now, it is being done currently under a contract. it is not being done under one of the permits issued by the department of health pursuant to the 32 ordinance, so there is a misconception that somehow the city is bound by this 32 ordinance to not consider the opportunity to competitively bid transportation, which is an integral part of this whole process. and eat you do not abated and the 30 to order and does not apply, then you are in violation of section 21.1 of the city's administrative code, which requires competitive bidding for these contracts. we learned only after we submitted a response -- [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you. i'm going to call a few more names. [reading names] >> ok.

madame chair, supervisors, the vice president in charge of recology san francisco. i'm pleased to be before you today, but i think the issues that i'm hearing today being discussed, the landfill contract, the transportation agreement, and the 32 ordnance -- we are happy to talk about the issues. we think it has worked well for you. but today, really, the issue is about the landfill. it is a good deal. i was not here, you would be paying $125 million more. two, transportation, we propose rail. during the negotiation, the city of san offices go ask us to commit to the price for that theory that was our out of box thinking. therefore, the agreement committed to transportation, and why now? because that agreement would be

in jeopardy with the land. we believe we have favorable pricing. so to sum it up, recology will work with the city to handle transportation however the city decides to. we think rail is good, and recology negotiated a good price at the union pacific railroad, but the contract and facilitation agreement are separate and can be looked at separately, and we certainly will urge you to move forward with this agreement because we believe, as we propose, that our agreement provides the highest environmental benefits, the process was thrown -- five and a half years went to every meeting that ever transpired, listened to all the city's reasons for the overriding consideration development, through the process of getting qualified, to the rfp process of addressing that. one of our things was -- why not consider rail? we know it takes all those trucks off the road, saves 1

million gallons of fuel. it does not take a rocket scientist to know the savings. thank you for your time. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i would like to take this opportunity to correct one important error in the budget analyst report regarding commercial rate in san francisco. the report states that conversion rates are higher in san francisco band in oakland, but the numbers in the budget analyst report ignored the discounts given to san francisco businesses to encourage them to recycle. it is the separates its waste into garbage, recycling, and organic -- a business that separates its waste will receive returns. a commercial customer in san francisco is $494 a month for [inaudible] if that same customer separates

their waste into garbage recycling and organics and achieves 75% recycling, they could pay as little as $152 a month. businesses in san francisco are required to comply with mandatory recycling. as a result, almost all businesses in the city pay significantly less than the rate quoted in the budget analysts report. commercial customers can go on the recology website and determine the discount percentage they are eligible for. once recycling discounts are taken into account, commercial rates in san francisco are much less than the rates quoted in the budget analyst report and actually lower, not higher, than commercial rates in oakland.

thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> madam chairman, supervisors. for the past 25 years, in the recycling program and with production manager for recology. i'm also a 30-year resident of san francisco. i'm also a life member of the sierra club, as this little pin commemorates. unfortunately, i'm here today to speak against the opposition letters submitted by the sierra club. i also served on the executive committee several years ago. the opposition letters, i believe, were ushered through these organizations by an on-

again/off-again member of the sierra club, who i believe misled these groups to take recology positions take and the department of the environment -- take positions against recology and the department of the environment. as a base primarily on out of context. and not sound environmental grounds. an additional irony for me personally is that i'm here today defending recology's landfill proposal. i do not like landfills. to me, landfill's represent failure to convince people that we need to eliminate waste and not landfill it. unfortunately, san francisco leads the nationrecology's propr the best environmentally and

economically, and i hope that you support it. thank you very much. chair chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, madam chair, supervisors. my name is paul. i am a manager for recology's landfill and composting facilities. chair chu: if i could ask you to speak into the microphone? >> sure, if there is one thing that i want to qualify, this is a fully permitted landfill. we currently accept the waste from san francisco by truck, but we choose to go with the more environmentally friendly and state solution, and that is transporting the waist by -- and safe solution, and that is by

transporting the waste by rail. we truly providing cleaner and safer alternative, of to three times or four times more -- up to three times or four times more. they have provided studies that suggest that there are environmental benefits, even above rail haul, but it just does not add up. what waste management is proposing, they clearly marked in distribute things from their landfill -- clearly market and distribute things. this is essentially akin to a shell game.

