this somewhat report we received yesterday on that that report on page 5 they have the table they have a list of 2008, 2013, and the next column is total disposal from san francisco this column of total disposal will and the following column a ultimate this includes the disposal by other entities other than ecology and material outside of this contract not relevant to who is coasted under the proposed project which relevant is ecology disprobation officers this is in the second table those numbers are incorrect they include other tons at ultimate ma and those

entities have the distribution demolition what's been pertinent is the material that ecology is send to ultimately mount i'm going to pass around a correction to that table that shows the sway report is incorrect it went out in 2013, in fact, it went down during that entire period bear with me i'll pass this out there's one here we can make copies of that. >> i'll see so in that table you'll see the disposal has gone down from 2008 to 2013 in the

sway report on page 6 shows the trend of disposal dramatically droppings from 2001 and 2011 and stopping there and one year as an anomaly and zeroing in on that that was from 2012 to 2013 when the table shows the disposal continues to go down so those trendlines and the basis of the entire aushlt u argument is incorrect i've got the trend. >> try to leave it up there. >> thank you. >> so just so the audience we have 2008.

>> thank you. >> and didn't look at in my eyes that's unfocused maybe my eye sight can you in fact this. >> that's the same. >> oh all right. stadium in from 2008 to 2013 disposals going down this corrects the sway recorded based on that we take the same period 2001 to 2013 in orange going up and we have disposal going down so this table shows that increasing population does not correspond to increasing disposal there are really

population growth is one of may factors this effect the amount of wastes this is the main one but many factors one thing that indicates that population is residential and residential source of disposal is a small fraction of its policy we have other factors in effect so our department has been committed to since the goal has been to zero waste we've been working together to create world programs over recycle and towards the zero waste landfill one of the programs we have a policy that mandates everyone separate the com bubldz and decided policies we have everyone to get that service and working to increase the

participation if everyone follow that ordinance we will be having less than half the waste we have new going to landfill we have good tools ♪ that ordinance with financial penalties and only began to reduce waste and other efforts to reduce wastes the key thing in that right now we have processed the blue and green extremes we don't process the trash but vault the technologies and ecology as ordered and purchased technologies to recover material in the order of thirty percent of the trash and diverting it under last starting this fall at 2 hundred tons

we'll divert that will increase this is proven item out there this is why we know that disposal will not only not increase but decrease over time there are other programs we are developing to recover textiles one of the biggest components left in the trash and also progressing the recycle at the recycling central one the sources going to landfill that is processed and recovery an order of 50 percent of those residual and we have other program piloting a number of programs to change the collection to so based on those and other programs we're confident that disposal will not increase but continue to make progress towards the zero waste

goal to help that in the agreement a mechanism that helps to drive this to zero waste in that agreement we will have landfill disposal target starting at the current level and going 0 down to zero by the end of 2021 we'll reduce by over 50 thesis tons a year by 2020 you're saying that's on a goal what this target do for every time it is above that target there's been an infrastructure 5 directing charge that this acted can only fund intelligence and programs to increase diversion we know this is a powerful mechanism built into the agreement to reduce the disposal we'll confident that will work

so in summary i think my minded minded is up san francisco has been a world leader in recycle and compost >> i'm sorry but your time is up. >> and we'll continue that trend. >> thank you very much opening it up for public comment i have a couple of cards (calling names) names). >> apologizes if new miss or. >> if your name has been called feel free to approach the podium. >> we have a long let's

go. >> anybody want to submit their testimony? as you called a long list of names i'm not first but in order to expedite this pro process i'll frank the director of the justice advocacy and have an office exactly in the circle on the boundary of brisbane and san francisco so as has been stated today by our city experts we san franciscans treasure certain standards and if you looked at the evolution of the black and blue blue green and black

you'll see we far exceed what our city should have xufd years ago so we send less than 15 percent to the landfill that's what i look at as an environmentalist i'm also looking at the al austin man site and the landfill site and am in touch with those elements and those experts when it comes to any type of pollution and some of you know is it from my blogs whether it is what happens on hunters point what it happening all over the city where regards to the carbon footprint i've reviewed the data

