fide eating place? >> again, i do not mean to put words, i do not speak on behalf of the planning department on enforcement. i think, what i would say, this is my impression of it. there is a very reasonable and good faith desire to separate out restaurants and bars. to at least create some method of defining categories. that makes trying to define out what a use is, that is the planning code, they're all different types of uses. when we have, you know, a subset of those uses which are wearing two different hats at the same time. if it doesn't - if we can see that some of the pieces of one of those requirements doesn't fit and could potentially be

really burdensome and negatively impactful and we are in the process of trying to use remind and simplify the code to support a variety of uses to support, you know, vibrant overheads. that this seems like an opportunity to just smoothed around the edges without throwing out the concept without obliterating it entirely. >> i'm on clear, let me take a step back. i think the notion that you just said which it was to differentiate a restaurant from a bar. the notion is people who consume alcohol while they are also consuming food become less problematical to society because they are less hammered, is that a fair statement as to why we differentiate between restaurants and bars? >> i'm not going to eat to - two, that's farther than i can speak to on the intent. i think

defining uses is about segmenting one thing from the other thing. again section 102, the definitions are full of uses that are trying to segment out when used from the next. an entertainment venue that also operates as a restaurant by the structure of it has to have 2 uses area because under 703, nighttime entertainment use cannot be an accessory use. we have sent businesses, directed businesses, we being the planning code, direct businesses to where both of these uses as principal uses without providing a clear way of reconciling that we know for certain business models not all of it makes sense. >> what i'm trying to say in

plain english is - we want, we welcome late night entertainment. we are all distraught about the reduction in the number of venues that we all know and love, supervisor haney introduced some legislation all we are saying

these venues, this narrow set of venues, hits all of these bullets on the other bullet of having entertainment. the only pieces we are opting them out of our the 51 percent gross receipt and the days and hours of operation. all the state requirements on the bona fide public eating places where you do have to serve food. all of that still applies and i think i would push back on the notion that this is somehow allowing people to throw their hands up and saying we do not need to serve food anymore. >> the alcoholic beverage commission does enforce relative definition of bona fide which they do not enforce our law. apparently we don't enforce our laws either. this does not change state law. >> my point is that there are both state and local requirements that would remain requiring the preparation and actual service of food. that

would still be, the increased version of legislation exempted businesses. well, i don't know inconsistent with state law. in any event we would try to right size and focus and on, in order to preserve planning enforcement, but also to focus on in on the two relatively all pieces that again preserving the rest of the food service requirement. these two pieces which i think we can say with some reasonable certainty do not fit the entertainment venue. the way that that business, that the purpose built entertainment business operates. there are a lot of businesses, the vast geordie of businesses which surely would not want to take

advantage of these civic limitations that it imposes. trying to find a narrow set of businesses that have to operate in this respect how can we have narrow paths forward for them. >> if i may. one clarification. when it comes to an eating establishment. i feel like i have some authority on this. we do actually enforce that. they are supposed to be serving enough food to hit that 51 percent and we do not believe that they are. we do actually go out and require them to submit receipts. we do visual audit. as

such as our department saw this as an issue trying to clarify how we would enforce to be a complaint in the future. we felt we are branching out permits, we

are okay from the food sales area >> thank you. this is why want to hear from mr. t who is our represent that you don't enforce. i would like to hear as to the other issue that is the subject of the alleged text message or late night email whether or not to section 186 with the actual planning department is in charge of the buffer zone does or not you. >> thank you. i did not want to make any representation about the enforce, but the planning department is enforcing on and how they are enforcing on it. i guess i will leave it there. >> why don't we open this up to

public comment. >> i don't understand all of the particulars. if this has anything to you do with selling alcohol throughout the night until five a.m. like scott reno wants to do. i object to doing that. you're going to increase the amount of automobile accident because of drunk driving. we already have enough drunk driving taking place on the freeways and people getting killed, as it is. i don't know what the hell scott weiner is talking about extending hours where you can drink alcohol in bars all the way till five o'clock in the god damn morning and then how people drunk having people commute and getting up at five a.m. commuting to their god damn job, working 40 hours a week. what the hell is wrong with scott weiner? i am not to his procedures and his housing discrimination giving preferential treatment to high income brackets as well. it is disgusting. if this got anything

