of them fail the audit, why is there new legislation with the punitive measures that are impacting over 400 businesses when you have 32 bad actors. we feel the amendments are insufficient to mitigate the mandatory higher and the 1,000-dollar a day penalties. we feel that there needs to be more time warnings and incentives given with these so that they can succeed in reaching the zero waste goals. >> they have time to remedy that with recology. to figure out the best practices are. than they get audited again. this takes all of that away. assess if you fail an audit, you are hiring a zero waste facilitator. we think that that is not okay and it is going in the wrong direction. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm with the san francisco chamber of commerce.

this may be my last opportunity to speak before you. don't applaud, supervisor. [laughter] >> i'm leaving the chamber at the end of the year to work in a prior job with senator feinstein i have worked on numerous environmental ordinances with this board over the 13 years i have been at the chamber. i don't think there has been one that we did not reach agreement with the authors and the board of supervisors. i don't think there is one who did not pass the board 11-0. that should be the case as well. whether we're talking about the original zero waste ordinance or about banning styrofoam, banning plastic bags, and banning all bags, and banning small plastic items and straws, we reached agreement every time and i think every one of those ordinances past 11-0. they should not be a dispute here. we all have the same goal. but we have a problem with the penalty levels. the process and steps that really should be there that

aren't in this ordinance to have a graduated penalty. jack macy is a great guy. and he may not impose thousand dollar a day penalties on a nonprofit food bank. but his successor might. we don't know that. we need an ordinance that is not based on good faith, but is based on what makes sense for the city, recology, and the waste generated in customer. and that is what we are asking for. let's work this out. there's no reason to have this level of friction and debate. we want to have an ordinance that works. we want to join you in getting 20 waste. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm the executive director of the hotel council of san francisco. thank you for being here today. we have been working with the team that has been working with supervisors on this program. we feel that we want to make sure we can float this process

down and make sure that those who are on this list, we have the list last weekend we had more people on the list then we were expecting and we've started to outreach to them. we believe that many of them don't even know about the legislation and/or that they may be listed on the list as well. we also share the concern about the fines and how quickly those would be instituted for organizations, and the requirement to immediately hire someone to come in and work on zero waste facilitator his. the hotels have been at the forefront of zero waste and have been working closely with the department of environment and recology and many of them have diversion rates as high as 90% already. and they instantly have to hire for 20 years and do that. we want to work together on this and we want to continue to work with you but we feel like there needs to be more changes to its. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> we don't have a formal position on the bill that we do have concern with the bill as written. in particular, we think that the hiring requirement is onerous. we would support something that would allow businesses to give more opportunities to become compliant. additionally, we want to point out that the size industry is subject to very specific waste refuse regulation as is. most companies have an i.d. number. meaning they tracked the waste from cradle cradle-to-grave. additionally, i am sorry. that was my last point. thank you for your time. we look forward to working with you on the future.

>> thank you. >> while we are supportive of the zero waste goals, our restaurants work very closely with department to ensure that proper sorting is done in the restaurant and not as much of the waste is compostable. we audit, tags assesses and give fines for noncompliance. it is in the business' best interest to be in compliance and increase or decrease the diversion right. it is a great benefit to be able to actually facilitate loss of conversation when they cannot get in contact with the restaurants. we want to make sure that relationship stays in place. it adds another layer to that where we are able to go through the tagging process and have photos taken. it triggers an actual audit. for our restaurant, that relationship is already there to mediate any kind of issues that are taking place. we are not perfect. one of the main issues that we see, many of them do not use compactors, and we leave our

refuse for pick up on the curb at night. there is a contamination issue that we mentioned. once the refuse is on the street at night, i cannot tell you how much the restaurants tried to come to us and then we talked recology on ways we can mitigate the contamination that happens overnight. for restaurants with many businesses, the exclusivity is a huge piece for us that is not realistic in a restaurant scenting. we are happy it is not a full-time role, but it is able to be part-time. having someone come in where we are facing such a hard time finding labour to staff actual positions we have open, having someone come exclusively in that role many of them will not be able to find. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon.

