way to go into proposing a piece of legislation. if it is 90%, you are there. this is done. the first piece was successful. focus on the important part of the legislation which is not the 25 cent increase but, in fact, the replacement of nonreusable bags in the produce department. okay? let's not conflate the issues here. if we are good citizens on the first initiative what was to get rid of them at checkout, start moving back in the stream the way you are. but don't put in this legislation something that will have zero effect and will cause a great deal of confusion. frankly, i don't care if it's 10 cents, 25 cents, or a dollar personally because i bring reusable bags. i am already a convert. you are preaching to the converted and taxing not me. and so if everyone else is already got religion, then all

you're doing is causing a controversy at the checkout for our merchants. what do you mean it's a dollar? what do you mean it's 25 cents? it's always been 10 cents. i don't care what it is because i am not affected by it, but how come you are changing it? we don't need that conversation 10,000 times times three, five, 20 sektdz seconds to have that conversation to make a productivity hit on the merchants and the ability to get people in and out of the stores. if you have ever waited in line at the market, 10, 20 deep, the last thing i want to hear is people arguing about, what they are getting charged for their bag and making that line take 50 to 100 percent longer. so i really object when people come in here and make quantitative -- try to put forward quantitative arguments with nothing but qualitative information with no data. the data exists. you have it in other countries. if you are really wanted to be thorough, you would bring the data with you.

okay? and so we are here to help you do better legislation. and good legislation has good frame work, good foundation. this one to me doesn't seem like a good foundation yet. if you have the data, great, go get and bring it back to supply to everybody. >> all right. >> may i respond? >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm peter golata public policy and the san francisco department of the environment. thank you for your comments, commissioner. i just want to clarify on the data piece. in the findings of the proposed legislation t department of environment did an informal survey after the 10-cent charge went into effect in 2012 and we found we had about a 60% adoption rate at that 10 cents. so we know that based on the data that we have from other cities and that have implemented

the increased charge that they are see tag go to 90. >> of course it is an additional incentive. it is a 15-cent additional incentive. the question is, you have a data point which now is outdated. good news. since that time, there is a huge amount of press about this z opportunity and for me to tell my friend, what, you didn't bring a bag? what an idiot. fit's still 60%, i should be shocked. i'll bet it is higher than that. what is it? do another informal study? >> i appreciate your optimism.

>> it has been years. >> we are challenged with the consumer behavior and the level op consumption that we are facing san francisco which is why my yor breed and generation is exploding in the city and even since 2012, we are seeing greater consumption with people purchasing and the amazon effect and people are purchasing more from a takeout standpoint as well. we also are seeing an increase in bags for takeout and delivery. we have done some follow-up on implementation and compliance with the business comment. we are seeing great compliance for the most part amongst businesses. we are about 8 # o% of the businesses that we have surveyed and are compliant in terms of charging for the checkout bags. >> takeout and delivery is a special use case. it is a carve out in the previous legislation, is it not? they have special dispensation for food related products.

>> the exception under the current law is for if you are dining in store and you are -- you have leftover food and you would like to take it home with you, you are not charged for that bag. however, if you are coming in to a food service establishment and you are making a to-go purchase, if a bag is provided, that charge should be implemented. >> that is fine. but why don't you go after making those bags compostable to be used the same way as the produce department? you have, one, an enforcement and compliance issue. and you have a different issue which is going after the source. taxing people simply to change their behavior is not good enough. it is providing a viable alternative because people are embracing those alternatives. they are embracing reusable bags and compostable bags. one of the arguments against compostable bags is they are more expensive. fine. we have to bear the burden somewhere, but that is a compliance issue. why not focus on the source?

you are focussing on behavior and that is notoriously difficult to modify without providing viable alternatives. you just told me we have a behavior problem with increase in use, but you haven't actually convinced me. we have apparently high compliance in the area that you have already addressed. i think you are not addressing the areas where the increases are happening. there is a huge increase in takeout. it's been driven by the technology industry. you need to go address it at the source. okay? the source is not the consumer. the source is the technology companies and the providers of those services and they need to change their behavior. they need to have an incentive to provide compostable bags. just telling people not to use bags anymore is not going to solve the problem. >> i would say, just to respond to that, commissioner, i think we have the department is very

well versed -- our department is committed to behavior change. that is the corner stone of our department's work. and we are very familiar with the -- how consumer behavior can be changed. and we have found that the reason that we accompany these charges on materials or items has a big impact in terms of driving further behavior change. there has been -- we can provide further studies to you on that matter, but it is one of the most effective tools that we have. >> the study is not there. the problem is the study is not there yet. i don't want to argue this any further. you provided outdated data and a big bump, but we don't have a quantitative number. if it's 5% because we are at 85%, that is a lot different than if we are at 60% and going to get to 90 to get a 40% bump out of a 15% bump. that is all i am asking for and that data, can we agree that that data is not available today. because the number at 60% is several years old. and you don't know what the compliance is today.