to do with you extending the amount of hours of people drinking alcohol, i object to that. i came here late, maybe it's not, maybe i'm wrong. does it have anything to do without? okay then. we would just address that to scott weiner them. [laughter] >> next speaker, please. >> bruce wolf representing alcohol justice today. we oppose this. completely. it is way too complicated. it is a kitchen sink. it is so hard to tear apart and figure out what each party is trying to do, then how they interface with each other. those of us that are highly educated enough to have some planning idea, it is not enough time for us was on the public to be able to figure it out. maybe it would be better separate all of these items, arcade, patios,

adjust, second and third floor commercial, the bona fide eating places. not have it "all lives matter" one one piece of legislation. we would like to see more analysis with regards to the increase in density of alcohol licenses and alcohol sales with regards to the health and harms on the community. there was a budget and legislative analyst report, exactly on that that the board of supervisors had not had a hearing on that will have a direct - should have a direct voice on changes exactly like this. we do demand a continuance. if not, not to let this move forward and have it come through in a different way. we would like to see maps that show the difference in the revision. what was introduced and what the revisions are, it really makes it much more complicated. there are

businesses that get special sensations for alcohol sales like mission bowling and miniature golf indoor club comedy clubs and whatnot. why, into a different district and cause problems. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am here as a constituent of vallie brown i'm grateful to see your take on businesses. the july 2019 addition of san francisco parking magazine has a column dedicated to this issue from 2 commercial real estate agents. while not fond of the industry. the advice they give

to clients is revealing. we cannot expect ordinary people to open a neighborhood serving business when they need rich investors, a years worth of patients and a consultant paid by figures to tell them how to navigate the process. where is the public input from neighborhood notification, discretionary review, conditional use authorizations are hurting local businesses. the budget and legislative enema

office wrote a report for supervisor mandelman which shows this. we need a deficient process that makes it easy to fill storefront. this bill will not fix everything, but it is a good start. i hope an upcoming ballot initiative to tax empty storefronts will also help. thank you. >> hello. my name is eve mcguire, i am the owner of the coffeehouse in call valley. i open the shop after years of working in san francisco as a barista and manager. i wanted to bring my passion for high-end coffee to a neighborhood that did not have it. i had cole valley on my radar for this for years before figuring out how to do it. as part of my extended business plan i did want to be

able to transition into including evening hours where i could host live entertainment shows, namely standup comedy and serve beer and wine to generate the additional revenue that i would need to do all of this. you know, as you guys have talked about a little bit, i was told by the planning department, in 2017, prior to opening that it looked like i was clear of this buffer zone that restricts the from applying for the beer and wine license. i think i am like 50 feet from being clear of it, which, you know, it is sometimes a little confusing to look at on the map. depending on, you know, who you talk to at the planning office and what else you are going over. at times these things do get misinterpreted. i think that is what must've happened. when i called them earlier this year, just a few months ago i was

given different information. this is a shame for my business. for cole valley that want to see me do these things that i want to do to improve the neighborhood. these small businesses are really important to people in san francisco. i think we pride ourselves in having standards for high quality. people come from all over the world to ask grant. a lot of people who live here - >> thank you, sir. >> sorry. so you are done with me? >> we have to give everybody the same amount of time. thank you. >> first of all i want to commend an employer supervisor regarding the vacant storefronts

that we have all over the city. putting some pressure on these property owners for the storefronts. the question comes up, if somebody was out the storefront, how can they be successful. online shopping is the thing that is happening, we all know that. i think this honestly, to use this proposed is a good use area i've talked to so many people about this and everyone is so excited about this. one of the big things we do have, is wine walks. i really feel that this ordinance, i would hope that she would pass. it is going to benefit a small business. if bob businesses to be successful and make the city what it can be. right now we are not there. i think if we do that, you will see a more

