>> cool, thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i want to show you a summary. of the properties that are covered by the proposed ordinance. >> i thank you can adjust that so you get more height and it will give you a better view. >> so what we have is either rolloff compactor, and you start at 10 cubic yards, or those who have 30 cubic yards or more weekly. refuse means trash, composting and recycling combined. so we have hundred 43 office buildings. is also another six federal estate office buildings. there are 54 hotels. 128 apartment buildings or

residential properties, some of the office buildings are mixed and then there is mixed malls, retails, restaurants, 132 of those and then we've got a couple school properties. a few universities and colleges. a number of hospitals. a couple churches and food pantries and museums. those total 54. then we have some large convention facilities, stadiums, ferries, that is 14. a couple of industrial sites and 15 city properties. the total is 548. as of our latest data on the level of service. >> so, just so i can -- so i can scale it, a standard refuse band , what percentage of a yard or how many yards as that? >> for a typical small business, if it is a wheeled cart, those

come in three sizes. thirty-two, 64 and 96 gallons. there's 202 gallons per cubic yard. so pretty much any account that has a will will be well below 3. if you have -- even if you have 96, let's say you have six 96 ones, that would be 15. you are only halfway to the 30. >> ok. >> it would be unusual account with many large wheeled carts to get close to 30. >> what size restaurant would have that much? >> there are -- >> not many. >> not many. there are some really busy ones. some restaurants have compactors when you compact, the calculation is multiplied by three because you get a 3-1 compaction ratio. so even though small compactors

are called a front loader, it was picked up by a rock truck, that may even be 3 cubic yards. but because you are squeezing it , you have 9 cubic yards. if that is nine times five, if you are getting that picked up every day, now you cross the 30- yard line. >> unless i am wrong, very few small businesses would be affected. >> very few. i have a list from the director and she listed 12 that she was aware of. i don't actually know your definition of small business. when i look at them, i am thinking they look really big to me. but we have -- we have identified 12 so far that would be considered small. may be there is a few more. >> there are small but then there are some that are neighbourhood serving businesses there are, there are

neighbourhood grocers. those are some of them that are definitely impacted by the ordinance. >> some of those stores and of generating a lot. >> and then the restaurant association has identified some as well of their members who are impacted. >> if you go to those grocers, they are separating everything. i see it. there are big buildings downtown that are league certified. i work in the transamerica building. we have to separate everything in our office. we have green and blue and we have the black. they are taking away all of our black stuff and everything has to go into the blue and in the green in our offices. >> this is where san francisco is a world leader and we have these three stream separation programs without other properties in the city.

over 99% of every property we have verified has the service that they need. the issue is that a lot of times , the separation is poor. when we look at what is coming into the trash drains citywide, 60% should not be going in the black containers but in the blue and green. that is what this ordinance addresses. we have the infrastructure and we have the best infrastructure virtually anywhere. and there just needs to be a little bit of a step up in the improvement. we work with properties all the time, all around the city providing a lot of assistance, training, making sure they are system efficient. this is if a property gets to a point with all the assistance that we give them, that they can't quite separate adequately. there is a tolerance for contamination. but if it is so bad that the material can't be marketed, or we are losing a major portion of it, then they would be

considered out of compliance. right now, opportunities where they can be assessed extra colleges -- extra charges through ecology. there are few really large properties where they may be managed by some company outside, waste management, that does their billing. they are paying these extra charges to ecology indefinitely. instead of charging indefinitely , it would be better if they would hire someone to help them improve their performance. and then we get the benefit of having that separation and that recovery and moving towards zero waste with all those environmental benefits. that is why -- there are 80 plus properties that we have identified that we have hired what we called the zero waste facilitators to help with the extra management sorting. in those cases, they have done it so they can improve their

diversion right or recovery right where they get a discount, and now the rate structure is such that you can go all the way towards 100% and get additional discounts. if you are at 15 and you go to 75, for these type of properties , you're talking about thousands of dollars of savings per month. there is a big benefit there. if they were doing poorly and they felt an audit, those to be thousands of dollars a month. those are two ways that having this service can save and that those 80 properties that are hiring facilitators and doing so for economic reasons. >> commissioner dwight? >> have you quantified what percentage of the problem this 60% of unseparated waste is actually going to be addressed? >> the problem is, it is across all the sectors. if you go -- single family

residences do well. but if you -- we are certainly seeing it in the apartment sector. you may have noticed we have 128 apartment buildings that are included in this. it is in all sectors. when we think about having somebody take an extra step of hiring somebody, it doesn't make sense for it to be small. the idea was not to include small entities. and by defining this, you are automatically really big if you have rolloff. or 30 cubic yards. that was looking at a universe where we would be below 600 out of over 6,000 commercial accounts. so we were looking at less than ten% going for the largest for the bigger bang for the buck. >> i'm curious if this ten%, if you can clean up their act, does its address ten% of the problem?