unless you are doing another informal study. i would suggest, and it would be great if you would do that for the public of san francisco so we can know whether we'reing with good or not. that would be useful. i would like to know if the neighbors are good. i'm done. >> commissioner laguana. >> i respectfully disagree with my colleagues. i commend supervisor brown's efforts to do something about the environmental crisis that is looming and approaching and causing ever more problems. i guess my question would be, has there been any consideration to make this -- provide some sort of cola adjustment so that we don't have to keep revisiting this periodically? >> that is a great idea. >> by the way, i am not saying do nothing. i am saying do the right thing. >> i hear you.

>> appreciate that. we discussed it early in and it was hard to find a mark to set the colas at. it felt like and we're hoping for sort of a world in which this is not something we are revisiting still in 20 years. and all i would say is for matters as simple of initially addressing this issue, we sort of passed on the cola, but i think it's worthwhile and sort of good concept and i think it's worth exploring further with the department. >> okay. i appreciate that. >> keep an eye open for that. i would just say in general when confronted with multi-factorial problems that are dense and challenging, sometimes you just have to throw everything and the kitchen sink at it. certain

certainly my experience than introducing cost can and does change behavior. clearly it changed behavior in 2012 and i i remember how much people were upset about that at the time. but i think it had an impact then. since then i'll note that the minimum wage has the increased by approximately $3 -- well, in a couple days now, $3.59 an hour. so given that most grocery expenses are fairly infrequent, i think that the cost factor here is largely diminished and the awareness factor is really what's important. certainly every time i go to a grocery and ask if i eel pay extra for the plastic bag, it gets me thinking about the issue again. and i think that's an important

component. i also commend the supervisor on crafting a bill that did not -- does not materially effect small business and allows the stores to keep the money and it seems to me that it merely decreases the cost that probably isn't where they see a lot of profit to begin with. so from my perspective, i think it's a good bill and i would like to see more of it and in more areas. >> commission zouzounis. >> thank you, all, for your presentation. i have a couple of questions. it was my understanding that we've already banned plastic bags in san francisco, and i know you said there was an exception, but in the industry that i am most familiar with, the small convenience stores and the grocers, my family's business in particular, we made that full switch and we ate the cost of buying paper bags that are stronger with handles at

three times the price as the bags that were banned. so in that sense, i do feel like we're being punished for that conversion in particular. so my question is, maybe big grocery trips are less frequent, but we have customers that come in every day. so are we administering this charge for also daily paper bag uses? this isn't just associated with the heavy plastic bags, right? we charge this for regular paper bags as well? >> peter, department of environment. thank you, commissioner. yes, so any checkout bag transaction if it is a paper bag that is provided to the customer for collecting their items to depart, would be subject to the ordinance and so the paper bag would be subject to the 25 cent charge. >> okay. thank you.

and i know -- thank you, juan carlos, for your conversations on this because one thing that we were dealing with as merchants prior with the 10 cent charge is we had to do our own -- we made our own signs. because we weren't provided with outreach material. and either way, i like to eare mind policymakers that -- who haven't worked behind the counter or aren't familiar with the human error that is part in the dialogue that is entailed with being in retail, this will no matter how much outreach you do, we will have to -- our lunch rush will be slowed down. we will have to have these conversations. and it will affect businesses despite the signage that's provided. so that needs to be noted. and just also largely, a lot of the big picture environmental and public health laws that san francisco implements fall on retail. and i am just curious if we

aren't looking at the right mechanisms and going after the low-hanging fruit instead of being more creative with the policy directives. we are paying for one fee in particular goes to the convenience stores pay goes towards the bulk of street cleaning as a whole in san francisco. we collect cans and bottles which you are familiar with. that c.r.v. issue. and these are all falling on retail and we need to be aware of that. and lastly, interesting about the restaurant takeaway piece. this is another concern of mine that regulatory license holders like type 20 and 21 and alcohol use and businesses are paying a fee that restaurants that have an alcohol license aren't maying. this is another example that retail is paying for more than