vibrant and a better city by allowing these uses. [inaudible] i do appreciate what you have done so far. i'm really glad that at least we are doing something about it to get those storefronts filled up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors. i am representing the san francisco chamber of commerce. as you know we have over a thousand businesses as part of our membership by the chamber of commerce. many of those are large businesses, what i find most interesting, several of those businesses don't even exist yet. we have several members who sign up looking to start a small business in san francisco. they sign up with us months ahead of time knowing it will take several month of two years together the permitting

process area it really is something when our permitting process first all business requires a small cottage industry - and bank accounts of small businesses in order to make sure they are successful even in breaking ground or opening up their storefront. there was a public comment around a previous item that spoke around the storefront or vibrant commercial corridors but we cannot agree more. these small businesses are critical to the vitality of our city. they deserve an opportunity to thrive and succeed by providing entertainment, providing alcohol by providing flexible options for them to service their customers. we give them more options to succeed. finally, on the question of the buffer. for us, this is a question about commercial corridor integrity. it has made the decision about what kind of zoning it would like to have in's area. they

have made that decision and a business has complied without decision. another corridor from half a mile away should not be able to override another merchant corridors decision. that is exactly what is happening here. another corridor from a different neighborhood is overriding what another neighborhood has decided his best for its merchant options. thank you. this whole notion, i don't think that supervisor brown is misrepresenting her legislation. the vast geordie of it there is no disagreement on this body. this is not going to fill up every vacant space and the commercial district i don't want us to oversell what this does. the reality is there are

restrictions around, certain types of uses, and other types of uses are permitted as of right. those are neighborhood serving businesses that we are all yearning for. remember the thrust of this is around alcohol and late-night entertainment. next speaker, please. >> thank you for the opportunity to seek today. an ordinance that will allow [inaudible] small businesses are

essential to san francisco's [inaudible] we strongly urge the board to offer your support. thank you. >> thank you supervisors. my name is bridget lee. i want to affirm our support for this much-needed code alignment. small businesses are the backbone of our economic diversity and community identity. this would indeed tingle our unnecessarily convoluted permitting requirements removing barriers to entrepreneurship by providing clarifications and regulations. >> good afternoon supervisors

had we see this has legislation has massive implications for residents and business owners area we don't think this legislation is the solution for the problem that they are specifying. as supervisor mandelman did in his district. we haven't seen that kind of a consultation. let's not make legislation based on anecdotes area removing the buffer zone would allow a few marginal parcels to be able to serve alcohol and have other kinds of entertainment. that will not help the core business districts. in fact it would make it harder to fill the core business district, because the

other small parcels out around would draw business away from them. those parcels could be rented out. we need a balance between controlling the liquor store blight in various neighborhoods on other types of businesses that have restaurants and late-night entertainment. many of these districts we have people living above, behind, and around and having arcades, late-night entertainment and has severe impacts on the residence. we've got to think about some of the bigger picture here, and look at many ways to solve the problem. this is not the solution for solving vacant properties on commercial streets. thank you. >> good afternoon.

[inaudible] my first thought was maybe supervisor mandelman should have stayed for this one. looking at this map it is startling. district 8 has 20 mc one, and the highest number of lc use. 945. i highly doubt if the people in district 8 are going to go for this, particularly this corridor or overhead, please area - - please. this is only part of district 8. you can see those little boxes that are actually lc use area not to mention the pink ones all throughout the church corridor. this is going to be a huge impact not only on the residence, but also on the merchants on 20 fourth street. imagine a restaurant on 20 fourth street that serves alcohol and food. if you're going to have more competition,

obviously this is not going to look good. i am sure the merchants on 20 fourth feet were not consulted about this area i am sure the residents were not consulted about this area i am absolutely surprised for a bill that is going to have a huge impact on the entire city of san francisco has been basically on a very dormant stage, not any outreach and here we are discussing, you know, the same name about storefront. this has nothing to do with the storefronts being empty as supervisor peskin mentioned himself he had i doubt if this is going to change the pattern on 20 fourth street. we need to help the merchants on 20 fourth street. this has nothing to do with that. i urge you to give us decent outreach, particularly for district 8. district 8 will be highly impacted. we haven't heard enough about this. thank you. >> any other members of the

