orward to exceed our goal and you know for this 0 waste program, like i say, we're doing it for the next generation. [applause] >> thank you. >> all right. this is a great idea. commissioner wald hear from everybody the amazing work and definitely really it's very much appreciated how you thought through the process for evaluation, and took to heart a lot of ideas from the commission and seem to be really good i have a couple of questions, i wanted to di fer to colleague if anybody has questions first? so the 11 grantees, how many are

new then for the first time this year shawn? >> four >> okay >> four new. scrap is returning, and the rest have been funding, >> listening to everybody, is thinking through, how we might think about creatively expanding the pie because you learn we know the great work that's been happening for many years in the program with some of our grantees, then to hear some of the stuff from mr. bailee for example at the northridge co-op, it's like you want more resources so we can put more especially in terms of the grass roots community driven ideas, that is something we think through in the next year how we keep growing the pie you never want to turn granteeses away you want to fully fund,

especially when you hear how folks are leveraging to make great jobs to engage communities traditionally not connected to the traditional environmental work it's a test to what is happening, and the stuff -- this is the last comments from chinese newcomers, tr those of us that come in from the environmental justice, perspective, you want to keep moving that link it puts smiles on our faces, one way we might think of growing the pie is son fran conservation core does amazing work for long time events there is a lot of stuff going on it seems to me that our event partners and they're great partners, it's outside lands, and the different folks doing

all the different events, they're mandatorily required to help us move our 0 waste goals, under city policy. it's almost like they get the benefit for free for all the work that san francisco conservation core is doing we're funding it right? >> no. >> it's subsidized through the grants i have been encouraging them to charge them and encrease what they charge. is that from the past that is that relatively new idea? i think that is great. >> (speaking off the mic) because they have been able to

do more and more events each year with less subsidy so the money is going father. >> anything we can do from our staff side to work with conservation core, to create jobs it supports community organizations, that is one of the take aways why not? we can sound that bell too. commissioner wald? >> may i move we approve this resolution approving funding for the funding recommendations for the 0 waste grant awars, to the groups in this room and the couple that are not? >> is there -- >> can i ask a couple of questions, before. just really quick for the funding, is that two year funding or what they receive each year? >> some of these are one year

grants and some are two year grants. so i can -- if you don't have the information i'm happy to, let's see -- they're that with you. building resources, is two year grant, chinese newcomerses, two yars, glad stone is one year, goodwill is two years, northridge is two year, i think they asked for an 18 month grant, they can spend it within a year or 18 months, if they want to, they could do that. recycle for change is one year, scraps two years conservation core is two year, booed bank is one year, and sf state is one year. >> for those grant, are they allowed to renew at the end of the first year? >> no that is it >> how many of these target disadvantaged communities? >> that say good question.

i would say -- it depends on how you want to calculate that building resources is located in the baby hunters point, i don't know where you are polling people from the bay view hunters point, chinese newcomers, of coursely garden for the environment, does free backyard composting classes, all over san francisco, not just at their 7th location, >> just there >> but you do classes at other locations >> yes. (speaking off the mic) >> okay so they recruit throughout the city. goodwill obviously, good training piece, bay view

hunters port. the conservation core and the food bank, which is also located in the bay view hunterses point. dog patch and that's probably it. so depends on how you calculate that number sorry for the vague answer. >> good to know, thank you >> we have a motion can we get a second on the mission? commissioner bermejo seconds. before we go to public comment, one real quick question. on textiles i know we got great textile programs from goodwill and recycle for change i know we have a textile program with our partners at recologo, i'm wondering how ke coordinate, all that >> thank you for bringing that up.

we have meetings periodically bringing the groups together there say lot of conservations, goodwill has been talking to recology department of the environment, has become a hub for bringing the teams together so we can divert dekz tiles in a coordinated manner, >> okay. one of the reasons i ask is because there was a bin -- i'm going to make this real tight, i can go down the rabbit hole with them -- i take my son on a pony ride, at mar vis sa, they have pony rides for five bucks, i think it went up to ten, there say bin that says bring your textiles i thought, is this a program, it's daily city right at the conner line do we have something similar? it seems to me that textile --

recapturing textiles, away from landfills, and resues has a lot of components there, i remember coming back to the staff saying yeah, i got a photo of it nobody had heard of it it was like something p happening at a pony ride. so that's why i asked about coordinating that around textiles, we know textiles is a big part of the last 20% to get to 0 it seems to be great there's coordination happening >> and the website, recycle where.org, has the locations, it covers the boxes and instore drop off locations like goodwill, everything. >> thanks alexa, public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed, any further comments colleagues? thoughts?