>> is a good question. >> it is important to assess the active -- efficacy of this. if you're successful, what did you want to accomplish? >> because these are larger generators and these are much larger than the average generator by several times, it will be a lot more than that ten %. >> the one thing i like about this, at least you included federal and state buildings. >> we do not want them off the hook. nor do we want city agencies off the hook. >> any other questions? do we want to open up to public comment? >> no. >> do you have any more presentation? >> well, we could elaborate more on the refuse rates. i gave you a nutshell about the

essence of that savings. if you don't have more questions on that, i think i've covered the key message i wanted to get to you. >> thank you. i want to open it up to public comment right now. are there any members of the public who would like to make comment on this? come on up. >> thank you for taking the time we own our building in the tender line which is relatively unique for a nonprofit. we have a nonprofit in our building also doing work for the community and for the city contracts. so the only thing i want to speak toward and to remind as part of this legislation, is that sometimes there are nonprofits that are actually stuck in the same bucket as something that is considered large. i was looking at the stats as they were broken out and churches and -- i encourage us

to make sure that we are taking a look at the nonprofits as part of the overall picture. we take it seriously and we have facility staff that we do higher to make sure they get trained. and f.t.e. at at&t stadium and an f.t.e. in the tender line for a nonprofit or not the same thing. i just want to respectfully -- it sounds a good work is going into this. we know that the nonprofit community take screen resources very seriously on it. i want to put it out there that we are remembering that sometimes that small businesses like nonprofits are affected by this kind of legislation. i want to make that as part of the record. >> great. thank you. you have solar panels on your roof. >> yes, we do. >> any other public comment? come on up.

>> good afternoon, commissioners commissioners. i am with the restaurant association and i'm here to speak on behalf of the restaurants that are being affected by this legislation. we were also very surprised to learn that we had restaurants fell into this classification of a large refuse generator. we work with the recology and we have identified 17 of our members that fall into this bucket. and businesses represented today they'll speak to you about their own experiences. but honestly, as you can see from the stats that they were bringing -- given, this legislation covers a lot of different types of businesses and our restaurants are truly small businesses and we are happy to provide a list of them to you as well. we work with recology so often in the restaurant community. we have had a great relationship with recology prior to this legislation even coming forward to work on the audit process, and contamination as a whole other issue that we work regularly with as it comes with a lot of fines and at the end of

the day, we don't want to pay those fines. we are very diligent on separation and things like that. regardless of what happens overnight to their bins. if this legislation comes forward to, we have a few amendments we are requesting. one of them being that the warning. to be established is a 60 day to comply and to do the additional fines or the serial waste facilitator but we feel there is an additional need to have a warning so that the restaurant or small business could figure out a way to comply or fall out of the allergy category. we also have issues with the zero waste facilitator. you are required to hire someone who can will of the business -- they are facing such a labor crisis that we cannot work let alone add someone to work with us for 24 months minimum. it is not feasible. it is not something -- it is something we have issue with and we hope there is language that could be adjusted at that

requirement or that sole role exclusive possession. that restaurants should be required to hire. we wanted to get more time -- to supervise or possess office has been great to extend it for july as it was written for january 1 st. we are asking for more time. we are requesting a january 1st , 2020 date. thank you, so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with the s.f. market. we are a proud legacy business. we thank you for the support of that program. the market in richards had been really engaged in deeply committed to zero waste for a long time. in 1996, we worked with jack and his team. we were the pilot project for composting before it started to roll out to residents and businesses. we are very proud of that. our food recovery program is out on the market every day. we hit over 1 million pounds of fresh produce that we share with community members on a regular

basis. we are very committed to this pick what i wanted to do is share with you to the question of what does a large generator look like? in our case, a large generator is someone who employs 16 people that gives you an idea for us of what a large generator looks like. as has been pointed out earlier, we are totally supportive of zero waste, but not every business is the same. not every industry is the same. and we find that the market and the existing tools that work that are in place and we find -- or the higher rates work perk . perhaps the need to be put into effect more often or earlier. perhaps they need to be more follow-up. we see what our merchants are -- our rates have doubled. we would suggest and encourage that perhaps use more often, more effectively and it is a way to continue to get 20 waste.