public would like to testify on item 3 come if you line up to your right, my left. >> good afternoon supervisors, louisville and making san francisco great again coalition. talking to you about doing business in in the swamp, which is what san francisco is. pay to play politics has produced a swamp like quality for small business, in san francisco. what we are looking at is the collateral damage of the board of supervisors failed dropping the ball policies. and now we are seeing vacant storefront, and complete apathy in our neighborhoods. not even mcdonald's can do business in san francisco. let alone a small business. you only have to look at hate and and and to see that effect. yes, you have created

this mess for the last 10 years by focusing on political, pay to play politics, special interest. what does it achieve a? a ghost town. that is what hate street is. the first time probably in 100 years that that area has looked so sad and pathetic. a clear sign of institutional dropping the ball. so, i advised, and i request san francisco to get out of the business of special interest politics and pay to play politics. thank you very much. >> any other members of the public for this item? public comment is closed. supervisor brown? >> yes, thank you. i have to say

the majority of supervisors that we have talked to in their offices have said they are in support or they are neutral on this. i also know that every supervisor will definitely want to talk to their neighborhood. really discuss the ncd buffer zones. to see where they should go, or not go. but, i also have the email from scott sanchez, and corey, who is the zoning administrator that says their interpretation is the fact that the buffer zones around the larger areas - excuse me, there is no buffer zone further out. when the ones that are drawn,

are the actual zone. i'm trying to make the symbol for everyone. do i think we need to god and talk to neighborhoods, absolutely. i know hate street wants to keep its restricting zone. i absolutely believe without. i'm removing the buffer zone around it. the merchants passed the panhandle on hayes is not affected by them. the merchants around cole valley is not affected by them. there will be a 300 foot buffer zone on haight street for any of those businesses that go half a block in. definitely feel like, you know, if the neighborhood wants that they can keep that. it's just the merchant core doors

near there. i know i had a constituent talk about the competition on haight street. all of our corridor areas whether they are commercial, all are held or the larger enterprise owned. they are all important. everyone feels really close on passionate about their corridor. whether it is cole valley over in the panhandle, or haight street. i completely agree with that. so, i just feel, for me, since this is so confusing for everyone, and there are different interpretation that we should try to clean this up for everyone to be consistent throughout the city, so everyone understands it. if a district wants to opt out because there supervisor feels that it's very important, i feel that is great. that's fine. if we could see some consistency across the

board, i think were going to make it much easier for anyone that wants to start a business i would love to see this forward, once again like i said we checked in with the supervisors, and almost the majority of supervisors have said it's either they were neutral or they supported it. thank you. >> thank you supervisor brown. i think we are down to two issues. one is the application of the bona fide eating place exemption, and the other is the issue with regard to the restoration, or opting in and out, in or out of the quarter-mile buffer zone around restricted use subdistrict. i think - i mean, this is an easy

thing to do. i would prefer to have supervisors opt in then opt out. i know my staff contacted supervisor fewer's office who is in the midst of reaching out to merchants and folks in her district. i know supervisor brown, you indicated that you would talk to supervisor walt. i have not come although you indicated that supervisor ronan was okay. with not restoring as i mentioned, the mission was concerned given the startling number of 389 permits in the district area i have heard from the lower pole folks who got by

predecessor to pass alcohol restricted use district for that area which the board renewed and extended in time a couple of years ago. there are a couple ways to go about this, one would be i am ready to offer amendment that clarify that the bona fide eating place exemption would apply to the areas within district 5. i am happy to expand that to other supervisors and their districts as they asked to be included. and, as for the quarter-mile buffer zone, i would still like to know whether or not, and how that has been

actually applied despite the email that supervisor brown reference i have not yet seen it nor have i heard from mr. teague or mr. sanchez, and i would like to hear from not. it's interesting that they are not here today. i don't know if you have anything you would like to add about section 1 eight six and how it has or has not been applied. we do have a gentleman from cole valley who says it has been applied. i don't know what the truth is. >> absolutely. we did pass this question along to scott sanchez, the former zoning administrator. cory teague, our current zoning administrator was on vacation at the time. scott sanchez did state in the email that he he cced myself on that supervisor

