walk over to India Basin.

And I asked him, you know, how do you feel about your future?

And he said, you know, I don't know anymore.

I don't know if there's a future for my generation.

And that troubled me.

And I want to uh I represent um or I'm a member of uh a thousand grandmothers for future generations.

So we're not just concerned with this gener uh, you know, this generation of young people, but the next seven generations, and if we had thought about them adequately, our ancestors, as particularly the white colonizers, then our bay wouldn't be filled with mercury from the gold mining that impacts our ability to eat fish from the bay.

And it's critical, critical that we maintain and even further fund the Department of the Environment, because if we don't, we're going to lose all that expertise that we need.

Um, I have had cancer, and I know that from information speaker's time has expired.

Okay, I'll finish real quick.

But thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Um, sorry, I need my notes.

My name's John Anderson.

I'm a resident of Dick District 2.

I'm with the Indivisible San Francisco Climate Group.

Um, but today I want to speak from my own household's experience because that's what I know.

Um, I just want to emphasize when we talk about losing grant money with SFE.

We're losing funding for valuable city services.

Uh two years ago, my household switched from uh gas heating and gas space and water heating to uh heat pumps.

Um the process was, it took years, and it was a nightmare at times.

Um, glad I did it, but it was we were worried about indoor pollution from the indoor combustion and also about safety.

We had we've had a major gas explosion right down the street in Gary in you know the last few years, and that's not even talking about uh earthquake safety.

So we made the switch.

Um it involved a big search for people with expertise.

Uh it involved a lot of negotiating about getting power.

All of that was unnecessary if uh the industry had been up and running, which the climate equity hub would provide.

Um so we need this stuff, and you can make similar arguments for curbside charging, urban canopy, the whole thing.

Mayor Lurie was elected to make San Francisco leader in green industry.

We can't be a leader if we don't have city support city infrastructure to support it.

Thank you.

And thank you, John Anderson.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, thank you for having me.

My name is Sarah Greenwald with 350 San Francisco.

I live in District 2.

And I'm very proud of my progressive, hardworking, technically outstanding city.

I care about the climate because I care about you guys and your constituents and of course myself.

Our uh expert long-standing environment department and their climate action plan are also points of pride.

But every few years uh it seems like the city is short of cash and for you know sometimes very good reasons.

And then City Hall decides the climate department and the plan are too expensive.

Well, we've been noticing that SFE brings in almost 30 times the money it gets from the general fund.

So please ask Mayor Lurie, what is your reasoning?

Okay, and let's break with that custom.

Please allocate about 3.4 million dollars from the general fund to keep SFE's core programs going.

Thanks.

And thank you, Sarah Greenwald.

Next speaker, please.

President Mandelman, uh Supervisor Sauter and Dorsey.

Uh my name is Dave Roadie.

I'm a 45-year resident of San Francisco and the policy co-chair for Al Gore's climate reality project.

You are being presented today with a huge opportunity.

An opportunity to act on behalf of all San Franciscans now and for future generations, an opportunity to strike a blow for environmental justice, an opportunity to create green jobs, to make San Francisco a leader in climate action, and to throw out a welcome map for industries on the cutting edge of clean energy and emissions reduction.

For every dollar you invest, SF Environment will bring $29 into the city.

For every million you invest, they will bring in $29 million.

You cannot solve the city's current budget crisis by pulling the rug out from the agency responsible for implementing our climate action plan.

The climate action plan that you approved, approved wholly just five short years ago.

As the UN Secretary General has said, addressing the climate challenge presents a golden opportunity to promote prosperity, security, and a brighter brighter future for us all.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you much, Dave Roddy.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Jane Liu.

I live in the Outer Richmond District 4.

Um I actually moved out there about five years ago after we had that orange skies day.

Uh I was terrified and I wanted to be closer to the ocean and nature while it was still available to us, I guess.

Um and in my time living in the outer Richmond, I have seen our infrastructure really need more climate resilience.

Anytime there is a heat wave, there are thousands of people that come to Ocean Beach to cool off.

Anytime we have atmospheric rivers, we'll have major power outages, or we'll have sewage leaking into the ocean.

I think if you go ahead with these budget cuts to the SF Environment Department, it will be a huge loss to us, the city, our future.

Um, and then separately, I am involved with a lot of different um volunteer organizations that have to do with the environment, including uh Sierra Club, who I'm here on behalf of.

And I see members uh employees of the environment department really engaging with their community, and um I think it would be a huge loss if these budget cuts went through, and we lost all the scientists and experts that are currently at this department.

Thank you.

And thank you, Jane Liu.

Next speaker, hello, supervisors.

My name is Peter Belden.

I'm the political chair for the Sierra Club in San Francisco.

Um I want to give special thanks to President Mandelman for his leadership on this topic and also for speaking at the rally today so passionately.

Um I want to urge you to support the $3.4 million request for the Department of the Environment.

Um, as you have probably experienced, I think, you know, the environment and climate change are really a priority for San Francisco voters.

Um at the rally, someone mentioned some polling that had been done.

I think it was roughly 70%, saying it was either a uh important or very important priority to them.

To me, it's also the right thing to do.

