Please make sure to silence all cellphones and electronic devices. Completed copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items will appear on the next minutes. Can you please call item number 1. Clerk lease amendment lexington lion San Francisco, lp 350 rhode island streetnorth 2,600,000 rent credit. I would like to make a motion petitioner this to be continued for one more week. Before that i will take Public Comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item 1, seeing none, that item is closed. I would like to make a motion to continue the item to october 16. Clerk item 2 is resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Public Health, Behavioral Health services to enter into a multiyear organized Delivery SystemIntergovernmental Agreement for Substance UseDisorder Services with the state department of health care services, in the amount of 171,714,918 for the term of july 1, 2019, through june 30, 2022. Thank you. I have been working on this contract for about 27 years. Please continue. The first thing i want to point out is that the contract is retroactive. The source of the retroactivity was we first received the agreement for our perusal on october 20. There are changes in the funding since the Crime PreventionPublic Safety act of 2011. It involves them work through centers of medicare and medicaid services. Our services get back and forth before signed, so its not unusual that theyre slow. Okay. Having said that, not guilty 1922, all of the amendments to this will be retroactive to july 1st. So theyll all be retroactive contracts. Anyway, this contract is practically the same as it was last year. The big changes came two years before. Its really a pretty straightforward contract. Basically what it is is the rules and regulations and procedures for billing if one successfully follows those rules, you get paid whatever your legitimate costs were. So its delightfully straightforward. Okay. Colleagues, any comments or questions . Good morning. The board is being asked to approve a Grant Agreement from the state department of Healthcare Services for Substance UseDisorder Services. This is 171,000,000 grant. The city would be reimbursed by the state. The amount in each year is shown on table 1 of 57. 2 million. I think you probably know historically in each year of the grant is the state budget changes. They do come back for an amendment so the second and thirdyear amount could potentially change from the amount in this agreement. We recommend approval. Thank you very much. Any members of the public like to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. This is moved to the board with a positive recommendation. Madam clerk, can you please call item number 3. Clerk resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the treasurer Tax Collector to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 962,892 from the California StudentAid Commission every Kid Counts College Savings Program for the office of Financial Empowerment kindergarten to College Program for conducting outreach to families and provide incentives for families to contribute to College Savings accounts for the period of may 1, 2019, through june 30, 2021. Again, eric mankey with the office of the treasure and Tax Collector. Im here to seek an approval for our office to spend 926,000 for the California StudentAid Commission. This funding will go to support the kindergarten to College Program. Just as a way of background, this was started in 2011 based on research that shows kids with College Savings for up to seven times more likely to attend college if they have a College Savings account. Since 2011 kindergarten to college has automatically opened more than 42,000 accounts for students when they begin kindergarten. Including we just opened 11,000 new accounts this year. The city and county provides 50 as an initial deposit into that account, and we use private funds to incentivize families to further save. The incentives work. Since the inception of kindergarten to college, families have saved 4. 6 million into those accounts. If you include the city funding we have a total of 7 million in those accounts. What this grant will do is allow us to continue to do outreach and continue those incentives. As you see, we are seeking retroactive approval. This is because being a state grant we didnt receive the information and the grant approval from the state until the end of may as the budget was closing. So we decided to hold off since we couldnt get it in our budget submission for 2019 and 2020. Thank you very much. Lets open up for Public Comment. Any members of the public like to comment on item 3 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, any comments or questions . Seeing none we will move in to the board without objection. Clerk item 4 resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Public Health to accept and expend a grant in the total amount of 2,300,400 from the California Department of state hospitals to participate in a program, entitled pretrial Felony Mental Health diversion, for the threeyear budget period of september 15, 2019, through september 14, 2022. Thank you very much. Good morning, supervisors. As is also stated, we are requesting the ability to accept and spend a threeyear grant from september 14, 2022, from the department of state hospitals that would Fund Services for those who qualify for Mental Health diversion. This is a Pretrial Diversion Program for those competent to stand trial on felony charges who also have a mental illness. This grant would fund intensive Case Management services as well as funding for stabilization rooms and a Behavioural Health clinician that would work in the jails to support evaluation for the courts to admit people into the program as well as expeditiously making refers into treatment. Of course im happy to answer any questions that you may have. Seeing no comments or questions, there is no b. L. A. Report on this. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item 4, seeing none Public Comment is closed. I would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. Taken without objection. Thank you very much. Clerk item number 5 resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of San Francisco city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development director to submit an application and related documents to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee cdlac to permit the issuance of Residential MortgageRevenue Bonds in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 56,700,000 for 410 china basin street i am a senior project manager with the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development. The resolution before you will authorize an application for bond proceeds to pay for the construction and related Development Costs for Mission Bay Block south 9 and to approve the hearing that the city conducted already to comply with the federal tax equity and financial responsibility act. This project is located within the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area and its administered by the office of Community Investment and infrastructure. The block 9 team is comprised of Bridge Housing and Community Housing partnership who have formed a limited partnership. The project will provide 141 units, including a managers unit, of affordable rental housing for formerly households. Units will be all studios and a portion of the studio units will be sized to accommodate inhome care support and medical equipment. The project will receive operating support through the local subsidy program. The building includes a large courtyard and adjacent community room, lounge, closed bicycle parking. The project also includes a Community Garden that will be operated by a nonprofit organization. This bond does not require the city to repledge the bond. If approved the sponsors will submit an application to the Planning Committee in january. We anticipate that well return to the board of supervisors in march of next year to approve the issuance of the bond. The project is scheduled to begin construction in june of next year and will be ready for occupancy in september of 2021. This concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions you may have. Im joined by a representative from the development team. Thank you. Thank you very much. There is no b. L. A. Report on this. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 5 . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Clerk resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 26,967,500 for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 67unit, affordable multifamily rental Housing Project located at 385 eddy street good morning. Im from the Mayors Office of Housing Community development. Item 6 is a resolution to approve of the issuance of the 28. 9 million in taxexempt bonds for the rehabilitation of an existing single room occupancy development. The issuance of the bonds will allow the project to be acquired and undergo a significant rehabilitation, which would include systems and unit work. There will not be tenants will have a right to return to those units. There will be internal relocation within the portfolio. The units will continue to serve hopefullies at the 60 line and below. We ask for the committee today to recommend approval of the resoluti resoluti resolution. And the project sponsor is here if you have any additional questions about the project. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions . Seeing none there is no b. L. A. Report. Any members of the public that would like to comment on item 6 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. If we can move this to the board with a positive recommendation. Clerk item 7 resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note taxexempt in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 76,680,000 and of a multifamily housing revenue note taxable in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 30,000,000 for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of a 167unit multifamily rental Housing Project located at 242 hahn street resolution approving and authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to execute an amended and restated Loan Agreement with block 6 housing partners, l. P. , a california limited partnership, for a total loan amount not to exceed 18,647,014 to finance the construction of a 167unit multifamily rental Housing Development for lowincome households. I am the senior project manager with the Mayors Office of Community Housing development. I am here to present on item 8. For item 7, the transaction fundamentals have not changed since the presentation was presented in april of this year. The issuance is still a conduit and financing. The project is in compliance with all city requirements, including prevailing wage and l. B. E. Requirements. Since then, the developer has secured a debt limit allocation from sidlak and with the cityidentified Financing Team, including a lender, equity investor, bond counsel, other attorneys and the citys municipal adviser. The Financing Team has met several times and pretend the package before you today. For item 8, this is to enter into a loan of 18 million. The block 6 project is the first onsite affordable Housing Development for sunnydaily hope s. F. The development adjacent to the site was completed construction last week. Were excited about that. And it will soon house families. Block 6 is going to consist of 167 units, of which 125 of them are public hufing replacement units. The other will be tax credit units and all of them are under 60 tax credit a. M. I. The 125 replacement units will be subsidied by project vouchers. Affordability is maintained at a 99year ground lease with the Housing Authority that continues to own the land. Construction closing for block 6 is expected at the end of november when the documents before you today would be executed. Blocks 6 construction will start soon after that with completion expected in december 2021. Here with me is the director of hope s. F. We will be glad to answer any questions you have about the project. On behalf of this project, we would like to thank you for your consideration and ask for continued support of the project. