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.

>> -- we have to continue to do everything we can to get them to have -- take responsibility for the waste that they're

generating, as well. so we need some kind of mechanism that will say that if the owner and the property manager's done everything they can to bring levels down, and are still having to pay for folks to -- to monitor this stuff, that some of the responsibility has to come back on those people who are doing it, and that's the only way that we're going to zero waste completely across the board. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. charlie goss, san francisco apartment association, and we share the city's goal of zero waste, but we have legislation that only deals with the account holder, and the difficulty is our members hold the account with recology but they're not the refuse

generators, and we can educate, we can provide outreach, we can get all the information out to building residents, but we can't actually compel behavior change to compost and recycle more. what we're asking for is some sort of pass through that allows for building owners to hire someone -- what we believe is that you will never incentivize or compel the kind of behavioral change that you're looking for unless the people that are throwing away the waste have skin in the game. people are incentivized to conserve when there's a financial reason to conserve. we appreciate the efforts to slow down this ordinance.

supervisor safai, you've been gracious to meet with a number of different industries that have different needs, and we appreciate that, so any effort to slow down, we support. we really believe that you incentivize change through carrots and sticks, and this ordinance has carrots and stick over somebody who has no control over the waste stream, so we would ask you to consider that. thank you. >> good afternoon. mina tau with recology. first of all, we want to thank the author, supervisor ahsha safai and the department of the environment in working with us to address most of the operation issues that we have raised during the course of developing this legislation. with the most recent round of amendments, we are confident recology will be able to meet the mandates. we appreciate the city's

continual effort to create policy to reduce 60% of the landfill's goal by 2030. we want to thank the author on contaminations and important issues in meeting this ambitious goal. over the past decades, in partnership with the city, we have worked to steadily improve recycling and compost participations among our largest commercial customers. we have been able to, however, create great strides. today, 99% of all buildings in san francisco have the three-bin system on-site, offering everyone the opportunity to participate. through an iterative process with the city and our customers, a few things have become readily apparent. first, the large majority of

our customers want to do the right thing and be a good recycle letter and believe in the benefit of environmental protections and enjoy the economic savings that are realized by fully participating. second, our largest commercial generate ares represent a large group such as san francisco foot bank to low-income communities like the alice griffith apartments to embarcadero center. each sector and each -- >> okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> we'll take your comments, so -- >> that's okay. we'll take your comment. >> good afternoon. my name is veronica slaten. i'm going from environmental health, solid waste branch. i'd like to thank department of environment and -- for the opportunity to comment on the legislation on behalf of

department of public health. i do -- we do want to state that we're in support of city's goal of zero waste but recognize that more time is needed to polish the language of the legislation, and we would like to continue to work with department of the environment to help with that effort. one of the points that i wanted to make in reviewing this draft of legislation is the large refuse generator has to be better defined. currently it's a large commercial property refuse account holder, but from what i've collected from director rafael's presentation, it also includes apartments which are not a part of commercial property. thank you. >> can i have the overhead

projector, please? is it on? my name is gilbert williams and i'm a lifetime resident of san francisco. >> just quickly. i don't know if -- are you speaking to this particular item? >> yes, i am. >> so we -- >> this was a resolution that was passed december 5, 2017. the whole board of supervisors voted unanimously to -- for the -- for the repeal of costa hawkins. >> can you -- sir, sir, hold on. otherwise i'm going to have to cutoff your microphone because -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. sir -- okay. can we please cutoff the mic. sir, we're in land use to talk about a refuse ordinance, so that's the only item you're able to talk about, so i'm sorry, i'm going to have to cut you off here. sir, i'm sorry, but the rules are the rules, so if you come

to the public board of supervisors meeting [inaudible] >> sir, sir -- i'm sorry, i'm going to have to ask you to step away from the podium because you have to speak on the item that's actually before us. all right. so any other members of the public who wish to speak on item five for our land use committee agenda, please come on up. okay. all right. so public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> and sir, i'm sure we can talk to you about that separately from this land use committee meeting. supervisor kim and then supervisor safai? okay. >> supervisor safai: supervisor, not to cut you off, i've heard something that i want to touch base on, a bunch of the questions that were raised. if the department of environment can speak to item one, biohazards, there was some e-mails back and forth. i don't think hospitals, biohazards, have anything to do -- i see you all shaking your head, but it would be

helpful to comment on the record for that. >> the refuse is medical waste, hazardous waste, so we're talking about materials that would be recyclables, compostables, or nonhazardous, nonbiomedical trash. >> supervisor safai: okay. great. so that was -- and then, just again, either you or director rafael can answer, there was a question from one of the commenters about compactor or 30 cubic yards. so it sounded like there was some confusion on behalf of the person that was answering that question or maybe it's just the way it's written here. can you talk about that or do we need to tighten that piece of legislation.

