supervisor avalos: good morning. welcome to the city operations and neighborhood services committee. today is february 14. it is valentine's day. a construction paper, scissors, and marker holiday. my name is supervisor john avalos, joined to my right by supervisor elsbernd, and also sitting in will be supervisors mirkarimi and weiner. supervisor mar will be on his way shortly. madam clerk, do we have

announcements? >> all persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off cell phones and pagers. if you submit copies of materials for members of the committee, please submit an extra copy for the file. if you wish to submit speaker cards, please put them in the container in front of you to your left at the rail. supervisor avalos: very good. if you look at the agenda today, we have two items. liquor license and a hearing on the pending eviction of hank, but at 4:00, we have a special order on the youth lifeline discount pass, and we scheduled it for four-o'clocks of people from the high schools could come, so that will take place at 4:00. >> item 1, hearing to consider the issuance of tight 42 on sell

beer and wine public premises license and transfer of retired 20 of sale beer and wine license from the very building marketplace, unit 33, the embarcadero, to wayne garcia, for digwines, located at 1005 minnesota street, will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos: very good. good morning, inspector. >> good morning. what is before you today is an application for a type 20 and a type 42 liquor license. if approved, this will allow the applicant to sell off sale beer and wine and then allow on sale consumption of wine for wine tasting. i would point out this action has over 22 letters of support. i have no record of any objection. we are recommended for approval with the following conditions -- one, the two licenses shall operate in conjunction with one another and not be separated.

i would point out the logic to this condition is what we are trying to avoid is having it turn into a traditional liquor store, so it will have to maintain its wine shop, wine tasting component, which the community felt was an asset to them, compared to just adding an offset a liquor store. number two, sale, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily. service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only in the wine tasting bar area, except for private events that are close to the public with signage posted. next condition -- the tasting bar must be sectioned off with no person under the age of 21 clearly posted. service and consumption of alcoholic beverages must be limited to 1 ounce per serving appeared again, that is just the theme of it not becoming a full- time bar, that it truly is for wine tasting or to purchase one to go.

next addition, the sale of beer or malt beverage is strictly prohibited. again, this is a wine shop. noise is defined as any ruckus or sound for this in such a manner or to such a degree to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of persons in the neighborhood, shall not be beyond the area under the control of the licensee. petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the premises over which they have control. our exterior lighting condition -- the exterior shell be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to eliminate and make easily discernible. such lighting shall not disturbing normal privacy and use of any neighboring residents. our law ordering condition -- watering is defined as "to stand idly about, linger aimlessly without lawful business" is for him and on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the premises under the control of the licensee. no person under the age of 21 shells sell or serve alcoholic

beverages. with these conditions, we recommend the application for approval. supervisor avalos: thank you, inspector. are there any questions from the committee? why don't we go on to public comment? any member of the public who would like to comment on item one, please come forward. >> good morning. happy valentine's day. i'm wayne garcia. i just wanted to thank you for listening to my request. as the inspector point out, before i present the plan, i presented this to the neighborhood association and have overwhelming approval and support, i should say, of the neighborhood. one of my goals is to bring just a very nice little neighborhood

wine shop to the dog patch area. by doing this, i have already attracted another business. the neighborhood, as you know, needs more retail. mac clothing, which has been a stalwart of the neighborhood, will be moving into the same building. i appreciate your consideration and just wanted to introduce myself. supervisor avalos: great. thank you. thank you for coming in today as well. looking at the process and the neighborhood outreach you have done and support the neighborhood, it is well noted. thank you. >> thank you. any other questions for me? ok. supervisor avalos: if there are no other members of the public who would like to comment -- oh. >> i'm from the dog that

neighborhood association, and i just wanted to reiterate the out reach that mr. garcia did. our organization has about 250 people. it is a wonderful thing to see pioneer's want to come into our little neighborhood and bring in retail when there is not a lot of retail there. we are just extremely excited to have this and other businesses come to the neighborhood. thanks. >> good morning. i'm associated with this whole building project, which has been a restoration of the historic building for the owners who have owned this for about 80 years. as we have restored the building, it has attracted pacino cafe, mac clothing, and soon to be another arts- affiliated program, which is enlivening an entire corner, so i think your support and

approval of this will be a real addition to the neighborhood and appreciated. thank you. supervisor avalos: find you. there are no other members of the public to comment, we will close public comment. ok. motion from supervisor elsbernd to move the item forward with the conditions recommended by the police department. we can take that without objection, and move that to the full board with recommendation. thank you, inspector. madam clerk, item two, please. >> yes. also, item one needs to go to board tomorrow as a committee report. supervisor avalos: very good. colleagues, if we could centerboard with committee report. very good. item two. >> item two, hearing to review the status of the haight ashbury neighborhood cycling center and plant nursery and the role of recycling centers in

