be any kind of date created around this particular center? >> supervisor, i think at this point, the concept design is entirely flexible, and we are looking to the community to provide feedback for us on when that should take shape. we have provided a number of elements as outlined. gates, fences, open. i think that we will defer to the wishes of the community. supervisor mirkarimi: that public input will be vetted by prozac? >> if prozac so desires. we have never had to bring these to them. just as we would present it to be recreation and park authority. as well as different neighborhood groups. supervisor mirkarimi: they would be listed, but as you said

earlier, that is not their role. it seems a bit like a seesaw in its logic. >> we have over 40 capital projects at any time that meet once per month. if we were to rely on prozac and the recreation park commission to approve every design, you would see a loss on the schedule of two months to three months. >> what makes this more special is that it is the only recycling center of its kind. i think that kid gloves is exactly what i would have expected from the department. that is all. is there anything further on the question of community gardens? anything that you would like to add? anything further from the

wreckage and park department? if you would like, we can move to the environment out. thank you. [inaudible] >> my name is melanie [unintelligible] and i am the director of the san francisco department of the environment. we have been asked to present on the role of recycling centers at today's hearing. thank you for the opportunity to share the facts with you on the

current state of san francisco's recycling centers. as well as the future of recycling in san francisco. highlighting some of our milestones over the past 40 years, first i wanted to highlight that back in 1970, the first earth day, is when the first community recycling centers were founded. in 1987 a landmark piece of legislation was passed at the state level, the beverage container recycling and litter reduction act, which created programs for beverage containers. crv stands for california redemption value. the money that individuals get back when they recycle their bottles and cans. the third miles down from 99 b was the blue book at curbside recycling program in san

francisco. and then the fantastic free program that you see today with a cycling, compost, and landfill in 1999. a couple of other milestones. in 2000 there were 30 of these operating throughout san francisco. they adopted the zero goal by 2020. in 2006 the construction demolition ordinance mandated the comprised version of the conversion rate. 2008 was when we hit a milestone of diverting about 70% from the landfill in composting and recycling. probably more than that now. but those are the most recent numbers we were able to access. in 2009 the mandatory ordinance was adopted. there are 19 of these centers

operating today. to drill down more on the bottle bill, a state piece of legislation, in california it does a number of things. first of all, it incentivizes beverage container recycling by offering cash back. states with bottle bills, the recycling rate is much higher. in california 82% of the bottles and cans sold are brought back for redemption. only about 9% of that goes to curbside. there are about 850 million per year that are dispersed annually. part of the bottle bill is that mandates convenience ounce crv

zones in which the recycling center needs to be an option to be sure that there are options for individuals. for any of the bottles and cans not redeemed, some of those funds go back into local government and curbside programs to fund initiatives at the local level. here in san francisco, talking about the big picture on waste generation and the diversion, 2008 is the most recent number. total generation is 2.4 million tons annually. as you can see on this pie chart, 70% of that is composted. 235,000 tons are composted.

in this slide shows how much was generated by sector. as you can see, the commercial sector is a large portion of that. 1.3 million tons. which is why the recycling ordinance has had such a big impact on the diversion rate. the residential sector is 471,000 tons. city government is 321,000 tons generated. interesting, and of note, there is a perception that the curbside program has eliminated the need for recycling centers. the statistics that we have been able to find is that in san francisco there is about an even split between people that put their materials in the blue

bins, money that is able to be put back into the operation, and 51% of the people do take them to recycling centers or in store redemption. right now option is just about evenly split. this map shows that the crv routes and francisco -- there are three different colors. green or blue, meaning that in that convenient zone there is either in store redemption or recycling centers. the orange center is another convenient basel not currently being served. the pink circle the two will see is a convenient zone that is exempt. these are areas where they have

applied at the state level and been given an exemption. they basically said you do not need to provide services in those circles. my apologies for this small writing, but this basically shows that 19 recycling centers still operating in san francisco. as you can see, a number of them are in the bayview district. there are about 10 of those in district 10. there are nine operating neighborhood centers. there are three districts that are currently not represented. district 1, district 7, and the district 9 currently have no centers. the other thing i wanted to point out is that there were questions about services and what can actually be redeemed.