from a philosophical perspective, we greatly disagree with waste management's philosophy of disposing of organics in green wastes in the landfill. that does not make sense. -- and green wastes in the landfill. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee. i am the general manager for recology in marysville, california. the rail plan has support in many places, including at the yuba centre of economic cooperation. there are improvements that will be provided.

specifically, the rail process will be in it -- bring jobs and other things. we believe this is an opportunity for us to have a win-win situation for the citizens of san francisco and the county. one of the things that i would like to address is host fees. while they have been discussing those items, they have not been fully vetted. with that, i want to thank you for your time, and i appreciate the opportunity. chair chu: thank you. i will call some more names. [reading names] >> hi, my name is doug, and i live in san francisco, and i do support recology for all of the

work they have done with the department and with reducing the waste stream and with the department of public works for keeping this clean. i moved here in 1988, and the only place i could recycle was at the haight-ashbury community recycling center on frederick street, because nothing else was available. then, i got curbside pickup and blue bins, and then there was a green card so i could get rid of my food waste and scraps. it keeps us a green, are san francisco people green, and our stuff goes into compost -- it keeps us green, our san francisco people green, but i am concerned about ostrom road,

because i hope things do not go in there increase in methane. i am concerned about things other than dirt that cover. i would like to see it so it does not produce any methane anymore, especially if it is going to be commingled with san francisco waste. something came out last september that said that waste management was running their trucks on san francisco garbage. well, in the fine print, it is the historic waste. so, in closing, i think i would like to say harvey milk's legacy. i wish i could take the dog poop and put it in this corn-based, disposable baggy and dispose of it properly. chair chu: thank you. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i am doug from a towing company. we are a local towing company and a supplier of services in san francisco. we support the proposal to reevaluate the city's proposals for the transport of municipal waste. i do not think anybody believes traffic congestion will improve in the near future, and this will produce a sizable number of trucks on highways. as a top-to-bottom company -- it makes more sense to use this method of transport. the cost of on one to transport -- on one to transport -- unwanted transport. there are fewer vehicles on the highway and fewer emissions. thank you. chair chu: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am tina. i am not here either supporting or not supporting this. the city of pittsburgh would be more than willing to partner with san francisco as private partners to accept the barge. we have a land fill about 8 miles away, and it could be trucked from the waterfront in pittsburgh -- we have a landfill. i also want to take the opportunity. i used to work for the city and county of san francisco. probably the most memorable experience i had there is that i was leading the way to review process in 2001, in fact when the program -- i was leading the rate review process, and it essentially gave noorcal --

norcal more profits. creating the diversion rates that san francisco currently has. and i wanted to say, in my experience, i worked with some really great people who used to be with a solid waste program, and i learned from them that what you do is you introduce an idea early, and you keep on it for a long time, and, eventually, you can change people's minds, and in this case, they worked with norcal for a long time about diverting it. i think in this case, over 10 years later, it is now 2011, there may be a new paradigm shift, and it would be to relocate the transfer station to the porch, and right there at the pier, there is access to the waterfront, and there is a rail,

which could provide alternative transportation, which could be part of the new vision. [bell] chair chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. ken. we are in support of the agreement, and there has been a great deal of assessment and why this agreement should be approved. i would like to give you what our experience has been. we represent about 275 office buildings, about 75 million square feet of office space. we created with recology in the past a high rise recycling program starting in 1987, which before it was ever required by law, and that kind of partnership kind recology, with the department of environment, which the city, and with the commercial community -- with the city has created the best

recycling programs in the country. i think we can all be proud of that. in a way, you do not want to mess with success. this has been a long and laborious process, to find the place to put the residuals of what we do not recycle. but i think we have a good situation with a good partnership. the city has a good partnership with recology. the building owners' association has certainly had a very good relationship very recology, and we are their largest customer. , we probably produce it to%. we value their relationship. -- we probably produce 50%. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors, my name is -- you can look at the rule --

recology business card, and it says "waste zero." it kind of dovetails into what their proposal is all about. in terms of the prize, -- price you are saving over $100 billion. you do not want to waste that. on the environmental side, going from truck to rail, it saves 1 million gallons of fuel per year, and you do not want to waste that either. and then third, in terms of the process, it has been going on for five years. and so, it has been slowly vetted along the way here. i know there are people who,

late in the game, who might bring up new thoughts and new ideas -- people who come late in the game, but i encourage this committee to move forward with approval, because you do not really want to wait anymore -- waste anymore time, money, or fuel. -- any more time. chair chu: 50. >> -- thank you. >> hello. we were one of the first green staffing firms. i also worked in yuba county for many years, and i feel strong about the development of that area as well as job creation in san francisco. i am heavily involved in the bay area, and i am particularly interested in companies doing their part in the green fields.