restaurants. i think that is also a huge problem. >> if i may respond to some of your comment, thank you, commissioner. i will kind of address them backwards. starting with the last comment. i think we want to look at the legislation working closely with the supervisor's office in terms of where if there is a loophole in terms of the rise of the third party delivery apps and in terms of the charges, the charge is supposed to go back to the business. the business implements the charge and keeps the charge, right? so we want to make sure in instance where is there is takeout that those funds are going back to the source of where the product is being made and sold. and so that's something we want to look at to make clear that the business is still earning that charge and keeping the charge in those situations. and we also, one of the big challenges and this goes back to commissioner dwight's comments that we face with local policies and in this case is state law. the state has a checkout bag law

that went into effect on in effect by the voters in 2016 and it limits our ability locally to address the thicker plastic bags or to assign the charge in a different way. it is designed that the charge applies to all bags equally and that the really only mechanism we have at a local level to address the issue of single use disposable checkout bags is through changing the charge. so we would really like to see and we know many businesses have shifted away from single use plastic or even the thicker reusable plastic. some have tried compostable and many are choosing to paper. the reality is the law still allows for that thicker, reusable plastic.

and we can't mandate anything otherwise per state law. it challenges us from really encouraging a greater shift oiway and what we have committed to doing is as much education and outreach as possible. we are happy to work closely with you and members of the commission to be on the outreach piece and the materials that we're going to develop to update and inform consumers. the big challenge i think for us from a policy standpoint is focussing on the consumer responsibility and also the producer responsibility. so we definitely hear the concerns around the impacts to retail and how do we go further upstream in terms of looking at policies that address manufacturing and the production of these materials. and in this case we're hamstrung by state law. but we're really trying to address the consumer responsibility piece in partnership with the business community. try to make it a win-win where the business keeps that charge

and hopefully we're incentivizing and further incentivizing the behavior change from the public and we're committed to working. >> right. i understand that. don't get me wrong. i am happy that this is not under line item that we have to pay as a fee. but economics isn't that easy to interpret it as, oh, this is going to be just money back to the small businesses because we lose money when our lines get longer and take more time. we lose money when our prices go up and this is a r essentially what is happening. your lunch is going to be 25 cents more now. and consumers interpret that as this store is increasing their prices. and that is the reality. so i understand that you think it's just going to be coming back to us, but it will be

indirect loss. >> and we want to make sure we're working as much as we can to educate consumers on the issue and we have heard that concern. and want to make sure we're addressing that and whether this is going beyond a posted placard or signage, we feel committed to addressing the consumer awareness more broadly and showed some examples of the refuse reuse campaign and want to make that part of the culture of san francisco. and people say, you know what, i don't need a bag. i can carry the sandwich wrapped in the paper. i can carry the beverage and so that's kind of the culture that we are hoping to push forward. so that folks are not kind of experiencing that charge and thinking about the consumer choices. >> commissioner ortiz. >> i want to thank everybody that presented today and just first off the ba bat, we're all

with the spirit. we might be on the same page, and i don't want to live my grandkids a big pile of plastic, so we're on the same page. the purview is to protect and see it there u the lens of the small business. as a minority, i grew up in the roughest neighborhoods and the way culturally we shop is different and 25 cents is huge. and snap would be mitigated, but if i am undocumented person, i don't have snap. i am still poor, though. and 25 cents and we shop differently. mike my mom would have to shop day by day. so 30 days, that is like 7.50 and to some of the colleagues in their culture, that is not a lot, but to us that is a meal. my woman would buy a potato, and boom, if for $2, we had dinner at least. and i want to put you in perspective with the cultural lens because they are separate. also, in the bayview, there is food deserts. again, shopping small. and the way we're culturally

raised, we don't bring the bag and go and expect a bag because we shop small, for the day, for the meal. i just want to put that perspective and small businesses is constantly getting bombarded. like mee colleague says, it is perceived in our spanish culture, oh, hacienda, again, charging 25 cents and nickel and dime. we could bring all the literature and show them this tape, they ain't buying that. just so you can see that. and then another thing overall thing for me on the whole different note is i don't think -- i think all our efforts in the city and all the departments, we offer in silos in a way where the big culprit is sometimes the big ride share technology app, the gypsy services that are not regulated. a lot of the culture has changed here in san francisco because of the traffic, so what do we do? we pick up and we get food delivered now. those are the big culprit. and why do me as the consumer or the restaurant i am shopping for