reaching the city's goal of producing zero waste by 2020. supervisor avalos: this is a hearing called by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. good morning, colleagues. this is a hearing that has yet to be vetted or heard about the status of the tank recycling center and its imminent eviction from golden gate park, a decision which had been made by the rec and park department, and it's commission, but yet, not have what i think is a proper vetting here in city hall, which i think has been most unfortunate in what i think has been some of the convoluted logicon why the recycling center should be evicted, as it is relative to the overall recycling goals of the city and county of san francisco and the

need for independent cycling centers. it will be, i think, a well- informed hearing by people on all sides of this particular issue. we will hear from presentations from city departments like reckon park and the department of the environment as well as from community. we look forward to their input. just a few facts before we get to the main presentation. haight ashbury neighborhood council started one of san francisco's first recycling centers in 1974. it has severed over 60,000 tons of material from the city's landfills. as a state-certified redemption center, recycling was mandated by the state's bottle law to return to consumers to store deposits on beverage containers. the haight ashbury recycling center is also a state certified plant nursery, which has

propagated thousands of plants, native plants of san francisco. all the soil used in the nursery is made from composting on the site. objective one of the golden gate master plan, in its planned objectives and policies, calls upon the haight ashbury neighborhood council recycling center to increase its benefits to the park by focusing on the recycling needs of golden gate park and the immediate neighborhood. nowhere in that plan does it call for the removal of the hanc recycling center. it is also well known that hanc has developed a trophy native plant nursery, which is the principal supplier of native plants to various parts and open spaces, maintained by the rec and park apartments. the hanc recycling center has been the fiscal agent and interim funder of the garden city environment, which is that seventh and long bid, which is in supervisor elsbernd's

district in the initial and said, something we are proud of and have advocated for. at no charge to the city to providing both native plants and carports. what is astonishing and what i think is " to the point, which we will hear from people on all sides of this issue is that at the end of 2010, the new -- the newsom administration boasted considerably leading up to the administration and thereafter that homelessness in golden gate park had been reduced by over 75%, and yet one of the central themes that i think is -- has helped propel ongoing tensions and some simmering for some years now is that hanc recycling center proves to be a magnet for the level of the stress in the east end of golden gate park, as the images for increase homelessness. that does not reconciled,

considering the statistics coming out of the administration, but nonetheless, those are issues that i think we are obligated to really help us at and make sure that that the stress is address. next, the recycling center litter reduction act of 1986 requires the city to provide easy access to residents to redeem recyclables, a requirement not met by curbside pickup. it is essential that we have a greater understanding by the elimination of independent discipling centers like hanc, and as we are hearing potentially other recycling centers. there really is no plan by the city in order to compensate for the loss of what curbside is not able to achieve. if there is a plan, that plan is being proffered simply, in my opinion, as triage, as the plan has been provided before or

materialized since the last two months. this brings us to a point of trying to understand the arguments back portend that hanc recycling center is what some have called anachronistic, that does not help the city meet its goals of its overall recycling program. to the point of that, of the city then realizing that if their goals are needing to be met, then where is the plan that helps us achieve what may be lost? so far, none of that seems to be being developed for well presented. it is patchwork thinking, which i think has been convoluted between the department of the environment and the back and our department. nonetheless, it is an important issue that affects our area of the city, both in the sunset district and in district 5 and in the richmond district through of golden gate park.

many people feel that hanc recycling center is an invaluable resource. others feel that it is a problem. and yet, that is not something that i think should be hastily rendered a verdict on, by the way, by the wreck and park commission had cast it. again, i think there process is something that was not well suited to the kind of standards we would normally abide by here in city hall. i want to hear from rec and park department, and we will hear from the department of the environment and then others, of course, where we have substantial speakers on all sides that submitted cards to us. if the rec and park department would like to make a presentation, unless, colleagues, you have questions

or concerns. are you representing rec and park? yes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. happy valentine's day. on december 2, 2010, the recreation and park commission unanimously endorsed the proposal to create a community garden on 2/3 of an acre plot attached to the stadium. 780 frederick is the current location for the hanc recycling center, which has been operating since 2001. the decision to put a commission on that site is well grounded and established in recreation park policy. in two dozen for, the department released an assessment report,

which revealed that almost half of all san francisco households have a need for more community gardens. 21% of all respondents consider community gardens one of the most important recreation needs in the city. the commission decision is further rooted in city policy objectives, articulated in both the sustainability plan and open space element of the general plan. the city sustainability plan calls for maximizing food and agricultural production within the city itself and that community and with cup gardens exist in every neighborhood, allowing sufficient access for all neighborhoods. the general plan calls for community garden opportunities throughout the city and directs the city departments should fully cooperate with neighborhood organizations and nonprofits to establish, maintain, and administer community gardens throughout the city. city-wide policy objectives are being addressed to the recreation and park department. in 1986, we had 12 gardens, and

we have 35 today. we've added 138 individual plot since the 2004 study, but the need remains great. we have a waiting list of over 500 people at 35 sites and the average waiting time is approximately two years. the wait list is only growing. significantly, rec and park's 35 community sites, only one exists on the western half of the city. in 1998 commodore following six years of steady, environmental impact review and stakeholder outreach, the golden gate park master plan was approved by the recreation and park commission. the process to create the golden gate park master plan included over 50 different organizations with an interest in golden gate park, including the haight ashbury neighborhoods and appeared golden gate master plan considers the recycling center a non-conforming use of golden gate park. and that its non-park serving