brown read. if you would like reassurances from mr. teague i am happy to get those for you and pass that question along to him as well. >> let me be clear - the way this is being representative is that the quarter-mile does apply where there is a named street but does not apply when there is a named area, a defined area? in other words, you are saying it would apply - it would not apply to third street, but it would apply to haight street. it would apply, for an since - it would not apply to the mission alcohol special use district because that is a big defined geographical region. would it

apply - there's a whole number of these, i assume it would apply to lower old because it is a name street? >> it is the exception generally

speaking. the others do not state a quarter-mile requirement. stating the quarter-mile explicitly, whether or not the boundaries closely track the neighborhood commercial district boundaries. those are irrelevant - - elements. these are limited to the alcohol restrictive use district. this interpretation does not, so for red that is not alcohol that is partly overlapping with a neighborhood commercial district, or not. it is lack of who you get at the planning desk, this point. this is confusing stuff that gets more confusing the more you look into it. which is why i think bringing clarity to it is critical. >> let me restate this. as to ones who track, the quarter-mile

does apply. as to those that don't, the quarter-mile does not apply. it does not apply to third street. it does not apply to the mission, but it does apply, he references here, the three most recent, 2009 interpretation. in those cases we would be taking away the quarter-mile buffer; correct? >> in the three most recent - >> this is as of july, 2009, a decade ago. >> i am hesitant to say how to treat those other ones. again, given what the boundaries look like. i don't know how the zoning administrator would apply this interpretation to those

other ones. for the ones where the conclusion, because they fail both of those elements. they are broader than the boundaries of the commercial district and there is no stated quarter-mile requirement. >> here's where i'm trying to go. in some cases we are not taking away a buffer zone, because pursuant to this interpretation it did not exist. because it is coterminous and it does track with the ncd. as to those, it seems to me that in so far as we are taking away protection, if you will, that the supervisors who represent those districts say yes, i wanted taken away or alternatively, we can make it more explicit and use that

actual language that is in to hate and we could added to those districts so that no planner has to go, is that this or is that that? the planner will open it up and look at the table and they will say, sorry, you cannot do the alcohol at that location, right? what would be helpful would be if we figure out which one does not apply to the mission. as for the others, if you want to keep the quarter-mile, because this interpretation says you have the quarter-mile, we will make it abundantly clear we will write it into lower polk and we will write it into, if supervisor

brown wanted taken out of haight street, that seems to me the right way to go. it makes it very clear for planners area gives applicants a very clear understanding when they come to the counter for a pre-application meeting. write down which ones they are. i'm happy to go down the hall and i will say supervisor, from this district you want part of my language, you don't want it, going, going, gone. as to bona fide, i think we should pursue the same thing. look, i represent a destination, no matter what corridor come i think that bona fide definition

is important. i was a member of the board of supervisors, i reference this earlier when we had to do special appropriations to the sheriff's department so they could bring, i kid you not, a sheriff's a bus because there were so many fight on broadway that rather than having cops take 70 down to bryant street, they would load them into the bus and take the entire bus down to bryant street. thankfully things are better today. that was a function of people consuming too much alcohol with not enough food. although, i don't want you to speculate. those would be my friendly suggestions to my colleagues on this panel. i would see mr. gartner would like to jump in. >> just generally on the question of how to potentially amend either of these sections.