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from my colleagues. There is a b. L. A. Report. Can we hear that. We reported on item 8 which is the 18. 6 million on gap financing. In terms of sources of funds, we showed that in table 1 on page 11 of our report, and then these funds would be used specifically for the nonconstruction costs, the Development Costs, for this project. The total project, as youre going to see here summarized is 148. 7 million including other sources of funds other than city funds. City funds total on page 12. They add up to about 129. 6 million. In terms of the policy consideration, we call out in our report that the perunit cost of this project is now about 890,000 development cost. The citys share is in table 2, which is 177,000. But the overall cost is 890,000. We consider this high. Weve seen over the years the housing cost construction has gone up. We do recommend that you request from the Mayors Office of housing a report back on the drivers of these housing costs. We are revising it a little bit to have the report back for december 9, 2019, to allow them to have the work. Otherwise we do recommend approval. Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item 7 or 8 . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Colleagues, any comments or questions . Yes, supervisor mar. Thank you, chair fewer. I know theres a recommendation from the b. L. A. For a report to the board on with more explanation about the high the relatively high perunit cost of this project. I was wondering if you could touch on that a little bit right now. So in regards to the overall costs, one of the things we need to think about as well is the amount of city subsidy in this project. In general we see on average about 229,000 per unit in subsidies. This particular project which has infrastructure costs associated is at 171,000. So it is less than most of our projects in our pipeline. One of the reasons its so expensive is general, its a hope s. F. Project, the topography of the. Its very difficult because its sloped and they are grading issues. We also have relocation issues to move the residents on site to this new housing. Thats an additional cost. Were also building parking which is not something we would see on any of our infill sites. Those have assisted in keeping these project costs lower. Had there been other projects where the cost per unit is in a similar range of 890,000 . Yeah. Youll see it on other hope s. F. Projects. Youll see some of our projects that are higher density. We will put the reasons in our report. Thank you so much. I also have the same question because parcel q i think that was two years ago, it was dlsh 770,000 per unit and that was two years ago. Are we on a time constraint for this because i would like to continue this item and see a detailed charge side by side the expenditures and also why this is costing so much. You were just telling us very casually that topography, blah, blah, blah. I would like to see some of those numbers on why the cost is so expensive. I would like to make a motion continuing this item unless you have a chart with you today. I also think when we got a briefing on this and i looked at it with my legislative aid, it never mentioned the cost per unit which should have been included in a briefing to the budget chair and it was not included. Is there a time constraint on this today or can we pick up this item next week, as we are going to have a meeting next week . We can pick it up next week. That would be great. Lets take these items separately. I would make a motion to move 7 to the board with a positive recommendation without objection. Thank you very much. And i would like to continue item 8 until the meeting of next week. We can get a detailed breakdown why the cost is so expensive for this project versus another, for example, project q. If i can take that without objection. Thank you so much. Madam clerk, do we have any other business for today . Clerk theres no other business. Thank you. We are adjourned. Hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos elected assessor. When i meet with seniors in the community, theyre thinking about the future. Some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood thats closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. Thats why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. So how does this work . Prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. Under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2 growth a year. But when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. Compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. Thats where prop 60 comes in. Prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. Remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the Property Value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. If you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. This means that if your existing home is worth 1 million in market value, your new home must be 1 million or below. If youre looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105 of your exist egging home. Which means if you sell your old home for 1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than 1. 15 million. If you sell your existing home at 1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than 1. 