is a pretty costly 0.1% to lose. what would happen if we eliminated hanc recycling centers to the value of what we receive from the state? >> i will say again that we definitely support the relocation of hanc. supervisor mirkarimi: answer the question, please. what would the dollar amount be. i am learning this as we go along. none of this discussion took place that i was able to see or read from at the hearing. i am not trying to put you on the spot, but this information has not come out in this setting before. >> i do not know the answer off the top of my head, we will get

those numbers to you. supervisor mirkarimi: there is a chance that the elimination of this recycling center is proportional to the amount of money received from the state in terms of being qualified for redemption centers. correct? a simple yes or no will suffice. [laughter] >> i am getting a lot of numbers here. it is not a yes or no question. supervisor mirkarimi: c'mon. >> good morning, supervisors. the money from the state is not

based on the proportionality from the birth cycling centers. the question is -- do we risk losing funding? the answer is that the department can risk that this rejiggers but -- and risk losing funds. it is not proportionality. >> i appreciate the answer, although it seems to be incomplete. much in the environment is attached to the idea of what we will do in the future as a city on plans that are not yet grounded but fought through without taking into consideration what happens with the loss of hanc, the local dollars and sense that we are trying to understand. that is all. supervisor elsbernd: one of my

favorite accounts in the budget is the impound account. is there any funding for arafat -- recycling centers? are there grants for that account? >> i am going to ask kevin to answer that question. he deals more with that account. the answer is yes, we have funded in the past recyclers to the tune of $200,000. >> remind me, the source of revenue is garbage rate bills? >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: is there a guess at how much the impound account paid to hanc?

>> nothing. not to the recycling center. supervisor elsbernd: historic plea to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand? >> that is right. supervisor mirkarimi: over what period of time? >> 20 years. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. anything else? of i think in the question of independent cycling, there is an effort from colleagues to say that there is an attempt to shrink the number of centers. they're not the only ones being spotlighted. is that to your knowledge as well? >> we have heard that there are community concerns, our position is that we support them in san francisco. we are sensitive to concerns and

want to make sure that we play a role in addressing those concerns. but the picture that i was hoping to paint is that recycling centers are one part of the entire infrastructure that exists. we will make sure that whatever takes place, we will continue to pursue our goals to make sure that all of the people have access to these opportunities. >> with that answer, it reminds me of one of the pictures that you showed us. mechanically, if we are moving away from the human touch to a more world of automation, i am trying to envision how people

who are delivering their trunkful of cars, bottles, cans and other goods, a singularly trying to put those things in the machine, physically it does not seem to be a likely scenario. even the shopping carts, which i know have caused great distress. when people feel that their blue bins are being pilfered, subverting the intention of curbside recycling to see a double counted by those with shopping carts and singularly putting in those bottles and cans. just on the picture to picture, it does not pan out. having that volume based on what date it is able to capture with cost realized, for me i do not

see how the math supports the notion that we are going in the right direction at all. >> i do not think it is either or. both of those options have to exist and will continue to exist. there are 10 different options on the street for people with recyclables but they're loading up to take somewhere. there are many options that provide large recycling redemption opportunities. as you mentioned, there are a couple of centers. if someone wants to sell to the market, these vending machines will it a need at a small store for a community member that gathers up apple juice cans or jars, they want to make a few

dollars to do something with, they can take it to the reverse vending machine and get those funds and hopefully be within the community to do so. i guess the answer is both. supervisor mirkarimi: but the replacement, as you said, the replacement of hanc would be in absorbing the tonnage that the machines would have to take in, the amount of what they're able to harness. that is a lot of machines. to go through that singular process again of someone feeding those machines, mechanically i do not see how it supports the notion. first of all, it dehumanizes it. it is an automated function that we are instituting. number two, i think it will frustrate people, having to

grapple with a process that seems more arduous or laborious than what is currently. you said it was not either/or, and i respect that, but that tension has not been reconciled. i have heard nothing from the city that shows coexistence. where is the plan for coexistence? these are from the department of the environment. while they have stipulated that we are not responsible for this part of the park, no one has come forward with a plan, as we have as the administration, the plan for coexistence. i think all of these variables create a nexus. is the city and county of san francisco on the right track