i just want to caution the board against amending, or zoning by district. we have done that if you times before. there are several reasons you should not do this. district boundaries are going to change and about 25-3 years. second, all of those factors that are not land-use related, including some factors based on rates that would be an appropriate for land-use considerations. >> counselor, what i was going to say is we would just do them as they are in the code. we would name them, for instance if we were doing bona fide eating exemption places, we would call them a commercial district. [inaudible] >> along those lines, two other pieces area one is, i don't know whether there are bona fide

eating - and forgetting the acronym. or nighttime entertainment places. not in the commercial corridors that are named in the proposed amendment. that is just something to consider. perhaps - the second piece of this is - i have lost it. >> don't worry. by the way, if you don't know the answer, it's

okay. >> i don't have exact numbers on the fly, as you said. districts not named in any district. i want to make sure that is understood. not only are there non-named and sees, but there also the potential that there would be a new creation of a named in the future. just a reminder if this were to be amended to include these as specifically named, this section we need to be amended every time we do create or rename. that is all i was going to contribute. >> thank you. all right, colleagues, what is the will of this body. i am happy to work with the sponsor's office and oh ew need to go down the hall and

list them out and see who wants what. i think some supervisors will have very clear ideas of what their constituents, both residents and merchants desire and some will, whether it is to opt in, or not opt in and others well, i assume as is the case, i have been told for our colleague from the richmond district will want a little bit of time to do some work with her constituents. supervisor brown? >> i just want to say that the districts that were the most supportive two, six, seven and eight were the most supportive on this area i don't want to, for my district, list out the commercial corridors like japan town and that. i am just worried about doing something like that

would have unintended consequences. i'm not willing to do that if we are going to say, it's just district 5, i wanted to be district 5 across the board. i know that makes it very difficult for us to do this for other districts. >> i think, be advised that deputy city attorney gave we should not do this by supervisorial district lines. >> right. there are a couple of different ways to address it. you can aim commercial corridors or commercial districts. you could draw zone, not saying district 5, but a zone that the board spells out in this ordinance. any zoning ordinance, the board needs to be able to articulate a land-use justification for drawing the lines where you draw them. a

justification that is not simply this matches the current supervisorial district. we, and planning, could work with you on figuring out how to draw the appropriate area to capture the neighborhood you want to capture. >> okay. yeah, because i am a little bit, you know, i just think that is kind of a - i think it is a hodgepodge. it is very confusing for people. what i'm trying to do is make it easier, and much more across-the-board. so, you know, i think that definitely, chair peskin, going and talking to other supervisors and letting them know exactly what this means for the district is fine. but, like i have said, i have a majority of supporters, supporting, and the other few

supervisors come i think yes, they definitely need to have more information because it is confusing for everyone. thank you. >> can we endeavor to do that over the next week or two and see if we can get consensus? >> i absolutely will do that. >> all right, so, what is the makers preference, a two week continuance? >> i think that is probably the best. just so we can nail everything down and make sure that all of the supervisors are clear of what they would like to see in there district and then moving forward to make sure that we are very clear citywide also. >> i am happy to participate in that. without objection, i will make a motion to continue this to the meeting of july 22.

>> real quick for you go to the next item. i want to say for the supervisors edification. when we have worked on a number of different controls we have done it just by the commercial districts. i think you are saying the same thing as a city attorney and what supervisor peskin says. for the purposes other than any unnamed ncd or lc you that might arise, this did not out ends up accomplishing the same thing. you get the districts and thereby listing out the affected areas. i think that is probably the best way to do it. i appreciate that opportunity. i just want to say, for the record, myself and supervisor tang did something similar in terms of her removing the controls and restrictions for our district. part of the reason we did it by four hour commercial corridors in our districts, was to lay the groundwork for this here today.

i think you are taking on a big in denver - - and ever and you've got the attention of supervisor peskin. >> he is fully engaged on the issue now. >> i think in the next two weeks we will come with some final amendments that will then have us a very close to the finish line. i appreciate your patience on this. >> without objection we will continue this to july 22. let's move on to supervisor brown's next piece of legislation. [reading items] >> thank you. today i'm

introducing legislation to really address our plastic and zero waste. san francisco has been a leader on plastic and zero waste for more than a decade. since we passed the first elastic band in the country over a decade ago, countless jurisdictions have joined the effort. in our city and across the country, waste generation is still growing. we generate some 3,000,000 tons of waste per year, and more every year. we are recycling, we are composting, we are doing an amazing job on that. but we are never going to achieve our zero waste goals if we do not accept that we need to make a deeper change. we need to change the way we live, consume, and generate waste. we have helped lead recycling revolution, san francisco, i am very proud of that. now we need to lead the country again. we need to make