the other point is getting at -- as you have heard from the others, hiring a full-time person for these sorts of businesses to work exclusively on one item is not necessarily a way the environment and these businesses work. there are very few businesses at the market where someone puts this job is to do one thing and one thing only. so to put aside the dollar cost to it, the operation cost is another issue. other employees will ask why is that person only doing one thing when i am doing several? we appreciate the opportunity to share some of our perspective on potential impacts at the market. we share the thoughts from the supervisors and the willingness to work with us and work with the industry. we really appreciate the time to be here today to share our perspective. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am -- i believe that our

restaurants do fall into the large category. i will say this. we are not in a position as restaurants, with margins as thin as they are, to just throw trash in and accept additional fees. we are really good about working with recology on training and on being able to satisfy the requirements. so we have recology come in and we have them train our new staff we have posters up. we actually do have a couple of different people. one in each restaurant that does oversee our trash separation. but to have a dedicated person, that their sole responsibility is to look over the separation of refuge is a real economic hardship to a restaurant. and i think that it's difficult

to justify a punitive action like that without warning. there are times where we have gotten fines from recology because we have had five pieces of tinfoil in the band that wasn't supposed to have it. so, the ordinance, as it is, is a little unclear to me. and i just want to recognize that in addition to the restaurant association, which i echo all their sentiments, we do , as an industry really try to do our best to comply with the separation. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners.

the reference to larger refuse generator is conveys a perception that it will only apply to the largest building is , and businesses in the city. with certain small businesses are also a large e. including some restaurants and neighborhood commercial corridors. and some retailers. allergy defines as having a rolloff compactor and/or generating at least 30 cubic yards of waste per week. some small businesses can produce the latter. the project markets comprises dozens of individual small businesses. while they do a great job of sorting wasted there is no guarantee -- in order to have full-time waste facilitator his as well as pay fines. small business our restaurants and nonprofits may not be able to afford having full-time waste facilitator his. restaurants, especially are hard-pressed to find the stuff i need to stay open.

if they will hire someone, especially full-time, it will be a cook or a dishwasher. we rarely do businesses, especially small businesses. they hire staff exclusively to do one thing. everyone wears many hats. this legislation requires hiring or designating a full-time waste facilitator who is exclusive to that task. there will be a part-time person who wants more hours, and they would not be able to give them additional hours for waste facilitation because they have to be exclusively waste facilitator his. there is only been talk only of allowing part-time waste facilitator his but they would still have to be only that. so let's -- this point applies in this case. this goes against policy passed by the board of supervisors to encourage existing part-time employees more hours or bringing them up to full time before

hiring outside applicants. thank you. >> any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner dwight. >> i agree that this full-time employee requirement is onerous. it is onerous not only for small businesses but medium-size businesses and i agree with the assessment being a small business owner myself that having anyone do one thing in a company is very unusual. as a matter of fact, the sounds to me like a part-time skill and responsibility and part-time skills and responsibilities are often the realm of consultant his. i could see having a company hiring a consultant to assist them. if i understand it properly, this is a penalty for noncompliance. is that correct? it is not a requirement that they have to have this person on staff. they have to get one if they are

in noncompliance? so it is really a form -- it is part of the penalty clause. >> it is not necessary to have all these -- again, you are also -- once you are served with a notice, you have a 50 day window to provide, in writing, to the department of environment, the route you would like to take you can hire a serial waste facilitator, or you can appeal. >> another complication is anyone hiring anyone in 30-60 days is virtually impossible. you put yourself in a situation where you will be immediately noncompliance a penalty. so we need to look at the practical realities when we are crafting this legislation and modifying it if we are going to keep this stuff in there peerk

because it is not just -- we have to face the realities of not hiring in san francisco but in the bay area. i think it would be far more efficacious to ski train someone in the organization who is already there or hire a consultant. we can start a whole new industry of consultants for waste compliance. a sounds to me like the restaurant sector is already heavily engaged with recology. and make sense. they have a refuse stream that readily goes to composting. most of it, probably. and it makes sense that they would already be heavily engaged i would think that very few of them would fall into a compliance situation that couldn't be remedied was temporary. we all have to face the fact that people go into our dumpsters when we are not in attendance. mine, especially. i have to clean up every morning when i have only put out garbage once a week. my first job coming in after the garbage has been out is to clean

