do you have specific questions for me? supervisor maxwell: do you have a presentation or something that you have prepared? >> no, i do not. supervisor maxwell: supervisor, do you have questions for the fire department? supervisor chiu: i do have a question related to the previous speaker brown the lack of competitive bidding in this project. let me say that i have sat down of various product -- various parties on this project. i want to find various city officials as well as the fisher family for coming up with what i think is a wonderfully unique arrangement to get done what we all want to accomplish here, injuring the neighborhood pose a safety related to the need for fire safety, but obviously, bringing to the city an amazing

collection. the piece of this that was not made as clear to me when we were going to this before was the aspect of the lack of competitive bidding. i know that there was some mention before about the desire or intention to rely on for stores and potentially city built, but could you talk about how we would ensure that we do have local hiring and the various types of first source city built kind of programs are incorporated into what we're doing to make sure this will actually be a local project? >> sure, i can try to address that. with respect to competitive bidding, is - standing the competitive bidding is put into place when public money is being spent on a project to protect the taxpayers and make sure they get a good deal for the money. in this case, moma is obligated under the agreement to build the station regardless of what the cost is to them, so it made sense to ask you to exempt the project from competitive

bidding. with respect to the local hiring or the lbe, it is our belief that because public money is not being invested in a project, it is not subject to the lbe ordinance, although as john said, is subject to first source and all the other things that he mentioned. supervisor chiu: if i had heard the previous speaker correctly, it is the intent of the project sponsor to include those aspects. is that right? >> by the project sponsor, you mean the sfmoma with regard to the new fire station? supervisor chiu: right, i thought that in past presentations, i would heard that that would be part of it. >> it is the intent that it is mentioned in the agreement. i'm sorry, i'm just looking for my notes for the series of things -- oh, yes. subject to the city hosted prevailing wage resourced- efficient building, equal benefits, and first source hiring provisions. supervisor chiu: i'm sorry,

which section are looking at? >> let me ask the deputy city attorney. let us know what section that is in. >> i'm not sure. it is in the contract itself. there is a provision, section 11.21 of the agreement, does provide specific references to efficiency buildings prevailing wages and equal benefits. it does not meet the gates specific references in time to first source hiring, but there is a cover all provision that is in -- that says all applicable laws will be complied with by the museum, and it is our belief that first source hiring would apply. supervisor chiu: ok, we do not have in our binder a copy of that agreement. it is not in our binder. i would love to get a copy of it. i think that is indeed the case,

that will probably address the concerns that i have that i think a number of my colleagues would have. i would love to see that language. >> excuse me, could you hand this to the supervisor? oh, i'm sorry. supervisor maxwell: do you want to look over it? supervisor chiu: yes, let's take public comment, and i may have questions afterward. >> there are two sections that would be applicable. section 11.21, which would be on page 29 of the agreement, and the applicable law section is section 11.8, which is on page 26 of the agreement. supervisor chiu: thank you. supervisor maxwell: i don't think there are any questions for you at this time, unless you had something you wanted to add. >> yes, i would like to add something. this proposal is a win-win

situation for the citizens of san francisco, moma, san francisco fire department. currently, station one is located third and howard streets. it was built approximately in the 1950's. it was originally supposed to be a temporary location for the station until the location on jesse alley was renovated, but that never happened. since that time, the firefighters have operated out of a station in a highly congested area for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. the majority of their runs are in the tenderloin area. i would anticipate -- excuse me, i would say approximately 75% of the call volume is focused in the tenderloin and sixth street corridor. relocating to this location would decrease our response time. we would be better able to serve the population that we normally

serve. we are really excited about this project. if you find it reasonable and you agreed to approve it, it would be a great situation all the way a round. supervisor maxwell: great, thank you. all right, why don't we open this up to public comment at this time? >> supervisors, san francisco building and construction trades council. i have something of a personal relationship to the museum of modern art, as the many trades member committee a building in san francisco. i did work on the building, and although i did not work there for long, some of my work is very prominent on the building,

particularly on the sky bridge. in fact, the artist in his all over series in "the chronicle" showed in detail some of my work in a view that is not recognizable as the sky bridge unless you actually worked on it, but he showed the particular way in which i had handled my welds on that structure, and it was a nice instance of our reflecting craftsmanship, i think. that is in park what i will argue on behalf of this exchange, and that is that a building like the museum of modern art and its eventual extension offer a real opportunity for us to exhibit that kind of craftsmanship in the trades. they are the kind of building that really allows us to put forward the best of what we do. although supervisor daly noted last week, it is about the work, it is not all about the work. it is in this instance about the craftsmanship and about an

institution that will be a delight to san francisco in years to come. thank you. supervisor maxwell: next. >> good afternoon. director of sfmoma. pleasure to be able to appear before you and to know that you will be considering seriously this really innovative partnership between fire department and the museum. we are celebrating our 70th anniversary this year at the museum. we have 75 years -- our 75th anniversary. we have 75 years of great anniversary -- of cultural and public service. we had 650,000 visitors last year, for a dozen members, 30,000 students, and we employ 240 staff full-time -- 40,000 members. we had an incredibly salutary benefits advantage for the yerba buena neighborhood, and as we

