the implementation or the plan to be completed within six months. and when thinking about it -- there is an urgency. that's why we put six months in the first place. but let's be realistic about all this. six months, we may not be ready. not only because maybe the plan isn't ready, but i think when we're talking about many of the issues that we're dealing with in terms of lawsuits and so forth, i don't really see us necessarily being able to spend six months. and one of the things i didn't take into consideration when we were thinking about six months, is that we know at city hall that actually during the months of -- end of november when thanksgiving starts and through the holidays, that it's very

difficult to move on things because people are actually not working, off, and so forth. and that includes my office. so i think the compromise that i came up with with the office of ece -- and i hope that the community will understand that we need to move a little bit in that direction to give a little more time, i think nine months would be adequate. and that if indeed we run into issues, if the office runs into issues, then the office will let me know whether we need to make adjustments. or maybe they'll come up with a plan faster than nine months. i would like to offer that amendment on the floor later, to change the creating the plan from six months to nine months. so those are the amendments that i'd like to put in there. and these have been driven by

the community asking for certain things and so forth. so right now, i'd like to ask the director of the office of ece to come up and say a few words about the legislation. >> good morning, supervisors. it's a pleasure to be here. i'm september jarrett and proud to serve as the director of early care and education. i'll be brief. i appreciate the role we have in the office and i also appreciate the amazing leadership that san francisco continues to show on behalf of the children, the families and the professionals that do the vital work of caring, educating, loving and nurturing the next generation of san franciscans. the office is in support of the legislation with a few -- with a reminder that we, together, as a city family, adopted the san

francisco city-wide plan for early care and education with a very collaborative process. in 2016. and all of the elements of this legislation and the initiative aligned fully with established plans and goals, particularly the goal of our time to move to pay parity for early care and education professionals, both working in family childcare homes and centers. we share a great urgency about the unmet needs of children of families, of professionals with regard to access to quality and affordable early care and education. and we're committed to make the very most of this incredible opportunity to move our city forward on behalf of the constituency we serve. the comment about the additional time given urgency, our rationale, we really want to meet the legislation charge to have the most collaborative, transparent and involved process, particularly bringing

the conversation and the opportunity to parents who are very busy and professionals running family childcare homes and centers. and are preplanning in advance of this important day. stakeholder interviews have suggested we go to community meetings or center meetings or places where staff are available to engage in this important matter that impacts our lives and that will take time in addition to going to parent meetings. i appreciate the comment that as we understand the legislative clock, two critical months, november and december when families have a lot of other priorities, besides making the most of this opportunity, it could be difficult. so we appreciate the flexibility and the understanding. we're committed to the urgency. we appreciate a 9-month window. and should the work take flight and be ready earlier, we'd be happy to do that, but we feel the nine months is critical to do our very best.

with that, i'll close my comments and i'm available for questions. >> supervisor yee: thank you very much, director jarrett. i see there is people here that have been at the forefront of pushing this initiative for the community. i'd like to give them an opportunity to make public comments if they wish to make any. so is that ok? >> supervisor safai: yes, absolutely. >> supervisor yee: ok, we'll open up for public comment. the director of the first five commission is here. >> good morning. i'm the director for first five san francisco who is one of 58 first fives across our golden state. and we are state mandated to invest locally our state tobacco tax for our youngest residents. and our mandate is clear.

we need to advocate for abundant opportunities for children to grow up healthy, to be able to thrive and to be ready for school. and as our tobacco tax are now on a decline, which is a great thing for public health, it also gives an urgency to make sure that funding is secured as the state tobacco money is starting to leave communities. and so we see prop c as this great opportunity to be able to do that. just because tobacco tax is declining doesn't mean the need goes away automatically. so we're here, first five is ready to partner with the city, with the office of early care and education, to make sure that we live the promise that our voters enacted when they did vote for proposition c. we want to make sure that every child has an opportunity to be able to reach their full

potential. and right now we have a very glaring opportunity gap. and that gap is manifested by people who can afford it and people who cannot. so we cannot lose another generation of children. so i urge you, that you make this planning process as short as possible. nine months seems realistic. but again, you know, you're only a baby once. and this is the most critical time that we need to have in order to invest in children. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity. i'm the chair of local childcare planning council, cpac and the c.e.o. of children services. i'm here to support the changes that supervisor yee has added to the language, the trailing legislation. i really appreciate the inclusion of cpac as a body involved in that planning.