1 million. Know that your ability to participate in this Program Expires after two years. You will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. So benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. Just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. For more, visit our website, sfassessor. Orit. Shop dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of San Francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help San Francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so were will you shop dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in San Francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert im the fifth generation of candy in San Francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals thats why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they cant walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. Beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is i really appreciate they love this art. From the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you dont have to go far. Small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. You dont have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. San francisco has to all it is monday. This is a regular meeting of the Small BusinessCommission Held on monday october 7, 2019. This meeting is being held called to order 2 01 p. M. Members of the public, please take this opportunity to silence your phones and other electronic devices. Public comment during the meeting is limited to three minutes per speaker unless otherwise established by the presenting office of the meeting. Speakers are requested but not required to state their name. Completion of a speaker card while optional will ensure proper spelling of the speakers names. In lewis of speaker cards if you have not yet filled one to the right. Speaker cards will be called in the order they were placed in the basket. Additionally there is a sign in sheets on the front table. Please show the office of Small Business slide. Welcome. It is our custom to begin and end each of our Small BusinessCommission Meetings with a reminder that the office of Small Business is the only place to start your new business in San Francisco. It is the best place to get answers to your questions about doing business in San Francisco. The office of Small Business should be your first stop when you have questions about what to do next. You can find us online or in person here at city hall. Best of all all of our services are free of charge. The Small Business commission is the official public form to voice your opinions and concerns about the policies that affect the Economic Vitality of Small Businesses in San Francisco. If you need assistance with all Small Business matters start here at the office of Small Business. Item one. Call to order and roll call. [roll call] mr. President , you have a quorum. Item two. General Public Comment. Allows members of the public to comment generally on matters that are within the Small Business commissions jurisdiction but not on todays calendar, and suggest new agenda items for the commissions future consideration. discussion item do we have any members of the public that would like to bring up any issues that is not on todays agenda . Okay. Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Item three. Board of supervisors file no. 190710 health code food preparation and Service Establishment categories, disclosures, and permit fees. Ordinance amending the health code and business and tax regulations code to replace the requirement that food preparation and Service Establishments food facilities post a symbol issued by the department of Public Health with a requirement to post a colorcoded placard indicating whether the establishment has passed green , conditionally passed yellow , or failed red a health inspection; clarifying some of the terminology pertaining to violations and remedies and penalties for same; defining new categories of food facilities; establishing annual permit fees for new categories of food facilities; and increasing permit fees for temporary permits and food vending machines. Discussion and action item presenter s calvin yan, legislative aide, supervisor aaron peskin and the department of Public Health good afternoon. My name is calvin from supervisor peskins office. Thank you again for hearing and offering your recommendation on the legislation regarding the Food Preparation Service establishment disclosure originally occurred on july 22, 2019 a couple of ago. As we have mentioned last time, we are currently working with the department on amendments to update some of the d. P. H. Permitting fees. The goal is to continue to instill confidence that food safety and Public Health remains a top priority. Also ensuring that the fee schedule is a hearing to delay this food preparation and Service Models on the everchanging industry terms in San Francisco. On september 17, we submitted a substitution legislation to reflect the changes to the permitted fee schedule. Nothing about the placard as change. Thank you again for hearing the amendment today, we hope that we will gain your support again. We have members from the department of Public Health today to present. We have patrick, the assistant director, and mary from the department. They are both principal environMental Health inspectors. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am the assistant director of the environMental Health branch at the department of Public Health. Last time we were here you may recall, we came to talk about proposed amendments to article eight of the health code which would require us to move from a score based system to a placard system. After discussing that with you all, everyone agreed that it was going to be a winwin situation for both the department and the Business Community here in San Francisco. Since then, and the reason we are back today, we propose additional cleanup language to the ordinance in addition to what would be required to move to a placating system. The cleanup language mostly creates a handful of new categories for food establishments. San francisco is an innovative city. We are counseling trying new things. Because of this, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to squeeze every business that comes to us looking for a permit to the existing permit structure and fees. We are going to take advantage of this opportunity while the ordinance is open for the amendments to make some, what we believe, are necessary changes to make new categories and fees they go along with that. I brought one of our food program managers, mary, who will be able to further explain the new categories to you. Thank you for your time. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is mary. Not just in San Francisco, but in the Food Industry in general, has many new innovations. Our current classification codes do not accurately represent some of these new operations. To precisely define these categories we have created new classifications. I would like to give you flute few examples. As you may see there is catering that says cooking versus catering with no cooking elko. A typical typical catering facility is a kitchen that has a large exhaust system. That is one type of classification for catering. More recently what we have seen in many of the new Tech Companies is there are very small kitchens that are designed for caterers to use as an Assembly Assembly and holding space. Actually by separating out these and two separate classifications, it does behoove the business owner. The fees for these will now be more representative of the actual operations in these facilities. You will also see there is a new definition called a shared kitchen complex. As you know, so many foods nowadays can be ordered online with apps. In this particular case, we have been seeing a new trend where we have have facilities that are coming in, its like a very large warehouse and then it has several individual facilities within that warehouse. It is essentially a shared kitchen complex. The complex itself provides the establishments within the ability to clean, store foods, walkin storage, disposal and waste. We have a new place in San Francisco called cloud kitchen. Again all online application, and the food is delivered. There is no onsite consumption. Its not like your typical restaurant. This category was recently created. We have hosted facilities. This is actually defined in the California Retail it means the facility located within a brewery, winery, commercial building or another location approved by the Enforcement Agency to support a catering operation that provides directly to individual consumers for a limited creative time. Most of you are probably familiar with the term pop up. In San Francisco we do have a popup program. You have to be a licensed caterer in order to pop up. You do have to pop up into a licensed food facility. However with breweries and wineries, they often are not required to have a retail permit through the department. This host facility allows them, after inspection, to allow a caterer to pop up in the location. There is also some introductions to the vending machine code which has not been updated since probably the eight late 1970s. With vending machines, we license vending machines that provide prepackaged potentially hazardous foods. Such as sandwiches, salads. We have also seen a lot of new innovations in this industry, as well. We have people who are coming and asking us if they can do korean rice bowls or a pizza. We have updated that code to now establish a new fee. So that each individual vending machine will pay a separate fee, and a separate annual license fee. With regards to limited Service Charitable Feeding operations. This is going to be fee exempt, because this is nonprofits that are providing food. Are there any questions regarding any of this . The fees . Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any other questions before we take it for Public Comment . Okay. Do we have any members of the public you would like to make any comments on item number three . Okay. If there is no Public Comment and for item number three. Public comment is closed. Commissioners, do we have any comments . Commissioner riley . I think some of the fees, the increase is very minimal. I am sure they have done outreach to businesses. I dont have any questions. I do not i do like the new color code. Do we have any motions . We are going to get you a tshirt. [laughter] move to support the legislation as proposed. Second. [roll call] motion passes 60 with 1 absent. Thank you. Next item, please. Item four, board of supervisors file number 190811 environment code promotion of reusable Food Service Ware. Ordinance amending the environment code to require food vendors to charge customers 0. 25 for each nonreusable beverage cup and 0. 25 for each nonreusable food container, provide reusable Food Service Ware for onpremises dining, and provide customeraccessible selfbussing stations; and affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act. Discussion and action item. Presenter s lee hepner, legislative aide, supervisor aaron peskin and the department of environment for members of the public, went Public Comment is opened it will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Commission, president adams, thank you so much for having me today. I do have a Powerpoint Presentation up here for you that i believe you will also have before you. There we go. All right. Ill try not to spend too much time as this, i know a lot of people to discuss this ordinance. Before you today is what we are calling the reuse ordinance. I want to start by going through what the problem is. I dont think we are going to find thing anything particularly disagreeable here. It makes the foundation why we are putting this forward in the the problem, in large part, is can we use waste . We have been inundated with reports from folks, it has been in the media a lot. We produce a lot of plaque does plastic raid we reuse things wants and throw them away. In large part what we have understood to be recyclable is not being recycled. It is going straight to landfill. The statistic here suggest that less than 10 of plastic ever produced under the understanding that it is recyclable is in fact not being recycled. Our local Waste Service provider does a much better job and a lot of us. Recovering over 6 Million Pounds of recyclables every year. Nevertheless, we understand that food and beverage packaging causes significant Environment Health and safety impacts. Approximately 120 million non reusable cups are used in the United States alone. 300 million in San Francisco. The environmental costs that we dont necessarily consider, the water that is used to produce these cups, the omissions that result from the print editions provisions process are less talked about. We do understand they have toxic impacts on our environment and they pollute our waterways. Recent reports, just last week a big conference in the city of San Francisco. Our bay is in bad shape. 