Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 4, 2011 9:30pm-10:00pm PST

9:30 pm
whatever. >> i believe they're not covered. commissioner dooley: they're not covered, ok. president o'brien: meaning they would be allowed. >> a specialty. >> a lot of darget bags would meet the definition of re-usable. president o'brien: chick introduction of your name and speak into the mic. >> jake massey with the department of the environments. so we looked into garment bags and many of them are thicker than what needs to be to qualify as a re-usable bag. so it seeps like there's a lot of options out there for garment bags to be re-usable bags. and we kind of clarify that in the ordinance, that it didn't have to have handles per se, that typical bags have, since your handle becomes a handle. so we see this as encouraging. the garment bags that actually
9:31 pm
can be reused, versus this thin, flimsy plastic that is not re-usable and ends up creating problems with litter and the disposable stream. commissioner dooley: my last question is just another minor thing, which is, a lot of businesses buy a whole hot of bags in advance. so is there some kind of way they can get a waiver temporarily? i mean, is there enough type for them to go through their bag inventory? good that's a good point. that's one of the reasons why in the phasing from 2012 to 2014, that's one of the reasons. but for those stores that have such a large inventory, there should be a phasing out. >> what we've seen is most stores would not have more than six months inventory. we're talking about more than six months. july 1 would be when it would
9:32 pm
go into effect. but i can tell you that i helped implement the styrofoam ban as part of our food service ordinance over the last four years, and we had a similar time frame where we said you can't serve in styrofoam. it took us a long time to get to all the restaurants to help make sure they understood the ordinance. if they said, look, we've got this inventory in our back and we'd look at it and say, how much time will it take to go through that. well, like another month or so. ok, we'll come back in a month. so we really -- we want to be as flexible and as reasonable as we can in helping businesses make the transition. and it's on a case-by-case. if somebody has more inventory, we've always been flexible. because for us, we just want to get the message out there that we want you to switch over, give you whatever assistance is needed and any potential fines are our last resort.
9:33 pm
commissioner dooley: great, thanks. >> i have a feeling in the first phase of its implementation in july, should things go according to plan, it's a soften forcement, as it has been for a lot of other, i think, laws. but then normalize to where i think compliances will heel. president o'brien: thank you, commissioner dooley. commissioner riley. commissioner riley: yes. first of all, congratulations on your victory. have you taken into consideration the restaurants? i like to order my soup noodles and i like to have it in a caner and then a plastic bag so it won't spill when i drive home. so would they be exempt? >> no, i don't believe that they would be exempt. but i believe that there's an alternative bag that they can use in lieu of that would comply with the spirit of our law. so that is what we would hope. >> so one of the things that our ordinance does that other
9:34 pm
jurisdictions don't do is that we allow compostable plastic. if a restaurant wants to use a plastic bag, they can. the reason we allow compostable plastic is we have the nation's leading, in many cases, world leading composting program and we see that there's value, if the bag is truly composting, certified that way and labeled that way, it can be used to help collect food scraps and go in a green bin. there are nearly 30 companies worldwide that are making compostable bags. the industry is growing very fast. there's an incredible revolution happening in the plastics industry going torts bio-based and compostable. we now have more companies coming out with sort of the t-shirt takeout bags. and we've been testing them to see if they will perform like a regular plastic bag with hot take-out food. an we've looked at three so far that do a really good job. so there's definitely that option available for restaurants. >> that's good, thank you.
9:35 pm
>> thank you. >> for me the operable word is recoverable costs. i can see why people are onboard with it. it is our work in the world right now is to take care of our world. because our businesses can recover these costs, i will be supporting it, thank you. >> and can i just note, related to commissioner riley's comment, this has given birth to a new industry, and that is the alternative bag industry. when we introduced our law in 2006-2007, this was, at best, cottage industry. now you are talking about companies that are merging. small, mind you, in comparison
9:36 pm
to those that dominate the plastics world and the monopoly on plastic bags. but it's also why the petrochemical industries work so hard to suppress laws like this from around the nation. many of the cities that are facing lawsuits to try to stem their ability to implement a bag ban or fee, the lead against those cities is against the plastic chemical council, because they do not want to see these other industries grow. so a lot of the showdown legally is from sort of that national vantage point. and it's time that they and we all wake up to see the social responsibility and that economic responsibility that we all have in terms of the consequences of what this bag use has amounted to, and that's what we're trying to get to the heart of. >> other commissioner's questions? >> just a comment. and i've been traveling.
