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 housing.

we have heard from those folks who have reached out to us and we plan on working with the department of environment to come up with tailored plans for each of those that may be impacted. i want to thank the department of environment for their consistent and thorough work. all the stuff on the front lines that work at our office and put this plant together. we have a very good plan but we are open to continue to the convert -- continue the conversations and we thank everyone for coming here today. ultimately, we have a really strong piece of legislation that will be impacting the environment in a positive way. i will hand it over to the chair to present and then i'll make some following remarks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you supervisor safai for that wonderful context setting. you will see that my slide will reflect back some of the things you said. because they are near and dear to my heart as well.

so what i will do with my short presentation is reiterate some of the problem statements. with any public policy and piece of legislation, one has to ask, what is the problem you're trying to fix and does this piece of public policy served to help fix that problem? i think with this particular case, the answer is a resounding yes. this is a solution that has been needed for a long time. we have been working hard to get it in a format that is workable for people. if we are not there yet, we are very open to continuing that conversation as this evolves. all right. just to remind us, we are a zero waste city. that means zero going to landfill or incineration. our goal is to get everything we can enter green and blue and minimize that black with all of our hearts and minds. this is an ambitious goal. it is a gold that speaks to a

highest and best use. it is a goal that calls on us to reduce the amount of waste we generate from the start. it is not about just putting more and more in blue and green. is about reducing the waste and making sure that anything that is unused has a home as part of the circular economy. having a bold goal like that has been tremendously impactful for our city and beyond. the policies that are in this timeline here don't stay in san francisco. they serve as an inspiration for cities across the planet. as supervisor safai said, we put in place mandatory recycling and composting and 99% of our buildings in san francisco have the three been service. there is no one in the u.s. that can talk about that amount of compliance in having the bends. we are always worried about the things that have no place in the blue and the green bin so we have taken on styrofoam. we have taken on plastic bags,

and of course, we have taken on with supervisor tang's leadership and supervisor safai the infamous plastic straw and fluorinated chemicals. as supervisor safai said, there was something very recent and that timeline that is cause for celebration. last week, as part of the global climate action summit, we have added 82018 to this latest piece here where we have altered and we committed to our zero waste gold to say even though we have roughly reduced what goes to landfills in half, we need to reduce it in half again. we will have to do that at the same time that we reduce generation. that is how much stuff each of us buys and how much refuse, whether it is recycling cat composting or trash that we generate. but the picture, while our goals are certainly worthy, the pictures become challenging in terms of what goes into the black man or goes to landfill.

as you see in this hockey stick looking figure, we cut in half and then, as the economy started picking up, so too did our disposal to landfill. while it may have levelled off a bit, it is going in the wrong direction. it is going in that direction for three major reasons. before we no kak i will say what is and that black band. this is just the reiteration of what supervisor safai said. when we take a look at what is going to landfill, 60% of it should be in the blue and green bends. some of it like 25% does not go in the bin system because it is materials it has to do with construction. and the other, the diapers, the feces, the carpet, the papers that have no way for us to deal with them in the blue and the green bin, that is the case for producer responsibility where we need to change the way items are manufactured. all right.

what is the big problem here? this gets to what is a problem we are trying to fix? there is three basic reasons we believe we are seeing an uptick and what is going to landfills. the first is changes in consumption. people are buying more stuff in san francisco. we are a culture of convenience. we love having food delivered to our door and all of that food, those meal kits have packaging associated with them. we love amazon so we have so much more cardboard in our lives we are buying more and more stuff and as those consumptions and those patterns change, we are finding more in the blue and more in the green and more in the black. we have had 30% increase in the permits associated with construction. no surprise to anybody in this room, cranes are everywhere. construction and demolition waste is very heavy and though we have a wonderfully strong ordinance, that ordinance needs revisiting. we are working on revising regulations right now.

