-- the diversion rate is primarily made up of the fact that we are the city's largest composer -- composter. we do recycle in the park. we recycle at all of our indoor facilities and special events, so that's contributes to our diversion rate. the hanc center does not actually perform parks serving activities. prior to 2008, they did pick up paper at mclaren large, which is where the administrative staff is, but have not since then served the part in terms of recycling. supervisor mirkarimi: who assigned the 96% figure? where did that come from? >> the department of the environment. the last piece is that, as we know, and this is true in public hands, whether they are on park property or any other property, that many of the cans, the

redeemables are taken from the cans and brought to redemption centers. >> there is one satellite part that has recycling. how many parks do we have in the aggregate in the city? >> 224 neighborhood parks. >> 1 park city why does discipling outside, we will say. we have 224 parks. in golden gate park, there is the statement that there is a 96% diversion rate, so i a total of all the parks, what with the diversion rate be then? >> i have asked that question already of the department of the environment. i do not know if they have it with them. >> they can think about it. the second is was it about two years ago that the rec and park commission, through the prompting of the rec and park department, was looking for a

recycling center to be placed in mclaren park? >> no. not that i'm aware of. supervisor avalos: there was a plan in 2008 probably around april or may where i'm not sure if it actually rose to the level of the rec and park commission, but it seemed like there was a lot of approval to cite recycling center adjacent to the after-school academy in mclaren park, right next to serving sunnyvale, and i believe it came to a joint rec and park commission. i forget with the other commission was. it was actually turned down, but it was actually something moving forward towards approval. there were concerns about whether this was a conforming usage or not. >> we have been approached on a couple of occasions.

our director of planning capital can speak to the specific instance more. there is an instance in supervisor mirkarimi's district as well with people have approached the department to launch centers, and it has been sufficient of the department and commission that this is not a recreational use and the best use for park rams. supervisor mirkarimi: that is one thing we are trying to figure out, the continuity of this decision making process and logic. who would like to speak to the earlier point made by director ginsburg on the victory gardens? would you like to? >> on the point about citing this as a recycling center, i did not hear from the general manager that the general manager was opposed to the idea. there was a decision made at the

rec and park commission about that. i also as a committee member did not want to see a recycling center, a new recycling center placed in mclaren park. i third thought -- a thought there was a better use for the land than that. but i am supportive of hanc continuing at the current site. >> in answer to your question, we have contemplated a community garden near mclaren lodge at one point, and the proposal turned out not to be viable for a couple of reasons. one, because of the lack of access for materials and supplies for the gardens and from a policy perspective, it is already viable and useful green's base, so we decided to focus on a different location. supervisor mirkarimi: the reason i'm bringing it up is because we tried to do our homework in

preparation for the hearing, so we looked at the tapes in preparation for this, and it did not hear references. we had conversations about the proposed mclaren park because it does for the question of nonconforming. >> the mclaren discussion i think predated my tenure at rec and park. we do not support putting recycling centers on park property. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, let's go back to what you were mentioning earlier -- thank you -- and that is the the community garden concept, which i think nobody is going to argue with that there should be more community gardens, but it is a high price. if we are evicting recycling centers for community gardens, if in fact that is what seems to be part of the bottom line, so i think it is important we have walked through the logic on how we have arrived to some of this.

october 6, 2009, there had been a report in the open court examiner" that the commission approve funding for community garden right outside mcclaren large, -- mcclaren large -- mclaren lodge. >> i think that the funding decision that was made by the commission, and i remember talking about it during an update, was actually a little bit of funding for planning and for that garden, and that is one we came to the conclusion that from and access standpoint and the fact that it was already green's base, this was not the best location. supervisor mirkarimi: so it was less necessary? >> it was not the best location. supervisor mirkarimi: in december 2010, it was also identified in the press that with regard to the hanc area and

recycling center, there was the comment that community gardens, that there are no community gardens in that particular area as well. >> as i said earlier, we only have one area -- one community garden area in the city. i think if we have a little bit more information, which might help you, supervisor, if you allow us an opportunity to give you an overview of the proposal and its development, unless you want to proceed with questions now. supervisor mirkarimi: i thought you were done. >> we did want to give you one more part of our presentation, which is to give you an overview of the presentation itself. supervisor mirkarimi: please continue.

