Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 19, 2010 1:00pm-1:30pm PST

2:00 pm
beautiful child care facility south of market.
2:01 pm
really good public policy for the city. >> ns really good public policy for the families. i want to fa the supervisors for bringing this forward, and thank the spfers for co-sponsoring it. i hope you will send it onto the
2:02 pm
full board with your recommendation for support. supervisor maxwell: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is george westlake. i'm director of the archdiocese of san francisco, and i have come to speak on behalf of the archdiocese against the proposal. the archdiocese in the city of san francisco is probably responsible for about a third of the poor and vullnerable in the city. we are sincerely committed to that. in terms of working for families in the city, archbishop and
2:03 pm
myself and the cardinal have worked in partnership with san francisco organizing project for many years to keep affordable housing at the top of the city's agenda because some of the concerns that have been expressed here are our concerns, too. our parishes, the 44 parishes in the schools, our schools, our high schools, all need families to stay here, so we're very invested in keeping families here. we're very invested in child care. we have about a dozen child care facilities. we are opensed to this item because we feel it is a layer of bureaucracy that is not needed and will, in fact, create a disincentive for people to try to build child care facilities.
2:04 pm
two blocks away from the present one at st. joseph's we are intending to put in a child care center. the archdiocese is intending to put in a mill to $-- a million to $2 million. we think it is needed. however, with this type of legislation, which we think is poorly crafted, we might step back and look at that again, because we're going to be tied in with another level of bureaucracy. if the mission changes down the road somewhere, if senior services become more important or homeless services become more important and we have to change the venue or the place for the child care center, this will be, we think, an obstacle, especially if it becomes permanent. l so for those -- so for those reasons, we oppose the legislation. we understand the pain of the
2:05 pm
parents who have to move their children. we have, we think, been in negotiation with them. there has been a two-year window of this discussion. at any rate, we hope we can work this out. thank you. >> mr. westlake, a quick question for you. thank you for coming today. as a good catholic with a 4-year-old, i just do want it to be clear, the catholic church or i should say, catholic charities, which is a little distinct from the arch diocese, right? catholic charities is the arm where you raise the money to put into the community? i just want to be clear that the comments that you are making, is it a statement that the arch diocese will reassess where they will build child care facilities in san francisco? >> no, i'm saying this kind of legislation makes it more difficult, we think, for people who are interested in building those facilities, not just
2:06 pm
ourselves, but other people who may be interested in providing child care. >> ok. >> and catholic charities is really a -- the way we think of it is the way that the catholic people in our parishes reach out and -- in an institutional way to the poor and the vullnerable, so it is very much connected to our mission. >> no, i'm not debating whether or not it is connected to the mission, i just wanted to clarify because i do think there are people in the catholic church, parishioners, and if they understood what was going on right now with children's village in particular, they might find umbrage with it. i think these are important conversations for us to be having. frankly when you are looking at -- this is one example that has led us down this particular path. but when you look at examples like children's village where you have 120 families from all different types of economic settings in san francisco, it is a melting pot of sorts.
2:07 pm
it is what the catholic church is about, bringing all different types of people together to help them, you know, raise their children and their families in a healthy and safe environment. >> and that's why we feel so strongly about the child care centers that we do have, that we want to keep them active because it really does do a service to the community and especially to our families. the thousands of families that we have in our parishes that we want to keep here in san francisco. >> thank you. chair maxwell: next speaker, please. >> thank you for talking with me today. my name is lisa finamore. i am a parent. i put my first child through children's village. she is now 7 years old. when i was pregnant with her my biggest worry was where will i put her when i have to work,
2:08 pm
because i do are to -- have to work. luckily she got into children's village. then i had my second son. he's there now. he's currently 3 years old. when i first heard there was a chance that children's village would close, i put him on several waiting lists. now fast forward, i still haven't made it to the top of any of those places. one place i'm 164 on the list when i called two months ago. so the fact is, there really is nowhere to put our children right now that is any kind of environment that's safe and secure except for possibly, i did get offered a spot in south san francisco. i think it is a tragedy. i am a devoted san franciscoian -- san franciscoan. i want to stay here. i think this is another situation that forces families
2:09 pm
out of the city. if we are really family oriented , we need to push this through. thank you for your time. chair maxwell: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is gabriel. i work for catholic charities. we are a separate agency from the archdiocese. on behalf of catholic charities, i will be reading an official statement. catholic charities c.y.o. has partnered with the city and county of san francisco to provide child care for poor families. catholic charities is actively working to construct a new child development center in partnership with mercy housing and in partnership with the archdiocese of san francisco and
2:10 pm
private donors. c.y.o. provides after-care services at this site at 10th and mission. the planned child development center is being established in response to the current need for chimed care within the city of san francisco. the proposed legislation would interfere with our ability to raise private funds if community needs were to change. catholic charities have responded to community needs since 19 -- 1907 and has adapted as needs arise over time. because of the ricks imposed by the legislation. we appeal to the committee to not place restrictions on child care facilities which may inhibit the provider's ability to serve those most in need. thank you. supervisor maxwell: next speaker.
