resource. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i have been using the hanc recycling center for decades. since the recent environmental action center, as referred to earlier, was opened. i support community recycling and i do use the center because i do not wish to use my blue band. i would rather donate the materials to the organization for all of the good that they do. many of those uses were referred to earlier by others, i will not reiterate them out. the idea of a machine for bottles and cans is absurd to me, as other people pointed out. those are not the material

steps the state -- those are not just the only materials that the center takes. items that other people can take back our very important. as a professional gardener, and must reiterate that this is a bad site for a community garden. the conversion process alone is one thing, but the side has for sunlight coming in, there are tree issues -- it is a very poor site and i am sure that there are much preferred sites. i guess that is the primary thing i would like to mention. supervisor mirkarimi: after this speaker, we will close public comment unless someone absolutely needs to make a

comment. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dennis [unintelligible] and i want to extend congratulations to you all for the kinds of questioning and in- depth discussion that took place today. i want to challenge the idea that there is a list of these organizations that addressed their members and got a vote in opposition to the placement of ashbury -- hanc. hanc is a historic entity. no one was objecting that was a 40 niner vip parking lot. or when we were in process of changing the decayed polytechnic high school site into affordable housing. some of the people on that list were screaming in opposition

because it would bring -- riffraff into the neighborhood. the reason for the debate on inner sunset with so many groups on the list, they were urging people to come down here to urge the commission to move hanc out in favor of the community gardens. the primary issue was the presence of homeless people and how we could get rid of them. as expressed openly on their discussions sites. we need to understand that that kind of stuff is easy to say. like saying that many organizations are opposed to the recycling center. but underlying that is the stuff about the kinds of people that it attracts, just like the opposition to the park, and that transformed the neighborhood,

opposed by the same people that testified today as bringing in riffraff to the community. thank you. [tone] supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. last speaker. >> walter paulson. ♪ make the waste go away and get it off the shoulders of the city but we all said the things that we needed to say. please make the waste go away and held the plants today make the waste go away and get it off our cities shoulders. turned into something else and you will be glad that you sold her make the waste go away and helped the plants to recycle

today and make a better say the things we had to say and make the plants stay ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i will now officially close public comment. i would like to give the courtesy to rec and park for a quick one minute response, if they would like. i know that the time does not reflect greater responses you might like to give. i do none of your microphone is on. >> thank you, a supervisor. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor mirkarimi: one quick question -- i was going to let to make a statement, but one quick question than -- since one of the central tenets is of the nonconforming use that came out

abundantly in public comment about the hanc republic -- recycling center, one of the proposed recycling plant and that it regarded non-conforming use? >> the proposed water treatment plant, but i understand the argument and there are conforming reasons for the plant as a part of the proposal. we have not -- the water treatment plant is a program that was initiated by the puc and is presently being worked through in alternatives. supervisor mirkarimi: just because this is important to the question -- those people that say that they very much support hanc but not at that location, what efforts are being done to demonstrate that support for

possible relocation? >> they have exhausted numerous vacation publications. supervisor mirkarimi: what about the hanc recycling center? >> sorry? >> if it does coincide with thinking that maybe the water treatment plant is not of consistent use to golden gate park and that there are actions to be taken as considered alternative uses outside the park, with that now go to a continuity of building hanc on a new location? i have no record of that. >> supervisors, when we began this process of repurchasing for the state, we headpin conversations with almost all city departments about the possibility of city land being available.

the department of the environment led those conversations. there is no park land in the convenience zone that would be a suitable location for relocation. as i recall, a city-owned properties that it makes sense, it did not mean that there were not existing properties outside of that zone. as a possible place to relocate hanc. supervisor mirkarimi: department of environment is welcome to speak on this quickly. >> sarah is right. we did look to see if there were city lands inappropriate to relocate hanc. no possibilities were drawn up, but there may be some with private lands yet to be explored. we have not initiated the search yet. supervisor mirkarimi: with presentations made it would seem that there would be consistency

for the actions to support that and we have not seen support of that action to the fulcrum that we have seen the alternative to in trying to potentially relocate the water treatment plant. i wanted to line up that thinking. >> a reasonable point. pedroiapu -- puc has been working closely with the department of the environment in supporting their efforts for alternative locations for hanc. supervisor mirkarimi: if i might -- one, too. let's the level of interest in -- >> the level of interest seen on possible relocation, we will continue in that effort. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you to the departments. we appreciate it. i am sure that we will follow

up. i just wanted to sum up in this regard. many people believe that it is a fait accompli that the determination of the eviction of hanc recycling will occur, and they are quite right. the board of supervisors is not enabled to overturn a decision by the rec and park decision. as i said in the opening, there had been no spotlight on the hearing of the process of unveiling in consensus on the larger issue for many on all sides to stipulate public comment and it was important to get out in the open. i think it is important to many of us were neighbors to the recycling center, that we look at this issue. as much as i appreciate the

