demonstrates our commitment to reducing our pesticide use. over the past number of years, we've continued -- [ please stand by ] ... passed the exam, so they're now qualified. and this really has helped them i think understand and request

less frequently support from our ipm program in the form of herbicides and they are more engaged in looking for other solutions. we're trying to be creative in our approach. so the budget initiative in this year included a goat herd to help us maintain steep and difficult areas without the need of use of pesticides. we're not kewell actually going to have our own goats, even though i wanted to change careers and be a goat herder. we have goats on retainer. one of the achievements that is the least colorful or perhaps interesting, is probably the most substantive. our building design and construction division added an ipm specialtyification that will

ensure that every building have consideration. and we've been actively working with the department of the environment on the designing pests out of landscapes guidelines, which for me is, i think, so essential to helping reduce the need for our team to rely on herbicides and pesticides. additionally, we have a strategic initiative that will ensure that our specialist is consulted and able to weigh in on the designs early in the design process. not once it's too late to make changes. so we are requiring review by our team at 35, 65 and 95% of the design, which should also help ensure that the ipm considerations are looked at early on. and so i think the last graph shows clearly our commitment to

the most minimal use of herbicides and pesticides. i want to give credit to nickie who you've heard from in the past, our senior ipm specialist and has led the charge to achieve these really remarkable results given the additional work that we have and areas of maintenance we've inherited. thank you. >> thank you, carla. i'd like to ask lisa wayne from the department of recreation and parks to come up. >> well, while he's working on that, in the interest of time, i'll go ahead and get started. good evening, commissioners and

director. my name is lisa, i have the ipm natural resources urban trails and regulatory divisions under my purview. this is when we show you the slide of the graph of our reductions in our department of which we are very, very proud. thank you for that validation there. [laughter] let's try to see it. there we go. as i said, we're very proud, not to say we're done working, but very proud of this. so how have we as a department gotten to this point of reduction? well, of course, first and foremost is always our initial treatment for weeds.

landscape issues is hand removal. we've had in 2016-17, 90,000 hours. we have the apprenticeship program, this is the first of its kind in the nation and we're very, very proud of those programs. and we've, as carla and chris have talked about, we've also had a very robust involvement in the bay friendly landscaping program. about 200 of our landscaping staff have been trained and that represents 75% overall of the landscape operations unit to date that participates in these trainings. we have annual trainings and the bay friendly and all the strategies are also rolled up into our strategic plan for our recreation and park department. we very much are committed to them.

other ways that we have looked at reducing our overall pesticide use in our tier 1 use is the alternative strategies, we have used goats in the past. on the left-hand side is a flamer, usage of flamer along pathways. and on the right-hand side are design alternatives. and carla alluded to this as well, being able to design in pest prevention from the get-go is helpful. this had been a field line that was -- just had weeds growing up through it, grasses climbing up the fence. it looked terrible. it was interfering with play. it was catching trash. everything else. and we went in and took out the lawn in that area and put in decomposed granite which has prevented the pest weeds from coming up through the fence.

we've also used new ipm strategies in a wholistic way. there are many, many of these examples, but i'm going to hone in on the lakes on the golden gate park. on the left-hand side is a piece of equipment that is removing the aquatic floating vegetation that chokes out the open-water areas. so it reduces water quality. it reduces the cultural value of the park -- of the ponds and the lake. it reduces the wildlife habitat and has esthetic impacts. we're able to remove 95% of the aquatic weeds in the lakes. that final 5%, because they're entwined in the surrounding vegetation or deeply rooted in the bottom of the lake, are very, very difficult. you see on the right-hand side, some of our staff following up

in actually a pretty dangerous situation, walking out into that mucky lake bottom with waders. you can easily get trapped. so we've followed up the final 5% by doing hand removal. on the left-hand side, you'll see what happens with all of that done, you do have some spots where that invasive aquatic weed will come back. and in this case, in the lakes, we've been able to completely remove all tier 1 use of herbicides and in limited situations, are use tier 2 or tier 3 or the spots we can't do with mechanical removal or hand removal follow-up. again, this is a good example of what we're doing in many places

throughout the park system, employing these ipm strategies. eliminating tier one use, eliminating roundup and the amount of tier 2 and tier 3 herbicides we're employing. as chris mentioned, there are still a few persistent pest problems that remain a challenge for us. we talked a lot in previous meetings about the affects on biodiversity in grasslands, but for those of you who haven't been along with us on the full ride. it's a plant that threatens the biological diversity. this is a picture from twin peaks. this plant community is host to an endangered butterfly that is found only here in the golden gate area of the world.