we are a large refuse generator. while the intent of the legislations is admirable. packet the method is highly punitive and highly burdensome to restaurants. i am happy to show someone in my restaurant profit and loss statements but restaurants operate on thin margins. this is very onerous to restaurants being able to operate profitably. so to that fact, we work very closely with recology as it is so we can get the highest discount rates and we can avoid fines. i know that the restaurant association works with recology as well. we have them come out at least twice a year on site for our restaurants to help us and help our staff and best practices. i do have four people, two managers and two hourly staff in both restaurants that are trash

monitors. it is part of the job responsibility. it is not there sole responsibility. in a restaurant, there are many things happening all day long. you're constantly going up against different stimuli and different situations. so to just be the sole responsibility to sort trash is virtually impossible. i would like to be able to see in this legislation less onerous penalties, possibly a warning period that could be reevaluated where the restaurants could get advice or get direction on what they need to do. and have someone as 80 waste facilitator solely as their responsibility works against the framework of teamwork. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am with the s.f. market.

we are fully supportive of zero waste. market has a long history of innovation and impact and waste management and food recovery. we worked very closely in 1996 with jack and his team to pilot the program that is now citywide our food recovery program over the last few years has donated over 1.2 million pounds of fresh healthy produce to our nonprofit partners feeding san franciscans at our latest program around a shrinkwrap in 2017 diverted over hundred 20,000 pounds of shrinkwrap from landfills. but i'd like to do is share the merchant perspective on the legislation. we appreciate we have worked very closely with all involved. even within our merchant businesses, housing handle many of them. there is not one model that each of them uses. like you have heard before, dumpsters and the bends are subject to dumpster divers. every morning as you heard, and

in our case, it is every night. it is a challenge. and as you heard earlier, the one audit, the one time audit failure that puts you into the penalty box is a real challenge. once you are in the penalty box, once you have success, you will have up to, we understand a one year minimum where you have to carry those additional costs, even though you now have success the legislation is currently written while there is a lot of positive things, we are supportive of zero waste. it is a challenge for many of us we look forward to plot doors working on it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon or good morning. my name is charlie. i am the government affairs manager of the san francisco apartment association. i'm also the apartment association zero waste facilitator. we have a major problem with the

word exclusive. the exclusive use of an employee what that means is i either can't student government affairs , or can't sort zero waste. it doesn't really jive with the. -- job market here. i have submitted letters to you on the record, and i've spoken at previous hearings. i will not rehash those statements. i wanted to speak to a couple points. i think it makes sense to exempt a business improvement district if they are picking up trash off the street, it makes sense to do so. i would really, really urge you not to create these one off exemptions and allowances for the unified school district and a different hiring process for city agencies, and financial support for affordable housing. what you are saying is that this legislation is not ready to go and it is not implementable for the many different buildings and properties that it applies to. what is good for the goose is what is good for the gander. when you create these one off exemptions, you are saying that

a large swath of the population that this ordinance applies to can't adhere to it. i urge you not to do that. if it takes more time, let's take more time. we need to have a policy that doesn't create these one off exemptions. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. >> i'm thinking still speaking in favor of this legislation. this is our third meeting that we have been in attendance. we have sat through numerous hours of questioning through the department of environment, to recology, and ten years ago, workers were not recognized. i want to point out that the folks that have spoken before me , their version of environmental is a beautiful

luncheon and awarding themselves but giving absolutely no recognition of involvement of the workers who are doing the work this has been a work load increase for generate dose janitors. as far as a hotel association, you right now we are on strike with with local two, their version of green cleaning his housekeeper as housekeepers not having to work in the hotel when you ask for in echo. not someone not coming to clean your room. i am here to ask you to support the legislation so it can move forward to the board of supervisors, the workers need to be able to make sure that they are involved in the process, but being able to hold it up for the benefit of a few is not okay. i hope that you guys can do the right thing and move this legislation forward to. we support the amendments that have been presented to all of you and we hope you can move this legislation to its next step to let it go to the board of supervisors. thank you.