>> good afternoon. i'm with the recreation and park department. in the community gardens program manager for the department, so the book of my presentation today will be talking about the

program and also the proposal for the current site in golden gate park. please excuse me if i repeat some of the information that was brought up earlier today. i just want to be thorough in my presentation. in 2004, the recreation and park department prepared a recreation assessment through a consultant. in that report, it identified the recreation facilities that were in need on our part properties. as you can see, on this slide, the community garden is ranked 3rd as being the highest need. also in that same report, it identified the recreation facilities that are most important to households, and the

result was that the community gardens was founded to be the fifth highest ranked most important facility. the need for more community gardens is supported through the recreation and open space element of the master plan -- i'm sorry, of the general plan. the conversion of the site occupied by the center is supported by the golden gate master plan. the presence of hanc on the site began in 1981. in 1986, lease was renewed for a five-year term. after that, in 2001, hanc is occupying the site as a leasehold over. the current proposal for a

community garden at the site is undergoing community engagement. the neighborhood advisory council convened on january 31, and it was publicly -- it is open to the general public. those meetings are going to be held monthly on the second monday every month from 5:30 to 7:00. in fact, we have a meeting tonight. i would like to just speak a little bit about what is the community garden. and the definition approved by the recreation and park department, a community garden is a site operated by recreation and park department staff as well as volunteers. the site is essentially subdivided into multiple garden plots, and these garden plots are assigned to individuals or groups for non-commercial purposes. some of the gardens also offered

instruction, and also for, and expenses. the program managed by the recreation and park department consists of 35 community gardens currently, but it is growing. they are all on city property, and the program is guided through the community garden policy, which was adopted by the recreation and park commission in a 2006. this map shows the locations of 35 community gardens on all city properties under rec and park's management. as you can see, the bulk of the gardens are located within the city with a few along the southern border and a few along

the northwest part of the city. the western district of the city, including the sunset, and the richmond districts are position in community gardens, managed by iraq and park. -- managed by rec and park. in 2010, the department conducted an inventory of its gardens. found 976 garden plots. although we are writing almost 1000 bottom plotz, there are more than 700 people on the wait list, and the wait can be up to seven years. as you can see from an earlier inventory done in 2008, the demand for community gardens has increased significantly. in 2008, it was 442 on the list. since that time, that list has grown by over 60%.

on the slide, there is a list of gardens with in the vicinity of the sites in golden gate park. as you can see, the number of people on those waitlists mimic the overall trend and greater demand for community garden plots. community gardens are similar to neighborhood parks in that they our neighborhood-serving facilities. neighborhood parks have something called service areas, which basically identified the uses most likely to come to the site. according to the national recreation and park association standards, the service area is about half mile radius. the map here shows the 35 community gardens and the service area of a half mile radius. i have also included two of the gardens, not under the

management of the recreation and park department, including the community garden in the richmond district and sunset community garden, so you can see, with all of these gardens identified, that there is an area within the city here that would service -- that would be serviced by the hanc site, shown in the red circle. moving on to the site, this is an area showing the hanc site. it could drop people from a further distance than a half mile radius, and it is about a 2/3 acre of a site. in terms of site condition, this photograph is showing the amount

of sun at the site. this is a recent photograph, so you can see that it gets filtered light. also, just a reminder, it contains a plant nursery so there is sufficient light. this is just an example of a nearby community garden, which has a very similar environment to what is being proposed. it is a largely shaded side, but they grow in abundance -- an abundance of vegetables and a variety of plants. in terms of stability, they will be tested at the site. all of our garden plots will be in rates, and they will be filled with clean soil, and there will also be go for barrier underneath it. this is also a community garden