o al is not something you can control by hand. and it actually encourages the spread of the plant. tier 2 and 3 products are not effective on the plant. not only that, they can affect the surrounding vegetation. so we continue to use for this stubborn pest plant in order to preserve the biological diversity for the species and the heritage, we continue to use spot treatment of tier 1 herbicides in this case. so can see the blue dye on the right-hand side is an example of a spot treatment of plants in a grassland area. and finally, just one more

example. the landscape. this is actually the park right out here by civic center, jefferson. on the left-hand side -- let me go back here -- on the left-hand side, you'll see a mixture of grasses, the light green and the dark green. the dark green lumpy grass is agnomo grass. this is in the spirit of sustainable landscaping, we've been converting our grass, our grass areas to this grass because it's more sustainable. you don't have to mow it. it doesn't require much fertilizer. the mowing reduces our carbon footprint. it requires less water. it is the landscaping. on the left-hand side, the lime green plant is kikuyu grass. and on the right-hand side -- let me see if i can go back here -- you can see it grows

into artificial turf areas into pathways and actually destroys our other infrastructure, our hard scapes and our other assets. so on the left-hand side, you can see a mechanical removal of the kikuyu grass. and what we've had to do in this case, the only option is another tier 1 grass, so when that grass comes back into the area.

so the first line of defense is hand removal or mechanical. in those places where it's not effective, in the final 5%, we employ herbicides. in this case, we don't have an alternative we can use here that won't negatively affect the grass that is the sustainable landscape character skks. again, that's a brief view through the whole department. you know, we are working on this problem actively with our ipm unit. throughout our entire system, whether it's golf courses, natural resource areas, parks and squares, our rec centres, we're very, very committed as a department. we're very happy about the reduction, but we're going to continue to try to work toward this further elimination of

those tier 1 uses and our reductions overall. thank you for your attention. and i'm here for questions. thank you. >> president bermejo: thank you. sorry, this is not my version of windows. so. [laughter] ok. i'm going to load you through the changes we're proposing to the pesticide list. since last year's. and here we go. recommended changes. so as a reminder, the restrictions that the commission

put in place last year were on tier 1 herbicides and they're listed here. no use within 15 feet of designated paths. more specific on public notice, someone wandering through the park will know exactly where something is intended to be treated. if they happen to stumble upon that, which they probably won't. blue indicator dyes to show where treatments have taken place. prohibition on use when berries are present. no use for purely cosmetic purposes, which is a challenging one, because you have to define cosmetic purpose. no areas frequented by children. which we have not done for many years. contractor training to make sure there are no surprises when there is a landscape contractor employed to do renovation for example. and maybe one of the more difficult once, requiring direct supervision by a certified am --

amly cater when a tier 1 product is used. most of these were put in as a result of the commission request or the public comment. the ones that you see in red here were put in there at your request, or by the request of the public. so i just say that to show, we really are listening. we're listening to the public, listening to the commission and listening to the people who have the boots on the ground and know the situation. this year, we also actually in response to some public comment, we are proposing to expand some of these restrictions to all herbicides, so the ones listed here, that is the public notice, the indicator dyes, no use on edible berries when berries are present and the contractor training, we think it makes very good sense to expand those to

all herbicides going into the future. and we have discussed these with the working group, with other departments. we have a new prohibition on using herbicides on green roofs and green walls. this is a new thing for us. we've never gone here before. and it's a new thing for many people, for people who have these structures, trying to learn how to best manage these things. we want to -- because it is in such close proximity to people living and working, we feel that we should start with zero. and if there is some situation that comes up, we want to have a discussion about it and try to do some problem-solving. so it's prohibition. and then maybe a more subtle change is tightening up the format of the restrictions. previously they were formatted in the form of prohibitions and then allowed uses/exceptions.