>> good morning, chair cohen and members of the committee. my name is rudy gonzalez. i am under the weather. i'm under the weather. many of the people have expressed their support and solidarity with being leaders on this issue. it directly affects their members. when we talk about the environment, it affects all of us. i have rarely seen an industry or industry representative or lobbying entity speak out in favor of something that was going to further regulate them or enforce a rule against them. it is not surprising to see some of the same groups who opposed efforts and cared about healthcare but did not want to receive healthcare security. , it doesn't surprise me that while they care about zero waste , they are not comfortable with it being enforced. i don't think that these efforts or goals can be meaningful in that we can work in a meaningful way towards them if we don't have enforcement. it is not that different from traffic safety.

you can't just enforce. you have to educate people. to the credit of the department of environment, they have processes and structure and staff committed to doing that and they work collaboratively in doing so. this isn't a strictly punitive measure. some of these things, as we take bold steps to preserve our plan and our environment will require us to require -- get things that are new and inconvenient and sometimes they will cost. i can think of no greater cost and some of the workers who are on strike for 56 days now. it doesn't surprise me that hotel groups are opposed to this regulation. the truth is that people who gets their statements, they know where they are at or approximately where they're at in this process. the compromise that has been made by supervisors and other members of the community are meaningful and they meet -- represent a package that is ready to go before the board. we urge you to take this out of committee and send it to the full board of supervisors. >> are there any other members who would like to speak?

any members of the public cloth public comment is closed. before i recognize you, i want to give supervisor if you are an opportunity to speak. i thank you had -- >> i want to clarify for the speaker that came up and said that this amendment that i have proposed is a carveout. that is wrong. so i would like that person to listen to this very carefully. this is not a carveout. this is just stating what we are legally have jurisdiction over. this is very different than a carveout. i want to make that explicitly clear that this reinforces exactly what we have jurisdiction over and what we do not. it is not a carveout. we have heard clearly that if you are listening that we are making an commitment to make and

make it more binding through their own jurisdictional process i wanted to clarify that. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to respond to a few things and i want to talk about how things actually are implemented on the ground in realtime. of one of the concessions that we made a very early on, and amendments that we made was to extend the period of time and to push the period of time back from when this law would go into effect. originally it was going to be january 1st, 2019. we pushed it back to july 1st, 2019. giving an additional six months at a minimum and we are in december. seven. >> that allows for a time for those in the industry, and i really appreciated being here with the epic and water biopic we have a number of conversations about what he already does.

there is nothing in this legislation that prevents any business from adjusting some of their practices to begin to comply. they have the ability as a large refuse generator to ask for an audit in advance. an additional audit. there is nothing in this legislation that stops them from working to do better and meet the spirit of this rule in advance of that. if they meet it and they are doing a good job, as i know the water bar already does, if they have for people that are focused on this, they will comply with this in advance. mr lazarus talked about nonprofit food providers. we push the implementation date back two years along with nonprofit 100 affordable housing

developments and stent in that, i want to make a point of clarification in the amendment we are introducing today that allows for the discretion of the director working with a nonprofit of affordable housing provider, we are going to add the words nonprofit food providers as well for parity in an amendment that we made before because that will allow them the opportunity to show that there is a financial hardship or they have the ability to meet this. i just want to read that into the records. for clarity, glide memorial, the food bank, all that others where the effective date was pushed back to july 1st, 2021, we extended the audit period to allow everyone time to comply or work or readjust without having to even get into the conversation. we adjusted the threshold from 30 cubic yards to 40 cubic yards it no longer impacts.

