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 terminated.

so then now what is happening is the environmental is under way, after going forth for a while, recology came in february of 2014, they concluded, given delays in the environmental review and permitting, in order for them to complete the environmental review and permits and construction for facilities of the rail hall that could not be done in time, given we needed something by the end of this year so they recommended that we pursue using the back up grand fill in the agree; the hay landfill is the back up landfill, in order to do that san francisco decided to do an environmental review for that project, that is basically looking at the halling,

recology's hay road -- all of san francisco would fall within that permit. so the issue is looking at the impact of the transportation starting in may of last year, the city employed a consultant team an expert team from the environmental science associations, and they did the analysis, planning we looked at the information they had and determined that a negative declaration should be suitable what is called a [inaudible] negative declaration, is reviewed by planning, then they decided that was sufficient. and as the process goes planning published that that was the beginning of march that provided for a 30 day common period, there is one appeal on that then the planning commission

then acts on that appeal and last thursday the planning commission held a hearing on that appeal, they made a decision, the negative declaration is suitable, was appropriate for the project so they have what is called upheld the appeal. now what happens is that the department representing the city is the project proponent for the landfill agreement. we then need to say, okay, we need to recommend the agreement to the board of supervisors, and when we recommend that agreement along with the associated environmental review. that triggers another 30 day review for a second round of appeal that the board of supervisor, will make the final determination on. skiend of a complicated process happy to answer questions on that, i think what i would like to do is talk about the contract

agreement itself. san francisco, we like to be innovative with waste. we have mechanisms in the agreement. that incentivize die version, and didn't treat all the material going to landfill the same it's not. if we're able to process the trash bin apped remove organicics out of it so what is left is none or insignificant, then the material will have less of a liability on the landfill and less methane gas, we wanted to incentivize that the first agreement is for 15 million tons lit start probably in january, 2016. the key part of the agree, is fees for disposing of the waste, there is solid waste, and

organic waste. if we can remove organ whys that that would be treated differently, and there is a category called beneficial use material landfill is being used as alternative cover, or landfill construction that can be treated differently. essentially, the rates in agreement as i mentioned before, 2273. recology bid on that back in 2009 we're able to keep the rates for the city. now there is two parts to the rate there is basic landfill and -- for solano county they're 7-and-a-half for the feets -- which is more than $20 at the current contract. still quite favorable, given the

current contract goes back to 1987. for the organ why is waste, it's slightly less, only $0.30, i will get to back that. then the components does change over time on the cost of living for the san francisco region i want to talk about additional fees, that are the most innovative part of this agreement, we have two types of feeing one is excess disposal in or agreement to go towards 0 waste that starts out current disposal, and by the end of 2020, we have a 0 waste gol. 2020, is a 0 waste goal we have

to drop over 50,000 tons every year down to 20/21, every ton that's above that target we pay an extra fee of $five, we expect we will be paying some tonnage for that that goes into a dedicated 0 waste account, recology goes into a separate waste account, a second fee is a sustainability fee. that is the idea of trying to promote sustain ability -- remove the organic portion that has the biggest impact on landfilling, and long term client imimpact we will charge for that additional $10 if it has organics in it, if it's

solid was waste, we charge 15. and beneficial use material, wauz because it meet criteria -- essentially, we have 10 and 15 $5 different if it's organic free. those money go into the 0 waste account, now you are wondering, about the 0 waste account what we have created is a mechanism, we have an account, that will be mutually determined, to increase diverse, to get us toward the 0 waste goal or reduce. handling material not just the landfilling portion or the reality is as long as we're out there, driving trucks and collecting material and using energy to process material, we're using energy for emotion

missions there are ways to reduce that using more bio gas for trucks or using equipment that uses less energy, those are the two criteria, helping us move toward 0 waste, reducing climate impact, all of that can come out of the 0 waste fund. what is good about that in reality of going to 0 waste, we need to process the black bin i have spenlt years looking at the material there is a locality of cost of that my concern is how we fund that. we don't want to come to rate payers and hit them hard this provides an opportunity to fund that, and link reducing landfill. if we are going over to further reduce landfilling, a nice tie in there. that is about the fees then the

last kind of part about the landfill i want to highlight that is unique for typical landfills, this continues from the current agreement. there is a reserve fund that will be funded by 1% surcharge on all of the solid waste collected, that money creates a separate fund that will go up to $10 million, it's like an emergency contingency fund or costs that get incurred, that recology may not get with the rate process. it's a long process, that takes nearly a year. there are things that recology needs to do that they can use this fund p for until this rate process.