reuse the new recycle. this legislation proposes to simple changes. increasing the checkout bag charge in san francisco from point one zero up to a quarter. jurisdictions that have increased their bag charge in a similar fashion have seen big jumps in the number of people refusing disposable checkout bags. it has been seven years since our bag charge took effective. it is due for an update. as the world faces a growing trash problem, not just plastic, but all trash, recycling is not cutting it. we are not trying to punish anyone with this increased bag fee. this is actually a global issue. one where the whole world is asking, how are we going to deal with our trash, including recycling. since many countries

have said, no. i think indonesia was the last one to accepting our trash and recycling, what are we going to do? the answer is that we need to shift away from this plastic culture, of convenience, and disposability to one where we just use. and today we have the department of environment here. to make a presentation. >> thank you supervisor brown for your leadership. i'm going to do a brief context setting that talks about what this ordinance does and doesn't do and what we know about behavior in san francisco right now. this ordinance, this slide is about where we are trying to get to. we need to have a culture here

in san francisco, where it's all about reusable's at if we cannot do reusable's, if we need single use for some reason they need to be compostable paper. at the end of the day it's about getting rid of plastic. finding all of the different ways that it is used in our commercial enterprises to try to find alternatives. you may be thinking, didn't we band the plastic bag already? why are we here today talking about bags? it turns out that we did band plastic bags, but we band check out single use, then plastic bags. when the state of california adopted this kind of law on a statewide basis, they said, all cities are banned from distributing single use plastic, and instead are able to supply paper or reusable bags. what we are seeing now in businesses in

san francisco and around the state is taking that permission as reusable and saying, we are giving out reusable plastic bags. what i have here are two examples of reusable plastic bags and i put reusable in quotes because we have not seen anyone use these bags whenever i'm at a grocery store, nobody is bringing bag a plastic bag as a reusable item. instead of reducing the amount of plastic in our stores, we have inadvertently set up a system area are having thicker and more plastic. when you look at what behavior is happening in san francisco stores. what you will see is about 40 percent of our stores are only offering plastic checkout bags. about 60 percent, 50 percent excuse me are only offering paper bags, and the

remaining six or so percent give you a choice of paper plastic. what this is showing, this data is showing while our stores are in compliance with the letter of the law, we are not reducing the amount of plastic that is going into our system. what we are talking about today, as supervisor brown said are two pieces of attack here. one is to change behavior on the checkout backside, and one is to look upstream within the store apri checkout. on the checkout side, we are limited in terms of what we can do, what tools are available to us as a city, because the state law occupies the field for most of the requirements. what we have seen other cities do, both here in the united states in california and around the world. it is understand the bigger the cost, the bigger the price to get a bag, the more people are

inspired, if you will, to change their behavior and bring it reusable. a change in the ordinance at that supervisor brown is proposing is to update our charge from 10 up to 25 percent. when this ordinance was passed back in 2012 the supervisors actually foresaw the need and the original language of the checkout band and the charge language thought about putting in a phased approach starting at 10 and going up to 25. we took that out and said let's see how we do at 10 cents and since that time other cities have stepped up and realized that 10 cents is probably not enough. in the state of california alone you have 11 cities saying we are going to go higher 10 of those cities. they feel that is the level they will start to see a behavior change. i want to take a minute and talk about data. it appears that there has been some concern of

what do we know and how do we have confidence that changing this value from a 10 cents up to 25 cents is going to get us where we need to go? i want to point out first to the city of santa cruz area they were one of the first to increase from 10 cents up to 25 cents. what they have found in their words, a significant increase in behavior change after they increased the price up to 25 cents. they just finished a survey in the city of santa cruz that shows they have achieved a 90 percent uptake of reusable bags. when we look at what happened - >> i'm sorry. when you say 90 percent uptake. the total penetration is what? >> so, the way the data - i don't know what it was before they implemented the 25