intentions they are trying to reconcile with the mayor's office, perceived or real in their mind, the recycling center being a contributor to any kind of neighborhood distress, it doesn't excuse what it means to have a loss of the recycling center. i have to say that the answers the presentation has given do not complete the feelings that that loss has been satisfied or well compensated. i do have a hard time understanding that if we lose the recycling center, to supplant that -- as it is the equivalent of that major contribution -- crv machines, thinking that there will be a line of people at stores selling

it -- simile submitting into those machines, it has not been well thought out -- singly submitting it to those machines, it has not been well thought out. it should when you have somebody who is contributing money back into both city and community, whether they like with a day are contributing money on not, it calls into question when you have, like, the botanical garden where we pay them in a sense to continue operating an area that does cost us in a way that i do not think white wines of in a manner that we have a relationship with hanc, and it would only make more sense to us if -- that this be thought through that much more by at least a more sincere effort that the administration wants hanc to

be relocated, that they support and prove that they are working as diligently as they are with other actions like water treatment center or however it is to relocate them, but that has not happened at all. maybe this will result in something with greater sort of change ability, and i think that there has been enough evidence here to help support some next steps potentially, but that kind -- that is kind of the junction we are at. we appreciate everything that rec and park is trying to navigate around its budget deficits, etc., as well as department of environment and thinking forward about its recycling goals, but some of it does not pan out in its justification for removing the recycling center, and if there is a better plan to do so, then that plan needs to be presented. i am more than happy to continue to keep an open mind on this and have any discussions with city departments and the mayor's

office, as it stands, about the evolution of this idea, and thank you, colleagues, for your indulgence, for this first time hearing. supervisor mar: i just wanted to thank supervisor mirkarimi for calling this hearing, but especially the many residents and supporters of the environment and haight ashbury neighborhood center, hanc recycling center, and so much history of that has been brought in four hours we have been here. helps us understand how much work has been done within the rec and park department and the department of the environment as well. i wanted to thank our general manager never won for being here. especially the new department of the environment head. thank you so much for the great presentations, and i guess, mr. yee as well. i've been using the recycling center for over 20 years. like many people, i see the

human element that has been mentioned in the commons, and i think wayne wiley, one of the 10 employees, his comments about how the recycling center does not just recycle materials, but it is about recycling people, and the 10 green jobs that have been developed over the years and $1.5 million that has brought back to the city in supporting our economy is something that is really important, of couple of richmond district residents that in buyer -- acknowledged and the emergence of recycling center movements in the city are really neighborhood-based, and this is a shining example, a nationwide example, as someone said, that shines nationally as one of the key community-based recycling centers. i would like to see the rec and park department find another location for the community gardens. because i strongly support community gardens. but i know there is again many acres within the golden gate park area, including the mcclaren large, that hopefully

you could look at more carefully. and you could look at the representatives to talk about the process that went through, but i really think it needs to be a more transparent process, as many people have run up, before a land use decisions are made. lastly, i just wanted to sum up by saying a couple of the speakers also acknowledged the importance of hanc as an community growing place, and i guess it was again wayne talking about his family and children and learning cantonese and spanish and for talking with many of the richmond district recyclers that always come back to the recycling center, it is a multi-cultural place that really is valuable for the city, so i look forward to working with you to insure that we do not ebit the haight ashbury recycling center -- we do not evict the haight ashbury recycling center.

thank you to everyone for being here, and i really appreciate the education as well. thank you. [applause] supervisor avalos: thank you. i want to thank you for this hearing on this subject, and i thank all the members of the community for coming out and voicing your concerns. supervisor, would you like this to be -- supervisor mirkarimi: continue to the call of the chair. supervisor avalos: without objection, continue to the call of the chair, and we will recess this meeting untnt 7:09 supervisor avalos: love as in the air.

my name is supervisor john avalos, chair of the city operations and neighborhoods services committee. supervisor david campos is with us, and he has sponsored today's resolution and hearing. please call item 3. >> item 3, a resolution urging the san francisco municipal transportation agency to adopt changes to the youth lifeline discount fastpass program for qualified low-income youth. supervisor avalos: 90. supervisor campos will get to run this part of the meeting. -- thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. happy valentine's day. i think it is only appropriate that we are holding this hearing on valentine's day, and i wanted

thank the members of the committee who have come out to this hearing. i see at least one member of the board of education. we have all been impacted by the tough economy, and as we know here in san francisco, as of november last year, the unemployment rate was 9.6%. this economic downturn has been especially difficult on low- income children. the number of public servants qualifying for free and reduced lunch has actually increased from 54% in 2008, 2009 to 61% in the 2010-2011 school year. just to put some perspective on those numbers, to qualify for free and reduced lunch, a student has to live in a household with income below 130% of the poverty line. that means that to qualify, you have, for a family of four, you're talking about income of