have to pick up the tab? why aren't we hitting up amazon for $2 every single time we place an order. not either side of the transaction, but them because they are the ones and the ubers and lyfs, causing the traffic and we don't want to go to the neighborhood and we have to call now. so i just want you to put it in perspective. but i know you probably got kind of hit up today. we don't want plastic either. trust me. even the co-commissioner dwight, probably the first one that doesn't want plastic. we're with you. we just got to work on --. >> the checkout part is fine. 25 cents we're trying to grasp. >> yeah. >> commissioner riley. >> yes. i am with my colleagues. i support the second part of the legislation. i think it's good idea. but i wanted to ask whether or not you have done recent study in terms of behavior. how many people still not bring the bags? and where do we want to be?

and to determine whether or not this 15 cent increase is necessary. and do we have any plant to take a look at that to see where we are today? >> thank you, commissioner. supervisor brown that introduced this legislation. to your point, when the first legislation came forward to ban plastic bags in 2006 and the executive director was a legislative aide helping that come through. one of the things that the ten cents and why it was ten cents is actually this was the first plastic bag ban. and to really get to people to move forward and say this is something we need to address, it was 10 cents. it was arbitrary. it was something small we felt we could get through. 13 years later, plastic bag bans

are all over this country. they have followed our lead. and guess what has happened? they charge 25 cents. santa cruz and other places have charged 25 cents for a bag. any kind of bag. and for that bag fee. and what they have seen happen is the bag usage drops dramatically. like 90% in santa cruz. because of 25 cents. and so when we were looking at this 13 years later, and let's talk about inflation from 10 cents to 25 cents, it was something that we don't want to punish anyone on this 25 cents. because yeah, 25 cents can add up, but what we want to do is we want to encourage people to bring your own bag. and the thing with bags now, i mean, when this first legislation in 2006 pass and we

had big bags and trying to carry them up stairs and three bags is like $2 of bags in your purse n your pocket, and you can carry bags so easy. there is such a variety of bags. and the whole idea toft 25 cents is to bring down consumers to actually bring their own bag. that is really important. and with the plastic bag ban for me, is what has happened in the stores like whole foods? you go in whole foods in the produce and the bulk item, plastic bags are there. so they have found loopholes to bring plastic bags back. so i just feel the 25 cents, i don't want to punish anyone. but it has shown around the country if you and the usage of

getting bags goes down dramaticcally. people change their ways. as far as home deliveries, i absolutely agree 100% with you that we should be looking at and charging them because when we look at the environment and all the cardboard, the bubble wrap, the plastic, everything that they put in there to drop off at your door or food service at your door, we should actually also be charging them. and i agree with you. and we're going to work forward on that because that isn't fair, and they are a huge issue with our recycling and you have to understand that we talk about recycling, but we can't even really recycle anymore. there is nowhere to send our recycling.

we don't have anywhere to send it. china is not taking it. indonesia said no more. and so where do we send it? we need to stop recycling and just need to refuse. so this is legislation that i know feels sometimes a little bit tight and could be painful. but i don't think -- and i feel the rez reszs of san francisco will -- i feel the residents of san francisco will absolutely push forward, and for us is making sure people have free bags. that is something that i have been talking to a lot of people to give free bags and produce bags away at farmers markets and reusable bags. so i just really appreciate you, commissioners, listening in to this today. i take your input seriously. i really go and i would love this legislation to move forward and your suggestions on home deliveries, i am there with you.

>> i think there will be another piece of legislation addressing that. if you have any questions for me, i'll be here for a few minutes. >> great. thank you. commissioner laguarna. >> supervisor, thank you for your leadership on this issue and thank you for your leadership on the small business bill. i know simultaneously, ironically, you are trying to move through. i was very happy to hear you comment on the tech delivery side of things. i was going to back up the fellow commissioner who is had mentioned that and now i don't have to. and finally, i would just say on behalf of my colleagues, i think there's a lot of ptsd in the small business community over the past 10, 20 years.

it's just been absolutely devastating. and incredibly difficult, and when thuf role, i think all of us take very seriously our charge, which is to protect small business, and do everything we can for it. and i support your legislation and i also support my colleagues in trying to protect the small businesses that so it doesn't just become a city of two or three giant corporations and couple of people working for them on the side as independent contractors or what have you. so i do think that it's important to hear what that side of it. and i appreciate that the legislation addresses a lot of these issues. and if my colleagues have more ideas on ways to improve the legislation, i am happy to support it.