i think that we have a very broad scope of representation at cpac. pretty much everybody from consumers, parents, public agencies, providers, educators, so i think we're a great group to be able to support the planning process. we're ready to go. we'll do the best we can to continue to work with the other partners in the planning. and i think that nine months is a reasonable goal. i do believe that thisnessne cos the advocacy that cpac and all of news the community have devoted years to in terms of lifting up our 0-5 population, giving really what we talked about, quality early learning for all san francisco children. and so we're very excited about it. we think we're going to win. we don't have any doubt that we're on the right side of this

argument. and we really appreciate supervisor yee and the rest of your colleagues who have supported us in making sure that happens. thank you again. >> hello. i'm gretchen aims, i've been working early childhood for over 25 years. and i just want to underscore the urgency of prop c. the program i currently work for has 365 children in the city every day. and we're all struggling very hard to find teachers. we are not doing economic justice for our workforce in early childhood. they're struggling to be self-sufficient. i think the goal of having k-12 parity is a laudable one, but self-sufficient as a baseline is even more important. we're on the verge of not being able to provide services all the time right now because of the

economics of our field. until we increase the early learning scholarship wage matrix, we're going to stay in this position. i want to applaud the nine month, but i want to underscore the urgency of the money coming into our coffers. we know it will take $500 million to make it whole and this is a start. thank you. good morning, my name is april and i'm a parent leader of parent voices. i just want to let you guys know we've been through this since the very beginning. once we heard about the initiative, we were on the full front, because that's exactly what we do parent voices, fight for the children, we believe in childcare. i have my daughter here, my son here. we were there at night as much as we could, making phone calls, getting those signatures. and when we spoke to the people,

the people of san francisco, and we told them about this beautiful initiative to help the children, to have childcare for them, everybody was just happy about this. how could they not vote yes? how could they not want this on there? they want to see the children, our young adults that are going to flourish and make this city wonderful. we just want them to have this education. so just please implement this as soon as you can. and this is all that we're asking for. this is for our children. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is maria, i'm the organizer of parent voices for almost 23 years now. since that time, we've been asking -- we need childcare. every parent needs help in making sure that they have access to quality, affordable childcare because as a parent, you just cannot do it alone. and prop c is a dream come true.

we were there from day one. we started collecting signatures at the women's march. we have collected over 18,000 signatures. we cannot ignore the will of the voters. it has passed. so our ask is for this to be implemented. shame on howard jarvis, on boma. the voters have already said yes. the voters' will is to be implemented and we support the amendments that was included by supervisor yee. and we hope that our families, from day one, the next day when the voters knew this proposition passed, they called how do we apply? they're already waiting for this. the people have been waiting for this. our children cannot wait. they grow first five years of life 90% of brain development

has already happened. we can not wait. thank you so much. >> hi, my name is june bug, i'm with parent voices and i advocate for childcare, advocate for parents, advocate for children. and when this initiative passed for early care and education for all, it was like a victory. but we know this isn't a sprint, this is a marathon. and guess what, i'm an athlete, i'm in it for the long run. i gave time and energy and sacrificed so this passed. i am a stakeholder. the plan is here, it's time to build. this is unacceptable. this lawsuit is an attack on our children. childcare is a must. children have a right to learn. and parents have a right to earn. thank you.

>> hello, my name is marie, i am part of the district 9 and i was one of the parents who worked on early childcare initiative formally known as prop -- formerforme formerly -- c. parents all over the nation have been waiting and waiting and waiting for childcare. we finally pass something in san francisco. let's start the process now. one thing i know about you, supervisor normanee, what a huge champion you are for childcare. one thing i know about you supervisor safai, i know you came up to me and personally shook my hand and congratulated me, because you said you're for childcare, too.

so let's remember that the voters voted and what we want, we want childcare. we want it now. i'm one of last born and raised san francisco families hanging on by a thread in the city. i'm a solo parent. and this is life or death for a lot of our families. how can we as elected officials look at our constituencies in the face and say you need to wait a little longer because of these corporations. no, let's start the implementation now, let's start collecting the funds. let's move on. people are already waiting. thank you. >> i'm now present a substitute teacher in one of the schools here. i commend you on the part of the clause that talks about parity for teachers. the thought of expanding care is almost ridiculous given that we can't find teachers to teach in

the classroom. so i just want to say how critical it is that we have a living wage for the people that work in the field. because otherwise, basically they have to leave the city. and i'd like to see the middle class really become involved in this, so we can keep middle class families in san francisco. we're losing them all the time. so i just want to say, the parity part of this issue is critical if we're going to have early childhood in san francisco. thank you. >> good morning, thank you for having me. i've been a resident of san francisco for over 30 years. i have two young adult women who were born and raised in san francisco, went through the early ed system here and they now are in college and one graduated. both wanting to pursue early ed. but they are so worried about being able to survive in the city. so i'm here for them.