7 trillion micro plastic particles low on the San Francisco bay each year. Clothing, baby wipes, food packaging, vehicle tires as chief contributors. At a recent cleanup event, a lot of folks are here from organizations that do this work around some of that data comes from a letter that you have in your pockets from an Organization Called upstream. Who is here to speak about this ordinance. We did this in the mission. Upstream, surfrider showing that about 90 of the collected waste for single use food service where. I want to say a quick word about convenience culture and somebody who is a little bit older than the use that are leading the movement these ways, around environmental initiatives. I still feel as if my generation is responsible for it uptick in single use waste that is the consequence of Delivery Services and the socalled shut in economy. We know the delivery culture, convenience culture is a gateway to the throwaway culture area meanwhile, the implications of Delivery Services are a myriad in negative in other ways. Whether it is taking 2530 commissions from restaurants or the labor implications. [reading notes] some of the labor implications for workers not being afforded minimum wage and other benefits. Of course, a very relevant topic for this body which has been discussed quite a bit. How do we solve this . We have been working a long time to make San Francisco a zero waste things to the department of the environment, for really pioneering a lot along those lines. The goal that we came to last year in 2018 was to reduce solid waste generation by 15 . Compared to 2015. Reducing the amount of municipal solid waste. Disposed to landfill and incineration by at least 15 and a diversion rate of 70 by 2030. I think contextually it is good to recognize a lineage of legislation which looks like a lot of regulation. It is indeed slowly chipping away at a problematic thing that we agree upon. Dating back to the 2,002 resolution adopting zero waste goals. Moving forward through Food Service Production ordinances which have been updated since then. The 2018 single use wares. Building upon the info most widely strawman. And then our reuse ordinance. It really aims to do three big things. One, it would create a reusable Food Service Ware requirement for all onsite dining. Two, it would create a 25cent charge for non reusable beverage cups and three, it would create charge for non reusable takeout containers. For the reusable Food Service Ware for onsite Dining Services food vendors who are preparing food for consumption onsite shall use reusable food service where. With some exceptions, food wrappers, sleeves, paper napkins. I think it is really important to note here. We are anticipating some of the concerns and limitations around this ordinance and implementation of this ordinance. There is a potential waiver in there right now. If a food vendor is able to demonstrate an ability to comply due to insurmountable space constraints undue Financial Hardship they can apply for a full or partial waiver of this requirement. That would be the prerogative of the director of the department of the environment issue. And inoperative operative date for this for july 2020, much of this as a policy matter cures and limitation dates and should be discussed and i believe on some level negotiated. Number two, the 25 cents charge for non reusable cups. Pretty basic, if you are using a non reusable cup you go to your coffee shop and get a paper cup. It would have to be a separately itemized. 25 cents charge for that beverage cup which you can avoid by bringing your own reusable cup. A lot of folks, i think, it was Something Like 11 of San Francisco consumers are already accustomed to bring their own cups. And you bring your own cup you traditionally get a bit of a discount. On some level, while we are requiring a separately itemized. 2 i sent cup charge, in some ways this to some degree in as much as a lot of coffee shops will give you that discount when you bring your own cup. Implementation date for that is january 1, 2021. Third, the. 25 sent charge per container for non reusable containers. Sorry, i forgot to mention, both of these charges for equity concerns, he would not be assessed that charge if you are making payment with food stamps at the special Supplemental Food Program for women, infants and children. We are anticipating to say if you have proof of medical and pro enrollment, would also not be subject to that trend charge. The operative dates here, trying to be a little cute here. On the one hand you have a firm implementation date january 1, 2022 for formula retail food vendors. The idea being some of the larger chain restaurants are better capitalized and perhaps a better equipped to try to lead in this regard. Or to enroll with thirdparty services and help those services scale. As to non formula retail food vendors, implementation date would be a year out, january 1, 2023. That would be by s. F. Environment that a Food Environment option exists. There are services popping up today. Dispatch is one of them. The proprietor of the business is here. Another is a vessel. These are organizations that are providing a thirdparty Standard Container service. I hope to have an opportunity to tell you about what they provide, and how they intend to scale. It actually is in accessible alternative for folks who want to avoid a 25 sent charge. Other provisions in here, but not insignificant. A requirement for delivery, food Delivery Services, providing non reusable food accessories. If im ordering on an app, and my food comes, it doesnt automatically have a fork in there, it does not automatic they have a knife. I have to specifically request i think, as a matter of common sense, when i order delivery food to my home, i do not need a fork. I have forks at home. And yet, they are there. Typically in large numbers. Moving away from single use terminology. I think it is important, what we understand to be single use versus reusable. We have encountered this in some of the conversations we have had with businesses. Reusable can be single use and people are throwing it away probably. We want to try to avoid that terminology. How it gets us closer