all right. all those in favor of approval please say aye >>-a- >> all opposed say no grants are approved. thank you everybody. [applause] >> thank you. >> all right. we can move to the next item please monica? >> approval of proposed amended guidelines for the use your packet today is the copy of the craft amended guidelines for the use of inpound account accounts punneds, for the city attorney on the grant guidelines, and a resolution from 2006 from the commission on

approving the impont account in general grant guide libraries, this is a discussion and action item. >> thank you. director raphael. >> thank you commissioners, this is an action item, it comes to you, as you recall back in january we presented our budget to you, that has gone to the office. as well as the full commission meeting, has to do with the appropriate use of impound funds, those funds, come to the garbage rates and that needs to be an approval of next sis, between the funding source and what we use them for. as a new director i took them back what is the basis of our

decision for the makes funds, i found approved back in 2007, it seemed like a good time to revisit that memo and take a look at it does it make sense have changes changes, and bring it back to you tonight for your review and approval, the what the memo shows you, the changes are around updating numbers, making it accurate to the current budget season. improving or just going back and looking at discrepancies of things that have changed over time there is outdated information we needed to remove and in terms of substantive, the one piece that had not in there, that is now in there, is the acknowledgment of the next sis between climate and die version

waste -- that come from the production there say significant impacts on that. there is simply an acknowledgment of that nexis and for the commission to weigh in whether it approves the use of impound money, i want to invite joe salem, to talk about how the memo was put together sh and we can answer any questions you have >> good evening commissioners fiscal administrator for the department environment. debbie says most of what i have in this speech. that document before you is provided in a commission in 2007, the only things we have changed, as debbie mentioned, we have updated the budget figures to update the current fiscal

year we removed outdated information about rate processy and included the climate impound portion there. so the material part of the change as debbie said is the client impound component, they feel there is a strong nexis with the climate program, that is detailed in the revised document, it's the last section labelled climate, also that nexis has been vetted and approved by the city attorney's office, we're confident in the var rasty there. the only thing i want to add is

there 11 section relating to biodiversity, we have decided not to add to it. the second page of the document i believe it's the 4th paragraph, second to the last sentence, it has biodiversity you know that as you read through it. that's all i had. i want to recommend and urge the commissioners, to approve the revised guidelines for the use of impound accountses funds, we will take any questions you may have >> thank you joe >> sure. second time is easier >> second time is easier, on that note, i have 16 questions i want to ask you. >> excellent, i'm prepared >> but i won't. colleagues? commissioner wald? did you change the percentages?

>> of the other? >> right >> no we did not. >> so it seems to me awfully con certifitive -- conservative, i was surprised when we got to the counsel collusions, the amount you know, the percentage allocations that you have used here with the exception for 0 waste which i assume no one would have any problem with. i don't know that it's necessary or even appropriate to do it now, but maybe you could have a little tickler in your calendars in a year or two, you should really look at the actual allocation. i was surprised at climate 10%.

>> i want to do a point of clarification, it's not 10% of climate activity it's 10% of the impound account >> it says 10% of climate activity from the impound account >> then i'm -- okay. there we go. i'm sorry. my mistake. >> i think it's a little too conservative. >> so the question is whether it's overly conservative to cap our investment of impound account into our climate program, no more than 10% of total activity. if i can just on that note what are some of the drivers in terms of thinking through this obviously, we know nexis.

this is something like a hard science or is it a little bit more judgment calls? >> i'm going to have to defer that probably to debbie or gir mow. that is generally i work on the fiscal side of it. the actual programmatic work in terms of quantifying is a bit aside from my role. giruiemo