with its recycling program? how intimate is that meet with our recycling centers. i do not think that that is something that we can she done yet. >> we are very much on track with our program, higher in -- higher than any other city in the nation. what i was hoping today is that through this presentation, through grappling with neighborhood centers, finding possible options for redemption throughout san francisco. you are right on in saying that they need to coexist through a city wide strategy. which is what we're working for. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, director. if the administration wants to

speak to this, they're welcome. if not we will move in to public comment. i do not see any signals from the administration. supervisor avalos: unfortunately, i have to leave at 12 for a prior engagement. i actually do not want to see hanc evicted -- [applause] i was very impressed with one of their videos, the interviews with the many people that come to the recycling center from the neighborhood. it seems that it is still an institution that serves in a meaningful way people that want

to recycle in the area and the neighborhood. to me that was a significant testimony to its relevance. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. thank you for your indulgence. realizing that there is a lot to be said and heard, i very much appreciate your time. it is only even that we try to steer, in this list of public speakers, from the recycling. we will proceed from there. >> my name is jim rhodes. we have a short presentation to make, various speakers will be handling the elements of our presentation. supervisor mirkarimi: if we try to abide by a time will, hopefully the different speakers

will sequentially follow that to the best that we can. >> i think that we will. no one will go over three minutes. if that is amendable. >> [inaudible] supervisor mirkarimi: you might want to move the microphone towards you more. >> the first speaker will be the manager. supervisor mirkarimi: sorry, you have? [no audio] supervisor mirkarimi: he was asking about technical assistance. >> is it working out?

supervisor mirkarimi: it is. >> we will lead with calvin welch. >> this is a quick summary with a power point if we ever get it going. today you are going to hear about four basic points that we would like to make. we thank the supervisor for giving us this opportunity. the first is that rec and park basically violated their own public outreach policy in developing this proposal for a community garden. the reason we want to make that point is that only because it is true, but it was kept from being placed on the public record, key an important tax. the first is that the recycling center is not opposed by the master plan. in deed it lays out that master plan in a way in which we can be

consistent and be more of a part of golden gate park. the dictionary definition of recreation, based on recover and renewal, a pleasant physical activity resulting in renewal in recovery. which is recycling. far from being banned, you will hear testimony from the master plan that is supported. before i go any further, i would like those that support the haight ashbury neighborhood council in this room continuing to be at the center, please stand up. [applause] thank you. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, folks. >> you will hear from their testimony that the overwhelming

users are the neighborhoods and communities that joined the golden gate park. finally, this point has never been made, or is often ignored. that the cycling is somehow not part of a general environmental movement to cut down on vehicular trips. that is not what neighborhood recycling is about. finally, we have added $1.5 million per year to see revenue. so, please listen carefully. supervisor mirkarimi: we need to come right up. thank you. mr. rhodes? >> edward done, executive director. i wanted to talk yoto you about

this statement -- the center receives recyclables from businesses and surrounding neighborhoods and as such is a non-conformable use of the golden gate park. collecting materials on a regular basis as a special event. non-part serving activity should eventually be phased out. while the center is located on the property and immediate neighborhoods with material collected from other parts of the city being eliminated. we have taken steps to conform to the plan. the bugaboo for the center in terms of non-conforming with a

collection program that used to serve 400 stops citywide, now we are down to only 40. we have completely reduced the non-neighborhood serving aspect. also in the meantime, with other areas around the city. the recycling center has been rescheduled activities. it has been closed entirely rather than reducing the hours. we also line that the glass bands to minimize sound as well. i think we have conformed with

the master plan. [applause] >> thank-you. i will be giving the next part of the presentation. my name is joey. basically we just want to point out how the recreation and park department did not comply with it their own outreach policy. i have submitted the packet of documents that includes the park our reach, highlighting some of the things that did not contend with. the first is the policy shaping the information and opportunities for the public. the intent of the policy being to establish baseline protocols for dissemination of information there were no community meetings held and they

insisted that the department would make every reasonable effort and it is recommended that the meetings take place as early as possible before proposals are finalized. it should be made clear that there are two issues going on here. the commission's action was to approve preliminary design studies for the community garden. it states that they have to give two weeks notification, which they are required to go to.