the future may see opportunities there but construction and demolition as a part of the story. finally, when we look at what is the problem and how come we are getting more to landfill, it is a large generators. these are complicated systems. whether it is a multi family unit with trash chutes or it is a large commercial office space with multiple tenants and residential and commercial, these complicated systems are generating a huge amount of the problem when it comes to the black been how does black been -- black bin. >> where are the generators working out how to get large recovery rates. that thing is somebody whose job it is to make sure that the tenants are doing the right thing. that is not just sorting, it is communication. it is setting up systems that

are usable. we call those people zero waste facilitators. we don't call them sorters. don't call them trash haulers. their facilitators because their goal is to look at the system of waste inside that building and figure out a way to make sure things are recovered as they need to be. what is a zero waste facilitator doing? first they facilitate that material separation. in some cases, that means going through bags and putting things where they need to because the tenants aren't doing the right thing. it can also mean communicating with the tenants. making sure that when they go into break rooms, every single band is properly tagged. or when they look at the office space to, the aren't big black bends that everyone worked -- everyone's workstations instead, there are blue and green bends. it is figuring out ways to set up the system to get things done properly. and the third very important thing that zero waste facilitators do is they save the

entity money on the refuse bills and they do that because it is more expensive to put things in the black bin than the blue and the green. there are discounts for doing the right thing. when you're not putting things in blue and green, the refuse bill goes up and so having facilitators on staff can actually save a business money. i will offer you a case study of that shortly. it is not just department of environment saying this is a good idea. eighty properties in san francisco right now are using zero waste facilitators to get there bills down increase their recovery rates. there are nine companies in san francisco right now creating jobs to do this kind of work. we know that this model works. it is not just theoretical. we have seen evidence over and over again. so here is an example of a case study we did in a 926 unit apartment building. before the zero waste facilitators were hired, they

had 78 cubic yards, that is trash speak, and their black bin in their compactor, they generated 78 cubic yards of trash per week. after the facilitator, it went down to 26 cubic yards. 40 cubic yards of recycling went to 100. 64-gallon containers of composting went to 12. and less than a year, this apartment building radically reduced what went to landfill and saved enough money on their bill that even after the zero waste facilitator, the cost of their salaries, they save $20,000 a year. this is a net savings. we know this model can work. who is impacted by this legislation? this legislation is focused on what we affectionately call to the allergy. also known as large refuge

generators. they are generating 30 cubic yards or more per week. it is about 550 accounts that they service and there is a whole range of affected parties. what we understand when we look at this range of affected parties, everyone from office buildings, hotels, apartments, museums, city properties is that one size does not fit all. in terms of solutions. and that for some, perhaps they can solve this without a facilitator. we have given them a chance to do that. we say, here is what the audit says, how are you going to come into compliance with the ordinance that has been in place since 2009? what are you going to do? if you can't figure it out, we will help you. there is time timelines set up for the department to work with affected parties. we are not saying this is

trivial. we are not saying it is easy but we believe it can be done. in closing, we believe that zero waste is the right goal. it is a goal that has enabled the department of the environment to work very closely with affected parties. it is a gold that has paid attention to around the world. we also understand that for some people this ordinance is coming a little bit as a surprise. and the reason is is the ordinance was amended in the substitute ordinance was put in place last week and that there are going to be people, especially city departments who feel like they don't have doors have not had the chance to digest was in front of them and figure out the impact. how they will work with us on this and what it might cost someone. my request, as a department of the environment head is we actually slow down a bit and give this some more time. i'm not saying infinite time, this is a solid piece of policy but we are going to need some time to allow the affected

parties who were just understanding this some time to figure out what their impact is so, when we come back to you at budget time to say these are impacts, it won't be because you didn't know what you are voting on. his because all the cards are on the table and we understand the impact. it will take a few weeks. not a lot of weeks, but a few weeks for city departments to understand what is before them and i believe that city departments are with us on this. they want to come into compliance and do the right thing. they have already shown evidence of that and they simply need some time -- time to figure out the how. not the whether, but the how. thank you. >> supervisor safai: maybe i should have had you speak first. [laughter] >> you set it up perfectly, supervisor at. >> supervisor safai: i want to say, we hear you loud and clear. the fact that this will go to budget committee will allow us more time to to sit down with you in the department. we will make amendments today. i want to -- before we open it

