-- and outreach first and foremost. that was always a primary tactic, and so we have been doing that since 2006. this is a program completely untethered from general funds and even completely untethered from any time. and so this is a competitive environment, openly competitive and by design and by law going back to the 1960s. so you have an enormous ecosystem, 60,000 building permits every year and 30,000 of them with debris. and because of the nature which we appreciate and want of an

open and competitive model, we have hundreds of companies coming to the city, often times from far off counties because we're a magnet for this kind of activity now. we have dozens of facilities in the region that can accept materials. and the debris ecosystem, and the material is flowing over county lines all the time, so it's a really large, vast and complex ecosystem and to date we have relied on one f.t.e. to implement our ordinance and oversee and monitor compliance, and we have been good at doing that lead to date. but the type of activity that we're talking about, when those get exploited the consequences are steep, 170,000 tons in other community landfills and the legal dumping in the streets and these are not small infractions,

you know, they do have an impact. and so we really have run the course on implementing the ordinance without any additional resources. and we did a really thorough search to see how we can generate those resources equitably and fairly and how to level the playing field because there's legit businesses trying to do the right thing by the environment and by their community and they get undercut in the bidding process by someone willing to go to landfill or willing to dump it illegally. and without the referee out there, you know, your laws are really a suggestion, without the enforcement for some people your law is a suggestion. and when that message is received there can be damage that occurs and we see that play out. so we have a responsibility to be out there to level the playing field. and the fairest way to do this is to keep the hauling model open and competitive and bring a fee on that could be absorbed by

the industry at large and is in insignificant in the overall cost of a project when you consider in labor, land, materials and insurance, that permit fee from one and it will be straight out pretty thin. but collectively those small fees for us mean a lot because we do have oversight right now and it's working well. like jack said there's projects that have to submit, not only plans on how they'll manage their debris, but the proof that they be brought in to the facility. and these are things that we work out agreements with d.b.i., where just to get the permit you have to submit your plan. to get your final inspection you have to show your recycling receipt. so we have good oversight of about certain projects, about 3,000 a year. 30,000 generate significant debris. we did a lot of work with the facilities to ensure that only the best performers will receive debris from san francisco and that's verified by a third party

model touted throughout the country and u.s. green building council and leader showing that as a model way forward. so we have checked a lot of bo boxes at the book end and the facilities and the generators of debris. and there is some reason to dump there in the streets illegally it got there on a truck. so we need the ability to intercept activity in real-time, debris being put into a vessel or a truck or debris box to say, a, do you have the permit to do that? to haul that material? great. you give the receipt to us to prove that you brought it to the right place. so it's back to the question from commissioner stevenson that we have an outreach mechanism and the sheriff is helping with outreach and the department of public works is helping with outreach. we're providing outreach.

there's a presence there. but there's also now a mechanism to actually to enforce penalties when needed. and that levels the playing field so that's the weak link is seeing the truck with the debris and saying, okay, we know that you're in the system. now your job is -- and once that load is somewhere, submit the receipt and prove that it went to the right place. >> thank you. i appreciate your work on this in the last couple years. davi, i know that you wanted to jump back in and have a moment to have a conversation or make a plan? >> no, i'm good. i was just -- yeah, thanks. >> okay. so i want to be really clear with all of my commissioners that i'm excited about this. and i'm very in support and very in support of it. and i am also aware that i want to employ the commission.

so my recommendation on this is that we don't take action on it right now but potentially to push off taking action on it until just before the supervisors have the ability to make the most impact. i'm open to conversation around that and this is for discussion and/or action and i really appreciate this entire conversation. and i am really excited about the work that's gone into this. anymore discussion or extents from commissioner -- comments from commissioners? >> is that recommendation also supported by staff? >> it is. >> thank you. >> you might want to hear from the public if they have something to add to that. but, yeah, it is. >> all right, seeing -- i'm sorry, your hand is raised? >> i wanted to ask, do we know when the board of supervisors might be taking this up or how long that is going to take?

>> thank you for that question. we actually do not. and i think that there's honestly some -- there's a couple of areas of heartburn. one is timing in terms of the economy and the perception on, you know, is this the right time to be adding a new fee. and then the other -- although i don't think that there's any heartburn about the policy itself, and there is still a lot of discussion about jurisdiction with public works and us. so staff level have worked that out pretty well, but the supervisor i think alluded to this when he said that there's some more discussion and explanation that is going to need to happen. as you know that there's a lot of scrutiny going on right now with what is going on in public works. i think that there are some questions about overlapping authorities, or who's going to do what. and we have some work to do on that. and, you know, it may change the ordinance, which we will come

back -- or the proposal -- and we'll come back and let you know. so i think that president stevenson put it very well in terms of mac maximizing the tim. so the short answer, sorry, i don't actually know the precise date. >> all right. i would love to open it to public comment >> clerk: we can open it up for public comment at this time. the instructions are put back up on the screen for anyone who is joining via webex. give me one second. so the instructions are now back on the screen to make a public comment related to this agenda item, please dial the number on the screen. and remember to press star, 3, to be added to the queue and you will have three minutes to make your comments. i do see that we have one caller in the queue.

so i will go ahead and unmute them now. and your three minutes will start now. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: excellent. sorry i was delayed the p.u.c. meeting just ended a few minutes ago and i was stuck there. on item 5, the c.n.d., the debris recovery ordinance amendments, i have not -- i apologize -- i have not reviewed the legislation in detail but i do support it and the considerable staff work behind it, establishing and changing the fees and the definitions and the enforcement and all of that with the debris boxes and it's a complicated scheme but the goal is to improve resource recovery from c.n.d. materials and be able to patrol and enforce which is complicated by itself.

and so great work to everybody on that. i recognize that you're intending to delay based on the further discussions and refinement, that's fine. but i wanted to express my support at this time. also note that depending on how the new department of sanitation and streets that the voters in -- that the voters chose to create through proposition b, depending how that devolves, this ordinance may need more view in the future. but that's at least a year and a half off. and -- sorry to digress for a second since i was in the p.u.c. meeting earlier i'm not asking to you reopen the item on the minutes, but if you could just allow katie to go back and fix page 5 of the minutes from the september meeting. denisedenise deanne, but it didt

have the last name and if you could do that on page 5 of minutes i think that would be good for the record. i'm all set. thank you on item 5. >> clerk: thank you very much. anyone else? >> i'm not see anything additional callers in the queue. >> clerk: all right. do we have to pause or are we good? >> clerk: no, i think that we are good. >> let's go to the next item please, katie. >> okay, we'll move to the next item which is agenda item 6, presentation and discussion on the department racial equity plan and the sponsor is the director and the speakers are cindy comoford, and the city government zero waste coordi