9:37 pm
it's almost all over the world. the countries i visited, they also have the same policy, charging for bags. so i go everywhere with a bag. >> in the olympics, beijing was talking about -- i don't know how thorough or effective they've been, but they were talking about it. they announced right before the olympics. and i have to tell you, regina can tell you, because she was with our office at the time. our office was completely overwhelmed for months by queries from around the world when we passed this law, and we just couldn't handle the incoming level of attention and copies of the legislation, the analysis. and then to kind of escort people along the whole legislative procedure. it was gratifying and tense, to say the least. it's nice to see in such short period of time something like this really take hold. president o'brien: is there any
9:38 pm
of the petrochemical industries -- have you seen any evidence of any of them that were, you know, producing the plass tech bags, the bad bags, if you will, use their resources to start investing in research in their own industry to make disposable bags? >> i wouldn't be surprised, but i don't know which company. president o'brien: i was wondering if there's any evidence of that. >> if you look at the 30 companies that are making compostable bags, it does include some big ones, like heritage bag. and what we're seeing is there's two trends. there's a trend to go towards bio-based, which is not necessarily compostable, which makes it complicated. but coke has come out with a plant bottle. you may have heard of that. that's now 30% plant-based. but as a bottle, it just is as non-degradeable as a regular p.e.t. bottle, which means you can recycle it. so it has the advantage of being bio-based, but it's not
9:39 pm
compostable. we only want compostable foodwear or bags that can help with collection. we're seeing a lot of movement that way. polyethylene being made out of sugar cain as well. you have two different directions, bio-based and compostable and that's why we're rigorous in meeting that standard. we actually got california law passed that says you can't use the word degradeable or biodegradable because there's not a standard and there's a lot of green hersh washing out there. people are saying buy my bag because it's degradeable and our message is only buy it if it's compostable, if you want a compostable bag. president o'brien: do we have any impact studies of the effect of the legislation? will it have any kind of
9:40 pm
unfortunate impacts right away economically speaking or jobs-wise, anything like that? >> well, you know, you've got compostable -- you've got regular plastic bags coming from around the world and you've got alternative bags. we do have -- we've seen a growth in industry in california with world-class industries that's making thick, re-usable bags out of recycled plastic. companies like chico bags, that make the nileon-like, woven polyester bags that fold into a pocket. we saw that with the alternatives in stire foal. and since our ban over four years ago styrofoam, now there's more jobs in california making alternatives to styrofoam than making styrofoam and we think we'll see that same trend. in terms of locally here, we have companies that are making bags that will be good for them. we see businesses that charge for bags having an extra revenue stream. we see an economic benefit there. president o'brien: thank you.
9:41 pm
well, i think that the attempt of the legislation is a trend that's a train that's not going to be stopped. we all want to see our children inherit a better world than what we've created partly, and partly what we've inherited ourselves. there's no reversing that progress. so i personally am satisfied that this supervisor has put a lot of effort into checking out the impact and mitigating against any of the negative consequences. i like the idea that it's -- other industries have grown up around that are making the alternatives. so the economic impact is not too minimized. i would always be concerned about, you know, the unintended consequences, expression that keeps coming up from legislation and always try to caution against that, not being against the legislation, but to make sure that we do it in an
9:42 pm
orderly fashion, because it can take away from the benefit of it. but i agree wholeheartedly behind it, behind the spirit of it and i'm satisfied that it's well thought out and i will be supporting a recommendation to move forward with this legislation. and i think we'd have to give our hats off to commissioner or supervisor mirkarimi on his victory in the sheriff's race president congratulations to you. with that, i would move that we make a recommendation. if anybody has any particular concerns they want interest plemented into the language of it -- implemented into the language of it. i beg your parred. i always leave the public comment out. are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment on this matter? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: i'd like to move that we support this with recommendation, just support it, you know. >> i would absolutely support this with just my one
9:43 pm
recommendation, just to check in with the smaller businesses, like the mom and pop sandwich shops and that, to keep it to a dime instead of upping it to 25 cents. but just the smaller ones, and the small would be like a two or three-person shop. i just keep on thinking about those little burrito shops in the mission and sandwich shops in the neighborhoods. commissioner clyde: you're thinking of the smaller purchases? >> the smaller purchases. commissioner clyde: you buy a sandwich, for $2 you don't want to pay 25 cents. >> exactly. president o'brien: do you think that somewhere along the line that they should have to come into compliance as well? because i've gone to countries around the world where there's a huge amount of food country summings done in that fashion and not by people who go to restaurants, and they generate a huge amount of the paper waist that results from that.