the right-hand column shows the services. >> can i ask you a quick question? >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: i am curious if there is a correlation to the diversion rate. do those districts have lower rates as a result? >> let me check. no, it is not correlated to the center, it is the rate in the district. supervisor mirkarimi: but it is politics? there is a reason why those areas rallied for the centers not to be established in those districts? >> some of them have received exemptions. if you look at the map, you can see that the pink have pursued

exemptions and receive them. one important note this that cal recycle is provoking some of the permissions in san francisco because the number has gone down. >> but that would have been a more supervised -- relative to income statices in these areas, i think it gets to the heart of the matter as to why the pressure has now been filed the way we are talking about today. >> which is why we wanted to talk about our city wide strategy. supervisor mirkarimi: i just wanted to jump in with that. supervisor avalos: i think that i could go along if it was just

districts 2 and 7, but we also heard that district 9 does not have one. which puts a chink in the armpioerr on that theory. >> in the absence of a citywide plan -- supervisor mirkarimi: it has defaulted debt to localize communities in the city. >> thank you. may i proceed? supervisor elsbernd: i had a question about the richmond district. safeway at seventh and fulton had been cycling that was taken away. my understanding, after talking with many chinese, vietnamese,

asian immigrant recyclers, their district is well served by that institution. which was one of the reasons why richmond seemed to be well served, even though there was not a neighborhood center within the district. is that correct? >> that is correct. the safeway that you are referring to, when they did the redesign they did not put in a recycling center or redemption center. we are meeting actively with safeway to discuss the options with rolling out the in store redemptions. and this slide, because part of this hearing today, we wanted to provide statistics about the

materials being provided on the site. these numbers are from 2010. you can see that there are 920 tons, 65% of everything coming into the center, about 17%. 290 tons. paper is 270 tons. construction and demolition is 212%. in total they are bringing in 1,682 tons. that is how it breaks down and as part of the overall diversion rate but we were talking about. one interesting point of note is as a couple of these centers have closed over the years, paint -- hank has seen an

increase in tonnage in the center. about 163,000 was paid out to the community. just to give you a picture of what is currently happening there in terms of tonnage and the version and how it fits into the overall picture. the question has come up about what our city wide strategy is. if we are no longer operating at this size and we are still bringing in 0.1% of the diversion rate, the department of the environment's role is to ensure that we compensate for the materials and that san francisco has easy access to redemption. one option is a technology called the reverse vending machine. these are relatively new in terms of working machines.

tested over the years, there is a new generation that works well. we think that this is a good tactic as a part of an overall strategy in making sure that there are more options citywide. why do we think that the m of putting reverse vending machines in many locations would provide us the ability to offer redemptions at more locations city-wide. they are self-contained and have a small footprint. even if it is a small store or a local grocer, there is a possibility for installing one of these machines. they are easy to be maintained. installation insurers compliance with the bottle bill. as you have heard, there is a requirement that recycling centers held the store comply.

1600 per month to lease. if there is a convenience some where they are not complying, they are charged $100 per day. we did the calculations that said if hank is not operating at the [unintelligible] site, what would it mean in terms of rolling out reverse vending machines? processing 120,000 containers for year. meaning that there are 27 reverse vending machines needed to process the materials. on this map that shows blue stars with possible reverse vending machine locations. in terms of the next step in and

out reach, we have been reaching out actively to the areas affected. including safeway, whole foods, [unintelligible] we are in active discussions with those stores to see what their interest in it -- is in putting some sort of redemption opportunity on their property. we are currently working with a number of recyclers. we will also be doing out week to independent grocery stores and pharmacies. rolling out of two four in san francisco, hopefully it will be, irregardless of what happens, a great example to say whether or not that works. safeway has been on the forefront of leasing these

machines. and a strategy that the department of the environment is pursuing, we want more opportunities in san francisco. we will be meeting with large stores and looking at other incentives. there was also the question of how to get by -- get to zero waste by 2020. their four main strategies, the very first one is expanding our reach, education, and enforcement, as was the recovery ordinance. we anticipate that with full compliance we could reach 90% diversion. one-third of what goes to our landfill can be recycled. even though the curbside program

