>> 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 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