9:44 pm
-- paper waste that results from that. i think you're absolutely right, commissioner adams. maybe they need extra help, but i think somewhere along the line they would probably have to come into compliance. i think we would be leaving a big leak there if we left that impact forever. i think we should just do something about it eventually. maybe take it longer. >> i would just want to weigh in and say that it does not implement till 25 cents until 2014. so that's two years. and i think that's two years of information. i think that's two years of road testing it. and it can get revisited after that time. i mean, i'm just not sure how much, with the first implementation and then ongoing education, how much of a problem it would be for the small shops. >> i'm just looking at costs, that's all. >> i would just say that because it's recoverable for them, that quarter is, i think
9:45 pm
-- i mean, i would say nominal. i'm very careful, though, about what is nominal to a person or an industry. president o'brien: so i take it you would agree, then, that it should probably apply across the board. commissioner clyde: yes. i think that the current legislation, as drafted, would be ok. and if there's a problem, it could be addressed in the future. i would send it forward this way personally. president o'brien: go ahead. >> commissioner adams is saying that for the smaller businesses -- i mean, for like -- let's say our take-out food, 25 cents is poportionnally slightly different than if you're going to a grocery store with a bag that's this size. so i think maybe the recommendation is requesting that the supervisor -- or actually, the department of
9:46 pm
environment within this period of time really takes -- it could be -- it's up to you guys -- but take into consideration that sort of scale of proportion and cost, and in that two years -- if consumer behavior doesn't change around those industries, then maybe take a look at it. that could be one way that you can direct -- president o'brien: i can live with that. >> i think you're saying it's 25% if you buy a sandwich. you can't put it in a re-usable bag. you have to put it in a bag that you take away. 25 cents could be like 17% or 10% of your purchase. >> right. >> grocery bag, you know. >> could i suggest that maybe we would make the recommendation >> i'll pass the legislation as is and just make a
9:47 pm
recommendation -- >> i think they would be more than capable of accommodating that request, that either they would have longer to comply or possibly their fee would be slightly less in proportion. but i think the recommendation that they would do that, it seems, would be the way to go for me, if everybody could agree on that. >> i'm ok with it. president o'brien: commissioner dooley? commissioner dooley: i would just like to add the other recommendation about how some really small businesses don't have cash registers with these separate -- that have that ability to do a separate line item. so that we would recommend working on that portion of the bill to figure out a way to allow those small businesses to comply without having to be buying a brand-new cash register. >> i appreciate all your thought process on this, and i agree with you that i think that will add to the point
9:48 pm
before it would convert from 10 cents to 25 cents, that there be a proper assessment on its impact. i think you're right about that. and it's a very good suggestion. and then commissioner dooley's suggestion as well. president o'brien: all right. so do you have -- do we put a motion there? do we need to characterize this into a same? commissioner adams: i motion we go ahead and approve this legislation with the two recommendations that were put before us, just as recommendations, and let the department of environment do their assessment. and commissioner dooley's cash register policy. president o'brien: we have a motion. >> i second. >> irene president irene was first.
9:49 pm
president o'brien: motion by commissioner adams and seconded by commissioner riley. commissioner riley: yes. >> that is a motion and recommendation to approve, requesting provisions for alternative to line item on cash register and review and assess the impact of the 10-cent fee prior to it being raised to 25 cents. >> you're good. >> would you like to do a roll call vote, mr. president? president o'brien: yes, please. >> commissioner adams. >> aye. >> commissioner clyde. >> aye. >> commissioner dooley. >> aye. >> commissioner o'brien. >> aye. >> commissioner riley. >> aye. >> that motion passes 5-0. president o'brien: thank you. next item, please. >> thanks for all your work on this. >> commissioners, item seven, discussion of possible act to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number
9:50 pm
11102, business and tax regulations code, payroll expense tax inclusion for compensation paid to individuals with a felony conviction. this is an ordinance amending the san francisco business tax regulations code. we have a presentation by supervisor mirkarimi, and in your packet is the file number and the legislative digest. this is the discussion of possible action. >> i thank you, honorable commissioners, and, again, thank you for the decision you rendered on the last item as well. and thank you to the department of environments and rob for his good work on this. so this piece of legislation is something i introduced not that long ago, but it comes as a result of almost about seven years as me being a supervisor working on ways in trying to tackle the high rates of recidivism in san francisco, repeat offender rates. four years ago i started -- i authored the creation of the
9:51 pm
re-entry council. it's the first council of its kind in san francisco. it obligates the district attorney, public defender, adult probation, sheriff, police department and 1/3 of the members of the council are formerly incarcerated people, to now become the compass point for city hall in vote for community, to help direct policy and fiscal questions of how to best tackle recidivism. the current state of our reality is that for every four people that the san francisco police department arrest and the san francisco district attorney prosecutes, over three are repeat offenders within three years. and yet, we frontload about $480 million a year from the general fund to the police department. $480 million a year, which is, i don't think, insignificant, if you think about the sun, when you have the police department deployed to
9:52 pm