up to public comment, and there are comments from other members of the committee, where i want to brief and walk everyone through. we will make an amendment today. we heard from stakeholders. we will move the effective date from january 1st to july 1st , 2019. we are going to give the department, instead of two and a half years, we will give them three years to do all the baseline audits. we have asked the department to work with the affected parties, particularly those in the s.r.o. field and subsidize housing that have a very difficult population of people to work with, as well as those who might have fiscal impact challenges. we will work with them. along with the city agencies and departments. we will sit down and talk about that over the course of time. essentially what would happen its once this begins, there will

be around of audits that were ecology will perform. just because you're on the list of 548, doesn't mean you will not pass the audit. there is a minimum threshold that the department has created that means you are a good actor or you are not in terms of diverting waste. if you fail that audit you will have the opportunity to appeal the audit to the city controller they will determine whether or not the audit will extend properly. you have a 45 day window to come back after you have failed to the audit to say you want an appeal or you put together your plan with the department of environment. will also make one amendment to say you have 60 days to hire the zero waste facilitator. we also, with regard to city agencies, know we will have to work with them on that. you might not be able to hire a facilitator within 60 days.

we are going to come up with the right language for the city on that. we understand the h.r. process in the city is not as nimble as a private sector. there are processes and collective bargaining agreements that are in place that have to be drawn from. we will have the appropriate language there. after that audit, if you wanted to pass the audit, he would come together with a plan on hiring facilitator or the option of paying the higher fees which are significant. if you choose not to do that and you have exhausted your appeal, you would hire the facilitator for two years. a two-year commitment. although we do have written into the registration you have 12 months, you have the option, at your cost to ask for an additional audit. if you fail the audit then fines and fees come due immediately and you are required to keep the facilitator. but we allow for a process -- we

also think that moving the effective date from now until july 1st give some time to do some education out outreach to work with the department of environment. that is the broad strokes of the plan. i just wanted to lay that out for everyone. and i am happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments from other supervisors. >> this process is unfamiliar to me. i did ask some of my questions earlier before the meeting. but it was news to me that a collector and it can tag that don't appropriately dispose of their garbage in the correct bins. i was curious how often customers get tagged and i also saw that the collector does have the option to refuse empty containers if they get two or

more tags. i'm curious how often that occurs. i understand that they can't refuse if it's a multifamily or commercial property. then i assume it means that we only refuse service for single-family homeowners. so i was curious about that and i am also seeing the collector can provide the director a list of names that have received tags i would like to see the universe , not to know who the bad actors are about to understand how bad the problem is. >> supervisor safai: can you repeat that last question clearly. >> supervisor kim: the upon request can provide the correct -- the director a list of people who have received tags. i would like to see that list. not because i want to know who the bad actors are, i just want to understand the scope of the universe. i don't need names and addresses but i like to understand how many people get tagged and what

the scope of the problem is. >> those are wonderful questions what is interesting about your questions, supervisor supervisors, as they are on the existing law. >> supervisor kim: then i have questions about the proposed amendments. >> is important to put it out there how the existing law works it is super valid. i want to make that distinction. when we're talking about the implementation of this, i will ask my team who are the ones who work closely with the company with this to answer those great questions. >> hello. good afternoon, supervisors. they are doing over 20,000 tags a year. i do want to point out that most of the large refuse generators, if they are defined, if they have a compactor, the driver can't see. all of the rolloff or even the smaller front load compactors, the majority of the generators are not able to be tagged by the drivers. it is mostly smaller accounts

and residential. >> supervisor kim: how often does the collector even refused empty containers? i assume this is single-family homes for those they get two or more tags. >> i would have to, with the company on that. it is usually about -- in some cases i think they think if the generator can clean it up, they might leave it. but generally they will leave the tags saying this was a problem material after they have emptied it. >> supervisor kim: to people usually respond positively? >> we can bring recology up to answer that. >> supervisor kim: do customers change behaviour after being tagged?