i'm here for the future educators that want to pursue this as a role in our community, as a role for our society, to help bridge the gap, the equity is unreal. so please listen, please think about our families, think about the future, because it's at stake. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i'm a long -- i'm from san francisco, fifth generation san franciscan. and i used to many years ago work for the health department trying to stabilize the households for youth because they were either runaways or they had problems getting emancipated. i think that the reality is, youth services have been a miss in san francisco. you know, we need to keep the

young people in our city. we need to have housing for them. we need to have all the different kinds of things we need when development comes in san francisco. the housing needs to be family-friendly. some of it is not. when you put the single unit housing in, it's not family friendly. a family can't survive in one room units. maybe that's all they can afford. this is just another part of the pie that needs to continue in san francisco. and i'm glad that see supervisor yee here because he has been an advocate for youth in the past. and i hope to see him continue to do that. and i i want to applaud him for all the work he's donement thank you. -- done. thank you. >> supervisor yee: before i turn it back over to the chair, i want to thank the community for coming out and continuing your

advocacy and your fight for what should be right for our residents in san francisco and our children. and also, the people that actually do the work in the city for these big companies. i also want to acknowledge my staff, erica, who has been tireless in terms of trying to look at all the trailing legislation we need to pass to make sure that when we start implementing, it will be nice and smooth and as quick as possible. and also i want to also acknowledge the staff of supervisor kim, who also has been working with our office, trying to put the language together for this. i'm going to turn it back over to the chair right now. >> supervisor safai: so, supervisor, did you -- i know you talked about amendments. would you like to make those?

>> supervisor yee: for the record i've spoken about the amendments and i'd like to make a motion to include the amendments in the legislation? >> supervisor safai: we can do that without objection. and what would be the will of -- what would be your will? i know we've had good public testimony. i know the office of early childcare came and spoke and first five issues on the radar, i know they spoke with you and me as well. we have a lot of concerned parents and childcare providers that we all unanimously support, so what are the next steps. >> supervisor yee: the next step is to pass this out. i'll make a motion to pass this out with a positive recommendation as amended to the full board. >> supervisor safai: great, this goes to the full board and we'll support this at the full board. i meant, what are the steps after that [laughter]? that's what i meant more than anything. >> supervisor yee: i think it's real important, even though we

could -- this initiative could be slowed down because of legal issues, that we continue to pursue the goals of this initiative as if nothing is in our way. because at some point, hopefully soon, we'll have clarity and we could start moving on. the funding itself that could be collected doesn't actually start the beginning of 2019. and even if there were no legal barriers at this point, the issue would be that the money wouldn't be collected until, i think, the first quarter, because we need to send notice out in the beginning of the year about collecting. and once you start collecting, it's not like we'll have the full amount for the full year. it comes in slowly. so it works out well, the plan

itself should be a ramp-up plan. so we have legislation, other companion legislation to this, to ask the tax collector to start collecting, or putting a process and collecting the funding. once we, of course, until we get real clarity on this, we -- even if we collected funding, that the funding would be put in reserves until we can actually feel comfortable. and my comfort level might be different from somebody else's and i would like to start it as soon as possible. so that's sort of the steps that we need to take and right now, it's about getting ready. not waiting until there is clarity and then start planning. >> supervisor safai: right. i appreciate that. i wanted you to just reiterate it for the record so they'll have that and for those watching

on tv. i think you're absolutely right. i commend you for that and appreciate you taking the leadership on this, because we have to plan for this to be implemented. we have to prepare for it as though it will pass and be implemented. that does take a little bit of time. we've asked the office of early childcare to give you nine months to put the plan together. i think that's what you said. and then once the tax is collected and put in an account, we'll be ready for it. i think you're right to say the will of the voters being respected. i also appreciate for the record that we in district 11 have one of the largest number of children on the wait list that fall into the category. i know getting children off the wait list is an extreme and high priority, so that is a big deal to me as well. as well as we've heard from a lot of interested parties and those in the field ensuring that basically the providers are paid a fair wage.