we understand we talk about some adjustments and the model and ways that you operate for all your vendors. we are absolutely, with the given time that we have had to, i want to reiterate the director of the department of environment has the ability and is compelled in this legislation to come back to us and make policy recommendations and they will probably be necessary at some point. again, it is not necessarily in every case a new hire. it is very clear. it can be existing staff. we call that out in the legislation. we are not necessarily always going to hire. it can be existing staff and there is a fundamental disagreement if and when this were to go into effect that can be part time. it can be full-time. it is clear in this legislation. i think there is a difference of opinion there and i am just

thinking about overall the workload of the workers and how it is implemented and that is a fundamental disagreement disagreements. i will also say, fundamentally, we are in an environmental crisis. even so, we are allowing this to take full hold over us, over a three to half your process, and in some cases, even longer than that. i want to remind everyone. i know i've said this a number of times, this is less than 1% of the account holders in the entire city that are spending over 20% of the waste to landfill. it is an important point to recognize. if we know that 60% of the waste is still compostable or recyclable, there is a built-in incentive to do a better job for all these companies, because they will save money on the garbage bill. i appreciate all the amendments that were forwarded today. i appreciate supervisor if you are a's conversation about the

school district. it is an important one. thank you supervisor, president and chair for the amendments about the persons and clarifying when the rules and regulations can be updated on an annual basis. that is an important one so people understand where we are in the industry. i want to reiterate, we have exempted nonprofit food providers from this going into effect an additional two years, with the discretion for an extension for a year, we want to make sure that as the amendment was proposed today regarding 100 % affordable housing, development his would also include the language of nonprofit food provider as well. thank you. hopefully it would be -- what is a word i am looking for? it would be my preference we send this out of committee today as a committee report so we can vote on this and have it be implemented by the beginning of the year. >> will take that under infinite

dutch advisement. >> supervisor fewer? >> i think i will with drama and pendant today and leave it for consideration when it goes before the -- i think i i will withdraw my amendment today and leave it for consideration before it goes before the full board. >> i heard a comment, i don't know if you were in the chamber or not to, the question was, are nonprofits exempt? >> i was just speaking to that. the nonprofit food providers don't have this in nonprofit affordable housing. the implementation date for them is two years from the beginning for everybody else, which is july 1st, 2021, not july 1st , 2019. and the amendment that i just made to the initial conversation about a financial hardship can be demonstrated with in conjunction with the department of environment, that includes all of the nonprofits, both

affordable housing and food providers. >> does a legislation pacifically call out food providers -- specifically call out food providers and affordable housing? >> yes. >> and public comment, something came up. where does that leave churches? there is a phenomenal food service program and as you can imagine, they move lots of waste does that mean that they are exempt under this legislation, do they require to be working with a facilitator. >> they fall under the language that i am still talking about. that is why i still -- that is why i did it that way. for any of the people who have a food pantry. yes, the effective date would be two years later for them. if they have the ability to show financial hardship, they would be -- the director would leave that for them.

the answer is yes. >> what is the criteria used to define financial hardship because. >> they can look at their books and say, you know, this is our operating budget. we don't have the operating budget to hire an additional person. i think the back and forth would be -- >> hold on a minute. that is, by definition, what financial hardship is. my question is, what is the litmus test. we have nonprofit struggling all over the city. they are struggling. is there a litmus test to the validity of the claim that it is a nonprofit hardship cost. >> the way we drafted that legislation with the office of housing and community development is to -- we used the language that they recommended so they would be the opportunity

to work with the executive director of the department of environment so they could come to an agreement. it is some of the conversation that we have talked about in the past. one of the things that i set on the record last week that i want to say on the record again, because i said this to the folks in the nonprofit community, through the outback process and grant process, and committed to looking for additional money, even before this law goes into effect for the nonprofits so we can put some money towards funding the ability for them to get this process off the ground. >> that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. i have not thought about this but it makes me a little bit uncomfortable. having chaired the budget for two years and i am very familiar with the discretionary spending plan. we are not -- it is highly unlikely that members are going to be adding money or allocating money for waste facilitators, or to help nonprofits in that way. the other thing that concerns me is when your term expires, you

won't be here. how do we prescribe, what we cannot do is type future boards' hands and make the assumption that during the outback process, or the discretionary spending plan process, that these dollars will be allocated. it is not, you know, it is not -- it makes me a little bit nervous to do that. we are in a phenomenal economy right now. but as you all know, the economy can tank or bust and then we will be in a very difficult times. will be faced with this budget committee. we will be faced with cuts and that will be a very difficult