this caused confusion for some readers. and for example, we require this very specific posting for a tier 1 herbicide in one part of the restrictions and another part of the restrictions from last year, it said that treating for invasive species, threatening biodiversity was exempted. so it becomes confusing for the user over the list. and of course was not our intention to make that an exemption, but we wanted to make this crystal clear for the people using it. and then for the actual products that are being added and removed from the product list. there are no big surprises here. we are adding two tier 1 products, but those are boric acid ant baits.

the reason for that, ants change their appetite. we need lots of different formulations available. it's all the same active ingredient and it becomes cumbersome to add every product on the list when we're trying to regulate the boric acid. and smoke bombs for rats. we're still waiting for the dry ice product which has been registered to be available here. and when that is available, we will not have to use smoke bombs for rat boroughs, but we still need something. you see a summary of the changes. i won't read through all of it. on your list, they're color coded green for added, red for removed, and yellow for any changes in language. and the changes in language are almost all -- product name

changes, number changes, very minor sorts of things. so that is my presentation. thank you very much for your attention on this. i really want to thank our partners from the other departments for all the amazing work they do. they're the ones that make this all happen. and here with us tonight to tell a story. >> thank you, chris, for the presentation presentation >> commissioner wan: thank you, chris. thank you, lisa, thank you, carla. aren't we supposed to have public comment first? i should go? ok. nobody likes pesticides or herbicides. nobody likes to use them, but to see they have been used or to know that they have been used, i

personally would really love it if the city of san francisco never used any of these products, but as we've heard tonight and as the committee has heard in detail in the two meetings that we devoted to this topic, sometimes the use of these products is necessary. sometimes it's necessary for the protection of public health, as chris alluded to. and on other occasions, it is necessary to achieve other city goals and to implement other city programs as we've heard tonight. what i think is really important, and what is really clear, to me at least, the result of the meeting that the

policy committee had earlier this year, is that change in how these products are being used is really happening here in san francisco on the ground. and not just little changes, or changes over here. but lots and lots of very important changes. one of the biggest changes is in pesticide use. and use in particular of glyphosate as we've heard tonight. there has been a 75 -- i hope i got the numbers right -- you went past them quickly -- there has been ate% reduction since 2015 when it was first designated as a possible carcinogen and 88% reduction since 2010. i think of these changes as a

testament to the commitment of the city and its departments to the precautionary principle, and to the ipm prted ram, and to th work of this deparhangeent led chris geiger. it is because of these changes that i feel confident in supporting this year's reduced risk pesticide list. i have to ity i feel more confident than i have in the past years. and because of that degree of co riidence, i urge you all to approve the list this year. thank you.

>> i have two-- yuestions for y chris. one is really quick. is that pesticide dashboard you reference, is that available to the public? >> yes, it's on the website. the pesticide -- >> the deparhangeent website? >> yes, you go to city or policymakers under ipm and look for trends. and there is a link there. >> great thank you. my last question maybe a little more hopeful. i think we often hear about the last 4% that we need to get to. we hear about zero waste. we have these last percentages we're trying to get to and those are pieces that are difficult and will require a technolted y shift or some new thing to come up. is there anything out there you soncid hopeful about? it sounds like the dry ice for the smoke bombs. when are we going to be able to ity, what is the sort of new technology that is out there that can give us some hope? >> i wish i had an easy answer

for that one. i guess all i can say, we're really exploring all the time. there are some -- some of the tier 2 products we've been piloting in the past three years have potential for specific situations, but none of them meet all the needs. and ma n of them -- some of them have some side effects we don't want. like staying in the groncid too long, you n usow. or affecting adjacent vegetation. so i don't have an easy answer for that, but i think if we can keep working on the prevention side of things, and the better landscape design part of things, that will make a big difference in the long run. >> i the gust achio want to rs e what commissioner wald said, i

believe strongly in the work that the deparhangeent is doing this front. >> any other comments, commissioners? >> centat > commissihoyos: i thank you for your presentation, all three of you and the improvements you're making. i had two questions. one is i read that tier 2 alternatives to , and over the course of the last few years, i know that glyphosate -- excuse me that the thing when the public has come to testifice f

they're seemingly most worried about, so i'm wondering, what is the pathwnsw if you will to reducing that use, what have been your successes? just a little more on that point. >> o > it's also called clear cast, that's the name of the product, it's extremely low toxicity. it's little less persistent than glyphosate, so if the that gre it in a natural setting, it will be unvegetated sort of space for a while, that is longer than the ne.esouigne mans longer than the we ers would want, because it lets seeds come in and sprout that they mnsw not want there. but for many situations, it's the least toxic alternative. it's similar to amazzu to.o pee

which is achio on the list. so that's one reason we're exploring that. it is also -- that was extensively reviewed as part of the project for the bay. they were loosenng for things they could actually use on water that would not disrupt aquatic systems and that was the only one that passed on that one. for the garland question, the reason that garland is still used in those parti ,lar situations, lisa can better address you, it doesn't affect grasses.