and that they're shown dignity and respect. so i appreciate you putting that in as a priority. because how can we retain good qualified teachers if they're not compensated? and how can they survive to live in san francisco if they're not compensated? we've heard that over and over again. we appreciate you bringing this forward. >> supervisor yee: i also, for people in the field, people that came here today to make comments. they know this already. but not everybody in the city does recognize that san francisco really is -- has a very robust early education system. it's not where i would like to see it. not where any of us would like to see it in terms of being closer to perfect, but we certainly have one of the best in the nation. and it's due to the continuing advocacy of the community, the

continuing work of the professionals, the office of ece, first five, cpac, all these organizations have added to the development of what i think -- what i know is the best early education system in the nation. and the fact that we don't have to start from scratch with this. we have a preschool for all program that has already been -- that has been alive, i guess, or existed for over a decade, probably two decades now i think, and we have -- we pilot-tested the last few years with some of the funding that we were able to get for infants and toddlers to make sure that we actually can understand what are

some of the issues we have to deal with. so i'm looking forward to working with the community and implementing this. and getting the services to our youngest in the city. and to the working parents. and also hopefully we could get the wages up high enough so we start attracting, not losing people that want to be in the field. thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor yee. i just want to give one small shoutout to the large number of in-home childcare providers that will benefit from this. i know you have quite a few in your district. we can pass this out with positive recommendation to the full board for approval without objection. thank you very much. madame clerk, any other matters? >> there is no further business. >> supervisor safai: great. so we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon everyone." welcome to our land use committee meeting of monday, september 17th, 2018. our clerk is here. we would like to thank matthew and james. are there any announcements? >> make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices including speaker cards and any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will be on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor kim: if you can call items one through three, together. >> item number 1 is an ordinance naming of a general plan to revise the bayview hunter's point area plan to reflect the india basin mixed-use project and make appropriate findings. item number 2 is an ordinance

amending the planning code to establish the india basin special use district and make appropriate findings. item number 3 is an ordinance of a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and india basin investment. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. we have a request from the sponsors of the legislation to continue items one through three to september 24th land use committee meeting. we will then hear the presentation. at this time, i will open up items one through three for public comment and then we will have a motion to continue. any members of the public who wish to comment on items one through three, please come on up >> good afternoon. my name is bradley angel and i am the director of green action. as you may no kak green action, on behalf of the many members has appealed the totally improper and illegal decision of the planning commission which

approved it despite the finding that there be significant negative impacts on air quality that would likely exceed standards. that appeal is set for the 25 th. so it would seem that may be this matter should come after that because we are confident we will weigh in on appeal. i doubt and hope no supervisors can vote to increase air pollution. i wanted to bring that to your attention. >> supervisor kim: any members of the public would like to comment on items one through three? >> hello. my name is jesus. on the operations manager. we are one of the buildings that is directly adjacent to the proposed project. as a committee, today, we have motioned to move forward for a different day. but i am here to appeal to you that such ordinance and amendments should be further investigated and not amended

because of a significant and unavoidable impacts to the community of india basin, bayview and hunter's point. before getting into the reasons why such ordinance would have significant negative impacts to our community, which will not adhere to the california environmental quality act, i would like to inform you more about this. we are committed to improving the quality of life for all living in the nearby community and residents and visitors in the area. it is a bathhouse. the only one and it's kind of the area. is a place for people for -- for people to experience the cultures. it is a place where people of all ages, genders, ethnic and cultural backgrounds can relax and improve their health. is a unique -- it uniquely attracts people to san francisco that was previously avoided by visitors.

it has been unprecedented by any access in the area. we are a place where people forget they are in a bustling city. to start off, i would like to discuss the negative effects that this building will have. it will allow for two stories and various six, 78 story buildings in the area. we need to maintain the current zoning which would keep it at 4. >> thank you. if you want to submit any of your remaining comments, we can collect it from the clerk. thank you very much. any other members of the public who would like to speak on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. as i stated earlier, i would like to get a motion to move

this to the september 24th land-use meeting. this does not have to be answered today. at some point, i would like planning or the mayor's office to be able to brief me on the affordable housing commitment that was made. it wasn't clear under the report have a 75% that was required be built within the project site as below market right. it is divided up by a.m.i. it also said that it was an option. i really question if 25% is the percentage that was committed to i am hoping i can get those questions answered. that will be a lot of questions at my meeting and land-use. >> clerk: if we can get a motion to continue to september 24th? >> supervisor kim: thank you. we will do that without objection.