it's a temporary stopgap fund, it's limited under the current agreement. we have capped it at 10 million versus 15. -- not to take more time that key features otherwise, it's a lot of legal language that is standard. just finally, the next steps after this public meeting director recommend the agreement to the board, we will be sending a memo to the board of supervisors, they cal end der it, and 30 days, before they act on it our hope is to have board meeting, and act on it in july if they don't do that we will be into the fall, we want to give ourselves, leeway, if this is not done by the end of the

year when we need it we're in a position to pay waste management whatever they want us too, which is outside the current contract i will leave it at that and see if you have any questions, thank you. >> thank you jack. >> tom owe wen, city attorney's office, it's worth pointing out, some of the fees that mr. macy is discussing going into the 0 waste account will not be directly disposed they may require separate approval by the board of supervisors. >> the agreement expresses the intent of the city. >> thank you jack. questions from the commission?

>> i got one p nobody? director raphael? >> thank you jack for the presentation, and guillermo, for setting the context, i know it's late this is important to us that we have a viable contract that not only allows the city the necessity of disposing of solid waste, but also incentive'ize the beltway yorss, that we want, something complicated like this has many steps in play what is important to us is where we come and from now here it goes to the board of supervisors where they will have another public meeting, and weigh in then it comes back to the department. we wanted to make sure you understood a point in time in the process we have been working on this very diligently for a number of years now. it's coming to a head, wen't

waed to give you the heads up of where it is in the process, and to let people know where it's going next so that's really the point of tonight. >> thank you director raphael, i have a question which is around jobs. and we have our new commissioner comes among the different lenses she looked at with this work, whether it's community, small business also labor, and jobs, i come from the same school as well. one of the things about the way we have done 0 waste in the city and county. i became aware of back in 2009, that is peer 96 at where recology, sf environment, the port supervisor max well at that time came together had a strong, cutting edge resource

at the peer 96 resource recycling -- let's look for entry level jobs the first source of the program, let'ses find entry level jobs and connect the term is qualified economically disadvantaged residence with those opportunities, it was creative at that time it dug deep in identifying zip codes as to hunters point, and 134 in visitation valley and there is a lot of folks that came in through the entry level jobs and a lot of work molded upon that. with 2010, become key elements that supervisor avalos authorized, that is most successful of it's kind any war, a lot of that comes back to the

work that does done at peer 96, for the work we do, we like to talk about jobs for xunts i'm wondering, in the process of going from point a, to b, in this new agreement, there is laning around first source hirement, i was wondering, if we can see an analogous, type of pround program, that was ground breaking if we might see a similar entry level jbs, by the transport of this from a-b agreement. >> it's a good point, the p 96 has been successful hiring 124. i'm thinking about you are talking about the money going into the waste fund to decries die version, goes to san

francisco, -- a thousand + people that work for recology a lot of them are coming from san francisco, that is money that can go in otherwise, we're paying for landfill and transportation, those are teamster jobs that local people can get but we know when we spend money on recycling or composting or especially reuse like we heard from the grantees there is many more jobs per ton of diverted than landfill -- this supports the need for 0, waste, i appreciate your comment, i think we can explore that with recology about how can we support local hiring in their hiring process. >> it's a nice thing for the rate payers too. it's already happening any way.

peer 96 is a phenomenal model, if entry level jobs are created, you said what i was hoping to hear these will be collectively bargained opportunities, the partnerships, for the team steers is a great one for the communities. if there is potential to do that, it's page 28. on this component, it gives the green light for continued innovation, and something that is exiling about this as well. >> i will quickly say there say real opportunity for the future 0 waste facility, this related to that we work with ecology on planning that say separate project, some of this money can go towards the facility and employs people. >> great. thank you. further questions?

all right. this is a discussion item. we can go to public comment. thank you jack. mr. pilpal? >> as an individual i agree with jack's summary, this is complicated, what jack didn't mention is there is litigation over the prior agreement, which people may litigate further, in fact i think there is still one lawsuit, that is at the court of appeal last week we will see what happens with that. you know i spend a lot of time reading this and thinking about these issues. and i am not clear in my mind whether this is the best approach, a lot of me thinks, that the waste we generate in the city, we should bring it to

the local landfill rather than transportation -- hay road is the next one out. at the same time i think the rate payers shouldn't pay more than necessary, and we should minimize other environmental impacts, so eyou get into weighting, different criteria and coming up with the best solution with admittedly, all bad solutions, we shouldn't be sleping things to landfills, that's where we are right now, hopefully, we will get to 0 waste and not have substantial contribution to landfill maybe residual, maybe not that. this is to repurr pose -- that's a big plan that started