$28,665 a year. you can imagine how difficult it would be for that family to survive here in san francisco. in may last year, the mta increase the price of the muni fastpass by 100% from $10 to $20, and even though that may not seem like a large amount for some families coming you can see how for some families, especially a low-income family, that would be a significant increase, and that increase was made without any special consideration made for low- income children that could not afford the increased air. was in recognition of those challenges that supervisor mirkarimi interest in resolution urging the sfmta to create a discounted fast fast for low- income youth. that resolution, i've had to say, passed unanimously, and the board of directors approved the creation of that program.

to that end, they dedicated $1.4 million of the mta budget to the youth lifeline program and asked the san francisco unified school district to sell and distribute the passes. we're nearing the end of the 2010/2011 school year, and unfortunately, the program has not been implemented. there are many reasons for that, many complications, many challenges that have gotten in a way, including some legal challenges where you are talking about a student population. the point of this and then the resolution is to modify the program so that irrespective of the challenges, we move quickly to implement the program. we need to make good on the promise that we made to our low income children and their families, and we need to do that as soon as possible. that is why my office, working with a number of organizations, has introduced this resolution, and i want to thank the offices

of other supervisors that have been working on this. i want to thank the youth commission, community-based organizations that have also partnered with us. i want to thank the school district, the mta, and its board of directors, and here, we have the department of children, youth, and their families, and i especially want to thank the mayor because in a very short time, since assuming the office of mayor, he has made it clear that this is a priority for him, and he has been asking questions as to why this had not been implemented. so we are here today with some developments that we believe are very positive in making the implementation a reality. the resolution before today urges the mta board of directors to use funds previously approved to provide free youth passes to

12,000 low-income eligible you for the last three months of this fiscal year. we believe that this approach is the most expeditious way to implement a program whose funding has already been approved and set aside by the mta board of directors. again, i want to thank the co- sponsors of this resolution -- supervisor john avalos, the chair of the committee, supervisor eric mar, the vice chair of this committee, as well as supervisors cohen, kim, and mirkarimi. it is time for us to fulfill our promise, and the least we can do on this valentine's day is show some love and provide reprieve for our low-income families over the last three months of the fiscal year. just some additional information -- next year, the program will be implemented as a reduced fastpass in the amount of $10. the department children youth

and their families -- will want to thank the director for being here -- have offered help in implementing the program. we will hear more from the department as we go forward with this discussion. again, i want to thank the mayor and the director for their involvement. today, we will also be hearing from the school district, who has been a strong partner with us. chris will speak first, followed by jane, of the mta, and then followed by the director from the department of children, youth, and their families. if i may ask chris from the school district to please come forward. that won. >> thank you, supervisor. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to first say thank you

very much to you, especially to your staff, and i also want to recognize the members of the youth commission and the other stakeholders in this who have worked very hard, and i also have to say worked very collaborative we with us. there has been a real team effort, a real sense of, "let's get this together, let's put this together for our kids," and we are very grateful for that. i have a brief power point presentation. if i could begin. ok. you introduce this already, so i will go briefly, but the purpose of this is that the city has recognized the transportation needs and challenges that face our youth. this has been a huge concern for us in terms of truancy and in terms of seeing attendance levels for our school. the intent was to provide a

discount muni pass to san francisco youth with the easiest access possible. i think what has been very cheap and has been a great challenge about the program is being able to do this in a way that really meets the needs of our youth. part of this was modeled after the adult life line past. the idea was to present a $20 pass for $10 for any student that fell within the eligible guidelines. given the amount of the passes -- around 12,000 -- we believed that of the students in secondary level fell within the free with this launch level, within 130% of the poverty line. we are also frustrated with the time and has taken to do this, but i do want to point out that there has been significant work to date on what has happened with this.

since may 2010, we have seen resolutions of support passed by both this board as well as the board of education. we have seen this process already started for our homeless and transitional-age youth. of the 12,000 passes that were set up, we were able to begin, because of the ease with the logistical challenges in this area -- we were able to begin the process since autumn 2010 for roughly 2000 homeless and transitional-age youth. we've had a number of meetings, presentations, and collaborative work. we have also engaged in an extensive legal analysis, particularly around the sensitive data that is concerned for our students with free and reduced lunch. finally, we have also -- and this took significant time -- settled the memorandum of understanding between ourselves,

sfusb and sfmta, and we have taken into consideration a number of the risks, whether it be financial, liability, schools that impact, labor contract impact -- the list goes on and on. but let me speak in more detail. what are some of the challenges we are facing? to frame this, first off, i want the supervisors and audience to understand that the administration of this program is not simple. it is even more challenging in what we have is a very lean time for staffing. we do not have an infrastructure in existence at our sites for the exchange of cash. in years past, you would have had things like student stores, things like accountants who would be there several days a week. the latest number i got from the superintendent was on average, you have an accountant on-site maybe two hours a week. it gives us limited the ability

to move this kind of a program in a way that has been a key issue for the youth commission and one we tried to honor. we have also tried to align this work with existing contractual agreements. is not a simple case of where we can change work habits at the site or central office to simply implement the program. the agreements that we have with our labor partners are in many ways strict and rigid, and we need to be in compliance with that. this takes some level of finesse