>> thank you. commissioner dwight. >> i support any effort to reduce waste whether bit plastic bags or cardboard or styrofoam. i want to get back to the basic fundamental question, and that is, i want to know what the outcome is from this. we know that the 10% ---er to 10 cent fee has had a great effect. and we have some and there is loose data that we got to, quote, unquote, 60% at some period of time early on. where are we today to ascertain the outcome of the increase? and the answer was, we're not sure, but somewhere between 60-90%. the answer also included an observation that the best of class, ireland, let's give it to them right now s at 90%. so assuming that 100% is not

accomplish-able really -- it's asifrpsyntotic to something. if ireland is there, maybe we're there. i don't know. but the answer between 60 to 90 percent is if we're at 60, i am all for it. make it 25 cents. make ate dollar. don't make it a dollar. obviously there are other issues that, but make it 25 cents and let's measure the outcome. if we are at 90% already, we are focussing on the wrong issue. because we already got religion. 10 cents was all it took. and all it took for me. all it took for my colleagues here. 10 cents and like i can't afford 10 cents, but i'm not going to pay 10 cents for a bag and bring my own out of principle. what it did is raise awareness for the principle. if you really wanted that and that would be a deterrent for everyone.

my question today is very fundamental and where are we today and will a 15 cent increase have a demonstratable effect? if san francisco is already best of class, then that part has been accomplished. let's focus on the other important issues of reducing waste where it exists. if we are already at 90%, it doesn't exist at that point. it exists somewhere else. so i just don't like to see legislation that has good intentions but it doesn't actually address the problem. so if someone can tell me where we're at today and even if we're at 80%, i will say great, 10% bump is worth it to me to get to 90. let's agree where best of class is and where we are and let's monitor the progress. it is an it willing disheartening that we haven't done a study in 10 years because

it sounds like the first was done at a three-year point to say we got to 60%. that is really a bummer if we are the leader in this in the world and we haven't done a follow-up study to determine where we're at if if we're already saints and angels, hall lay lou ja. let's find -- hallelujah. let's find a different way to -- i don't object in absolute. i object on principle that we don't have the data to even figure out where we're going to go from here. that is really important because if we're already there, then there is no there there, so i want to look back at this piece of legislation and go, that was awesome. by changing it by 15 cents, we went from a to b. that is the lesson everyone will take and not that san francisco willy-nilly raises the fees without any knowledge of what

the net effect is. we apparently have the ability to find out what that net effect is, so let's do it. >> commissioner dwight, i an i degree with you we should have data. better data. what we looked at is other cities charging 25 cents. we didn't have that data that could say what will it do for us? >> we didn't go from 10 to 25. they started at 25. >> and from a dime to a carter in santa cruz. >> and then they saw the bump. they saw a huge bump. >> they had a quantity at a time v assessment. -- they had a quantitative assessment. we don't know what the baseline is. to say it is 60% is inaccurate because that is a very old number. i would like to know the baseline today to celebrate the same thing. we are not going to celebrate anything here if we raise the rate and don't know what it got

us. i don't think. >> so you don't think that looking at santa cruz when they had at ate 10 cents. >> santa cruz is not san francisco. we don't have the data to know the cause and effect. we already have a success. we don't know what it is. so i won't be able to tell you whether we had a demonstratable effect on this particular issue, and that is the refusal of bags at point of purchase. no one can tell me. if it's 75, 80, 90 percent, great, but we won't know what effect this has if we don't know that number today. >> what you are saying is you would like to have a study now, right? >> i would like to know -- even the informal study done before. figure out where we are today. that is the only way to support quantitatively a change in a fee that may have already had its

desired effect. you haven't convinced me that we haven't had the desired effect with the 10 cents already. and i don't think that a bunch of millennials running around going i don't care about a dime, i am not using the bags. maybe they are, but let's find out. i would like to think they are more ecoconscious generation we have ever had. >> and a detail, and the legislation as written does not go into effect until july 2020. and i hear the supervisor agreeing with you that it would be wonderful to have a study like the study that we did initially in order to have a baseline that is closer to sort of today. and i absolutely would be wonderful to celebrate this sort of material change, not just on the back they end our waste stream because we have data that we have seen plastic waste rising at ricology. >> but that could be an industrial effect. >> absolutely. >> the new food -- >> we all agree that gigacon, and the internet and the ability