item four. >> clerk: item four is a resolution of proving the second amendment for maintenance of state highways in san francisco between the city and the state of california department of transportation. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. i would like to call up shannon from public works. >> hello supervisors. my name is shannon and i am from public works. i am here before you to seek approval for public works to execute the second amendment to the agreement for maintenance and the state highways and san francisco -- in san francisco between cal chan. the agreement was executed in 2,009 and first amended in 2011. the second amendment what a man to the maintenance agreement to reflect the opposition of the city's use of trans facilities compliant with city standards on 19th avenue, van ness and lombard street. the city is unwilling to accept the use of facilities because

they are not compatible with the maintenance programs and servicing and it will cost until he kicked -- utility companies more to perform maintenance and be disruptive towards the public to remove and replace concrete. it addresses the maintenance and operation of electrical equipment, at constitutes of the hawk system at specified locations and the maintenance of electrical equipment, as part of the track replacement project. it should be responsible for performing the maintenance and repair of the specified state routes for all failures and defects resulting from the construction and use of the trench facilities compliant with city standards. it should not reimburse the city resulting from the construction and use of those facilities. the amendment states that the city has all liability for issues related to the constructing and use of utility

trench facilities compliant with city standards. the execution of this amendment is a requirement for caltrain to permit the city to continue work on lombard street and van ness avenue and for contractors cal tran to issue -- as stated in the public works order 2018, the director of public works recommends the board approve the second amendment to the agreement for maintenance and state highways for san francisco i am happy to answer any questions you have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much for that presentation. at this time, i don't see questions or comments. we will go to public comment for item for. any members of the public who wish to speak, come on up. public comment is closed. if we can get a motion on item four and we would like to send this out as a committee report to the board for september 18th . that would be great to be three i am happy to make that motion on a completely separate note, just because it involves the public and cal tran, i have to say from our office's

perspective, it has been incredibly difficult to coordinate these agencies and they know they are an outside agency around issues of homelessness in the district. so what are we going to do to increase a communication and coordination between public works and caltrain and our office? it would be appreciated. >> supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor recology -- safai? >> supervisor safai: i have to tell you, i get so many complaints about caltrain property and the level of maintenance along the freeway. we have 280, interstate 280 and runs the entire length of my district. we have an encampment issue. we have trash issues. we have discarding. we had a pothole that wasn't repaired for over a year

entering the freeway. caltrain said it was d.p.w. and d.p.w. said it was caltrain. the level of coordination between the two city agencies, i understand when i called d.p.w. or maintenance issues in the city, they respond. i have had nothing but frustration with dealing with caltrain and properties along the freeway. whatever agreements are going to be finalized here, we need to have -- and this is as supervisor kim said, on a separate note, we need to have a higher level of communication. i appreciate the fact that jeremy is on board and he has been communicating with our department but i need them to step up and do a better job in terms of coordinating. they finally replace a pothole but they -- there is still trash that has been here for almost a year. it has never been picked up. it is embarrassing. it is embarrassing because thousands of people enter the freeway that way every single day. and trash is there all the time.

and sand and discarded materials and what makes it even worse is the maintenance yard is the next exit. i am sorry. i wanted to put that on the record. we need to do a better job. >> supervisor kim: thank you for your comments. if i'm not mistaken, this particular agreement would make it better so public works can address the issues on 19th avenue, the areas that this particular legislation touches upon. but it sounds like the issues you're having are the ones where we don't have these types of agreements. >> supervisor safai: we have agreements as he is staying with d.p.w. and caltrain. it is a matter of coordination. i'm hoping that with this agreement, it would put us in a cautionary note. nineteenth avenue is very important. someone needs to be the main responsible point of contact. if we will be signing this agreement and money will be transferred, we need to have a real follow-through. there need to be real results.