2:11 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors. i will be brief. i wanted to stand with my colleagues and human services agency and the parents of children's village. i am supporting this resolution or others that may come before you to protect child care in the city. it is a vital supervise and industry, and i must say, i felt heart sick when i heard about the possible closure of children's village. it is one of the highest quality programs that we have in the city and a model for lots of others. so please support the work and the resolution. chair maxwell: thank you. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. >> thank you very much, supervisor maxwell. the way this is used, we use conditional uses for everything. if you want a starbucks on union street, you need a conditional
2:12 pm
use. this is not some over-aare muching -- overarching awful thing that will stop child care in san francisco. in my opinion, that's a red herring. i consider it to be an joursly false statement. -- i consider it to be an outrageously false statement. the conversation about being able to change the use in case the use changes? i mean, honestly, are you kidding me? cliled care centers? it is like getting into starn to get into -- stanford to get into a preschool in san francisco. there is, without question, the greatest need. if you are going to tell 120 families they will have to find a new child care center, it seems to me going through the conditional use process is not
2:13 pm
something that is, in my opinion, asking too much. i certainly hope that you -- that the committee will send this forward with full recommendation. >> supervisor chiu, comment? supervisor chiu: i want to thank everyone for a good change 20 -- change to our planning code. i have seen this phenomenon not just with the situation being discussed today but within my district, and i have heard this is happening city-wide. i'm happy to support it and would like to be added as a co-sponsor to the legislation. supervisor maxwell: so would i. >> p [applause] chair maxwell: and i want to say to the parents, i have toured that facility, and it is really beautiful. i am glad you fought hard for
2:14 pm
it. because of your fight, we will do something for all of them. that's what this is all about. and i think that catholic charities is known for that, charity, so what we're trying to do here is to make sure that the facilities -- that if f facilities -- that if facilities have do close, that because they are important to the public and the people, that they have a say in it and at least feel they are a part of the process. so that's what we're doing here today. so without objection we will move this forward with recommendation. thank you. [applause] and again, thank you for bringing this to us. thank you. next item, please. the clerk: item 6.
2:15 pm
permits for commercial parking garages and lots. sponsor: alioto-pier. ordinance amending sections of the san francisco police code, business and tax regulations
2:16 pm
code and fire code to transfer responsibility for parking garage and parking lot permits from the fire department to the police department. chair maxwell: excuse me, could you please have your hugs and discussion outside. >> thank you, supervisor maxwell. under the proposed ordinance the police department would also collect fees for inspections or services provided by other city departments in investigating a commercial parking application. i think the big question really centers around two things. first is safety of our parking lots. if you go into some of them, particularly south of market there late at night, it can be a nerve-wracking experience. so this would help secure them by having them under the jurisdiction of the police
2:17 pm
department. also, there are questions as to whether or not we are effectively collecting our parking tax revenue. so this would help us really focus our attention on that and hopefully the city will make the money that it should be making. chair maxwell: supervisor, do you no why it was wrested with the fire department in the first place? >> i don't know what the history of that is. i know there are several things that have fullen under the jurisdiction of the fire department because way back when the city was started, the fire department was a strong entity that was reliable in those ways. ok good, someone knows >> chair maxwell: oh, good someone knows. i just saw a hand go up.
2:18 pm
>> the only thing i can surmise, we also handle the fifth vallet locations and we have to get recommendations from the city planning and the fire department. so the only thing i can surmise is that since it was in a facility where it would have to be approved by either the city planning or fire department, perhaps that's the reason it started with the fire department. chair maxwell: all right. makes sense, thank you. i'm -- >> i'm not sure if you are finished with your remarks. supervisor alioto: i'm finished with my remarks. >> we are ready to get started as soon as it goes through the various committees and is approved by the board of supervisors. we have personnel in place to handle the garages as well as the parking lots. chair maxwell: thank you. any public comment on this item?