>> so we really are -- >> supervisor kim: state your name and title for the record. >> i am the general manager of recology golden gate. good to be here. to answer the questions, we really are trying to provide the best service to the customers and when the driver tags multiple times, the first thing they would do is to call and engage the supervisors so they can actually reach out to the client or the customers that contaminate. so most likely we do not leave the material behind if we can possibly service the customer. >> supervisor kim: do you see a change in behavior after tagging and conversation? >> we have. out of all the letters and tags that we have retailed to the commercial customers and residential customers, 75% of

the customer, while clients, were able to change their behavior and improve through outreach and education. >> supervisor kim: that is a very good number. so when you tag and the owners respond and you start to see the change in behavior, if it doesn't happen, my understanding is the bills go up? >> actually -- >> supervisor kim: i never understood how that works. >> supervisor kim: there is two types of impacts to the customer and that is primarily for large apartments and commercial customers. one is, if they have left -- so director raphael mentioned there are financial incentives. the more material you put in the blue and green bin unless in the black, you have a diversion discount.

>> supervisor kim: how significant is that discount? i'm trying to understand what the incentive looks like. >> it could be very significant. let's say you have a thousand dollars and your bill and you have achieved a 75% diversion right, -- rate, that would have to belted $500. a significant. we consistently find contaminated material in their black and green bin, they basically have not earned the diversion discount. through multiple outreach and multiple audit, we will reverse the diversion discount. we will remove the diversion discount. that usually gets the attention of the customer pretty quickly. very quickly. >> supervisor kim: and the department of environment that you typically do about 20,000 tax year. does it stay flat? >> actually, it has stayed flat but we have also introduced the

technology to allow us to tag more frequently. before the tag is pretty manual. you have to use paper all the way through. half the city now have gone into this system that is a mobile device that allows you to tag electronics -- electronically. we hope that the tagging will be more and more effective as we continue to allow this platform. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. so the rest of my remaining questions are on the proposed ordinance. this can be for supervisor safai or the department of environment i want to make sure i understand it correctly. i have to say, as a legislature, i don't find the language super clear. i think we should make sure it is clear so people who want to follow it can. i am looking on page 6 on line 15 through 17, the notice of the order shall state the requirements and in 45 day deadline and section 1906 f. and

provide adequate capacity based on the audit findings. i did not understand what that meant. prescribe adequate capacity of zero waste facilitators? >> what that is restoring -- referring to is that if a person -- if a large building says ok, i have failed my audit, i will hire one person, we know the chances are it is not sufficient capacity to actually fix the problem. so what will be happening from the time there is a failed audit to before they get a letter from the director, as we will be assessing what the needs are of the facility in order to have adequate capacity and facilitation to handle that amount of waste. this skips to the one size fit all is a problem. you can't, in legislation say exactly what that capacity would be.

we will be setting the boundary post to what adequate capacity looks like and we will be truth checking that as we go facility to facility. >> supervisor kim: all i would say is -- >> it is not clearly written. >> supervisor kim: the language is very awkward, prescribing capacity of zero waste facilitators. there is another way that could be written so people understand what that means. just so i understand, there is 520 buildings all under this universe of doing 30 cubic yards or more a week. so the ordinance would mandate that the department of environment would audit every single one. >> recology will do that. >> supervisor kim: they will do that. it will be included within their budget we. >> that is correct. >> supervisor kim: based on the fees that they generate? will this increase fees for users because they have to increase staffing to conduct

these audits? >> we actually have looked at the resources that we currently visited every single compactor once every two years. >> supervisor kim: these are the large refuge -- >> yes. we can't tag them. we looked at them and coordinate when they drop off the material. >> supervisor kim: that work is already being done? >> yes. >> supervisor kim: the collector must complete the audit every three years? once that happens and you find that they are not in compliance, they automatically have 45 days to respond to the prescription? whatever, the order? which would include, when you ask when -- when you say