>> so the definition of a large refuse generator is if they have a rolloff compactor or 30 cubic yards or more. >> supervisor safai: is sounded -- it sounded like she had 18 of those. >> you look at all of your accounts that have a rolloff compactor you're in, and then, separate from that, any account that's generating 30 cubic yards of service, that could be with no compactor, so that's why the "or" is really important. >> supervisor safai: so is it 18 or not? >> well, i'd have to look at the list, but it sounds like it's 18. rolloff contractor, and any account that's not on that list that has 30 cubic yards or more of service would be included. >> supervisor safai: well, it sounds like there might be some confusion. >> so you can have toters and small bins, and if you get to 30 cubic yards, you're in.

>> supervisor safai: okay. so i guess we can follow up individually with that particular account holder. >> i'll just get a clarification that they may have been asking about smaller compactors. >> supervisor safai: that's what i'm saying. if it's a smaller compactor, it might not necessarily be covered. >> right. it has to be a rolloff compactor or a total of 30 cubic yards. >> supervisor safai: okay. i'd just go back and say when we were given the original list, if you go back and look at page 6, all the different, there's always going to be some challenges, but again, i would say -- and i want to be clear at possible, this -- as possible, this legislation was created back in 2007-20086789 everyone has been participating in trying to achieve zero waste by 2020. we feel very strongly that this

was a signature amount of time. there was some original things that was written into the legislation to talk about large refuse generators that was not implemented, and there was a way that -- there was some loopholes, other ways that it was just abrogated in many ways, shapes, or forms. so we are here, 10-plus years later, and i think based on the most recent announcement of the mayor, based on the department of the environment, we're going to have to work together to come up with some different strategies, and i think that's what the flexibility allows for in the lemgs lation. i do want to make a comment. the department doesn't have to respond and recology doesn't have to respond. but i heard the people talking, people that are actually handling the trash, when it says as many eyes and hands on the waste as possible, and the fact that 60% of that waste stream is still going to landfill, some of that is still going to end up at the transfer facilities, so we'd like to

work with recology. i know that in some of the other areas outside of san francisco, they're actually doing some sort of of the waste stream itself, so we should have a further conversation with that because that's going to probably increase the amount of diversion. and then, i will say i'm very -- i did hear loud and clear the folks say particularly in apartment buildings that we're talking about the actual users in those buildings, and i did -- i just wanted to -- i know that in one of our last meetings, people presented us with some legislation and process that they do in new york city, but i just wanted to give the department of the environment a quick moment to talk about what their reaction is to -- that this is going to be impacted on the account holder and not the actual person that's creating the waste, particularly in apartment buildings, and so did you want to respond to that, about the question about a conservation pass through or we're not actually targeting -- you don't have to talk about that, but the fact that this is

not impacting the actual people that are producing the waste, it's the account holder. 'cause i think we've tried to approach this in a very sensitive way, but that's the hardest one to -- i mean, in a large commercial building, you have the ability to, at some point, renegotiate a lease. in a hospital, there is cost savings and cost measures. i think it'll be an overall cost diversion. in a university or convention center, it's the same thing, but in a hotel, they might have a way to put a fee on. all of these things, there's an ability, but the apartments and tenants is actually the most difficult in terms of targeting, how are we going to do it through education and not just the sticks. >> those are very compelling -- thank you, supervisor. those were very compelling comments, and i think as we -- i like the comments from the teamsters that it's a team

responsibility, it's a shared responsibility. there's no question that in an apartment building, it's not the building owner who is the generator, it is their tenants, which is the case for hotels, as well. and i've seen -- my own experience in hotels -- in hotels that have brought in zero waste facilitators, they cannot educate their tenants, if you will, their guests because they're constantly changing. so even without that they're really able to increase their recovery rates by setting up a system in hotel rooms and after the fact, so i believe that in apartment buildings if there is a commitment to create the systems, that we can find ways of upping the education game. when you can pass through that -- through the rents, those are signals that can happen, and when you can't, that's just incumbent on all of us to find a way to work diligently with tenants to

figure out what to do about trash chutes, to figure out how to make sure that that green bin is as easy to get to as that black one. is those are things that owner can see do to make it systematic and easy to use as it is the black bin, so there's ways that we can work together. i also think that as we look at our regulatory development on this that we'll look at apartment owner to see look at ways -- owners to look at ways to focus on tenants, as well. >> supervisor safai: okay. great. thank you. i'll make amendments after. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: yeah. i just want to make some closing comments but also ask some questions, understanding that we'll be referring this to the budget committee. so you know, again, on page six, if we could just very clearly, in plain english, describe the process, understanding that there is

administrative discretions. i didn't want to be overly prip if i have in the ordinance -- prescriptive in the ordinance, but i just had trouble following the process. i still feel a little confused by it, but i just -- i think there should be a time to appeal, a time to respond, and then, a time to hire, and i think all of that should be clearly laid out. and i think, you know, myself, having trouble responding to deadlines through my personal business, it's not, i think, people's -- based on their best intentions, but i think companies and landlords, this isn't the only thing that they do. they're responsible for many things, and i want to make sure that that's compliable -- not that that's a term. but of course, i strongly support this legislation, and i thank supervisor safai and tang for working on this. as someone who is the sorter in my office, i regularly go through the trash of my interns who is not always familiar with