re-arrest, re-arrest many of the same criminals. and yet, at the same time, it's the sheriff's department and the adult probation department, juveniles, who are saddled with the responsibility for rehabilitation and re-enter tri-of people coming out of the county jail system and prison system, especially now with prisoner realignment. but what it does, it saves us money. this is about crime prevention. that's what this legislation is about. because what it costs san francisco, it costs us nearly $50,000 a year to incarcerate somebody in our county jail. $50,000 per year. if in fact we're able to do a decent enough job while somebody is incarcerated and as they're exiting, so that we can land them a job and they will be less likely, i think, to repeat their crime, and we're giving that business an incentive for hiring somebody, because there's such a strong risk aversion to hiring somebody who may have a record, and then we give them a $10,000
9:53 pm
tax credit, whereas we don't have to spend $50,000 to incarcerate somebody as we commonly do in san francisco, then i think that this is really an added gain for san francisco's coffers. not just the obvious that we're trying to spare somebody from repeating their crime and saving us money, but it's one less criminal that we're deploying for the police department to have to respond to back to that over 70% recidivism rate. and so i don't find this a novel legislation. this is something that's just come out of years of conversations amongst really the experts within the city and in sacramento of what we can do to incentivize the private sector, to really take part, i think, in this larger need. and we tried almost four years ago, by the way, with another piece of legislation that came before this body that passed
9:54 pm
unanimously before the small business commission and i sponsored that, called the ex-offender bonding legislation, where the city and county of san francisco, for pennies on the dollar, could buy bonds from the federal government where those bonds then could be used to offset any liability that an employer could use in order to hire somebody. and we could buy that for pennies on the dollar, up to $25,000 increments. but mayor newsom at the time -- at least this is my interpretation -- was a bit risk averse himself for being able to, i think, really want to give this legislation a try. so san francisco did not buy those bonds from the federal government, so we never really tested it in the way that i think we should. but what i did do was talk to business leaders to say, tell me the approach that you think it would work so that we can get an offender population who's having a very hard time getting access to work. what would it do to take you? and they said, well, while we
9:55 pm
appreciate the idea of covering some of our liability, the risk that comes with the notion of hiring somebody that has a record, what we would like is something more meaningful, and that's how we arrived at the tax credit. that mirrors what the city of philadelphia is doing. it mirrors what illinois, iowa and maryland is doing, too. it's not novel. president george w. bush also had recommended that this be national law, and it is now national law, as states are allowed to use this as well, too. it's just the state of california really has it, and cities have not. so i decided that we would tailor it to the need of the city of san francisco. so we decided to just go sort of low-key and what he made it voluntary, and that's really the operate i have thing, it's voluntary -- operative thing, it's voluntary president i don't necessarily see a tsunami, where they're batting
9:56 pm
down the door to say we're going to hire so many people. that's not reality. this will not have a hit on the general fund. for any hit to the general fund of doling out a credit, quite frankly i would venture to bet that it's an added gain and one less person to incarcerate and we just saved $40,000. so i'm really thinking that this is a plus. i don't think it's going to be the earthquake kind of law that any legislator hopes their laws would like to be. but i think it's one of those tests that we really must try, and we must try, because state prisoner re-alignment has already begun. and it started october 1, where nearly 700 added prisoners are coming back to san francisco. they've become our responsibility, because the state of california has essentially confessed, with supreme court validation, that it cannot handle its inmate population anymore. so every county has seen a return of about 40,000
9:57 pm
prisoners. our share this year, 700. the sum that has returned so far is almost 50. they'll be coming over the course of the year. then maybe another 700 next year, and then the year after. their time in incarceration? who knows. probably won't exceed more than 18 months, two years. they eventually all get-out. while san francisco hovers with unemployment at 9% to 10%. the unemployment rate amongst ex-offenders is 50% to 70%. so 50% to 70% for the unemployment rate of ex-offenders, then the arithmetic really should speak for itself, that nobody should be surprised that there is such a high recidivism rate. so they're not getting access, in some respect, in a way that we might be able to incentivize, then i see no other solutions that are being put on the table from anybody, which is why i think that this is a very benign idea. so i'd be more than happy to answer any questions. president o'brien: thank you,
9:58 pm
supervisor. commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: well, now i'm going to congratulate you on being elected the sheriff, because this is something i've been waiting for to come before us. i attended the hearing that was held by the human rights commission on this legislation. it was a very long, very informative hearing. there was a lot of public testimony about this. so it's a pretty complex issue for people to wrap their heads around. for me, i support it. i absolutely support it. i think the case is made of the numbers of people who have felony arrests and convictions are just incredible. have a arrd convictions is incredible. the fact that a job is the best way to address recidivism is -- it is not questioned. i think the devil is in the details.
9:59 pm
you're going to hear more but i want you to know that i support this approach. my only concern was for the general fund and what it would cost, which looks pretty significant to a small business person like me. i would like to tell you that i have people who have been arrested and had convictions as well as combat veterans and people of all kinds of ethnic groups in my employ over the years. we have never had one problem. this would be a very significant incentive to not distance sent the hiring of a qualified person. that is something that people are not aware of, how big that disincentive is even though your records