i'm not in into gossip just linking to both sides i see one side is dwufg really data that is factual on the other side i see a shadow of a large company maybe it is called waste management so we are not here to use your money and our power of money to throw out arrows in the air when it comes to the environment as i stated i'm the director of environmental justice advocacy for a good 20 years and been in the environmental business for 45 years and reviewing the i am peril data i see nothing wrong with what the city has presented

before you thank you very much. >> awe i'm david i'm the founder and vice president for research and development of sprawl this is recycling i have my own recycle t-shirt i'm braced by this holes but i'm directing to the initial study behind page one that gives us the project sidewalks absurdity arrangement for disposal shows a relatively short and strayed shot done the san mateo coastal of the had a

wood bridge and medium populated castro valley and alameda to the allman landfill the new project is not merely starting at brisbane and ending up a designation but through san francisco which currently doesn't get the truck traffic and northern alameda where i'm a resident and one of the other sprawl director and alameda-contra costa so there's a difference in the project does that rise to the level of a significant environmental thing in two ways it does first, because the project trucks go through a urbanized area you have to in good conscious ask whether there is a sub regional

impact and the community for the better environment but a organize with report or reporter to look at sub region quality impacts - the second adverse if you go to 18 concerns that has to do with an initial study one is recreation and your staff report i believe on pages 69 and 70 let's see it is on 75 and 76 with the recession will the project - is that my first or second bell. >> first. >> would that increase the significant and regional perks paperwork or another recreational uncle if in a way the regional open space district

derive mitigation for the acquisition this amounts to $280,000 a year we get our air quality. >> sir. >> but we lose the mitigates. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm eric on behalf of ecology san francisco's waste recycling i'm not here to speak on the document before you there has been comments on the future and future growth of san francisco. >> sir, this is public comment on the appeal of the negative debilitations and i'm here to talk about the argument in front of you one i want to say the diversion program continue to

change and in our black bend will continue to evolve and as the department of the environment we'll pill thirty percent volume and more importantly open the future of the fleet what is will in front of you shows 11 trucks we have an order coming to our facility another 12 trucks and another 6 year after that that gets us to if you capacitate for the ln g trucks and the trailers on the trucks will handle 26 tons rather than 24.5 that helps on the truck issue i have staff interest local part of our company if other questions are asked thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm gary bank i'm with h f s consulting i'm in the san francisco bay area community and worked with ore ecology i've been part of the ecology family for the last 5 years working on workforce etiquette and retention so i basically want to speak on behalf of ecology being a partner as that relates to those who have been challenged as it relates to employment and when hiring me to make sure there is a retention of those to maintain their jobs and be able to be a functioning partner of our

community i'm standing here in support of ecology and their fetters effort the comments should be limited to the adequacy of the debilitation. >> next speaker >> i'm going to ask we can keep this flowing if you could line up on this side of the room and choose the order in which you want to speak. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm david tucker representing waste management a couple of comments regarding side allman in terms of the amount of material and in actuality over the last 3 years the material going into ultimate man from san francisco has flattened out there their might be nice programs we see that it is material in and out

and so it is not maeven a decrease in tripping from the alma if not more going to the had a facility and so we building that you know given that information there should be a serious look at that environmental review and building that second is required thank you. >> good afternoon david pill pail speaking as an individual i appreciate the staff message from today, there are a number of concerns about the ultimate project their friends of anything like that in the room on the side of this issue as to the specifics on the negative debilitation i appreciate the staffs response i may have minor kwibldz with their responses but

in the final analysis i think that there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record to support the staffs negative determination on this or negative debilitation as to this particular project people have different views of the project and it's ultimate approval it is not before you on whether or not to uphold the negative deck or sustain the appeal it is up to you whether you determine there is evidence to overturn it sufficient evidence to support it i believe that the conclusions are reasonable given a variety of ways to analysis the data going forward there could be fewer truck trips or more i think the 50 is about right within that range using the effectively using the 2012, 2013 data that's

my view again, the appreciate the concerns of this project and deal with those at the time of the approval thanks very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> members of the commission i'm with the waste management they've spoken through mr. tuckerer and the aversion of the numbers for a fact we're seeing increased numbers of to this into the utensil ma but i want to mention with respect to the ceqa documentations before you as mentioned by coincidental to be for the salon groping group