So it's a it's popular with voters, it's the right thing to do, and that day when the sun didn't come up a few years ago when it was orange, I think really drove it home.

The idea that for multiple days that year it wasn't safe to take your kids outside, just to me makes it so clear how the climate crisis is now.

It's not just a thing for the future.

Um I also think there's a real opportunity for leverage here, not just financial, because so much of the country and the world I think rightfully looks to San Francisco for leadership.

And so when we do the right thing and really increase our investment, not just maintain but increase our investment in this area, we have the opportunity to lead by example and therefore leverage that in other cities around the world.

Thank you.

And thank you, Peter Belton.

Next speaker.

Hello, everyone.

I am Magda Schmayska.

I'm associate director of sustainability at TNDC, affordable housing in San Francisco.

Due to limited time, I will just focus on climate action plan and decarbonization.

We are affordable housing.

Money is very tight, but we are on track to reach 50% decrease in carbon emission in 10 years.

This is mostly due to climate action plan to the San Francisco Department of the Environment, the expertise, and the support.

By cutting budget to SFE, you will be cutting chances and opportunities for San Francisco residents for a clean air, clean water, and clean environment.

I just hope that everybody who is making this decision will prove that your moral backbone is still in the right place, and you will keep in mind the residents.

Those are your people, and you are deciding about the future and the health.

Please don't cut budget to SFE.

Thank you.

Thank you, Amanda Schmuska.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Nancy Haber.

I'm a member of San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition and a resident of District 7.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter today, and thank you, President Mandelman, particularly for arranging this hearing.

I am here today to urge the committee members to do everything in your power to restore the necessary 3.4 million of general fund monies to maintain and support the environment department and their department in their important work.

The people of San Francisco deserve a comprehensive organized total climate crisis response, not a scattered and uh ineffective attempt at solutions.

We have a comprehensive climate action plan, and we have a very efficient, effective environment department, with the expertise and uh experience to implement the plan across the all of the city departments, and across all of the city.

It seems the height of fiscal folly to me to try to save a few million dollars when any inac any more inaction on climate will result in huge costs down the road.

So again, I ask you to please do what you can to restore the 3.4 million to the environment department.

Thank you.

And thank you, Nancy Haber.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Um Judy Rosenfeld.

And uh thank you guys for the presentation.

That was very, very good.

Thank you so much for your words and your questions.

What I wanted to say is that as a just as a citizen, I go to these meetings about climate issues through in different parts of the city, and we're spoken to by various experts from various departments.

And you know, I don't understand what they are saying.

All I know is that they're not talking to each other.

And one department says, Well, it's the department of public health, and the other one goes, it's the this one, and it's the that one.

And the the uh SF environment has been able to communicate with the public with language and some compassion that we can actually understand and relate to, and this is really really important for the public to be able to participate in this plan.

And I don't just think you the department should be funded.

I really think it should be increased so that there can be coordination, much better coordination throughout the city.

Thank you so much.

And thank you, Judy Rosenfeld, next speaker.

Hello, my name is Jose Alberto Hernandez Torres, and I also go by Little Garden Bed, and so of course I love clean water and clean air.

I am in Little Saigon and I study at CCSF Ocean Campus.

I'm a part of those students for justice group there.

I'm here on my behalf.

So these cuts, they're uh fiscally reckless, they harm low-income communities.

So the Bay Area, like has the the Bay Area has the worst air quality in the country.

I personally am investing in a in a wearable device that tracks air quality, and so I would love it if I could track that and see it only get better over time.

The 29x return on every dollar invested is you it speaks for itself, and the uh as a part of the charter for reform government streamlining the Lurry administration may remove SFE and the Commission on the Environment from the Charter, and integrate SFE's work across other departments blended into the whole rather than treat it as an independent entity SFE, the only department actually focused on climate with the expertise to coordinate work city-wide could disappear.

The climate work of SFE and the Commission on the Environment are essential to the health, safety, and prosperity.

Please keep SFE and the Commission on the Environment in the City Charter, elevate their mission within the city bureaucracy so they can drive more ambitious uh climate policies around San Francisco.

Uh please fund 3.4 million.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Jose Fernandes Torres, next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Zachary Freau.

I live in D5 and work for the South and Market Media Action Network.

SFE's climate work meets all of Mayor Lurie's stated budget goals.

One safe and clean streets by reducing our reliance on the aging gas infrastructure, building electrification, mitigates hazards from natural disasters.

During the 1989 earthquake, 27 fires broke out from ruptured gas mains.

Two, efficient government.

It's already been said every dollar the city invests in SFE has generated $29 dollars in outside grants.

Funding the environment department is the best return on investment the city will get out of any department.

And three, economic revitalization.

Since its launch in June 2024, the climate equity hub has provided 55 households with no cost installation of brand new electric appliances.

The climate equity hub is not just a regional model, but a national model for how to make the city more affordable for families and create more jobs in the process.

Everyone wins.

The mayor told us directly he wants to see the climate work of SFE integrated across all departments, but that's exactly what the climate action plan does.

And that's exactly where general fund dollars go towards supporting the staff who are in charge of coordinating climate action plan implementation across all departments.