exclusive, at least one full-time. >> that is correct. >> by exclusive -- exclusive we do not want a poor janitor or custodian to to be all of a sudden designated to have this dual role that isn't physically possible. >> supervisor kim: and there is no opportunity and between with mediation or opportunity -- >> they can appeal. we can do this without and there is an appeal process. >> there will be an appeal process? >> yes. >> supervisor kim: of the 520 buildings, it became -- it came up in some of my e-mails, what do we know which percentage would be affordable housing or a hotel in the city? >> i can answer that question. >> supervisor safai: through the chair. we have a lot of conversations with the department ombudsman and supportive housing and a lot of the different providers in the universe. there was, for instance, housing clinic that has thousands of

units in the city. they have one building that is impacted by this that we know of so far. when we talk to the tenderloin housing housing clinic, there was one building and there entire universe. but what we have said is we will work with the department of environment and recology to put down a plan and a timeline specifically for those particular buildings. >> supervisor kim: ok. in an initial assessment, we only identified one s.r.o. >> supervisor safai: i am just giving you an example. there's probably more than one and probably a universe -- i'm sure there is a handful that are at least 250 or more in the tire universe of the city. but the reason i give that as an example is because we are

talking to one particular landlord that talks to that category without getting into to too much of the other levels. we will sit down and work out a specified plan for them. but, yes, there are large affordable housing buildings that will be impacted and we will put together a plan to work with those facilities. [please stand by]

so we're going to say, 60 days, but we're going to work with the department along other impacted parties to ensure we have the right time. but right now, 60 days. >> i do agree for departments, we need to give them a little bit of a time frame for that. also, the language says --

unfortunately, i don't see the city attorney, but it says designate, i wanted to know in that means hires or identify on paper. >> the reason we put that language in there, we wanted to ensure if there was existing staff that were already employed in the field of management of the building, or doing trash collection, or janitorial services, that an employer could designate someone and say this is your new responsibility. we wanted to give the option it didn't have to be a new hire. it could be new hire or designated staff that is already existing. that's what the intent of the city attorney was in terms of drafting that. >> thank you, i see he's back. i guess the question that comes up, we see on the list that some schools or non-profits might be impacted by the new legislation,

so for example, if a nonprofit didn't have the funds to actually hire someone and they didn't even know who that person was, let's say, after two months, basically i'm trying to figure out the meaning behind designate. if, again, they can't identify the funds to do so. >> one way or another, the intent of the legislation, if they're going to have a zero waste facilitator, they have to have somebody. so they're either designating a staff person, they're going to have to hire someone or put together a plan on whether to grant riding or otherwise. but i think that's what we said we're open to working with the department of environment on those subsidized housing facilities, for lack of a better term. i think designate was the word that the city attorney chose to stay if you have existing staff, you can reassign them.

>> supervisor tang: a follow-up question. let's say you don't have someone hired to do it. no one on staff. do you need to have someone's name down for who the zero waste facilitator would be? >> i would defer to director raphael. we tried to leave some of the administrative functions to the department. if you look at the threshold that people pass or fail the audit, acceptable level of marketing materials. it doesn't set a diversion rate specifically because we want the department to use their background information, their expertise and so on. we want to have some flexibility in implementation. the same thing, we said you could hire someone, designate someone. the most important part of this

particular clause is that it's their exclusive function. as director said, we didn't want to add to the existing workload. >> it doesn't say i need a name, but we need to know that has been fulfilled. so if the answer is we're not sure how we're going to do it, that is not a satisfactory answer. they need to know how -- so we have confidence they're in compliance with that aspect and that is the way it's written, that's a requirement. >> supervisor tang: so basically, if someone said, i'm a nonprofit, i failed an audience, need to hire someone, i didn't have the funds immediately but said, welling within two months i will hire someone, that suffices? >> we do have the discretion to extend with evidence of good faith effort. and that would be in the

administrative guidance. >> supervisor tang: and then the other question just for clarity, going way back to basics. but what renders someone as having failed an audit? i want to understand what that standard is. it's unclear to me. what level of contamination, diversion rate, if you could explain that. >> i'm going to ask jack to explain that in his beautiful concise way. this is jack macy, department of environment. >> the ordinance calls for us to have guidelines on what the thresholds of contamination will be based on the ability to process and market material, and based on significant loss of recyclables and compostables. we way say x% of contamination