they are required to have on- site notification no later than two weeks before the action on site. notices were ever posted at the site affected. that is the bulk of it. they did not contact prozac as required to. [tone] supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker. >> jim rhodes. myself. last year we paid out the refunds in seven and hundred $21,000. pumped directly into the economy. i know that there is a blue been recovery system that operates four residents. sometimes that is lost to the community. or unfortunately pilfered.

it is not something that we should discount too much. the wages that we pay for employees, full-time and part- time, amount to $320,000, with benefits included. apparently there is some question about the 200,000 that the department of the environment might lose. if you look down here at the landfill, the numbers show about 1,500 tons in the version, adding up to almost 500,000. basically, we are still staying in $1.5 million of bank -- economic impact on san francisco. i would hope that this would all be taken into account. the system is working and it is not broken. it does not need to be fixed.

i think that the department of the environment is being disingenuous when it says that it can absorb what is going on here. i hope that you take that into account. supervisor mirkarimi: very good, thank you. next? hurry up, folks. >> i wanted to raise points on the prospect for the community garden in the area. there were other sites that were proposed for community gardens in response to the wonderful data from the general manager. as quoted in the open space elements sustainability plans. most of us here would be in support of that.

the initial planning for a 51 lot at mclaren -- go ahead -- on october 15, 2009, the general manager did report to the commission that was approved by next of the lounge. the proposed site is 1,900 feet from the community garden and recycling center site. i was also a member of the subcommittee of urban agriculture. you might remember that the former mayor launched an objective for sustainable food in 2009 requiring under-utilized land to be reported.

the site at 780 frederick was not listed, but they did list a victory garden site. that was reviewed as of september in 2010. the idea that that might not be appropriate, grassy areas that can be diverted easily into a community garden plot, that would require asphalt removal. it is fiscally irresponsible to consider the site there. [tone] >> that includes the power point. is it possible for jason to speak at this time? he is under time constraints. supervisor mirkarimi: he is with

prozac. >> my name is jason fried. i am part of the advisory committee here to speak on this matter. my biggest concern is the resolution that was voted on, 9- 4, without being a passing resolution, calling for the stopping of the eviction until there is a better process. there was a lack of public discourse over this. there was an emergency meeting of the committee held with the staff could not send a single representative to even hear the concerns of the community. there was a lack of public process. we did have a presentation on community gardens at the last meeting.

overhead? overhead? and thank you. looking where you are supposed to be looking for space, it must not conflict with other recreational uses. in my opinion trying to change it into a community garden would be conflicting with current uses of the facility. they would be violating their own rules and guidelines. i do support community gardens and think we should find spaces for them, but until today this is the first time i have ever heard this issue. thank you for your time. supervisor mirkarimi: i am going to read the cards as they came to us. thank you, sir. [reads cards] start any time

that you like. >> any -- i am a member of the community -- supervisor mirkarimi: speak up, please. >> i will be brief. i had to take off from work to come here as this issue is very important to me and my community. there are a number of important community issues and i am speaking in support of removal. personally, i have witnessed in my neighborhood, having worked with them at the center, recycling their twice as i have, which i did not find to be worth while, one week ago i found

someone pilfering by recycling and taking redeemable items. they were also being broken on the clown, leaving behind dangerous -- broken on the ground, leaving behind dangerous class that i had to clean up. i think that, thinking back on these great presentations we have seen on the larger picture of recycling, there is a significant amount of recycling waste. it is simply being sent elsewhere. the other thing is that there seem to be a lot of alternative options. i realize that there are limited options for large volumes of items, but people coming in vehicles, it seems reasonable that they would be able to go to some of the larger facilities in the other areas.