Cutting general fund dollars from the environment department will not solve our city's structural deficit.

What it will do is ensure that our city will not survive the impending climate emergencies we will face.

We ask that you advocate directly to the mayor to add to allocate 3.4 million per year to fully fund the environments department.

Thank you.

And thank you, Zach Frio.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Anya Worley Zigman with the People's Budget Coalition, and I wanted to uplift what everybody has been saying here today and say that we are in full support of fully funding the climate action plan.

And you know that we also represent a bunch of different organizations who were cut just last week and this week and will be cut again next week in this budget, and we still fully support all of these organizations to get their money and to have all of these important priorities fully funded because there is enough money in San Francisco.

There is enough money in San Francisco for HIV AIDS care.

There is enough money to fund the environment.

These are not priorities against each other.

So at no point in this process will I expect to hear any of you say, oh, we can't afford this program because we have to fund another program over here.

It is not an acceptable answer to San Franciscans, not in the face of everything that we are facing at the federal level.

We ask each of you to not wait on this issue.

Let's not get to June and still have this not be funded.

That cannot happen by no means.

You should try with the mayor as much as possible to save this program by April at the latest.

This cannot be in your ad back process.

You've already gotten lots of visits from organizations who need your help and your support.

You need to talk to the mayor, and you need to make it very clear what your demands are and what you are not backing down on.

Know that you have our support.

You have this community behind you when you speak to the mayor.

Use that, act in our favor, uphold our values, uphold San Francisco values, and we will have your back in these difficult negotiations.

This will be difficult, but we expect you to uphold the values, be true to your word, be true to what the mayor has said, hold them accountable to these values in San Francisco.

Know that there is enough money in this very wealthy city for all of our priorities.

So we stand with everybody in saying that we deserve a healthy and equitable San Francisco, and this is part of that.

Speaker's time is hard.

But thank you much on your word, Lee Ziegman.

Next speaker.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Scott Feeney.

I am a member of the Democratic Socialists of America San Francisco chapter.

And our chapter has uh signed on to the letter asking you to fully fund the Department of the Environment to protect crucial programs like the climate equity hub that are important for working class people in San Francisco, both right now to address environmental justice issues and to guarantee that we have a livable future.

Um this um the proposed cuts would only take $3.4 million to reverse.

That is an amount of money that we absolutely have in San Francisco, and to illustrate that, I learned just this morning that Mayor Leary was not at our rally uh on the steps of City Hall for the environment department because he was instead announcing a new tax cut uh for rich real estate investors, cutting uh what I believe is estimated to produce more than $50 million a year for uh intended for affordable housing.

Um so if there's if there's uh $50 million to give a tax cut to the wealthy, there's certainly $3.4 million to fund uh the environment department to fund affordable housing, all of the things that we need in San Francisco and that are consistent with our San Francisco values.

The money is there, but we need to not be blowing it on tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Scott Feeney.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name's Mark Shahanian.

I live in the mission, and I'm here speaking as part of the Sierra Club this afternoon.

Um I really enjoyed Elizabeth Stamp's uh comment earlier in the public comment period.

She's right to be emotional about the work that her that her and her team do.

We uh we work closely with them to help put together this version that's coming out in April of the climate action plan.

And they are the only bulwark between honestly a lot of departments that have very little incentive to do the right thing by climate and what we would all like them to do.

Uh sandbagging is the word that comes to mind with a few of the partners' goals.

One of these departments has been named already in this hearing.

And it's so important that people like her are supported.

Um, and that we're able to retain public servants like that.

Thank you.

Hey, and thank you much for addressing this committee.

And uh with that, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Uh that completes our queue.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

President Mandelman.

Uh thank you, Chair Dorsey, and thank you again for stepping into chair today.

Thank you, uh Supervisor Sauter for um uh not relieving yourself at any point and depriving us of quorum.

Um thank you, Supervisor Melgar, for being ready to step in if we had needed you for fear of losing quorum.

Thanks to the Department of the Environment for all of the work you do each and every day and have been doing for all these decades.

Um, and thanks to all the advocates for turning out.

We heard from the mayor's budget director that this is part of the process.

It is part of the process.

The difficulty for them is that some of the bad choices have already gotten made and need to get unmade, and uh it those uh choices do need to get made, made, I believe, on the mayor's side.

I think this is an opportunity for the mayor to show his commitment uh to the environment to um uh and to being a leader in this area.

Um I think we need to commit uh find the resources to keep the uh work going that was cut from last year's budget, and so I'm hoping we'll see that.

Um I don't know if we're gonna need to have further conversations in public with the mayor's office before uh before they release their budget, but in case they do, I would like to have uh request that this hearing be continued to the call of the chair.

Second.

Do we have a roll call on that motion?

Yes, on that motion by member Mandelman, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, that this hearing be continued to the call of the chair.

Uh member Sauter.

Sauter, I member Walton Walton absent, member Mandelman.

Aye.

I Dorsey.

Aye.

Uh we have three ayes with member Walton absent and chair Chan excused.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any items before other other items before us?

Uh Mr.

Vice Chair, that concludes our business.

Great.

Thank you, everyone.

We are adjourned.