are also working with seniors, helping other neighbors in their community. this group is very similar to what the village is doing. the only difference i am aware of is there is no membership. i personally know about the group because i live at st. francis co-op where there is a branch of the campaign working with our seniors, many of whom are aging in place at our community. i wanted to mention our group, seniors in sros, and we will be giving you a report on that with potential legislation in the future. thank you. >> i have one more card before you start. >> my name is linda. i would like to urge the board to look into the hud housing. it has become big business for

nonprofits to run these operations. i am at one that is not senior housing and the corruption is shocking, frankly. we are trying to bring democracy in. we do not have it right now and we are being bullied. we are trying to involve ross mirkarimi and supervisor jim to get some help. it is shocking to me. -- supervisor camerkim to get se help. there are always vacancies. people age and die. it has never been brought to some people's attention, housing that has become vacant. she has had nothing to do with who comes into the vacancies. it is being done by the management corporation. so please, hud is difficult, very corrupt. i urge you to look into this.

there is a reason these lists do not go down. nobody talks about it. if you do a survey, you would have to do it anonymously because people are afraid to speak out. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, my name is karen mason. my partner turn 60 -- turns 60 next year. it took for six years to get on the section 8 program. after a few years in the program, she had to buy it to keep her apartment because section 8 wanted her to move into different housing. so we had to get doctors to talk to hud. we belong to neighborhood groups. i think it is important for everyone to live where they are

comfortable. it is very important for people to be able to go to their doctors appointments and things. if it is more convenient where you are at and they can bribe people to care for you, i believe they should be able to stay in their homes. i appreciate all of your time and attention to this matter. thank you. >> thank you very much. if there are no other members of the public that wants to comment on this item, we will close public comment. supervisor mar? >> i just wanted to thank ms. duffy for the great report. i know that it opens a lot of questions for other issues that people have brought up today. i also wanted to say, the desegregation of data to show the income levels of seniors is critical but also, at the demographic data that the senior population is majority asian,

latino, african-american, or image populations is critical. so culturally sensitive housing supports are needed. i also wanted to see the different models people raise from the s.f. millage model to neighborhood-based villages or rich will support networks is critical but with a key focus of empowering people so that they are happier and healthier as they aged in their communities. they are a critical part of our communities for as long as possible. the spirit of organizing among seniors, or other organizations spring, is encouraging and really amazing. from the grassroots-types of senior organizations to be more dominant nonprofits, there are a range of organizations. lastly, there are many legislative ideas that were brought up today, so i look forward to engaging authors and

continuing to move for the efforts of the many individuals that have been involved. the less point, lawrence from the department of building inspection has produced a great document that should be made available to a lot of the senior organizations. he gives practical suggestions for low-cost -- handrails to nonstick services, other improvements in housing. we are hoping to work with him and staff within the department of building inspections and other places to improve the conditions as we create a more friendly aging city. i want to thank your avalos for scheduling this as well. supervisor avalos: thank you for this hearing. also, kudos to the budget analyst. your work on the report, i read it on saturday night. captivated me. thank you very much for that. i can tell a lot of work went

into it, gathered information from a lot of places around california, the bay area. i also wanted to reiterate the announcement about rebuilding together, doing a build out day to support seniors in the ocean view merced neighborhood and they will be going into people's homes to put in rails, do minor improvements to make it more accessible. it is a great opportunity. that will be april 30. folks can contact my office, francis shea in my office, to get more information. with that colleagues, can we filed this item? very good. madam clerk, please call item two. >> resolution requesting the recreation and parks department and the department of the environment collaborate to establish a comprehensive parks recycling program utilizing the

expertise, volunteer base and facilities of the hanc recycling center in golden gate park, for the department of the environment to establish an independent recycling center master plan, and requesting the recreation and parks department to rescind the eviction of the hanc recycling center from golden gate park. cente >> i want to follow up from a well-administered, a thorough hearing two weeks ago about the possible eviction, termination of lease of the haight-ashbury neighborhood counseling recycle center, following that particular hearing, we used the information, which i thought was

helpful in constructing a resolution before us today. i want to thank supervisor avalos and mar for the co- sponsors of of the resolution. i do not plan on this being another in-depth hearing as it was two weeks ago, but as we were able to will document from that particular hearing, it seemed rather hasty and inconsistent 5 rec and parks department and the part of the environment and city to move on this termination of lease on the recycle center by using the premise that the recycling center is a nonconforming use for this park -- for this part of golden gate park, and as it relates to the master plan, yet not exercise any due diligence as the city had done elsewhere in trying to help a resource like the recycling center moved

to a different location. that lack of due diligence, i think, proves it was a rash decision in the way that it was processed by the wreck and park department, compared to the water recycling plant that is being proposed by the puc in golden gate park, which would also be categorically accepted as also a nonconforming use, where the city has realized perhaps there should be alternate locations for that particular service. in the same would apply, i think for the hit-. neighborhood council. -- haight-ashbury neighborhood council. yet when we search for an alternative location for the puc water recycling center compared to the hanc recycling center, it pales in comparison to whatever efforts are being led for our efforts.