-- looking at what is appropriate use of the solid waste impound account. >> thank you guiemo. i think at some point in the future you should revisit those assumptions based on mument pl years of information you have been gathering and tracking >> i think that's a great suggestion commissioner, thank you >> commissionerer stephenson >> the prior budget had the

biodiversity program, that has been removed from the budget >> yeah. >> colleagues if there is no further questions, can with we get a motion to approve the document? >> i move >> move by commissioner stephenson? second by mr. wald. comments? mr. pilpal. >> sorry, it's kind of a boring item, it's my kind of things, both on this item and the next, i want to say, these solid waste issues are complicated, you are hearing grant implications we are hearing grant um, pound and we will talk about next -- where

there is a rate process, that rate process is necessarily adversary y' all, and detailed complicated exhibits lawyers, all kinds of things i want to once again encourage the commission and department to have periodic interested persons, meetings so people like myself nanci, have an opportunity to talk to staff about what is happening, what is recology, what are others doing so we either agree on a path forward, or understand where different people are coming from before it gets to the adversary y' all rate process. unfortunate unfortunately, this policy committee, does not lend itself to that dialogue i'm not suggesting we do this every day or week, but once or twice a year, there is new thinking with various players, and an

opportunity to do that, happy to talk about that offline, in term thes of the specific guidelines this is guidelines documents for this upcoming fiscal year i think it should be more clear that it will be reviewed again either every fiscal year if that is your intent or periodically following a rate process something that tieses it. although. the chart on page three is hipful, it would have been even more helpful to show the entire department's budget or just for these program areas how much of that program area is actually funded. notwithstanding the limit that that staff is suggesting also the administration line previously paid for former deputy osman, who was involved in landfill that is transferred to jack in 0 waste. so i'm wondering, if that

maximum percentage from the waste administration, would will lowers, to 23%, but i don't know what the projected budget is next year i won't inteer fear with that, it would be nice to know what the reality is there. and yeah -- finally this document was only available to me friday afternoon. again, i suspect the audience for this is very small, but complicated things that have implications to other solid waste programs, and mro process, it's better to have these earlier, notwithstanding that i'm happy to talk with staff later on. >> thank you mr. pilpal. public further comments, seeing none comments closed. further discussion, colleagues?

seeing none, we will call the question all those in favor of approve, say aye >> aye. >> aye's have it. approved. thank you. next item monica. >> update on agreement for disposal of san francisco solid waste, solano county. and document in your packet is the san francisco sold waste disposal agree. commercial 0 waste coordinator, and report and discussion >> thank you. this item is informational, there is no action you need to take but in order to set the context better, i have asked guermo rodriguez gir ger row --

guiemollermo -- give >> given this is a dynamic lawyer to lawyer discussion we basically became comfortable with the language to move forward. just this past friday to give you a sense you are seeing this and the public is seeing this for the first time and we acknowledge that. as pokes know, the contract for the ultimate landfill started in 1987. it expires, when the cumulative total of 15 million tons of

waste, has been generated and land filled, the department has done an estimate of when we believe we will reach that 15 million tons based on the department's calculations we believe the end of this year or very early january 2016 we will have exhausted our capacity at the ultimate facility. as you may recall in anticipation of this contract ending the department went through a comprehensive, competitive bid process, which resulted in identification of alternative site. and ecologies, hay road, as a destination for san francisco's solid waste, the presentation you will hear today, and the contract you hear before you will provide you with an understanding of what is new in the contract specifically second provide you with the

overall next steps in time line associated with moving this contract forward, as you can imagine, the department doesn't enter the contract on it's own, it needs authorzation with the board of supervisors, we will walk you through what some of the steps and items are in the contract also here is erick, p, in case there are questions for rekolgcology -- as an additional item to the record, and with that, i will ask jack macy to walk you through the proposed contract. >> thanks guillermo. good evening commissioners, jack

macy 0 waste coordinator for the department, i will give you background, guillermo covered most of it i thought i would give you more background before getting into this specific agreement, just to say, this public process went on for many years (audio cut out) such as by

setting landfill die version rates, and tear tipping fees, also minimizing toxic, and reduce and divert toxics and protocols to identify them those are some of the over arching considerations, both bidders, met them and scored the same, so the final decision is based pretty puch on cost. recology's offer is to use their landfill in uba county, and transporting, by rooking to uba county. this is more expensive than waste management but overall,

recology was less expensive bid by the other. taking 5 million ton, they are to apply for a permit to haul all the way in, you are looking at the bidding process, decided they needed to do an environmental review for the rail spur once they initiated that environmental review, san francisco decided to join as a responsible party. thank you. responsible agency to that environmental review once that vier in a minute review was under way that looked at the rail hall component the city couldn't have an agreement and so the agreement had already been approved through that process by the board, and actually signed, so that agreement was