for each stream, recyclables, trash. if they show that the contamination level is above that, then it's a failure and the audit would clearly document that what those contaminants are and what the percentages are. >> supervisor tang: ok. so i'm just wondering how this -- so is it a standard that remains the same? or does it fluctuate? can we give an example? like say there is exact or bin with, i don't know, 30% plastics that are recyclable and then 10% that were contaminated food items, you're saying -- i'm trying to understand from a regular everyday person like how would i fail an audit? >> we look at the contents of that particular stream. say looking at trash, we look at

that compacter load that is spread out on the floor, inspect it, and identify how much shouldn't be in there. there is food and recyclables and they add up to 30%. >> supervisor tang: is that what it is right now, 30%? >> we have different numbers, but i think we envision something less than that, in the 20% range. >> supervisor tang: one of the concerns i did hear was the percentage or whatever that standard is can change and so forth and i believe there is even language that says it will be updated every year. can we speak a little bit to those who have concerns that, well, maybe this year if i got audited i would have met it, but next year, if it changed i wouldn't have. >> i think our desire is not to have it change often, but if there are significant changes in the processing technology or the

markets. there have been recent increased standards in the market that make it more difficult to market. we have to have cleaner material, paper and plastic for example, to market that. so the percentages that are contamination thresholds are going to be lower. such as like 5-10%. >> supervisor tang: so, sorry, what is it right now? >> well, we're looking at basically, 5% threshold for recycling and composting. and trash on the order of 20%. >> supervisor tang: ok. director? >> thank you, supervisor. it's important as you know as you craft policy there, are things you want in law and things you want flexibility to change. these determinations we feel it important they are not set in stone and we would have to come

back for amendments, because market conditions change. they change in both directions. sometimes it's going to be that we're going to need to allow a little more contamination, sometimes it will be, wow, we can't allow it anymore because there are no more markets. these are written with these boundaries in place where the director will look at processing capability and setting guidance that will be available and understood how to educate around. as our capacity changes for what is acceptable at pier 96 and markets change, it's important to have the flexibility. even though i know it makes people nervous. >> supervisor safai: i think i hear at one point, what supervisor tang was saying, it's an important point. you're saying 5% recyclable. 20% trash. is there going to be a

significant change in the beginning of july, and then three years later? is there going to be a significant change in the standard by which you're judging peep on the pass-fail on the audit? if you're audited in the beginning of the program and at the end of the three-year cycle, is there going to be a significant difference? >> we do not anticipate significant changes. we felt it was important to have the flexibility to look forward, because we don't know what the market is going to look like five, ten years from now. >> supervisor tang: understood. thank you fort clarification. one question, how it was arrived that the zero waste facilitator needed to be on site for 24 consecutive months. i know there is a halfway point where large refuge generator can request an audit and they can do away with the facilitator, i understand that, but how was it

arrived at, the 24 months? supervisor safai, if you can answer that. >> supervisor safai: we've had a lot of conversations about this legislation, working with the department of environment, as well as those in the industry. those are doing the work. 24 months to change the culture. two, if you saw the example that the department of environment gave where they had an apartment building that was generating a significant amount of waste and after they had the facilitator. and they saw the cost savings based on the diversion, they still came out ahead. i think that takes time to change the culture. so we put in 24 months, but also put in the opportunity to appeal depending upon if their cost savings weren't realized, or an

opportunity to review the situation after one year. i think any smaller amount of time, you wouldn't have significant change in behavior or impact on the diversion. >> supervisor tang: ok. thank you for that. and then my last question is, just how will outreach be done to these roughly 500 or so buildings, entities, that will be impacted by the legislation? and i'm assuming you'll have conversations with the department. >> supervisor safai: absolutely. >> our zero waste program is divided into three segments, municipal, commercial and residential. here i have soko, who is our municipal person, jack is our commercial person, i don't know if -- freddie is here from the residential team. so we have teams of people who are focused on the target audience that will be impacted. and those people already are