in helping to preserve and sustain an important resource. that resource, some might argue, is obsolete, because of our blue been efforts half approximately 5% of the total contribution of what our overall objectives are, city-wide, towards our diversionary rates, as required by state law. of those independent recycling centers, hit after neighborhood counseling recycling center is the largest of that recycling center, and their contribution is not insignificant, but more importantly, quite profound with regard to the level of tonnage it takes in every year and the diversity of the recycling that it is able to help process from many communities, not just communities which have become the poster child for those who

are looking at an exhibit a to give cause for the removal of hanc, being that of homeless people who are distressed, down and out, who often cause concern to many neighborhoods in the surrounding area, of that part of our city, as well as other parts unrelated to the recycling center. people of middle class and upper means use the recycling center, too. it would be a mistake for us to lose this particular service that has been such a mainstay in our larger environmental goals for 30-plus years and to not think of a plan to have alternatively already in place. by the fact of there was no advanced thinking, before the rec and park commission moved on this, shows how intuitive the department and city is not synchronized with the department

of environment. when it was well reported here that the concept of losing 1,600 tons per year and that is taken in byhanc, to only be compensated with 27 vending machines that would be distributed in areas nearby grocery stores so that people could singularly feed bottles and cans, was not well received in my opinion by the grocery stores, as we have called and asked them, nor do i think it was well thought out, if the goal was to mitigate that kind of distress caused by people who call for the blue bins or crew tried to resell those goods that has given rationale to what moved hanc in the first place. when wholefoods opened its doors in the upper haight, and i spoke

to the vice president. they are petrified of the notion that they would all of a sudden become the replacement facility. they had no idea this was coming. that they would be the replacement facility of multiple vending machines, not what they would not want to be a host to those vending machines, but that they would be left alone having to steer an usher in and around the people traffic that would be lining up, simply trying to feed those bottles and cans. so again, logic did not dictate the proper reasoning of what the city wants to do with hanc while it thinks it is responding to neighborhood concerns. so the resolution before us simply tries to provide, i think, a more methodical step that the city should undertake. we ask mayor kelly, dept. of the

environment, rec and parks, real estate, to look at their reasons and marriage as to why hanc should stay, and if not, provide that due diligence, which has been absent in the process. so that is really what is before us, colleagues. i would be happy to cover to public comment so that we can go and ahead and process what is on people's minds. keep in mind, how we got to this place, the natural tension that has culminated over the years between neighborhood and hanc, is not just on the shoulder of ofhanc, or competing member organizations, but it is also a big city hall but did not refer these tensions. over the years, it could've helped steer that unity that one might expect, even when there are diverging opinions in

neighborhoods that are eclectic and well-known historical for their civic engagement, like the operate -- upper haight. i think we are fortunate that previous administrations, and not so distant pats, have not use of aerosol and political capital to obtain a win-win in this. i am hoping that with this resolution, we can inject some sensibility that you cannot dismiss, the matter where one's opinion may lie on what hanc does or does not do for their particular neighborhood, but you do not on rightly discounted a contribution of a non-profit, of a service, somebody who helped elevate our environmental goals over all as being anachronistic or absolute, and therefore not as necessary.

i do not buy that. by the lack of a plan that the department of the pirate -- environment, certainly was not able to prosper in lieu of hanc's loss and other independent recycling centers them seem to be on the chopping block, only shows why these recycling centers should be stayed, and should be allowed to flourish in the city. the city needs to be that referee so that this tension is not simply shouldered between labor organizations, but also on the leadership of san francisco. it is our obligation. mr. chair, i would be more than happy to call their cards before us. [applause] thank you. [applause]

i am going to call a few names. joey came. calvin whelks. michelle welsh. jerry lastly. if you could just line up in the middle, i would appreciate it. >> thank you, supervisors. you pretty much summed it up. i want to reiterate, this notion that it is an anachronism, that it is unnecessary. we have over 1000 people who have used the recycling center in the last three months, who have written to the mayor. we have their addresses. 1000 people over a three-month period. the fact that we give out over $700,000 a year in buyback to folks in the kids this is a needed service.

this mythology that has been voiced by some lame, suburban columnist in "the chronicle" attacking a neighborhood organization is absolutely outrageous. it is bad policy to close the center down. thank you. >> neck speaker please. -- next speaker please. >> i will try to be brief. scheherazade's calvin while. i just want to stress, the fiscal facts. the pay-per neighborhood council contributed $1.5 million a year to the city's economy. directly, it contributes $700,000 of that to the city's economy by diverting these of cost to the city, of its 1,500 tons a year that it diverts from the solid-waste stream, $500 a ton.