up all the garbage that has been strewn about spy people dumpster diving for fabric samples. in my waste stream. i can imagine, depending on your waste stream and what people seem to think it's valuable, you will have the same situation and then you get cross-contamination in your bins. i think we also have to have some leeway for that as well. sometimes we just don't control what happens between the time we put the garbage out on the time it gets collected. >> right. just some backdrop to why this is written as someone who is full-time, this ordinance is revisiting the initial 2009 ordinance. folks have already had ten years to be in compliance and sorts there are different ways to stream. it is not that it is out of the blue or that it is landing on people process lapse. i want to make it clear. this is just amending an existing ordinance that was drafted in 2,009 that said you

have to make sure that you are diverging your waste stream. and back then it was what we called the green janitors. the supervisor revisited this legislation. he was part of the 2009 conversations where this was created and we are now revisiting here. the reason we are revisiting is there are some folks in the project. jeff mentioned, these businesses are -- they are writing off the fees. it is being sorted as a cost of business. i do want to get off into the component of flexibility. once we hope this passes the board of supervisors, they can reach out to the department of environment, and they have between now and july 1st of next year to start educating themselves and make sure that things are being streamlined. whatever way as possible. i want to give credit to the department of environment for making themselves available.

once july 1st kicks in, even then this universe of 500 and some change, it will be a full on three year cycle before they are all audited. folks will still have time to make sure that their ducks are in a row, for lack of a better phrase. it is not that it will be right out of the gate, they have time between now until july 1st and even in july 1st, this universe of entities or buildings will be audited in cycles. the reason why we do not codify the guidelines, which was an ongoing conversation that was very intentional and that we did not want to be overly prescriptive. that is where, again, even if you fail the audit, you can work with the department of environment, in good faith and try to get your ducks in a row. the need to be good faith from a willing party.

>> i think something that is actually missing from this presentation and something that would be to the benefit of the supervisor his' case, to my question, what percentage of the problem is this? i don't see an assessment of where the problem is. i would ask that of recology. it is not clear to me that it is the l.r.g. restaurants have pretty pure waste streams. what are the waste streams? is that the collection of not to the top ten% but the other 90% that is the problem? are we pounding on the right to nail here? i am not convinced that we are. i think that your presentation would be enhanced by the ability to tell us, here is where the dirty waste comes from. all you have said is let's take the top ten% of the biggest waste generators. it is quite possible the biggest waste generators are the best at sorting their garbage. or bad actors and that they are

big enough to play -- pay the fines. those are two entirely different problems in two entirely different nails. if you have a bad actor who continually is willing to pay a fine then that fine should escalate. you pay it once, at one level and then the next time you pay it at ten times that level in the next time you paid at 100 times that level and then it goes up until the trestle gets high enough for you say look, if i will say $100 million a year i will start sorting my garbage. i think that this presentation does not inform me as someone who is an engineer where the real problem is. i think that really is the root of making this effective, not only as a proposal but as legislation. and that that needs to be worked into the legislation. i can't support the legislation as it currently exists because i am not convinced we are actually going at the problem in the right way.

you can convince me otherwise but not with the information i have seen today. >> i will send it over to jack. something i did forget to mention is the reason this was also -- you can either hire a new staffer to be deemed a waste facilitator or you can re designate an existing staffer so long as they are doing that full-time. you also don't need to hire someone else. that was there to give some flexibility to businesses that are trying to be good actors and really try to address the issue if they are found to be out of compliance after they are audited. >> taking someone off a job that is presently being done because it is necessary and putting them on a job that you did not currently have the science, just means it is a different meant walkable. we have to hire someone to back single the person that we just reallocated. >> point taken. >> i will pass it over to jack macy. thank you.

>> i think i could say a little bit more about your questions. i said the problem is across all sectors, but from my experience, a lot of these large entities, most of them are multitenant and many of them are multitenant. particularly those. but a lot of these large entities have higher levels of contamination. because the size of these, we are losing, you know, on the order of ten or more times the amount of material and dealing with that much more contamination than your average generator which was a lot smaller. it does make sense to go after -- our instructor julie -- our strategy cap next historically, has been going after the larger generators because they have -- that is more of an impact. a 30-yard generator will have ten times the impact than a 3- yard generator.