reaching out to the affected parties, but now they have an additional way to get people's attention, to say, you know, you have a problem, we can help you, let's get ahead of this or help us find the best facilitator. but this is part of what we do. rechology is also part of their work with customers and does a lot of outreach, and between the two of them, we have independent contractors that we contract with, that are additional hand-holders if you will for the entities. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: i wanted to -- when we move to public comment. when we made the most recent amendment to include city agencies, the thought was we wanted to ensure we were capturing the entire universe of large refuse generators, even including city properties and agencies. we absolutely hear the feedback. we were never intending to try

to rush this and move this without getting the proper input, so we're absolutely fine to continue the conversation with the city departments. we have a built-in additional step now with the going to the budget and finance and that will give us more time to continue the conversation there. the other thing i want to point to, i appreciate slide number 3 in the handout, because again that's what really motivated us in the conversation. we're going to have another piece of legislation that talks about the construction and demolition debris, because what is happening in that 25% category, people are taking the construction demolition debris away from facilities that do the proper level of sorting. they tack that outside of our -- take that outside of our area dumps and then we get hit with that weight and that on our overall diversion. so we're going to dig in on that

as well. this was the first step, because this was the largest piece of the pie and we felt like it was the one we could move aggressively on inside the boundaries working with the affected parties. thank you, committee, for the questions and if it's ok for chair, can we open up for public comment? >> supervisor tang: public comment now for item 5. any members of the public who wish to speak, please come on up. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm manager of the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. i am definitely in support of this legislation given that we got changes and the details on friday evening, i feel kind of -- very similar to what director was saying. we need time to digest and understand the impact on what it

has. we have 38 properties in the city. we serve low-income affordable population, including homeless. just to give you an idea, we serve 5,000 people and the majority of them make under $15,000 a year, $1300 a month. and in terms of waste, specifically we spend $1.4 million annually. so it's 4% of our operating budget. as part of our sustainability program we actively work with sf environment when it comes to waste management. but when it comes to the legislation, the changes, my concern is specifically for the definition of large refuge and we had discussion about that.

one is generate 30 cubic yards or more of refuse per week. so 15 properties, they have compacters, but they do not have 30 cubic yards of waste every week, so i'm trying to understand which is applicable because it says or. the other about hiring a fa t l facilitato facilitator, cost is a concern. we're working with sf environment. [bell ringing] -- do that ourselves. >> supervisor tang: it's a question. >> you said how many of your 38 buildings, how many have a rolloff compacter service? >> 15. >> and how many produces 30 cubic yards or more? >> just three.

>> looks like all 18 would be covered under the ordinance. >> right, but those compacters are really snowfall. there is a threshold, there is for that purpose. and sorry -- >> i'm sorry. we have to limit that to supervisor kim's question. our clerk will get that from you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm representing the san francisco chamber of commerce. we really appreciate the opportunity to meet with you, supervisor safai and your staff last week to discuss the legislation. we all want to meet zero waste goals as soon as possible, but we're also concerned that this legislation is moving too quickly. and without enough outreach and input to those directly effected, it applies the same

requirements to refuse, to many different entities that have different types of waste. it's a one size fits all requirement and that would be applied to office buildings with multiple tenants, hospitals, hotels, apartment buildings with multiple tenants, convention centers, food services, exchanges arena and now -- chase arena. these are different animals with different sources. the chamber can't support this legislation unless it's amended to reflect those differences. also, we hope that more time would be built in for outreach and education before penalties start to accrue. we should increase opportunities for everyone to succeed in coming into compliance with zero waste goals. instead, this legislation seems to jump to overly pre-scrip --

punitive measures. so we are asking you to slow this down, which it seems like you are. i understand it's going budget and finance and we appreciate that. we would like to continue to work with you and department of environment to hammer out specific, more effective data driven methods we can all implement and support. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> appreciate your time, but we're hopeful that amendments that we've submitted are considered.