statement they are products. and it is used in the grass.

that is what we have been using on that. does not affect cool season grasses. it affects the other grass which is a warm season grass. this is why we use it. it does not harm the red fescue. and a similar kind of evaluation when it comes to garland. it does not affect the surrounding vegetation. there are some tier two and tier three products that have persistent -- you don't want to harm. it may be an oak tree. you do not want to apply that on the poison oak and that it may affect the tree you are trying to preserve they are really -- it is a really strategic product unfortunately, we just have not been able to find any alternatives. but we continue to look. >> thank you.

i guess the last follow-up is quick. i do want to thank the fellow commissioners on the policy committee for all the work you have been doing. i have listened to the recordings. thank you, anthony. the last question is, of that 4% , what% of the 4% tier ones are garland and fescue? >> i can tell you in a moment. >> and are those the ones you think are the most pernicious among the tier one that you are concerned about. of the whole fleet, as you will, up to your ones, to those remained the ones, the public and you will, are most concerned out? >> those are the only two tier

one herbicides in our sights. >> that would make up all of the 4%? >> yes. let me see if i have this easy comparison. i don't have it broken down by percentage, but i can tell you that out of the 1.8 gallons, 1.5 of that was that. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> if there are no other questions from commissioners, we will take the motion. do we have a most -- we will have a mocha -- motion seconded and then we will have public comment. the motion is to make a motion to approve resolution file 2018- 07-co e. adopting the 2018 reduced risk pesticide list. >> i move.

>> moved and seconded. all in favour of this move? i'm sorry, discussion. moving right along. is there any public comment? >> there are two of them. >> is there anybody else? we have cards. you can just step forward to. and the first speaker is bob hall. welcome. >> thanks. the parks are threatening to convert our natural areas into biodiversity barons. biodiversity, i'm talking about the bees and the bugs on the butterflies and the birds, their key indicators of a healthy ecosystem. our local native plants are the foundation of that healthy ecosystem. they are the ecological basis upon which life depends. without native plants and the insects that coevolved with them

, local birds cannot survive the exotic weeds in our natural areas not only sever the food web, but many have become invasive pest, out competing native species integrating habitat in the remaining natural areas. they have no natural predators. they can sweat out and soak up the sun and produce mass quantities of seeds. to wildlife, just any plant won't do. and just any plant from around the world likely will not sustain them. they need the plants they evolved with. take a walk in the parks and look around at what is happening the city needs an environmental movement to protect the parks. we need thousands of volunteers helping the park gardeners a block away at invasive radish, mustard, harry dandelion, french a broom, sheep sorrow, and many more. until we see that a wonderful wave of volunteerism sprouts up,

i will continue to support the small-scale use of herbicides by highly trained project -- professionals who follow the integrated pest management guidelines. what about residential use? i can go to lowes or kohl's and buy a gallon myself and spray it without any regulation at all. getting this down to 2 gallons is pretty amazing compared to what residents are using. thank you. >> thank you. our next speaker is mary ellen hammond. i am sorry if i mispronounced. it is mary ellen hannibal and i am an environmental journalist. my most recent book is called citizen scientist searching for heroes and hope in an age of extinction and the volunteers that we do have, thousands of

volunteers in the city, removing invasive plants and planting native plants, are citizen scientists and heroes. and what we are doing is protecting native ecosystems here in san francisco. and just to tap back to the first part of the meeting tonight to the climate summit, and all of the huge herculean things that we will have to do to mitigate climate change, one of the most important things is something we are already doing, which is supporting the native ecosystems. as the climate bears down on us, our first defence is the healthy and resilient ecosystem. we need to do everything we can, as bob explained, to keep those native plants in the ground and have the relationship with those butterflies that are endangered, at all of the birds and small mammals and reptiles and amphibians, et cetera that use them. i too look to the day when we can eliminate that site