, and this site also was found to have high levels of contaminants, and we were able to develop a community garden on the site with consultation from the department of public health. in developing a proposal of the community garden, the program will go back to the site. first of all, the department wanted to meet the demand for garden plots. the department also would like to continue the plant nursery on the site. we would also like to provide data material support, which is currently not being provided to the program, but with support at the diversity of garden within the city, but with not just the community gardens program. and lastly, the goal of converting paid space to green space -- paved space to green

space. this shows the overall proposed concept plan. it is being faced for the development. the first phase being on the west side of the site. the area identified as the future phase would be developed in the future. now, i'm just going to go through each one of the elements. the first phase would consist of dots. we estimated that there would be approximately 400 garden plots and it would be assigned to both individuals and groups. there is also an area being proposed for materials distribution, which would include distribution of mulch, fines, things to support the gardners in the city, and we are also looking to continue some of the recycling aspects that are currently on the site that would

be related to gardening. the first phase would also include a tool lending library that is not currently available, although i understand that it is in development. this is a resource that would be made available to the general public and would be done in partnership with the public works department. lastly, the site would also contain a plant nursery, which would be done in conjunction with a current manager at the site. the implementation of the first phase would be done through funding in the amount of

$250,000. the programming at the site when it is up and running would be done -- i'm sorry. the recreation and park department would be assisted to the plot assignments and also to organize the gardners to create a structure for self management. and the remainder would be managed by the recreation and park department, and there would also be a variety of volunteer opportunities. the feature phases open to public discussion, and that is one of the goals of the council peered from the possible elements include creating more garden plots, creating community spaces, food orchard, or any other ideas. >> this slide shows just a partial list of the supporters for this proposal to develop a

community garden on the site. and that completes my presentation. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, would you like to answer questions on behalf of the department about community gardens? >> i would be happy to. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you for the presentation. it looks like something that many in the city would be delighted to see in terms of the prospect of community gardens, but the issue of community gardens is to supplant the usage of that area now of the hanc recycling center. i'm glad that in the frame it says the future phase will be vetted to public discussion, but what brought us here today is the fact that past phases were

not, in my opinion, vetted to public discussion. related to that is the fact that in the rec and park code, section 1301, it requires the there be consultation of these types of programs to also be vetted, but that did not take place, so it would be helpful to get some ideas to where the process was interrupted. >> it does not generally as a role approve or engage in concept design review. in terms of the overall community gardening program, it is very strongly in support of that, and in fact, at just our last meeting, we made a motion, a resolution in support of increasing the community garden budget from $150,000 to $200,000

a year. supervisor mirkarimi: didn't they also at the same time from a resolution opposing the eviction of hanc recycling center? >> i'm not aware of that motion passing. [inaudible] >> that was heard at a previous meeting. that either was heard at a previous meeting, and the resolution failed. supervisor mirkarimi: would you like to try again on that? [laughter] >> their roles are actually as a percentage of their quorum, and while it did receive more yes votes then no votes, it did not receive of the people present -- there was not of the core. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. they're good. and whatever amount to who would like to answer the question, what is the money come from for capital improvements? >> coming from unallocated bond interest in the 1992 park fund.

supervisor mirkarimi: is there any donation that we are aware of coming from private interests towards this? >> none that we are in receipt of at this point. i believe part of the community process that has been initiated around the design, is seeking in-kind donations, volunteer labor, and those types of things is a part of the model and a goal for how the project will come together, but we do not have any donations in hand at this moment. supervisor mirkarimi: the where that this is a sensitive subject, so let's walk us through just a little bit because i and other projects by rec and park, in their goal to try to reconcile budget deficits, has been the need to try to seek private assistance, and that suddenly triggers concerns about the question of keeping the public domain within trust and not privatized. i want to make sure that this is

the fourth thought that goes into this. so do we expect that there would 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.