especially with what the department of environment had mentioned regarding the marketability of the materials and the audit that is generated from it. i think that is a very important consideration and i won't say what the director said with the department, but that's a key amendment we're looking for as well. we'd like to refocus this ordinance on the all persons provision in the 2009 ordinance, which means all people, including building owners and their tenants. we feel that tenants are the true zero waste facilitators in their space. they are the true source separators and the generation of the refuse streams that will be audited after they get to the vertical city, which is a high rise building. we'd like consideration based on data, and a plan that reflects the need for a zero waste facilitator and the time needed for their use. this is very important, because

not all members use a zero waste facilitator, although some do. and they're based on need. lastly, again, more time to discuss this with you, supervisor, to get the amendments in. thank you. >> good afternoon, madame chair, members of the committee. hospital council, san francisco section, representing the public and private hospitals, issues of mutual concern. this is one. we had the opportunity to discuss this ordinance and tsz impact on the operational impact of hospitals. we think it touches on two things we want to share with you. one, the delivery of patient care, and two, frustrating an already complex waste management at hospitals. unlike other refuse generators,

as was in the presentation, with three streams, at a hospital, you have multiple streams. and they're coming in from a lot of different places and it's all highly regulated. i just want to mention a few. i submitted a letter for your consideration. there is bio hazardous, there is pharmaceutical collection. collection with respect to federal recovery act. hazardous waste. patient transfer device reprocessing. these are all the things you see when you see a doctor or nurse or caregiver. they're unwrapping things, disposing them. all of those things have to be collected. each one of them have their own discreet protocol we have to adhere to. we want to keep our eye on meeting this goal, but the patient safety aspect. we've submitted a letter. thank you for your time.

>> good afternoon. we represent all of the garbage and recycling workers in san francisco, including the collection drivers who pick up the material and the material handlers who sort the material. we and our members are fully committed to helping the city of san francisco reach their zero waste goals, but this has to be a team effort. we're just one player on the team. and we need everybody on this team to be participating. and that includes these big businesses, and/or, building owners. they have to be held accountable just like the residents of san francisco are held accountable for proper diversion rates. two key components to this. i talk about hands-on material and touches.

to maximize diversion, you have to get as many sets of eyes and hands on the material as possible. that's important on site. these big buildings, the residents aren't going to do it on their own. someone has to hold the residents accountable. and then someone has to hold the building as accountable. i know that, you know, members of local 87, the janitors, are more than willing to play their role. we're willing to play our role, but we have to be able to get eyes and hands on the material. the two key components, the c and d issue that supervisor safai brought up. the haulers that are hauling the c and d outside of the county and we never get our hands on it but all that weight is contributed to the city. 60% of the waste that is not being touched ever, we have to get eyes and hands on that. so we're fully supportive of the

ordinance and appreciate the time today, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm with local 87. we represent the janitors working in these buildings in the private sector buildings, specifically in these accounts that have been mentioned earlier by the presentation. i also am not surprised, ten years ago when this legislation was proposed, it required that everybody was on board to save the environment. and both the chamber of commerce and bouma have never wavered from giving themselves awards on lead, and the responsibility is alliances to the city, to make sure there is a city and an environment we can leave to the children that we have and it takes a responsible building owner, manager, and workers that are in the buildings. ten years ago when this legislation went into effect, our janitors felt the obligation

to tell tenants and educate. what we were met with, was punishment and disciplinary action against our janitors for telling residents how this should be done. i can tell you that the buildings have have sorter onsite are performing better. 60% is not being diverted. now trash is shipped to vietnam or mexico and this is not tenable. property managers and building owners will have to pay attention to what is generated inside the walls of their building and have to adjust and not just continue to pay fees and fines. property owners that i can mention right now, of which i will not, we know fired a lot of sorters from buildings because it was cheaper for them to pay the fines.

these are the types of things we are trying to fight and correct. i welcome any one of the building owners can , chamber of commerce, can come and walk the buildings at night and see what the sorters are doing. thank you. >> good afternoon, coalition for better housing. please stand by.