to purchase things over the web and not leave your home and get everything delivered to the house is driving that. again, this may not address that problem. we need to find other ways to address those problems. >> and find out what they are. >> and so what would be interesting to explore is we've got time between now and july 2020 and we're working closely with the department. we're in budget season right now. we may be able to talk about whether there is action that we can take to support a study like that between now and july 2020. so that you do have some sense and we all have some sense of where we are now and celebrate the change that we're confident. if 99% or 90% of residents are already have shooed plastic bags together, no one is going to be upset about this fee, but it would be nice to know that we are seeing a change. >> precisely my point. >> u a commissioner zouzounis. >> thank you, supervisor, for

being here. i just wanted to ask a question that i had asked previously. so for businesses like my family's business, for example, what do i tell my father who did phase out the plastic bags and spent three times more on getting handled strong paper bags, and now is having to raise a fee on those? so is there room for exceptions in this legislation for retailers that are compliant in getting rid of plastic? and where they always made artificial costs increases for compostable silverware and that sort of thing, too? we're bearing the cost of this and the incentive where it's on the consumer is not on the retailer. so an intentative for a retailer would be an exception and if they are selling only using paper bags and because at this point i would definitely see retailers going back and making that switch back to plastic at

this point because, well, i don't have to have these after all. >> no, and if we had the power here, the board of supervisors, we could do that, but we don't have the power to carve out because it is state legislation. and the thing with paper, we're really trying to get rid of people bringing paper also. so it's not only plastic, but paper. and that's where cardboard comes in. and it's all of this looking at reusable bags and the last people or group that i want to punish on this is our small business. i mean, i am i am someone that feels we need to do everything we can to protect small business and make it easier in this city. and i see one thing after another hurting small business. and it drives me crazy.

so i would never want to hurt small business and this type of legislation. but i can't do carveouts. because of the state regulations. but we, like i said with paper bags, we would really want to try to get people to bring their own bags. because of the fact that, as i said, it is not great to have this recycling all this paper either. and i would definitely love to sit down with small businesses like family businesses that you have talked about, and small stores and figure out what we could do to help them. the regular customers if we can find bags and donated bags for them to give to the regular customers and say, here, here is a bag for you. and if you don't have one. to really try to help them move forward instead of giving a

paper bag. and then charging their customer 10 cents. and because even when we charge 10 cents, the paper bag, that -- the businesses have to push that on to the consumer also. because those 10-cent bags add up to the small business. so we're really just trying to eliminate anyone wanting a bag. so yeah. so thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you for your response. >> i really appreciate that. >> i'm sorry. i have to leave to the next thing. >> really quick before you lever, i want to say, first off, i really do appreciate what you have done for small business especially with your streamlining legislation. and you are one of the first supervisors that i know who says, i am going to do something a small business and really mean it. i really do appreciate that. >> thank you. and i really love the fact that on your all cash businesses. and i thought that was brilliant and really does help and a big,

huge segment in this town who don't use credit cards. >> absolutely. >> that was an even field. i like half of this ordinance. i am one that if you get your fruit and vegetables and peanuts or whatever, i bring a little paper bag. or something else. to put the stuff in. and even our company i work for, we do give out reusable bags at all the street fairs and up to over 100,000 of those distributed in san francisco. it's just 25 cent thing that if we can get studies to see where we're at now. i would feel more comfortable with that 25 cents. i just want to see a study because when i go to diamond heights safeway, there's not one person who is taking a paper bag in that store. i am amazed at everybody has their take away bags. so i almost feel like i would like to see a study on that. before i could buy into the 25

cents. the first half, though, i am all for that. we have all flown to hawaii and seen that what we think is an island between here and hawaii and it ain't an island. >> exactly. >> and that is concerning. so i appreciate the spirit of this and everything you have done for small business. >> thank you. thank you. >> commissioner riley. >> well, thank you. and i just wanted to make a comment that i know a lot of people including myself and my fellow commissioners always bring our bags. >> there you go. she has one. and not because of the 10 cents, but because we all care about the environment. it is education and that we provided to the consumers. >> it is. and i absolutely agree with you. now days you don't have to have the big bags that you are hauling around, but just have a little scrunchie in your bag or purse or pocket. and this is the thing that --

trying to bring what you do and what we want most people to do is bring their own thing. in the end, bringing their own bag. i think small businesses especially can be so powerful because the small businesses, they know their customers much better than the larger businesses that are just like a whole foods that is giving bags and charges you. those small businesses, they know the corner stores and they know your name when you come in. they know, hey, i've got that drink that you like in the bag that i ran out of. they know that. for them to be able to, you know, even have free bags or whatever to be able to give people and say, hey, you should bring this bag because we don't want to charge you for bags because we have to charge you.