2:19 pm
seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection we will move this forward for recommendation. supervisor alioto-pier. the clerk? the clerk: item number 7, ordinance amending section maps, zoning map amendment for one capitol avenue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the parcel is very large and it will be sub divided into 28 single-family houses. it has already received approval from the planning compligs as a planned unit development, and the planning commission also recommended approval of this
2:20 pm
rezoning on may 13, 2010. i have diagrams of the -- which i will show you. and i also want to note that this was -- we did double check it with the spluss property order -- surplus property ordinance and it was owned by cal-trans and was sold by them in 1986. this is the property being divided from p to rh-1, and there will be individual townhouses constructed on that site. i have plans if you would like to see them. chair maxwell: what is that next to it? was it a parking lot? freeway? what is that? >> this is the highway. this is an underpass over here. this is not a parking lot. these are the roots of existing buildings. chair maxwell: and is there then
2:21 pm
going to be a buffer? >> in terms of the -- chair maxwell: the roadway and the housing. >> this is how the ultimate project will be constructed. there will be a buffer of green, open space, and they will be basically inserting a new road/driveway to access all the individual units that will be constructed as part of this unit. this whole parcel is what is being rezoned. this back here is part of the open spaces for the building that currently front the other side of the street. chair maxwell: all right. thank you. any questions? i have a number of cards. i'll read them, and if you hear your name, if you would just line up. al harris, edna james, and mrs. godwin.
2:22 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm speaking to approve this resolution. i think this space has been an eye sore on the community for many years. it is a great dumping ground for people that want to unload. i think the people have done a lot of out-reach into the community and gotten support from the community, and it should be changed. chair maxwell: ok. thank you. next speaker. >> my name is edna james and i'm president of organize my community organization. i didn't know about this until last night, so we prepared a petition and we have over 50
2:23 pm
signatures of people who are opposing this development i'll read my letter to the board of supervisors. the members of the organize my community action organization are from the late 2010 supervisor commission of 28 new single-family dwellings on 28 pilots with 42 parking spaces at one capitol avenue. our opposition to this development is based on the fact that the lowest level, due to bart and traffic on highway 280 will pose a health and welfare threat for generations yet unborn, and i'm talking about the sound effect and the noise level. children, low -- how can people stand outside and appreciate the open space because of the noise level there? the pollution level, due to
2:24 pm
traffic of highway 280 in the surrounding areas will also pose a healthy and welfare threat for generations yet unborn. the proposed landscape area and roof on -- use on rooftops will be difficult. the increase in density will adversely affect, imfact livability of the present population and seniors living in that area. we have a lot of african-american seniors living in that area, and we say this may be one of the contributing factors to the out-migration of african-americans living in san francisco. we strongly urge you to oppose this due to the strong impact on
2:25 pm
the community. thank you. and i have the petition if you would like this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, and mr. chiu. my name is miculus godwin. i am a resident immediately impacted. i am already suffering from health effects due to pollution on that corridor. i have coronary and card yack -- i have pulmonary and cardiac trunls, -- troubles, and i strongly oppose the construction of that parcel. the pictures did not represent
2:26 pm
what that area truly looks like. it is not an area that should be considered for additional development. it is a small parcel. it will cause over-crowding. i invite the supervisors to visit that street and witness firsthand the number of cars, the congestion, the pollution, the number of parcels that are being proposed for a single-home use development, but that will not be the case. most homes along that corridor are occupied by two and three families. there is not adequate parking. the 42 additional -- allegedly
2:27 pm
off-site parking will not fully represent the numbers of cars. every night there are cars parked on swalks. i have to back into my driveway every evening because there is no parking available to me as a person who would be living across the street, and sometimes i have also had to call police to be able to obtain access to my own parking space. so i strongly oppose this legislation, and the fact that a community group was able to obtain 50 signatures overnight speaks to the level of opposition to this proposal. thank you. [bell] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is helen dilbert and my
2:28 pm
family has owned property for over 50 years on that street. could i see that map again? could you get that up again? i want to show you my house. chair maxwell: why don't you continue. >> well, my house is right on the corn he, and it is the place i might be residing after retirement. i'm not really sure. as several speakers have indicated, when you go there, there is no parking. even though if you count on that block there were only 15 houses on that block and they are planning to put 24 behind it. if you can't park there already and you put 24 in the back, it really impacts the traffic patterns, not 0 mention the fact of access, if that is a oneway -- one-way street, and the fact there is a fire department within 500 yards of where they would be entering. i think this would impact our safety issues. i am speaking in opposition to this zoning amendment.
2:29 pm
i thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is danny sepperer. the history is my father bought the lot in 1959 with the origin tent of building homes and passed away before that could come to fruition. during that time, while my mother was raising us, it stayed vacant. once we were old enough and she had the time to start the process of looking into building homes, she passed away. so now it is under my hands to do something and complete what the family mission was, which was to build homes. the site originally had homes on it. there were homes on the site, but cal-trans bought th