the fee that is generated for the city by being a convenience-own buyback center. we employ 10 people. we pay full health benefits for those 10 people. it is astounding to me, at this time and day, 10 greene jobs are simply waved off as being meaningless. i have no idea how many grain jobs mayor newsom created. certainly, losing 10 would be a substantial impact on the number of green jobs created. also, for the last 20 years, the haight-ashbury neighborhood council has played an increasingly important role in the community garden movement in san francisco. our fiscal sponsorship of gardens for the environment, our ability to use recycle and surpluses to cover the notorious slope of the city on

contracts to guard and the environment has meant we have been able to keep their staff body and soul together as well. it is an important economic benefit to this city that should not be ignored. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> jerry lasley, a 30-year resident of the city. i own eight units. i use the recycling center very frequently. those machines you are proposing will not serve my means. there is no way to get the volume of cardboard and paper that i used to get into those things. i probably take 1 ton of paper myself. you are talking about a community garden to serve maybe 40 people. right now, there are 3000 of us using this recycling center. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi, for pointing out the

rash decisions that have been made. they came in through the back door and stabbed us in the back. there was the public combating. the one public meeting we had, no one from the other side showed up. this is really not about community gardens but about one group tried to get rid of another group. and for past problems. these things have not been vetted in the public. they need to be. this is unfair. it feels a little soviet union to read in the paper one lie after the next. i could not believe the column i had read or the weekend. this guy says last friday was the last day of the recycling center, and most people believed it because they have to trust our news media. these people have been busy convincing my neighbors that if they only get rid of these people who come and take their recycling, they will increase their property value.

so it is greedy and selfish motivation here. no one got to say anything. you had a more accountable only to the mayor, a decision that was made by the mayor. this whole process spells, smells of something not fair. so please do something about it. we do not need to fix something that is not broken. you're going to have to pay money for this other thing which will not work. >> i am going to call some names before the next speakers. he lane cigar rock. michael job. >> just a few quick point. you have heard all the arguments. first, recycling is the way to

go. there is no substitute for it. those machines will never work. it has been an incredible biological and social economic resource for the city for 30 years now. it is a resource we should never paved over. there are better alternatives. as a citizen of san francisco, a parent, whose child benefits from a local public school, do the right thing. do with thousands in the neighborhood and thousands in this city want you to do. it is the best opportunity for all of us in san francisco. do not just keep it going. expand its impact. >> next speaker please. >> let me thank supervisor at avalos, mar, elsbernd, and especially mirkarimi for considering this issue.

many of the criticisms of this have already been mentioned. the loss of 10 jobs. the simple fact that even if it were at fault of the proliferation of homeless, its removal would only ruler could the problem instead of dealing with the source. i am here to talk to you as a gardener. although i would love nothing more than a community garden across the street, there are simply better locations. first of all, exposures. the site only gets one-third direct sunlight. would take extensive pruning and tree removal to bring it up to acceptable level of sun exposure. furthermore, the site has been operating as a recycling center for 30 years. trucks and forklifts have been driving through heavy oil and other pollutants in the soil. because of that, the amount of money, labor, and time, it would

take to run -- without the asphalt and remove trees would simply make this fiscally irresponsible. on top of all that, what makes it even more ridiculous, there are numerous other sensible locations for community gardens, as was mentioned two weeks ago. there is a spot near mclaren lodge, as well as a two-acre field to the west of the recycling center. if even a small portion of that were allocated for the community garden, it would leave over 1 acre for field games. if the rec and parks department ultimately decides to stay there course, i hope that they will at the very least postpone these evictions until they can relocate the recycling center. thank you for your time. >> if i have called your name, please come into the middle of the aisle.

next speaker. >> my name is michael job. i am a member of the haight- ashbury. thank you for the resolution. i want to speak on being careful with who you listen to with regard to the community gardens. commissioner mirkarimi, if you come to the 600 block of schrader street and see with the greening of the sidewalk has done there, the department of urban forestry allocated all that. one year later, the permit was okayed, after it was a done fact. the same thing is going to happen, as you heard from the speaker before, if community gardens is allowed to be put into this space. it is not thought of by the ones proposing it. all i am saying is, be careful review take advice from. in regards to community gardens and so on. please keep hanc recycling center opened.

>> thank you. supervisor mar: i -- thank you. i am going to read some names. >> greg gar.. i have worked at the recycling center for 27 years. i started the native plant nursery. of course, i support the proposed resolution. i hope we can get the votes from the full board. i understand it will not overturn the rec and parks commission vote, but it is an opportunity to go in another direction. when you actually combine the recycling, native plant nursery, a native plant gardens, composting, that ecological classes that we have at this site, the end result is really

the golden gate park because center. that is what the facility is, and eco center. the rec and parks department, the department of environment, and hanc should be partners in sustainability. all stakeholders should negotiate and find common ground. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> kevin bayuk. member of the hanc recycling center council. it is clear this is not about community garden spirit to do the retrofit at frederick and make it a community garden, you would have to remove asphalt, soil testing for chemicals and tens of thousands of dollars of additional cost, which you would not have to do any of the other applications approved already by

the commission. in terms of being fiscally responsible, i would answer questions about that. it is also important to mention, the hanc recycling center already provide additional services to the agricultural community. that would be provided by rec and parks proposed community gardens urban agriculture site such as the ability to pick up mulch and compost. hanc is providing those services at no cost to the city. it has already been proposed that they will not be able to use the capital budget that they have been allocated. hanc is able to provide those services today at no cost to the city. something very important to consider. in terms of money spent,