and a lot of these have very serious contaminations. we have a lot of large generators that end up getting into this noncompliance and paying these charges. that is why we have seen the 85 buildings that have zero waste facilitator is, our oral -- all large. and it is driving. they have some economic driver there. we have helped create this industry. but the idea that some places are paying these charges. >> i agree. basic question is, what% of the overall waste generated by the city of san francisco was generated by l.r.g.? >> i would say significant amount. >> but that is anecdotal. what percentage of total waste generated is generated by the top ten% that you defined? i think that that is stated that is somewhere. recology should know. >> i'm not sure if that data

exists. it would take quite a while to go through. >> recology would know the total tonnage of waste that they have to process every year and they would know, based on what they are billing, their customers, the top ten is generating what percentage of the waste? that is a pretty basic and legitimate question, i think. then i would no, visit 90%? in which case we are pounding on the right to nail. if it is not, if it is the old 80-20 rule, where 20% are not generating 80% of the waste but it is reversed, all the little guys, when you take all that into account -- that makes enforcement really tough. is like a bunch of little problems. we know the world -- global warming is a world of lots of little cars generating a lot of co2. we need to know, where do we go after the problem? i am not saying -- i'm not saying i don't believe the

presentation, i believe there are no numbers to back up the anecdotal assertion that this ten% is the right place to start they are just big. great. but they may be big and really good sorters. i don't know that. that is not data we have here today. >> we are actually working with all generators in the city. both in terms of outreach and monitoring and compliance. recology is stepping up the ability of their tagging efforts and letter sending and cameras on the truck. we are going and looking at everybody. this is an opportunity to get a tool that only makes sense for the large generation. >> we have a recology representative that comes every one of our dogpatch merchants association meetings. every month. i totally agree. they are doing a great job in outreach. a guy drives up to my building every once in a while and wants

to look at my garbage. i am not questioning their outreach at all. i think they've done a great job of informing everybody with flyers right up until residential and commercial. what they have are expecting from us. i am just asking a question of where is the waste coming from? so we can quarantine the program -- the problem? i am not clear, based on what i have heard that we know exactly where the problem is coming from >> what i am saying is we are working with all sectors and working with doing outreach and our compliance efforts with recology throughout the spectrum of small and large, with this proposed ordinance. it gives us a tool that only makes sense for the large in terms of hiring. we know we have these mechanisms and we know we have compliance efforts going for everybody but this is a tool to help hitch the ones that have particularly

large impacts. it would not be appropriate to have this to use this tool for much larger range. >> thank you. it just sounds like you indicated that the hiring of the zero waste facilitator is a tool by the way the legislation reads is that large refuse generators who fails an audit must, within 60 days of receipt from the director's notice, for the duration of 24 months, designate a staff or otherwise engage a person who is exclusive -- whose exclusive function is to serve as a facilitator. so it does sound like that option of designating or hiring a zero waste facilitator is not an option. it is an automatic requirement.

upon receiving the audits. if the supervisor reconsiders that. >> i was just saying he doesn't have to be an outside third-party. it can be someone internally from within the existing entity that is already a stopper that can be redesignated. >> their sole function would be that. >> part of that, again, let me just touch about this a little bit. in 2009, when this was first enacted. it was made optional. and part of the concern is that if you don't make the requirement, and this is what the supervisor has said at various meetings with stakeholders, i will relay the message. what he saw in his experience in working with the janitor's union is that there was an issue there were because it was because mandatory and it was though she did not have to be someone who is exclusively designated to the function, you have someone then who has piled on a whole lot of work there really should have required legally that a

completely different person be hired to do something full-time. that is genuinely the concern on the reasoning behind this. the concern is that this will give -- got piled up and added onto someone else who already has a full plate to be required to do this. which is supervisor and i agree, it is completely unfair. >> the person who does all the crap gets all the garbage. [laughter] >> to touch on the point, i completely understand regarding the metrics. i am with you there. part of the reason why we don't have that data is for privacy concerns. we can't go to recology and go inside and pulled their data and asked them to give us third-party private accounts for us to shovel through. so there is a concern. i want to know that that is part of the reason why we are not as clear-cut as we would like to be with the data. that leaves us where we are. some of it is anecdotal, but it

is anecdotal from the folks who are in the trenches. in the day today and doing the work. that is why, it is a very valid point. that is part of this frustration we want to be respectful and mindful of third parties' privacy. i know is not the answer. it is where we are. that is why there is that data. >> you can get data without violating third-party practices. >> yes. i have a similar question. here it says you have to appoint someone who was the exclusive function and service of zero waste facilitator. can we set up a standard and do the audit when they fail the audit -- do the audit? when they fail the audit, let the business come up with their own solutions. can you come back for the re audit. if they meet the standard, that