conversation. certainly this would be one of the thirst -- first things we would cut. so you are still free to support -- to respond. >> what we try to do, and i think that is a very good point, what we committed to doing, and what i just said on the record is something we talked about with the leaders of the nonprofit housing and the director of the mayor's office of housing. we talked about going after grants and looking at opportunities similar to what we do on citywide add backs as it pertains to environmental achieving and meeting environmental goals. what i will say is, in the last hearing that we had to, remember the case studies that they provided for mercy housing where they showed the before without having a facilitator in affordable housing, and to the after. we know from those case studies that not only will they save money on their garbage bill, the argument is a chicken and an egg this is what i have said to the

director. they are paying a significant amount of money for the garbage bill. they are not doing any diversions. i think one of the diversion rates that we saw and one of the buildings was 3%. if they are doing 3%, they are paying an extraordinary amount of money for garbage bills versus what you would be if you were doing a significant job of diverting. so in both of those cases, the facilitator, or the person that they were able to get off the ground, immediately had an immediate savings. i understand what you are saying the language that was created for before the food pantries and the nonprofits was designed with those nonprofits with the mayor 's office of housing and this is the solution. what i can say is having the effective date be two years later, if it at that time we have not been able to get some

additional funding, we have the opportunity to go in and adjust at that time period. we have two years. i will still be here for two years. >> i'm thinking about this legislation. it will be here forever beyond our tenure. my concern is that i don't think we can rely on future grants that may or may not exist. that is not going to be a reasonable assumption that we can predicate the base legislation on. but really struck me in the discussion, your example is really to zero in on the affordable housing element. st. anthony's kitchen came and they spoke and they testified. i asked them a follow-up question. one, the representative was not aware. so i'm concerned about the outreach for the legislation that is going to have an impact

on them. two, they have never, they currently sort their waist and they have never had an audit. it gets back to a point where i am concerned that if you never had an audit, and then you get an audit, if you are a nonprofit , it if i am hearing you correctly, you will have two years to become -- to come into compliance? hold on. the answer is no. that gets to an amendment that i have been thinking about. if you are a nonprofit, you don't have a audit and then all of a sudden you get an audit and based on the legislation, the nonprofit would be hired to get a facilitator. unless they are able to convince the executive director and again

, that is purely subjective by the executive director, meeting whoever operates the role would be able to yes are no you have to hire a facilitator. worst-case scenario, may be a scenario is they -- they make a compelling argument and they say it is a hardship. you do not need to comply. usually not need to hire a facilitator because it is an undue burden. is that how the legislation is working. >> that is what the amendment says. if the executive director determines that the hardship -- i'm struggling because there is no codified definition. there is no definition to measure. we are in the business of this

committee and measuring and quantifying. hold on. let me get my idea out. my question is, also, what happens to the nonprofit that is then not able to hire and maintain a facilitator because they would be maintained to hire a facilitator for how long? in perpetuity, correct class. >> at least 12 months. if they go through another audit and it is found to be they are clean, to they release a facilitator? >> they can if they choose. >> they can if they choose. >> you are getting to an idea. i heard you leading up to a party and what you talked about before. would you like to put something in there to relay this concern for nonprofits? >> i -- you say they are built

into the language. i don't know i have to go back and reread -- i think we are at the fourth version of the legislation. because i am concerned about these particular nonprofits. one thing i did consider is another amendment that would create a two strike rule for many, but not all organizations. this is a baseline audit amendment. this amendment, what it would do is they would sort out the large refuse generators into two groups. okay? group eight would be the known bad actors whom we have heard you express as well as labour, expressed discontent with. known bad actors who are currently paying their fees rather than sorting appropriately and having an

undue burden, a heavy burden on the janitors are the folks that are required to do this. those folks who we know are bad should be in category a. what i am proposing, and gets no second chances. there is another category that i am asking for use guys to consider. another group of businesses. and i would suspect blocked nonprofits lot nonprofits factor into this one. a group of business that would benefit to an audit in knowing where they stand on their contamination rate. i use st. anthony's as an example that we heard. they have never been audited before. they have no idea what they are doing or in this case, what they are not doing. what i would like you to consider is an amendment that would give only the second group a small six-month window after the baseline audit has been