to zero waste . Some of this is obvious. At least it is intended to be obvious. Reusables replace items that are easily littered. We are trying to get that upstream. We are trying to create a marketplace for thirdparty services for standardized reasonable alternatives to single use food where. We do not want to put the burden solely on food vendors to have to do this if we think there is an avenue and a market to be created for responsible, reasonable thirdparty alternatives. Like dispatch, like vessel. Charges, we know that they change consumer behavior. This has been demonstrated by the plastic bag charge which is dramatically changing consumer behavior, it is becoming yes, it is still irritable to many of us, it has otherwise become quite secondhand and we expect and understand it. We hope that beverage cups and food containers will incur that same sort of thought process and change consumer behavior. Lastly, and without being too presumptuous or allknowing about the way the Small Business functions because i am not. Several case studies put together by this group, by restaurants that have proactively gone down this path. Many of them are called the rethink disposable restaurants. Some of those folks are here today that do the outreach. We have shown that this can actually make net cost savings for the money that you spend, per year, on the single use non reusable food service where accessories is a pretty extraordinary line item. There are some onetime costs converting to a reasonable model. Not having to pay that, though you may have to pay other costs related to the washing of reusable items. We have seen that actually bear a net cost saving for some of the businesses whose case studies are in your packets. Not the least of which is seidels pizza which is one of my favorite pizzas pizza spots in the cities. We kick this off july 21, 2019. We are not rushing this through. We have indeed been trying to be deliberate with our outreach. Meeting with the golden gate restaurant association, San Francisco chamber of commerce, Chinese Chamber of commerce, or ecology which has been a supporter out of the gates for us here. I met personally with levine, im trying to understand their Business Model. They are an interesting case that we are learning from. They have full bussing restaurant sit down dining expenses. They have six that are very fastpaced, Takeout Service with non reusable cups and Food Service Ware. Trying to figure out how operationally this works for them. It has really helped inform our move forward on this. Outreach that has been largely undertaken by a Broad Coalition of supporters on this or actually meeting with businesses to understand what their concerns are, and how to commit compliance with an ordinance like this. Just a little feedback that we have received. I touched on some of the stuff. It is also in a letter in your packets from supervisor peskin how we tend and to this, in order to ease compliance. I think one of the biggest things that people want to know how to apply for a waiver. What does that mean to be for feasible reusable alternative . We can provide additional clarity along those lines. It really has to do, i think, with the Square Footage of your establishment. How building out a dishwasher service might create fiction with other Building Code requirements. What the cost is . What your . We want to make sure that relative to mobile food facilities are more permanent mobile food facilities that we are trying to bring them into this as well. Acknowledging temporary food facility there for a day, going to have a hard time complying with reusable Food Service Ware requirement. Ive already alluded to earlier, the exemption for that. 25 sent charge. Clarification of the container charge on applying to food prepared and packaged offsite. The rest of this is for discussion with commissioners. I have met with some of you, discuss this with some of you all. What else can we do to make this easier for food vendors . How can we be, you know, amenable and receptive to Small Business concerns . One of the conversations that i had recently with commissioner zouzounis, we had a wonderful conversation friday. It really did include a conversation about all of these new requirements of Small Businesses, at a rough time for retail corridors. How do we make it easier, and how do we put this on the city on the departments to come forward with a report that says hey, this is what we anticipate to be the, and here are avenues to help mitigate those costs. Here are buckets of assistance that might help you ring yourself into compliance. Instead of some of the other things we are seeing right now. The challenges with massage parlors. Regulations that go to implementation, three years down the line. We have forgotten them and now we are confronting 900 businesses who are challenged and try to figure out the best way to comply. I think the same thing is happening with our accessible business century way controls right now we are trying to bring everything into compliance. Some of that work we can do it from. We can anticipate those costs and help mitigate those costs along the way. How does work we are committed to doing. That might manifest an additional amendment to this legislation. But certainly, an and limitation period we are here to listen, learn, and move forward. Generally, the businesses we sit down and talk to them listen to their concerns it is a much smoother conversation. Those conversations are ongoing. I do not want to suggest we are done here today. I know that there are businesses who have been receiving misinformation about this ordinance. That is not a good place to start. I would much rather start with a sitdown conversation. We looked at the Business Model and see how we might incorporate some of your concerns into the conversation. Uh without saying too much more specifically about that uh other approach which uh unfortunately has put misinformation in the air and created some fear where i dont think it should exist. Uh i think that is a less uh open approach than what we are looking for uh. Everyone who is either a Small Business owner uh i am happy