altogether. it does worry me. it is a moment and in the way that the city uses it, i think it is the most responsible solution right now. i hope that you will pass this list. thank you. >> thank you, ms. miss hannibal. any other public comment? welcome. >> hi. my name is rachel and i am coming here today, as a resident and park user and having previously worked for the city in the recreation and parks departments. i left in 2015 when the concern became more public and more -- became more public concern that these meetings and others around the use of the pesticide. when i was at the recreation and parks department, i learned a lot about pesticide use and a lot of the trade-offs that lisa

was just explaining and that chris was explaining around things like persistence and selectivity, when we use these products, when we are doing things like containment versus striving driving for something like eradication or control, and i am here as someone who supports all the city agencies. i participated in some of the round table around to round up and i am really impressed with the focused attention end of the policy committee and that this commission have put on the use of the pesticide within the city and the changes that have been made around things like the caveats on the list. not just the list itself but the way that we use the product on the list. and as a land management professional, i think that the city, as a whole, is headed in a great direction and that guidance at even the public focus on these issues have made us better at our job. i really encourage you to adopt this list this year and i appreciate your time. >> thank you. commissioners, any other comments?

i want to say that i agree with you holt -- wholeheartedly, and oh, yes, and jake. [laughter] you snuck up on me. >> i supports -- >> can you give your full name for the record? >> jake sayegh. -- sigg. i do support the motion but i do have one concern. and, you know, the city now has a biodiversity policy. it has a biodiversity staff. it recently, it is high on the agenda of climate. and yet, we are not protecting the highest biodiversity in the city, which is our grasslands.

they are on the decline. i have been helping to manage them as a volunteer ever since 1988. that is 29, 30 years. and there are many, many fewer species now. some of the species have gone out in given areas. much more invasive plants. and yet, we are very shortstaffed with natural resource specialists. there are six gardeners and unfortunately, there is only only really about four with all the other problems. and they are really motivated people. i i'm really proud of the staff. but they are distressed by the fact that they can't keep up with the work and they know that

if they can't get this project, excuse me, and a very short time , they will miss a whole year. they will have to wait another year. in the meantime, losing a lot. i asked randy's a bell -- about the restrictions put on tier one if that was a problem. and he said the increased requirements for using tier one herbicides within 15 feet of trails agreed to apply -- deploy orange cones with area -- aerial signs with herbicidal applications when applying within 15 feet of trails. this will be very short. the cones and the signs are deployed and removed on the day of treatment. this can add hours and efforts per day to each treatment. this typically happens at parks like mount davidson when

applying oxalis. this has an increased requirement nudging us towards using tier two herbicides instead of tier one to avoid additional labour. current tier two herbicides have residual herb activity. it can be a good thing when treating the trail that will inhibit germination. this residual soil activity can be a bad thing when treating weeds in high diversity areas like when treating blackberry on mount davidson. so it is a problem. and i know it is in the legislation, but i don't think it ought to be looked at. we are not going to have adequate staff.

>> thank you. >> sorry for running over. >> any other comments? the resolution is resolution file 2018-07-co we. adopting the 2018 reduced risk pesticide list which has been moved by commissioner walsh and seconded by commissioner stevenson. is there anything else? are we ready to vote, commissioners? all in favour? >> aye. >> any opposed? any extension? the resolution is passed. thank you. anthony, the next item. >> the next item is item eight, director's report. the explanatory document as a director's report for discussion >> shall i start?

[laughter] >> i am just watching the procession of people leave. director raphael? >> thank you, president. i would like to say, that some of the comments that i heard tonight on this item very much hit home for me. i appreciate that discussion and i appreciate the commission tremendously. for my report cocked i want to talk about three legislative updates. you heard a lot about what the department has been working on. so i don't think we need to go into all of that. but you will recall, i hope, that this commission, and the city, passed an ordinance on flame retardants and children's products and that was something that was pushed very hard by this commission and taken up by then supervisor, farrell. what happened was assembly member bloom from santa monica picked up our ordinance and much