so to have a roundtable with small businesses to say how do we support you to cut the costs from the customers and the environment. and thank you very much. >> if we have no more questions, i would like to open it up for public comment. any members of the public who would like to make comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner, do we want to take any action on this? >> well, i mean, i can -- i support the legislation provided that the increase from 15 cents has a demonstratable effect on the -- that is the only provision. i support the legislation and the increase to 25 cents if it

has the effect that is promised. i just don't have the data to know what the baseline is to know if it's going to have that effect. if there is a promise to do a study. i am not going to hold it up, but i think it's incumbent on the supervisor and the team here to give us the baseline to so that the public knows what the effect is. because they are paying for it. and as a small business, we should know what the ultimate effect is. it's only fair. i move we support the legislation with the provision that a study is done between now and the time that it is implemented to get the baseline behavior today so that we can know what the effect is on the behavior of people using bags. >> do you think we can get a study done?

>> thanks, commissioners. yes, i think that is something that we can definitely do. and we will commit to between now and july. >> if you don't have the budget, i will help you raise the money. there are plenty of companies that would be happy to -- look, sf city is all about representing technology companies and putting data behind solutions. so if we can't find a couple of companies at sf city that will help us get a quantitative analysis of this -- >> i'll fund it myself. >> we would welcome that and at minimum commit to the informal study and if there are resources to support an additional survey, we would support it. >> an informal to start. >> director? >> so -- excuse me. for the motion, since i am hearing from the commissioners the second -- the precheckout bag seems to be -- the commission is comfortable. so if we could maybe first take

a motion on -- >> an i made a motion to support the legislation as presented provided a study is done to baseline the behavior today so we can know what the effect of the 15 cent increase is. period. >> commissioner laguana. >> just to clarify t survey you would like to see is just measuring adoption rate of nonplastic bags, nonplastic paper, bring your own? >> baseline, baseline whether we're at 60% or 9 # o% or somewhere in between in the use of reusable bags versus disposable bags. the measurement that was already -- >> the one already determined in santa cruz and ireland. okay? get the same information that they have. between now and the time that this legislation goes into effect. that is my motion. >> commissioner ortiz. >> can i ask also, if possible, a break in demographics. especially latino and

african-american. and how does that impact and the usage rates and stuff of that nature? >> and asian. >> and asian. >> so i will amend my motion with the desire to have that data also broken out on demographic basis. if possible. >> i would second that. >> but i accept the fact that -- look, i want the first before the second. i want the baseline data. and if the answer is, well, we would get you the baseline data but can't get the demographic data, so we're not doing either. get one or both, preferably both. i will accept that amendment to the motion. >> may i just respond? i think there is great value in certainly understanding the demographics.

i would say in terms of the informal study we did previously was really just eyeballing and eye checking and a customers leaving and a points of business. and not necessarily collecting any additional data. it is worthwhile to pursue that data and may change the scope of the survey. and in terms of requiring additional resources. i just wanted to explain that may impact our ability or timeline to deliver on that, but it is something i will discuss internally with my colleagues in terms of how we can accommodate that if we can and even if we can do an informal assessment of demographic or engage with a customer to confirm their identity as opposed to making an assumption on someone's identity. i think that is a challenge with that kind of survey. >> just from the eyeball on the streets and go to a travellers market and a whole food. you will see the difference on who is carrying bags and who is

bringing it. >> commissioner laguana. >> it is fine. >> so we have a motion by commissioner dwight and seconded by zouzounis. do you want to read it back? >> motion by commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner zouzounis, to support the legislation provided that a study will be completed to determine how many consumers currently bring their own bags and to include, if possible, a breakdown of the demographics of those consumers. >> perfect. >> roll call vote. commissioner adams? >> yes. >> a commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> a commissioner ortiz? >> yes. >> a commissioner yee-riley? >> yes. >> a commissioner zouzounis? >> yes. motion passes 6-0 with one absent. >> thank you very much. >> next item please. >> thank you. item 5, continued from may 29, modified resolution urging the