conducted so that they can get their house in order. so that they can then have a second audit to determine whether they need a facilitator or not. from my perspective, this amendment is one of two things. i understand that you are telling me it is a stall tactic. i can see how businesses would use this as a stall tactic. we know a list of 30 -- 32 of the bad actors and worst offenders. all right. perhaps we don't give them any more passes or second chances. but i am concerned about the folks that should have a fair chance. i am thinking about nonprofits and small businesses in particular when it comes to my mind to give them a chance to figure out where they stand and giving them an opportunity to do

better. does that sound reasonable? >> to your point, i would be open to that for the nonprofit. absolutely. i think the way we define all these businesses based on their volume of trash is hard to differentiate. i would be okay with that for the nonprofits. for everybody else, leave them in that other category. >> even businesses that have never been audited before, they get an audit, they fail, they will learn about the legislation and then -- >> i think the way we control for that is the department -- the audits are spread out over a three-year period. second of all, what i said on the record, we have had conversations with the remaining 12 restaurants. two of whom are mcdonald's, for example. those would really be -- there is a couple of neighborhood grocery stories.

we said to them when we worked with the department of environment we said to the restaurant his, we are happy to put you -- the director has a discussion in terms of the order we have said that. >> is it in the legislation class. >> it has to be written. the director will not be the director in the future but the legislation will be the legislation into the future. we have to codify that. we have to get that written down i want to go to the department of the environment and hear from them about the idea that i just floated out there about about the amendment and offering a fair chance to nonprofits and small businesses to help them figure out where they stand. >> as you collect your thoughts, i will pivot to supervisor fewer >> i also want to piggyback on that. is there even a possibility that

these nonprofits, we just heard from st. anthony's that the education, they set up all the signs. but still, they have a lot of people who come in, not on a regular basis, they volunteer and is there a component that could be put in that instead of right-of-way right of way, they have to have a facilitator. they have to embark on a training program instead. and then i also want to know the cost, the annual cost of the nonprofit hiring facilitator that would meet the requirements , and then i also have to say recology needs to play a role in this around education. as i am speaking to people about this, i am finding that most of the people that i speak to don't even know what is recyclable and what is not. i will just say, the general public just does not know.

who's responsibility is this, and where does it live? some of it is just recology. one, the cost of the facilitator , is there a possibility of nonprofits implementing a robust training program, and then be reaudited? these are some of the thoughts and questions. >> and your thoughts and questions are directed towards? >> whoever can answer those questions. >> come on up. >> come on that. >> you have heard what i was saying and i need to correct myself. i said nonprofit and small business you have bad actors and you have bad actors.

it seems like we should not be giving any passes to people who have been failing, audit after audit and they are not -- they have demonstrated already a resistance to coming into compliance. what i'm talking about, or talking for consideration, and i would like your opinion on this consideration, is then there is another issue for folks to give give a second group of six months. >> i get in audit now, than six months for me to clean up my house and get myself together and then go through a second audit. up i feel that second audit, the name required to hire a facilitator. for a -- and if i fail that second audit, then i am required to hire a facilitator. do you have any thoughts on this >> is this on?

>> it is on. >> we can make this work. obviously it gives them more time and a longer time before they might be in compliance. we would have to be very clear about what the criteria is. i heard, if they are out of compliance now, that is one criteria. if we know they are out of compliance, they had an audit recently. let me turn my phone off. if they fail an audit and we are currently out of compliance, we would know that. they may have failed in audit a year or two ago and be back into compliance. that is another category. i think that is something to consider. i would suggest that we would look at not just those who are currently paying charges, but those that may have failed an audit recently. there are a number of accounts

that may have failed in audit and been out of compliance for six months or more. and then be back into compliance to be consider them back at zero , or say, we know we are out of compliance for six months. and now we are getting audited again. i policy wise, you have to think about who to include his. just those who are out of compliance, or those -- we are paying charges. that is the smallest group. if we include those that have been out of compliance before within the last two years, it would be a larger group that would have to do it right away, but they had the heads up with a previous audit and within a reasonable period of time. i was hearing a couple of different scenarios. >> you have introduced another scenario that i didn't consider. i do not know how the legislation would address those