to our chagrin, took it forward to the state and it was passed and signed by governor brown. so it was actually a strong ban on the sale of products containing these toxics -- toxic flame retardants because it is upholstered furniture and juvenile products and mattresses it doesn't preempt our restrictions. but it complements them. so this is a wonderful example of what starts in san francisco doesn't stay in san francisco. and jan jackson's team will be looking at how it will impact the implementation. hopefully it lightens our load for implementation. because it will be a statewide requirement. there are two ordinances that will be worked on but have also come through here. one is the plastic and letter reduction ordinance back which

tackled single-use plastic items like straws, like stirrers, it has reuse requirements or reusable requirements for events , and it also bans fluorinated chemicals in food where products. there's a lot of elements to it. one of the areas that was a bit challenging for us to bring to a close and to understand is the impact on the disability community, with respect to plastic straws. so supervisor tang submitted a duplicate copy of the ordinance so that we could step back and work with the disability community to figure out what kind of language amendments we need to supports sufficient access for people who need plastic straws. so we have been working with the disability community and we have had two public meetings. they were fascinating for me to hear from people in the first person on what their needs are.

and to make the statement that they do not want to be ashamed because they need a plastic straw. for them it is a tool and not a convenience. i need to cough. so sorry. so because of that, we are working with the city attorney here to come up with alternative language which we will present to the disability community before it goes back to committee for those amendments. it has been a really important learning process for us and the rest of the country, frankly, is watching because other cities have not been able to find a solution to navigate the equal access issue. and so they will lead us down that path that we will be working with the disabled community to make sure that we meet people's needs. questions? >> i have a question about that.

>> can you turn on your -- >> more precisely but i ask a question about the state law because governor brown signed a state law banning plastic straws >> no. it was not a band. the state law is upon request. so it is straws, any kind of straw, including plastic straws that are ok but they are on request. >> so they don't need to make an accommodation for that? >> correct. that is exactly right. the second piece of legislation that we are working very closely with supervisor safai en is a zero waste facilitator legislation which was reintroduced. he has been talking on the impacts of large commercial accounts such as from apartment buildings to commercial buildings, to city departments. who are covered and would, could be mandated to a higher zero waste facilitator his if they

fail audits by reecology of their large compactors. this is an additional tool in our tool belts. we have rate tools. we have public education tools. but there are some businesses that will pay the increased charges and not come into compliance. they will think of it as the cost of doing business. this is a tried and true way. we have seen it helped large complex entities improve their recovery by assigning staff to work with tenants and to potentially sort material after the fact. so it is in committee and it is being -- it is going to the budget and oversight committee because it will affect city departments. we are working with city departments with the chamber of commerce and with the department association and the restaurant association, all the parties who have questions and curiosity and concern about this piece of

legislation. so it is where we are starting to say, ok, it is enough saying, please. we need to have more compliance tools if we are going to get 20 waste and certainly if we will meet our g. cast goal of reducing what goes to landfill by 50% by 2030. we are down 50% from when we started but we are starting to creep up again. if we would decrease another 50% , we need to have more tools that aren't always carrots. there will have to be some sticks. so that concludes my report. >> thank you, director raphael. any questions? >> i had a clarification question. so, to make sure i understood that, so are you saying that big companies or big businesses that can't or won't comply can pay a fee and things get reduced on the back end? i did not fully absorb that. >> no. what the law says is that

there's about 520 businesses at a business could be a large apartment building, that meet our criteria for size of waste generated. and they will get audited once every three years in the first three year period. if they fail that audit, meaning there is contamination in the black, the blue, or the green, then they will be required to hire a zero waste facilitator and they will get audited again to make sure that they are hiring sufficient help and that they are doing what they need to do to come into compliance. there is other mechanisms we have which are increased rates. if you are found to be -- have contamination, reecology can charge you more. they can get rid of a diversion discount that they give. so there are signals that we are

sending right now, financial signals to businesses making it cheaper to recycle and compost. but for some large commercial office spaces, they absorb that increased fee, increased charge for the refuse rates and they don't do anything. they just pay more. so we need an additional tool. if money will not speak, we need an additional tool to get their attention. >> at a quick follow-up. do we know from cafés and restaurants and such what the contamination rates are? recology -- particularly at the compost? >> that is a great question. we know in the black been system that there is generally 60% contamination, which means 60% of what is in the black bins should be in blue and green. in the compost, we have very clean compost. that actually is important because even a little bit of glass will devastate the load and make it unmarketable.