mayor and san francisco board of supervisors to adopt the small business commission's recommendation for economic transition assistance for small business impacted by city bans on the sales of certain tobacco products. discussion and action item. >> commissioners, we've revised the motion, simplified it, so just to backtrack a little bit, so the e-cigarette ban file number 19-312 passed at the board of supervisors last week on the first reading both in committee and last week at the board of supervisors there was discussion about creating a working group to deal with making recommendations and suggestions for mitigation measures. so i think what's before you is

the simplified version with the urging for the mayor and the board of supervisors to follow up on that working group instead of articulating specifics in the mitigation measures, we can follow up with that. we know what the commission has, but i think we want to assure that the working group gets forms. and that they follow through with that commitment. and what we have included is a list of recommendations as to who would make up that working group, which would be the office of economic and workforce development, our office, and the small business development center, the city attorney's office, and then representation from the board of supervisors. >> i would like to recommend one one-word addition to this.

it's in the fourth to last. it specifies the $70 million loss. i believe you mean an annual loss of $70 million. $70 million per year. right? >> a commissioners zouzounis? >> if we're going to skip to the data points, i do think we need to clarify the $50 million that the controllers report from the economic analysis of the ban on flavored tobacco, that was city losses, not industry. >> so $50 million in taxes and fees? >> i believe so. so this has been kind of an ongoing issue for us because we need to identify mechanisms for

industry loss which the controller's office hasn't been able to provide. and part of why we're grapling with the monetary loss for the e-cigarette ban is there's not been a formal study conducted on industry loss even from the ban on flafred tobacco. from what i understand, $50 million was a loss to the city and i would assume based on our numbers of some retailers telling me they would lose 45,000 a year that that number in industry losses would be much higher. >> again, it should say annual. we have to qualify the time period over which losses are incurred. >> an i think part of our challenge with being able to fully articulate this was that in the -- is in the controller's report, they did not get to that level of specificity.

and so if we're using their data to do some equating for the e-cigarettes, whichevers a disappointment that the office of economic analysis chose not to do an economic analysis for this piece of legislation -- we're sort of -- we want to make sure that we're not mistaking what the controller's data is by saying annually or sales tax revenue. so we haven't gotten specificity from the control ears office to what their economic impact report was. >> and my point is just throwing a number out, $70 million, we need to either throw it out -- get rid of it because it has no meaning or giver it meaning and that is it has to be characterized as to whether it's an annual loss and absolute loss over the next 10 years or what. it's just a number.

it has -- >> can i interrupt please? >> clarify. >> clarify that what is stated in the economic impact report is that based on the data that they have, they estimate the value of flavored tobacco cigarettes that would be effected by the legislation at approximately $15 a year. that is the value of the product no, tt value that the city collects. >> good, value of the product. >> thank you for that clarification. >> annual sales or flavored, retail sales of -- i guess. >> it didn't specify annual or overall. i would not feel comfortable. >> you said per year. >> per year. sorry. so it's annual. >> so we will write in the

annual. >> any other commissioner comments before we go to public comment? and we are comfortable levering in the $70 million loss in sales per year as a pro forma number? and also the $50 million response in loss of sales per year up above as referenced? >> in the chart, too. just put that. >> in the chart as well. >> if you -- dominica, obviously we're not economic experts, and dominica did use a calculation based on the cost of each e-cigarette and some evaluation. can we say it is an absolute

number? without the office of economic analysis, we're doing our best judgment to provide an evaluation where the office of economic analysis lacked to do so. >> i don't have any objection. >> estimate. >> an it says on here estimate. >> looking at it, it does make sense because per product electric cigarettes are more expensive. is that how you ka imto that conclusion? >> -- came to that conclusion? >> the prort provided the estimated number of electronic users in the city and looking at the packet -- >> this is great. i was no way questioning the data. i was saying clarify as an annual number. that is all. >> i'm okay with that. >> do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on item five?

seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? economying commissioner laguana. >> quick question. the attorney in me in here is wondering, should is an optional request. it is like -- so i am getting down to the part further resolved, economic mitigation measures should be developed in partnership with merchants, osb, oewd, and sbfc, controller's office, city attorney's office, board of supervisors. are we -- >> i would say, commissioner, good catch because generally "shall" means it's mandated. so should and shall. >> so is that your recommendation is that it -- >> maybe turn