that were out of compliance or back in compliance and then fall back out of compliance. how does the legislation address that? >> right now, it doesn't. it simply says that if you fail an audit and the director gives you in order and you passed the 60 days to do that. if you were to say, well, if you have been, unless you have been out of compliance within this period of time, then you have an opportunity to take a second audit. i think it has to be -- if you are going to do that policy wise , give everybody, give people more time, then there has to be a clear, who do you not to give more time because there is an argument to say if you have been out of compliance before within a reasonable period of time, say two years, you have been out of compliance.

what does that mean? you failed an audit. or if it has been over, if you have been out of compliance for six months, you party had your six months. if you are out of compliance for six months, then why give you another six months? >> thank you. >> i'm trying to look at what our different ways. i do think it is important to consider compliance history. >> i agree with you. >> i would suggest not just relying on those who are currently paying charges, that is a very small number. >> i understand. you are right. compliance is important. supervisors? >> i'm sorry, before i look at you i have to acknowledge supervisor fewer. >> i feel like i also had questions about the cost of hiring aphis a visit -- facilitator and what is the

annual cost? >> it will vary. >> we see people who are part-time. a lot of times you have facilitators who will work for a certain number of hours that may be 4-6 hours during monday materials are coming down and getting consolidated. let's say there is a pickup and they might be there twice a week i have heard that example. and other examples when they are there a full-time equivalent. the cost ranges. the larger the entity, or in terms of generation, the more time he facilitator has to be there. the greater the cost. but also, that generator is paying a lot more in terms of refuse costs, his of the business model that is out there is that this is being done so there is a net savings for the property.

i think that is the general business model but there are exceptions to that. >> my question is, i know that we have heard that you can save money on your bill, your garbage bill if you reduce your waste and dispose of it properly. if that is correct. okay. does that offset the cost of a facilitator? what is the highest monetary amount? does it cost more to hire a facilitator than what you would get back from recology? i just don't know so that is why i am asking. >> we have heard a lot of examples where there is a net savings and the savings in the refuse costs by increasing the diversionary diversionary recovery rate are getting off charges is greater than the cost of the zero waste facilitator. the case studies that we were presented two weeks ago, and i know you did not get a chance to

see them, gave examples of that where we had mercy housing that had one facility or they have a net savings of 6,000 a month. another property housing was 8,000 a month. we gave the example of sfmta where they saved a hundred $60,000 in a year of net savings the business model that we have heard him talking to the zero facilitator is to provide a net savings. i have also heard a couple of cases where the cost could be more. again, the challenge is for them to be able to provide just the level of service to be able to get into compliance. that has been unnecessary time and cost. >> okay. president cohen brought up a good point about clear criteria for an exemption that when the executive director can also

grant an exemption. what is that criteria for an exemption? if you were a company that said, i think i meets the criteria for an exemption, and i would like to approach the director of the environment, but how would you know -- do we have clear criteria for an exemption for consideration, and if so, could i see that language? >> i have not seen the word exemption being used. we have tried to avoid that. are you referring to supervisor mandelman's amendment, which says if you have -- >> what is the terminology? >> in the legislation, we will look to the deputy city attorney to opine. >> there are 12 different places where we have been talking today about the director having discretion to one is on the

proposed amendment regarding 100 % affordable housing providers and nonprofit food providers where those entities could seek a waiver or permission from the director by showing that complying with the ordinance and hiring a zero waste facilitator would impose a significant hardship on the nonprofit. the director would have discretion to grant the waiver based on a finding of significant hardship. the proposed amendment does not define significant hardship beyond using that term. the ordinance gives the director that power to adopt regulations which could spell that out further. the second area where we have been talking about the director 's discussion as is supervisor cohen's proposed amendment with two bites at the