>> supervisor kim: would anyone from public works like to respond to that? >> good afternoon supervisors. jamie spencer public works. this particular piece of legislation has more to do with construction specifications. i know that they worked with caltrain on a variety of issues and we will continue to try and intercede whenever possible regarding maintenance and trash issues. supervisor kim, i know noel recently reached out to me about trying to set a meeting with caltrain to go over some of the issues. we are committed to help address these issues with you. >> supervisor kim: thank you, very much. ok. we had to close public comment. at this time, asking to send forward a committee report to september 18th. we will do that without objection. thank you very much. >> clerk: item five is the ordinance amending the environment code to require audits of refuge generators to

establish enforcement measures to refuge generators found noncompliant and affirming appropriate findings. i wanted to note for the committee that this has fiscal impacts. so you can either before it refer it to the budget and finance. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. i will turn it over to sponsor a cd -- safai. >> supervisor safai: it is an exciting week to follow. we had global action on climate week and 4,000 elected officials who were involved and unconcerned about the environment in general. i think that we had a wonderful policies. wonder for -- wonderful programs and one overt -- wonderful partners to highlight at this conference to talk about how we are truly a leader when it comes to environmental concern and the work we are doing here is one that i think many people around the world have looked to as an

example. we called for and i want to give a little history before we handed over to the department of environment to give us a brief presentation. but we created this legislation, not to steal your lender, but we created the mandatory recycling and compost legislation back in 2006 and 2,000 to seven -- 2007 and we have been doing a phenomenal job of increasing the amount of waste that we divert from landfill. we are a leader when it comes to having a wonderful partner and the department of environment. but the main actors are the department of environment. and all the workers from the teamsters and the union and all those that participate. and every day people. every day households in france since -- san francisco to divert what we are sending to landfill. it has a tremendous environmental impact because the

amount of stuff we sent to landfill that could be recycled or composted creates methane gas it also degrades our environment and degrades our planet. we have the ultimate goal at that time to achieve zero waste by 2020. we also, to give a little context and history, when the legislation was created in 2007, there was one reference in the legislation when it was talking about on the commercial side to the word custodian. it was no conversation or no focus on the people that were actually doing the work. so the janitors stepped up in the front line to help to craft the legislation and there was a conversation then about how we were going to have large generators in trash participate and be better actors. so here we are, ten years later, we found out that we are not going to achieve a zero waste by 2020. we had a hearing last fall. in that hearing, we discovered that 60% of our waste stream is

still compostable or recyclable. sixty% of what we sent to the black stream with the black bins could be composted or recycled. out of that, grew this legislation. we wanted to be more aggressive and we wanted to be more environmentally conscious. we crafted a piece of legislation that started at the level of large trash generators. those who are doing 30 cubic yards or more a week. in terms of the size of an apartment building, that would be 250-300 units. in terms of volume, it is based on wait. everything we do in the field is based on a wait, whether it is compost and recyclable or trash. we set a very aggressive goals in this legislation. our mayor announced, along with the department of environment that our new goal is to reduce by half what we are sending to landfill by 2030.

this legislation is designed to target large trash generators are waste generators, for lack of a better term. we have asked those and organize labour and those in the hotel and restaurant union and any of the impacted workers to look at this legislation. we reached out to significant number of those who are impacted in the industry. hotels, hospitals, universities, convention centres, large commercial buildings, apartment buildings, we did amend the legislation recently to include city-owned properties. we have gotten feedback from city-owned entities. our intent was never to rush the legislation. it was to have a very thoughtful conversation. we are open to the idea of continuing those conversations. we did discover that because of the fiscal impact on the city side, this legislation will be referred to after this committee over to the budget and finance. we have so we have more time to

continue the conversation. just you and my opening remarks, we need to be aggressive in achieving and being a good environmental steward for generations to come in participating in a very aggressive level and the way that you do that is you have people, out the source of generation, whether it is in your own home, in a building, a university, a restaurant, wherever it may be, you have to have someone. what we have said it is we will do three years. we will have an additional audit it will be three years of time to set a baseline on those large accounts. is over 520 accounts in the city after that time, at they are either -- just because you might be in that universe, doesn't mean you might fail. you might pass the audit. you might be a good operator. for instance, the ferry building is on the port property. they do a phenomenal job. they are up to 90 plus diversion right. if they are audited, they will

do great. they will pass with flying colours. there might be some, based on what we've learned and conversations that have refused to participate in these programs they don't care to -- let me just say it in a different way. they have not participated in these programs whether they were going to receive finds or higher charge on their waste bill. so this is making it be more aggressive. it is giving them to the option to participate. if they fail they will then be asked to hire a zero waste facilitator, pay fines and fees, but they have to put together a plan working with the department of environment. they are also very forgiving for participants that may be a large affordable housing development. there may be a special plant that needs to be put in place for subsidized hin