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 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. >> 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 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 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 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.

permits for commercial parking garages and lots. sponsor: alioto-pier. ordinance amending sections of the san francisco police code, business and tax regulations 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 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. >> 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? 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 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 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. >> 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 the site for freeway use. we are asking to seek rezoning of p to rh-1, which is similar to the neighborhood. we are proposing 28 homes. our site would mimic -- would abutt about 20 homes, so it is still very consistent to what we have now. we are providing family housing, affordable housing, two to three bedrooms, with parking, but two-car parking in the two to three bedrooms, and that was part of the process that we did when we were speaking to the community to make sure we had

enough parking. as i stated before, we have talked to the planning commission, and this p.u.d. was approved by the planning commission. throughout the process, which i started in 2009, i had three widely noted neighborhood meetings. i had two presentations that were n.i.a. i had a presentation to the san francisco housing action coalition. i sent numerous letters to each neighbor abutting the site providing updates which provided my phone number and e-mail address to make sure if there was information they wanted i could address them personally, and once i took all the public comments together and finalized the new plans, i went door to door to all the abutting homes i have to say, for the vast majority the comments were very positive. it removes a nuisance from the site. we have been victims of illegal

dm dumping. it was stated by another neighbor in may, the planning commission, that he's observed many criminal activity over the course of 30 years. so the homes would add more to the site. i also have endorsements -- when i went door-to-door i got signatures from abutting sites, i'm not sure where these petitions came from, where they are located, but my endorsements are from abutting home owners, and that was presented to the planning commission as well in may. [bell] chair maxwell: why don't you finish. >> i think the neighbors understand i'm providing increased safety, new housing stock to the neighborhood, and lastly, in that video, my home will act as a sound barrier to the homes on sagimore street, permanently blocking noise for them.

chair plax we will: i guess the whole idea is who is blocking the noise for those other folks? thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors. i want to respond to a couple issues that were raised at the hearing today. first of all, i want to put on the overhead the zoning map of the area. you can feel everything in yellow is rh-1, so rh-1 is the predominant zoning in this area. it is the lowest density zoning that we have in san francisco. that's what's been approved and what the planning staff is recommending. i also have copies of the letters from my neighbors, which is a large neighborhood organization in the area that endorsed the project back in october of 2009. i'll pass a copy of that up for you. the issue of sound and health and welfare, it is true these

homes will be right adjacent to the freeway. they have been designed with that issue in mind. you will recall a few years ago the supervisors sponsored legislation to require ventilation of homes adjacent to freeways and other traffic barriers so the air inside the homeds is pure -- inside the homes is pure identified -- purified before it goes into the homes. the negative electric legislation to this project that was approved and an appealed discusses in a fair amount of detail that the interior air quality in these homes will be safe because of the ventilation system that would be built into the homes. what's on the overhead now is a cross-section of the project. this is the freeway to the left. the new homes in the middle, which was what we built, with inoperable windows along the

back. openings would be in the front, so the fresh air will be from the front as well as from the ventilation system to pure identify the air that does come in. on the far right, are the existing homes on sagimore street. so these existing homes will serve as a sound barrier, and the indications are that the noise level on sagimore street will be reduced about 10 decibels because of these buildings serving as a sound wall between the new homes and the elevated wall. this also shows the berm that separates the freeways. that berm remains in cal-trans ownership and remains in the p zone. this was approved in may. it was a negative declaration that was not opposed that found there are no unmit indicated significant impacts from the -- um -- unmitigated significant

impacts from the project. it is my understanding that supervisor mar approved this as well. chair maxwell: any other public comments? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm speaking on behalf of o.m.i., which -- neighbors in action. which has over 200 members. we have been talking to owners. they have been diligent in coming to every one of our meetings in explaining what's going on and how designs have changed. i think our members agree that this is an ingenious piece of urban in-fill that addresses problems of vacant, unmanaged, and therefore dangerous land. it does so by first dealing with the sound issues, as was explained.

it blocks substantial sound or noise from the freeway to the existing houses. because these new houses are built to a higher standard with insulation and double-glazed windows and so forth, as you heard, they themselves would be better protected than most of the existing houses along the freeway route r. so we think it makes sense. we have endorsed the project, and it's a good thing that we should add some new infill housing. probably the most important reason to add housing in san francisco is because people need it. i think this is an appropriate reason to approve this rezoning. thank you. chair maxwell: any other public comment on this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. i would like planning to come back.

we have heard comments and concerns. could you address some of those comments and concerns? i don't know that they were heard at planning or not. if they were, what whether some of the comments and how are you then feeling that this would be ok? >> thank you, chair maxwell. i am from the planning department. i am not the planner who was in charge of this case and i was not at the planning commission hearing. oufer i can address some of the comments made today. this whole process of map rezoning as well as the plan unit development requires extensive notification. both mailed note fantastic to subjects within 300 feet and in terms of the map rezoning, intersection postings for every intersection 300 feet from the subject property as well as multiple postings on the site. so there was opportunity and there was clear notice of this project going to the planning commission on may 13.

from my discussions with the planner, there was not a lot of opposition presented to the planning commission. at that hearing, a mitigated negative declaration was approved. it was aursed by the planning commission as well as the recommendation of the zoning map change. a lot of the issues in temples -- terms of to the project site itself were taken care of in the mitigated negative declaration was -- as was discussed. that was thoroughly vetted out at the planning commission and, like i said, it was not appealed. in terms of traffic, that again would have been in the mitigated negative declaration, and i don't really know what to say about that in terms of the neighbors' concerns. there was p