apple situation where there would be two audits and the director would have discretion whether to impose in order on a large refuse generator who has failed an audit saying you have to have a zero waste facilitator , or give that large refuse generator an additional six months and a second audit that the proposed amendment would give the director of the discretion to decide whether to impose in order to hire a facilitator immediately, or go for a second audit based on the history of compliance of that large refuse generator. [please stand by]

everybody else that is a -- that's not a nonprofit, i would say let's leave things as they are, have one audit, and move forward. we have discretion, and some of the reason we didn't get into the granular, is it happens in the mayor's office of housing, it happens in all the different departments. it gives us some flexibility, and i think that's important. i'm open and i'm happy to accept what you proposed in terms of two audits. i think as it applies to two nonprofits, it's reasonable. i think -- can i ask deputy city

reluctant, having not eaten lunch, to make the prediction for you today. >> president cohen: okay. we are on the record, so we will work on making amendments before the nonprofit at the full board so we all can have lunch. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> president cohen: one thing in my mind, a little bit of a

double standard or a discrepancy, and i want you, with me, to share my thoughts. you make the arguments that businesses save money when they have a facilitator, right? so one can make the argument well, if a nonprofit hire a facilitator, they, too, will be saving money, and this kind of goes back into what i was saying about what is hardship? you know, i don't know. i don't know the answer to the question, supervisor. do you have a -- >> supervisor safai: no, i -- honestly, i think working with director hartly and thinking about how nonprofits would be impacted, they tried to work, i think with the department of environment to craft some language that made the most sense, and they came up without the words, "without incurring

significant hardship." that was subjective, and i think that was intentionally left to be a discussion between the director and the department and the nonprofit. but i think it is very purposefully designed to say if the nonprofit were to come back and say this is something we cannot do, then the director has the authority to push the effectiveness onto them. our intent as a legislator and this body, and the way we've written it, one is to push back the date two years before this will be affecting any nonprofit and to give an additional year, and now we're giving them even additional authority to say for any of the nonprofits. but even still if you wanted to make the additional amendment,

i'm fine with that. what i'm committed to, and i think the department is committed to is working with those nonprofits in advance of this legislation. i think that's part of their job is to go out and work with businesses, nonprofits, and adjust maybe some of their business practices in advance of this to get them ready for it. so i think there's a lot of here to address what you and supervisor fewer are talking about. >> president cohen: all right. let's move into action. first of all, i am going to make a motion to -- we have before us, supervisor mandelman has proposed amendments. supervisor safai has read almost all of them -- amendments into the record. so i'd like to make a motion to accept supervisor mandelman's amendment, and i'm going to do this amendment by amendment, okay?

so supervisor mandelman's amendment, and can we take that without objection? okay. without objection, thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: and again, the department of the environment has also put forward an amendment that the sponsor is in agreement with. can we take this in this is page 7, line 11. >> supervisor safai: it says mayor -- oh, sorry. >> president cohen: well, it's the department of the environment. >> supervisor safai: okay. got it. >> president cohen: okay. so can we take that without objection? okay. thank you. without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: thank you. that one's done. >> mr. givner: on that one, with the change that supervisor safai read earlier, so it would not only apply to 100% affordable housing projects, but also nonprofit food providers? >> president cohen: that's correct. madam clerk, i just want to make sure that you get that on the record, that includes

nonprofit food providers. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. >> president cohen: and i want to -- i gavelled down earlier. do i need to rescind? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. cone koeb i'll make a motion to rescind the last amendment. and that is without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i'll make a motion to accept the department of the environment kazz amendment, including the language for nonprofit food providers, okay, and we'll take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the port has also introduced two amendments. i believe that we are all in agreement on them. all right. we'll take that without objection. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the --

there's two amendments also coming from the department of the environment, and i've introduced them. this is the page 4, line 5, zero waste facilitator means persons -- persons serving exclusively in the business. deputy city attorney, i have one question for you. what is the meaning -- it's going to sound silly, but in public comment, we heard a question about the word exclusively. what does that mean before us, zero waste facilitator means someone serving exclusively in the business of. >> mr. givner: that means in the context of this ordinance that that's that person's only job for the largfu