is fine. whatever method they use. if they don't, then you come up with consequences. may be a fine so they can come up with a solution to solve the problem rather than dictating what they have to do to solve the problem. >> point taken. again, for us, it is getting back to the noticing and flexibility and lending businesses handle it internally. we know that 60% of the waste stream is not being diverted. mayor breed also announced, not too long ago that she is pushing our goals 22030. the goal is now that by 2030, we hope to cut 50% of what we send to the landfill. meaning that it will require an aggressive and robust engagement from all stakeholders. this is one where as jack mentioned, we saw a large refuse generators generator based on anecdotal data. from the folks who are doing the data at work, they are in the

treatment -- in the trenches as it relates to this particular area. i will definitely relay the message of what you mentioned. we are considering putting in more flexibility regarding the redesignation or hiring of a zero waste facilitator. >> every business is different. whatever they can do to solve the problem is up to them. >> commissioner ortiz? >> thank you for the presentation. i totally get the spirit of the legislation, trust me. my concern is our purview is small business. they deal with a lot of small business restaurants. my mom had a restaurant. it is a thankless job. small margins. may be even coming up with an exclusion, may be some kind of parameters to exclude small businesses or to be more lenient , i know the measure is not to be punitive, to be educational. but if you are running a restaurant, trust me. throwing out the garbage is not your top priority.

there are people calling out sick and making payroll and making sure you have enough to serve that night. take that consideration. that is our purview. i love the intent and the spirit of the legislation. there are big buildings that may be can hire but that is not our purview. i do want a clean s.f. but i don't want to put anybody out of business to do so. >> that is not our intent either point taken. >> do we want to take an action on this. >> thank you. we don't have to take action on it. >> you don't have to take action or you could provide -- i can condense some of the feedback that is provided or you can list whether the priorities -- whether the priority is for me to work with the supervisors on making amendments or you can take an action to say -- you don't necessarily have to take an action to approve or not approved but taken action on

what she would like to see. >> at least some point i would like to see. as a citizen of earth, i am with the spirit of the legislation. i am onboard with all of that. just as a next to small businesses. it seems like restaurants, in particular. you may be work a little bit more and get more time to develop something. something to ensure that small businesses are not caught up in the net. >> and may i make a recommendation to the president his that not just residents, restaurants and food related businesses. we have heard from neighborhood grocery stores around their attempts and challenges and that it's in there -- their challenges are even meeting the audits.

does not do any good to create a standard that cannot be met to. if these people are being thwarted in their good efforts, they could add to ten compliance officers and it will not fix the problem. they have a different problem. i think there should be a very concerted effort to understand, what are the problems that would cause someone who otherwise has good intentions and is acting in the way that would produce those results, that are somehow being thwarted between their actions and the actual outcome character and whether it is someone getting into the garbage or it is something that is fundamentally wrong with the process. i just think a lot more thought has to go into addressing the groups and their specific needs and as i say, a presentation of where, and an assessment of where the problem really lies.

i don't feel informed enough to make any kind of recommendation other than to say that the story needs to be fleshed out. we have to hear -- we have to know more about what is going on here. what is preventing the best of the best from being the best, and where is the problem? away are the problem actors and how do we really put the ratchet on them? i don't think that this is the way to do it. i think that finding a heavily, people who think they can pay their way out, it is the same problem we have in the city with parking violations. a lot of delivery services say, a well. cost of delivery includes the cost of getting fined for double parking. that is not good enough. we have to figure out a way to have commercial loading zones that can be in rotation that they don't feel compelled. that it is not financially feasible for them. so i think that a combination of

fines and accommodation of figure out how to help people get into compliance so that they are inclined to do so we are serving our city by setting up here. any time we see legislation coming, we are honor bound to say it may not affect small business but it affects our city and we are representatives in the city. i think that for the big businesses, it will be affected by this. you owe it to them to do and present this information. otherwise they don't know why they are being singled out. just because they are big, doesn't seem to me to make it right. i don't -- i don't see how we could take a position other than

recommending what i just recommended. that is that we help those that are good to be good and figure out who is the real -- where the real problem lies. >> i think, commissioners, you have stated enough that i can follow up on this. [please stand by] it.

>> shop & dine in the 49

promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the

pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if

we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all

>> this is the regular meeting of the board of education of the san francisco unified school district. the meeting is now called to order. >> thank you. [roll call]