if a fair argument can be made with a significant environmental review it triggers an additional environmental review not an additional one the diversion and the waste and the number of truck trips the promises to use different trucks and the types of fuel, etc. have been disputed the credibility maybe in dispute by the different parties but actual honest salutations and differences of opinion as to the adequacy of the potential impacts the last thing i want to say if are a truck uses l and g fuel the truck trips are driver's side or the amount of to this increases or director huey's decreases one indisputable fact with o your

zero waste goal those trunks as they go to had a road thaflz $40 million more than the alternating ma so it if the cleaner miles or less cleaner miles it is i think susceptible that 40 miles 2 miles a day you can't dispute the fact you're going to have more air emissions negative deck didn't require a comparison of potential reasonable of the united states alternatives the environmental review will wouldn't you want to notice as your candle stick to zero waste who which wouldn't you want to know if there's a more environmental superior alternative demonstrated by the

amount of miles truffle that's all i want to say. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none. >> commissioner richards question for mr. mucher walk through. >> which calculations. >> the emissions calculations. >> i don't have those we have air quality experts in the room they can kwukz where significant starts and where it ends. >> in the negative debilitation in the packet we've sent you the main body is the negative debilitation on page 46 on table

a q-2, a q-3 which shows for the criteria air pollutants what the thresholds and the emissions for the project. >> can you put those on the overhead people that view this saying we're talking about a lot of data it is good i'm aware of the tabled i've spoken with other commissioners not that i don't know but i want to understand where the thresholds started. >> the table maybe hard to read i'll read it as well we have the over and over geography gases and the thresholds 44 the total emissions 2.43. >> so significantly below. >> right for concocts the threshold 54 the project impacts about 32, 3.7 thresholds

32.04. >> so below. >> important p m threshold 44 project emissions 0.84. >> significantly lower so we're not near any kind of order like this not a question of the significantly below the only one labtd a little bit more than half. >> right. >> one more question has your calculations ever been proven wrong i mean we've got he said she said have you been proven wrong. >> not to my knowledge we have several layers of expertise not found incorrect. >> okay. thank you. >> i guess thank you, thank you commissioner macy's.

>> incommissioner fewer you add resident and create for waste i have guests and the green and black men are full of more stuff so i'm hearing a decrease in the wastes to this or streamline to this i'm hearing the technology factor we're using in this program accelerating at the higher rate than the residents are producing wastes. >> yes. >> for every resident we're become becoming more efficient over time. >> our per capita is less than 3 pounds. >> per day. >> in the sway report 2.9 we're saying this is going down, down, down as we've leveled off the

population is increasing we're increasing quite rapidly and the per capital number staying we keep that per capital they've made a good points things this the black benefit we can crier so to collect the what they call awe seismic packaging the rectangle box there is a lot of things that can be recycle but we're seeing food we'll recycle that. >> two more quick questions cans on the street to actually fourth what's going on in there to recycle the material. >> to the at the end there is material we'll be recycling that we have this facility to have in place by the end of 2020 we'll

be processing all the black stream and process to recover 50 percent of that. >> one comment i've heard small business from the public not here by do i but asking how we can be paying a company to haul waste away with the zero goals but paying them to put stuff in the ground when initiatives for ecology to not fill up that landfill are there penalty can you help me out. >> the city sets the rates that fund the entire system we've structured or kept a profit margin low and bring it up behalf they've had to achieve the target goals they have to meet the to this right now and in their mechanisms i've mentioned in the landfill agreement that creates addressing funding.

>> to $5 thank you very much i appreciate it. >> i believe ms. jones sorry yes, thank you. >> excuse me. sarah jones environmental review officer i wanted to respond around the issue of the air quality staff in the planning department we're fortunate in having a staff member who is a recognized expert in air quality in the bay area and has worked very, very closely with the district to develop the 34e68dz of method dissolutions we're confident in mere expertise. >> thank you excuse me. paling much eerie want to present one point in my presentation we received this last minute air quality report that came in i h