environmental review will you be hearing more about that i'm sure in the future. the only real concerns i have with the agreement as i read through it are in a couple of sections, that suggest that variety city actors, in the department environment or dpw should recommend and approve certain rate applications, or components of the rate application, i think that might interfere with the powers and duties of the initiative ordinance, i think -- as to rates and changes in the fees, but binding the city to take pos, seems to me like it moves over the line of the initiative ordinance, i can point to specific prosituations at that point, i'm excited by the

sustainability fee, and the 0 waste account i'm familiar with the special reserve fund, and i understand general loo what the would be under the agreement, and having separate meeting to talk about these things, so others in this room can talk about this i assure you there is a lot of this room not caring about this. this commission could set a limit for particular contracts you want approval authority for you haven't set approval authority for a contract like this, or the grant awards you made, you could say any contract over 50 or 100,000, that you want to see and approve as most other commissions have done, you can give yourself that authority. >> thank you very much mrr

pilpal. >> thank you. >> further public comment, seeing none public comment is closed thank you very much for the comment. any further discussion? no action required. all right. thank you. if we can hear number 12 >> introduction of new department of the environment staff members, sponsor and speaker, deborah raphael director information and discussion >> so there is a new staff member, she made it with her colleagues through the whole meeting, why don't you come up and introduce yourself, she was a volunteer, she she got a job with the energy team introduce yourself, and tell us >> my name is ema, delacuz, i started with the energy efficiency program in october last year, to keep it brief, i'm excited so work with the sf

environment, hearing the whole night, the incredible work that other programs do inhonored to contribute to this and be able to help my team in the multifamily realm, i study policy at u.c. david, it's exciting hearing u.c. david mentioned, twice this night. i can see what i studied, i can program and helping the renters and the renter population in the city be more energy efficient, and helping them access that energy. it really inspiring to me. i also honored to support me time claudia and rena from the commission team watch, which is integral to the corner store company, they have come to support them just incredibly

inspired and inspired to contribute further to my team. >> welcome aboard. [applause] >> the three of you lady it's wonderful how you support each other, and all of the work you do for our city. thank you >> thank you welcome aboard. public comment on item 12. seeing none public item is closed. i them 13 >> operations committee chair's report highlights of the may 13, 2015 meeting and review of the agenda of the august 12, 2015, meeting. information report and discussion. >> with the tran edition, is what i meant to say, of our good friend commissioner king we have a new operations committee chair, this is her first ever report, please welcome -- that

is true -- operations committee chair heather stephenson everyone [applause] >> i have done this report several times >> i wanted to be dramatic. >> we have the final budget being sent to the mayor's off, more near and dear to my heart, we had a great presentation on the ad campaigns, you will start to see, if you haven't already, under the summer. that is sfing something to do. you will see them at bus stops and transit, and we had presentation on social media successes we have had recently next meeting, we will get reporting on how many people are following us and how many are reaching out on a regular basis, we don't have an agenda for the

next meeting >> all right. sounds like good stuff. questions? colleagues? comment, all right public comment on chair stephenson's report. seeing none closed. can we move to policy reexhort monica? >> [reading] policy committee report information report and discussion. chair report review for the agenda for the june 8th. 2015 meeting to be held at city hall room 421 >> i don't think we have an agenda for this yet do we? do we have an operations committee? >> unless one of the operations committee wants to delve into

the policy it will be you and me again. you and i? you and me -- both of us at least until we have one more vacancy filled of our two. commissioner bermejo. would you have interest to participate with committee chair wald beginning your first moating would be june 8th, 2015, >> i think i can make that meeting >> all right. there we go. >> thank you >> any other comments chair wald? >> no. thank you >> questions, colleagues, discussion, any public comment on this item. mr. pilpal >> david pilpal again, they have

not met recently because of a lack of members, it's not that there are not policy things to talk about, so i will look forward to the policy meeting it's going to be great. >> thank you. other members of the public >> are you going to come david? >> i will try. >> seeing no other speakers public comments close the. can we hear 15 monica? >> announcements, information and discussion >> any announcements? >> i have one, actually >> commissioner stephenson >> wi heard news there say pop up coffee stand around the city in june, so be on the look out, and visit the website to figure out where it's going to be if you bring your own cup will you get free coffee if you don't, you are out of luck check it out. >> that is a good one. any other announcements? all right. public comment on announcements?

seeing none public comment is closed, can we hear 16? >> president's announcements, information report and discussion. >> just wanted to announce that monica fish in january made ten years as commission secretary, i believe, january 2005 is when it started, that is when it became your 27th year with the city and county of san francisco. have we hit 27? >> in may. which is now. >> 27. amazing, amazing service. i think about all of the -- i'm going to announce all of the great things that we have been able to do together. and announce that i believe it was announced by our director in two months time in