SF committee hears broad public support, accessibility and capacity concerns for mandatory recycling and composting ordinance

The Governmental Audit and Oversight Committee on a routine meeting considered an ordinance that would amend San Francisco’s environment, public works and health codes to require separation of recyclables, compostables and landfill trash, require participation in recycling and composting programs, provide enforcement mechanisms and penalties, ensure properties subscribe to refuse service, and authorize a Department of Public Health inspection fee of $167 per hour. The committee accepted several amendments by unanimous consent and continued the item to May 28 for fuller discussion.

Supporters who testified during the public-comment period urged the city to move forward. "I just want to say that I agree with this," said Marissa Adlard, a University of San Francisco student, arguing San Francisco should lead on mandatory recycling. Leslie Silverglide, owner of Mixed Greens, told the committee her restaurants divert "over 95% of our waste from landfills" and described business savings: "we save 75% of our trash bill because of the extent of our compost operations." A speaker identifying property-management experience said his portfolio of about 300 units reduced garbage costs by roughly $7,600 a month (about $90,000 a year) after implementing zero-waste practices.

Several speakers urged caution on implementation details. Richard Rothman, who said he lives in an apartment and is a member of the senior and disability community, questioned how residents with narrow stairways and garbage chutes would access the correct bins and asked who will enforce the ordinance, suggesting the city consider implementation without fines. "How are people who are senior and disabled supposed to get, you know, into the right bins on the First Floor?" Rothman asked. Laura Carroll said cities must ensure facility infrastructure can handle increased compost volumes and recommended allowing bioplastic bags so residents can carry compost to green bins.

Jared Blumenfeld, who introduced substitute legislation and four amendments, responded to those concerns. He said the ordinance’s purpose is to keep compostable material out of landfills and that the city uses California’s definition of "compostable," so bioplastics that meet that state definition can go into the green cart. Blumenfeld also set capacity in context: "We've grown the program from about 50 tons a day ... we're now at 400 tons a day that are destined for compost," and he said the facility is expandable as demand grows.

Procedural actions taken during the meeting included excusing Supervisor Ross Mercarimi from the session by unanimous consent and adopting the proffered amendments as an "amendment of the whole" after a motion received no objection. Vice Chair Eric Marr also introduced an additional amendment to add stores that sell food or beverages in combination with gasoline stations to section 19.02; that amendment was introduced during the meeting. The committee did not vote on final passage of the ordinance; Marr said the item will be continued to the May 28 meeting for more detailed consideration of the substitute legislation and amendments.

What happens next: the committee encouraged interested parties to return on May 28 for a fuller hearing on the substitute ordinance and the offered amendments. The record contains public testimony on operational costs, access for seniors and people with disabilities, facility capacity, and questions about enforcement mechanisms and fines.