-- field. recology is a 100%-owned company. they employ almost 1000 people here in san francisco. i think. recology -- i think that recology is the clear choice. 84 your time today. -- thank you for your time today. chair chu: thank you. >> i am with the small-business advocates and also the district merchants, both of whom approve of this recology bid, and here is why. first of all, recology does a very good job for the city of san francisco. they are san francisco-based, which is important, and employee

owned. san francisco has the highest rate of composting, thanks to recology. i am also the public affairs director for the small business network. they have not had an opportunity to vote on this yet. i feel quite certain that they would also support recology's bid. most important of all, san francisco has a policy of accepting the lowest bid, and recology is the lowest bidder, so i assure you that most of the citizens and the business people in san francisco caulwell behind, in favor of this bid, so please do this. -- people in san francisco are well behind, in favor of this bid. chair chu: thank you. [reading names]

next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor chu, supervisors. i am here to speak in opposition. we are a community for the ultimate landfill. the landfill has been a good neighbor to our city by agreeing to limitations on traffic hours and generating revenue for programs that benefit livermore. preservation and recycling and diversion education. as over 1,500 acres of open space and habitats -- habitat have been purchased and protected, and other funds of the generated from the landfill. funds provide grants to environmental science programs at local schools, as well as

school recycling and composting infrastructure projects. san francisco represents nearly half of the solid-waste tonnage disposed at the landfill. losing your business will represent a significant funding reduction in this program that is irreplaceable. the city of livermore respectfully requests that the committee to explore waste disposal options that achieve all of its objectives, including those related to price as well as those representing the best environmental option. thank you. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> chairwoman chu, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor campos, i am here to support recology's bid. i am a residential ratepayers, and i am a commercial rate payer. -- i am a residential ratepayer.

recology is the best that america has to offer and the best that san francisco has to offer. they have over 18 re-use and recycling programs that operate. working in partnership with the city and county of san francisco, they have helped us to meet our diversion goals, the best in the country. i understand. i am a native san franciscan. they are the best. we want them to do better. this thing about going to the ballot box. it appears to be, i hate to say this, supervisor mirkarimi, but it sounds like you and i are the old-timers here, and i remember in the 1980's, there was another ballot initiatives against the garbage company. but what came of that? it was not until we decided to work with the garbage companies and work with recology that we

have made great strides. recology is a great community partner peter through community events and community groups, they have helped to make our neighborhoods cleaner -- recology is a great unity partner. through community events and community groups, they have helped to make our neighborhoods cleaner. and they are working with residents and residents in knorr h.b. -- and north beach. recology is the best that san francisco has to offer, and i urge you to accept their bid. thank you. chair chu: saint you. next speaker. >> -- thank you. next speaker. >> our firm is a waste facilitator, and what we do is reduce waste to the landfill.

we work with waste management in alameda and all of the big companies around. i am here to say that the analysis report that was done is incorrect when it comes to rates, especially when speaking about the capacity, what it costs in oakland and what it costs in san francisco. now, what the committee for got to do is mention. this is not offered in oakland. they need to look at all aspects. as far as i am concerned, i deal

in wasting diversion. recology has the best in the nation. there is nobody better. i am very proud to deal with them, and the person and what they represent. chai8r chu: thank you. [reading names] >> good afternoon, my name is corrine. they have been a good community partner in many ways, but i do not think this proposal is ready for prime time. this is achieved through a charter amendment with the rest

use and disposal ordinance of 1932 or partially accomplished by instituting a transport system that does not involve transport of refuse with a transfer station through the streets of the city. this would be possible if the transfer station was on port property at pier 94, 96, right next recology's recycling center. there alternatives that need to be considered.

i think we need to investigate whether those concerns can be mitigated before a decision is made. at the very least, moving refuse from a transfer station by diesel truck across the bay bridge to a diesel locomotive makes no sense when biodiesel rail service is available in san francisco, right next door to pier 94,96. chair chu: thank you. >> my name is ken lewis. we are opposed to the awarding of the contra. -- contract. first, the landfill since it -- consists of two areas, number one and number two.