evergreen is actually very, very clean. it is not on any% base -- evergreen is actually very, very clean. it is not on any percentage base we need to make sure that performance stays clean. in terms of consequence of error , the consequence of error on the green is much higher in terms of marketability. >> thank you. >> commissioner sullivan? >> your comment about big business will be paying the cost to do business, and we are looking for additional tools. if money is not the right tool, what about shaming businesses greedy can we publicize the offenders and get some results that way? >> so glad there is another approach. shaming [-left-square-bracket. >> part of this ordinance is, in fact, that we can publicize a the list of people who are noncompliant. yeah,. what is important about that, is not -- one could say there is a shame element, but it is also a

way for the janitors who work in these commercial buildings to know when they're building is out of compliance so that they can come to the management and say, hey, let us help. hire more of us and make us zero waste facilitator his. we can save you money and we can help the environment. if they don't know, that there's no way for them to get involved. >> any other questions, commissioners create any public comment on this item? the director's report? >> hearing none cap next item, anthony. >> the next item is item nine, committee report, highlights of the august 62018 and in this december 17th, 2018 meeting. this item is for discussion. director raphael? >> when do we introduce new staff? >> i'm sorry. >> is that part of my director's

report? >> yes. >> my i have permission to continue my report? i'm sorry. that was my bad. we have a number of new staff and they are here. they would like to come forward and introduce themselves to you, if that is ok. would all of you knew people who are new to a commission meeting or new, come line up and tell us who you are and where you come from and what you are doing now. welcome. >> all women. just three. >> ok. i wrote mine down because i forget, even though it is who i am. my name is parris smith at i grew up in northern virginia and i am a recent college graduate from james madison university in virginia. i spent all of my time over there. i graduated with a bachelor of

science degree in innovative science and technology and i had a concentration in sustainable environmental studies. i am a civic spark fellow or a climate fellow that has been placed with the climate team for the next 11 months. and civic spark fellow his focus on building local government capacity to address community resilience issues. i will mainly be working with a climate team to conduct san francisco's 2017 community and municipal greenhouse gas emissions inventory and along the way i will be helping improve that process as well. >> thank you. >> hello, everyone. i am betty chung. i'm originally from san francisco. i went out of state for college for four years in pennsylvania and they decided to come back. i did environmental education at s.f. public schools for a year and i am working now on the green business team. i am going to help recruit businesses and do phone call

cetaceans, health plan panel events -- phone consultations, and help plan panel events. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is nancy. a year ago i introduced myself to the current commission. as a member of the environment now outreach team at the department of environment. i'm introducing myself today in a new position as a transportation associate. i am still in the outreach team and i'm very excited to see what duties i have ahead of me. thank you. >> congratulations. >> hello, my name is marion. i moved up here from southern california at a recently graduated from san francisco state university with a degree in environmental studies, a concentration in sustainability and social justice and my second degree in labour studies.

i work for the school education team and we work with k-12 public and private school in the city. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is samantha quan. i'm from sacramento. i am coming from san francisco state. i studied environmental sustainability and social justice as well. and i will be on the environmental school education team. >> thank you. >> good evening, everyone. my name is annie wong. i was born and raised in san francisco. i studied at the university of california, santa cruz in sociology. i was recently working with the community centre as a liaison. i am now part of the school education team as well.

the environmental education aid. thank you. >> welcome all of you and let's have a warm hand. [applause] >> thank you. >> without objection, may we returned to item nine? >> yes. >> thank you. item nine is committee reports. highlights of the august 6, 2018 and september 17th, 2018 policy committee meeting. >> thank you. at the august sixth policy committee meeting, we had a really -- that was a deep dive into everything that is going on with regard to pesticide use, but also, the entire ipm program we have talked about the pesticide stop when i want to say, it was at that meeting that i really realized what a very

small part of everybody's worked at the pesticide work is. which had a deep impression on me. we only think about the pesticide part, but in fact, it is, as i said, a small part of the ongoing programs and learning about those programs. it is really fascinating. on september 17th, we address the pesticide program and we approved the resolution that you all approved earlier tonight. we also heard a presentation from jesse and troy on the 2017 greenup report, what you all approved earlier tonight, as well. that is it. >> commissioners, any questions? is there any public comment? next item, anthony. >> the next item is