activities should eventually be phased out. the continuing operation of the center has been a source of neighborhood controversy for years. no doubt, you will hear both sides of the debate today, and we only know the community garden proposal is supported by numerous neighborhoods, organizations, and part user groups. from our perspective, the commission decision to move forward with the community garden is not a statement against redemption centers or against hanc or any individuals associated with it. this is the only redemption center on public land, and it is the commission and department responsibility to stick with the land in a manner consistent with the department's mission to provide clean, safe, fun parks and quality recreational programming for all san franciscans. we very much appreciate and respect the recycle center's historic contributions to the city's movement towards sustainable is up with billy but suggest that today more park appropriate use for our property exists. i would now like to turn the

presentation over to sarah ballard, our director of policy and public affairs, who is going to give a short presentation on our efforts to ensure the golden gate park continues to ensure the city's highest ever generate and followed by a short presentation on an overview of the specific community gardens proposal. >> good morning, supervisors. director of policy and public affairs for the recreation and park department. i'm pleased to be here to talk to you briefly about the department's recycling program and focus a little bit on golden gate park and what we're doing there. we have a system wide recycling program throughout our system

that focuses primarily on our indoor facilities. our neighborhood club houses, our recreation centers, pools, concessions, mobile vendors and other buildings. we have worked to provide recycling, composting, and land philbins in those facilities in connection with the department environment, and our program is very robust in those facilities. we have found that under the advice of the department of the environment that these programs work best in staff facilities where you actually have staff there advising people on which bins different materials go in. we require all of our vendors to recycle and compost, so everything from our food carts to our new vendor at stow lake

has a very big focus on composting and of putting things to the landfill. the concession is four just unanimously approved has a history of decreasing -- excuse me, increasing the diversion rate, so we are pleased that that is a really nice example of some of our work and our concessions. the recycling and our outdoor property is a little trickier, as the part of the environment will tell you. we do use the stream system at all of our special events. again, based on recommendations from the department of the environment, at the special events, the cans are staffed by people who help patrons figure out which been -- bin different

items go in. we had a recycling program in delors park launched in 2009 with the department of the environment. and many of the neighbors who were eager to see this happening there. it has been somewhat successful. we continue to try to work with the environment to improve it. they can speak to this more -- better than i can, but essentially, in public, it is difficult to get people to sort their trash properly, so we are continuing to refine the program and hope that our experience in dolores park will inform the programs going forward. we also recycle at our tennis courts, and these are a little bit of a different scenario. we seem to have a higher success rate there, and in part, while it is not an indoor staff facility, it feels a little bit like that to our users, so we can to see a lot of recycling at

our tennis courts. >> we are extremely proud of golden gate part goes a diversion rate. the department of the environment frequently tells us that we are one of the best apartments in terms of diversion rate, and an aversion in golden gate park is now at 96%. that means that only 4% of the waste generated by the park and in the park is up in a landfill. -- ends up in the landfill. however, we are focusing on that remaining 4% and trying to get to the zeroth goal, and one of the things we will implement this spring in order to make that happen is to have recycling in golden gate park. the next few months, you will see a rollout of blue bins in the eastern end of the part.

again, we have worked closely with the department of the environment on this to addressee locations, the type, the signage and the rollout of the bins. it is important for us to have -- to make sure that we have volunteers and some staff at those bins directing people as to how to use them so we can ensure the success of the program. we are also grateful to our partners, the parks trust, the conservatory of flowers, the academy of sciences for actually donating the cost of these, so there was no expenditure on behalf of the department to purchase the dual stream waste can. here is a map of where we anticipate having the cans in the eastern end of golden gate park.

our hope is to roll the program out, as i said, in the spring, re-signed with the help of the department and the environment and then move toward dual screen cams in the west and. we have, as you can imagine, a slightly different role and approach to recycling and landfill in the park in that we have an obligation to serve the park users in perhaps a different way than someone who is walking down the street, so these locations will vary throughout the park. picnic meadows, for example, will have larger cans, and our hope is to improve it and extended to the west side. that is about it on our recycling program. supervisor avalos: i believe supervisor mirkarimi has a question. supervisor mirkarimi: a couple

of things not entirely clear to me -- you said you are very proud of the 96% diversion rate, and the following frame said that the next step is to recycle in golden gate park. mind you, we are -- we try to be as thorough as we possibly can. over the last few weeks on issues related -- indirectly related, i think, to this, especially on the recology contract in areas of the city where there is not recycling, we are following the chain of refuse so that when it leaves golden gate park, in most cases, it leaves on sorted and is aggregated together boast recyclables and trash -- both recyclables and trash. it just gets a bundled in, so how is it that you can have a 96% diversion rate and at the same time not affiliate any of that success with the on-site recycling center that helps

towards that? >> a couple of things -- 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 kn,