compost or recycle and go through the black bin. i do my roommate's garbage, i do our interns', so i completely support this ordinance, and i also want the best ordinance moving forward, but i want it to be in a way that all the required stakeholders can comply and it's doable, and it's clearly outlined. i do want to have a better understanding of how our city departments and buildings do, because it looks like it all goes in one bin when the janitorial staff goes by and picks up our trash, so i just want to make sure that we are the best compliers of our own ordinances. i support the hiring. i think that that's an important aspect, particularly for our large stakeholders and commercial landlords. i think it's important to have sorters. it wasn't clear to me the

public comment about pass through. i don't see anything in this ordinance that would prohibit pass throughs. that would be negotiated, i assume, via their leases, but with tenants, there would not be a pass through, with residential tenants. is there an allowance in our existing. >> supervisor safai: through the area, it's not written into this existing legislation. i know there was some comments in our meetings. we went through some operation and maintenance amendments through some other legislation. the thresholds were changed. i think there was some consternation on the part of apartment owners to where they would say if the threshold were slightly different we probably would be able to add this to that category to allow it to reach to the level of having that conversation. i think we're going to continue the conversations about that in particular because we want to ensure that we're changing people's behavior, but we also want to be respectful of the current existing maintenance

operations and agreements with the rent boards, so we're going to continue that dialogue with the apartment association. but we do hear loud and clear that if you're a 400-unit building, and there's 27 tenants that's just not participating, and the account holder is the apartment building owner, it's hard to really -- if it's just going to happen on-site, how are we going to change the behavior of those tenants? and so i -- we want to be more creative and continue those conversations. >> supervisor kim: so that's not being determined here. i don't have a particular position on it. i understand the importance of compliance, and i want people to comply, and i also don't want to push our tenants who are already feeling the weight of the rent crisis here in san francisco, and would also in the future love to hear a little bit about how this will affect our 100% affordable housing and s.r.o. operators. it seems like it will have minimal impact, but it would be

nice to know. the ordinance just lays out one staff memory br or more if the department of environment requires it, but if one client, for example, tenderloin housing, only has one building that needs to comply, it's not necessary that they'll need to hire a sorter to help in that building. i could see in some cases where that will not, and so i just don't want to burden our nonprofit organizations if it's only one building out of 30 in their portfolio, so if that discussion can continue. and finally, i'll just say while i'm concerned that our output of trash in our landfill is going up, i also understand our population has grown since 2012, and so you know that has to get weighted. of course, regardless of population growth, we should be reducing our landfill, but i think it's important that as we

set goals, we also take into account a growing city. but i appreciate all the work the department of environment has done with this along with recology. i really look forward to us updating this part of the code and appreciate the additional time that we get to ask these questions and have this discussion with all of our stakeholders. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. just to reiterate a couple of comments. to the extent that we can do as much as possible on the front end to eliminate or at least significantly reduce the number of plastic bags, single use plastic ware, like food ware, all of that will also help for goals that we already have on this end, as well. so supervisor safai, given all the amendments, would you like to make a motion for the amendments first and then send it over to budget committee? >> supervisor safai: yes. so if we can make a motion to accept the amendments as

discussed today. >> supervisor tang: we can do that without objection? >> supervisor safai: great. >> supervisor tang: okay. we'll do that without objection [ gavel ]. >> supervisor safai: and we can make a motion to send this over to the budget committee. >> supervisor tang: without objection? >> supervisor safai: without objection. i just want to thank everyone for their hard work and coming out on this. >> supervisor tang: okay. madam clerk, item 6, please. >> item 6 is how wee wee drive you and hallcon transportation is in compliance with the union. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes. thank you, supervisor chair tang. it has been brought to our attention that a tentative agreement has been reached in these discussions, so we're going to ask this matter to be continued for one week to allow for the ratification of that agreement, but we want to allow the folks to have an opportunity to speak public comment. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you. so if there are no questions or

comments at this time, we'll open up item six to public comment. >> thank you, supervisors. my name's dennis todd. i'm the principal of teamsters local 853. i want to thank hallcon and you for looking at this so intently. we had reached a tentative agreement. we were in federal mediation last week, and the federal mediator did his job and brought us back to the table. the members will be voting on the 22, and once again, i thank you for all your attention on this important issue. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm tim wayland, chief operating officer, and i concur with dennis's comments. we did resolve this, and look forward to a positive

resolution next saturday. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> eric weiss. we together are working with the union and wedriveu to get this going with the ratification. so we look forward to the week off. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public would wish to comment on item six? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: continue for a week. >> supervisor tang: we'll continue this for a week. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk, call the next item, please. >> there's no further business. >> supervisor tang: okay. we're adjourned. great. women's network for a

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more

than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have

areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play

so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends

and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.or >> i personally love the mega jobs. i think they're a lot of fun. i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪

we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water

marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work

together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to

network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can

excel and do whatever you want. just put your mind into it.

[pledge of allegiance] >> clerk: this is a reminder to silence all electronic device