is doing well, there is much more education to be done by and making sure that we have compliance with ordnances. second is developing enhanced material, including auto. some very cutting edge technologies that other countries have been pursuing that we're looking at actively. the third is producer responsibility legislation in identifying markets. painted furniture, diapers, there are a number of materials without a disposable option for a market. we will be looking at each individual product. in summary, the department of the environment has always and continues to support recycling centers as part of the city's

strategy to provide easy and accessible options to the public. centers and in-store redemption is a part of the overall infrastructure that has helped us to achieve a 77% diversion rate. however, the task, if closed, will be working aggressively to make sure that the 1/10 of 1% diversion rate is maintained through the will of rvm machines city-wide with a redesigned web based tool that helps the people know how they can recycle or reuse most items. regarding hanc in particular, the government does not have the power of the management, that falls with the rec and park department. the recycling center was decided

as it -- as not being an appropriate site for park land. moving forward we definitely support the relocation as well as continued operation in some form within the community. we are actively engaging with rec and park to ensure that the new community garden meets the needs of the residence and urban agriculture community. finally, as you heard we are working on their new recycling program to share best practices been held to develop metrics to track the success. we do celebrate the contribution made to the community over the past 40 years, as well as to reducing waste in san francisco. in continued collaboration, this committee, grocery stores, vendors and others are hopeful that we will find a positive path forward for all stakeholders. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you

for the presentation, director nutter. i have a few questions for you. you had mentioned 0.1% of the contributions that the recycling center contributing in terms of the overall diversion. the overall rate of all of the center's together? >> 5% of the diversion rate. supervisor mirkarimi: to anyone, including myself, 0.1% would seem like a minuscule number. taking that on scale, the recycling center is probably one of the largest independent centers. saying a lot with regards to the smaller contributions. and what it would take to compensate for the loss of that

one -- double -- loss of that 0.1%. >> one of the challenges in san francisco, at one point we had 30 crv recycling centers operating and now we have 19. what it has done has concentrated the recycling activity. what we are actually looking to do, pushing out into the community, it is true that we are operating one of the largest neighborhood recycling centers, not counting the third three -- third street centers. that has been a challenge. which is interesting, because in san francisco there is one was cycling center for every 44,000 san franciscans. throughout california and averages one center for every 18,000 californians.

do i need to clarify that? supervisor mirkarimi: one more time. >> in california there is one recycle and center for every 18,000 residents. in san francisco there is one recycling center for every 44,000 residents. this has concentrated the activity in certain areas. so, i just wanted to make that point. that is why we are trying to disperse and find opportunities. supervisor mirkarimi: a prospective plan that i think is worthy of integrating into the fabric of a citywide plan. but it is not ready to be implemented. there is a lot of what if attached to the plan with best intentions by the department of the environment.

as you had stated, the tonnage per year is 1600? >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: what is that in terms of savings from what has been diverted from the curb side? i know that you must have those numbers from your recycle and staff. >> robert haley is here. what it is about $300 per ton. supervisor mirkarimi: $300 per ton. the cost of 1 ton is $175. you are looking at $300,000, more than that.

>> that is right. $300,000. supervisor mirkarimi: i am doing the numbers thing with my son. he is almost too and we are doing a lot of that lately. [laughter] >> @ shows. supervisor mirkarimi: he is - very precocious. i actually just got lucky. colleagues. walk me through the process. does the city and the department received a fee from the state for the recycling center being a redemption center? >> no, not in relation to hanc. supervisor mirkarimi: but you do

get money from the state? >> that is right. it is a block grant that is historic plea to hundred thousand dollars. last year it was 80,000. supervisor mirkarimi: now it is $200,000? >> we do not know yet. at the state level there was an issue with the money in the funds moved elsewhere. we are not sure if we will be receiving those funds this year. supervisor mirkarimi: but you did just say that it was 200,000. >> historically. supervisor mirkarimi: the zepa relative to the number and the total goal? >> as per capita.

supervisor mirkarimi: our population is increasing, but marginally. one recycling center for 18,000 residents in california, but one to 44,000 in sentences go, i would think that that means three times more to the goal of the department and the environment. that 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