look forward and have a great opportunity with the fischer collection coming, we have the opportunity to again enhance the yerba buena neighborhood, and especially howard street, by this expansion. it will allow us to create a new and livelier aspect on howard street. we will be able to relocate to what you just heard is a much better location for them, provide much better public service, and the arrangement we have made with the family is for the collection, which is one of the great collections anywhere in the world to come to the museum for no less than 100 years, so it is an extraordinary win-win-win, i would say, for the city, and we have taken a great pleasure in the relationships that we develop with the fire department in putting this together, so appreciate your giving this very serious consideration, and i and my team are happy to answer any questions you may have. thanks.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. president of the san francisco fire fighters. i would also like to speak in favor of this resolution, this item before you today. i think it is a great project for the city. i think it helps us with public safety. i think it helps us with our support of the arts in san francisco, and after many years, this station has become old and tired. this was once the busiest firehouse in america, and it has only just recently been passed by station 3 in the tenderloin, which is now the busiest firehouse in america. 30, 40, 50 years of backing a truck and engine in and out about 57 times a day will exert a lot of strain on a facility, and i think it is time to replace this one. as i said before, it is a great partnership, and i hope you support this project. supervisor maxwell: thank you. anyone else public comment? seeing none, then public comment is -- still open.

no, then public comment is closed. thank you. all right, collie, supervisor chiu, have you been -- >> i understand that apparently there was not a reference to ensuring that the first source hiring program would be applicable here. i'm fine, really, going either way on this, but i just wanted to make sure that that would be a commitment. seems like that would be a commitment of the parties to put that in the agreement. if folks would like to put that in, i would suggest that, but i would like to hear from the deputy city attorney. >> in reviewing this, in connection with this one question, there is apparently an inadvertent typographical error in the agreement in its current form. on 7.1k, which provides as a condition for the city's closing of this deal, it says, "city's

compliance with all applicable laws." , and that should be "museum's compliance with all applicable laws." that same language is replicated in section 7.3h. it says the same thing. in other words, in 7.1k, it should be "museum's" and that will be corrected. that would apply to first source hiring, which is applicable. that is within the definition of applicable laws. supervisor chiu: on this question of whether we need to amend the agreement to specifically first course -- first source hiring, you think that is something we need to do? >> i believe it would be the first was hiring is applicable, which i believe it is, we have already looked at that, that that would be redundant and

unnecessary, but we could do that as well as long as we're going to make this one change. we could add those words to the specific provisions that are addressed if it is deemed advisable by the partisan the board. supervisor chiu: 90. i guess i would look to the parties to say is that something that would be agreeable? -- thank you. >> from the cities and, it is totally agreeable. the jet from the city's end -- from the city's and. >> that is absolutely agreeable. we get at a reference to the first source hiring chapter of the administrative code -- we could add a reference to the first source hiring chapter. supervisor chiu: i'm not sure that requires a formal motion because the agreement is not in front of us, but as long as there is a commitment by the parties to do this, i'm comfortable with leaving it as it is and allow the parties to do that. >> that is right, and the committee does not have the jurisdiction to make an

amendment to the contract. you have to have the parties agree, and they will submit new a new version. supervisor chiu: great. supervisor maxwell: without objection -- again, supervisor. >> thank you. i'm here for items 5 and 6, but i would like to thank supervisor maxwell for letting me make a comment. as a supervisor who represents district two and the presidio, we have had a number of committee hearings right here in land use on the proposed museum in the presidio that clearly did not work out. but one thing that i do want to say is how thrilled i am to see this actually come to fruition, to see it at that one moment where i think we are finally taking that step to make a reality, and in so doing, i would like to thank everyone that was involved in it. i would certainly like to thank

the fissures for their generous gift, which really cannot be underestimated. i would like to thank moma for all the hard work they have put in to making all this work, and charles schwab, who before mr. fisher passed away, he was instrumental in helping to bring him to this point, and i just really do feel that this is one of the true great steps that san francisco will be taking in our cultural life and existence, and it is another facet, i think, to what we bring to the united states and our cities, so thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: thank you. and i remember the late nights when we were talking about this at the presidio, and for it to come into something that was so lovely, this is a win-win, and it is from what we remember that we went through -- this is just great. i want to thank all of you on behalf of, i think, the citizens of san francisco. they have a great gift.

i think the family has always been a part of our city, and for them to remain here in this way is very elegant and great, so again, thank you very much. without objection, so move. -- so moved. madam clerk, item five please. >> item 5, resolution imposing interim zoning controls requiring authorization for a change in child care facilities. supervisor maxwell: i would like to welcome supervisor alioto- pier. this is your item. supervisor alioto-pier: i'm here today to ask you for your support on this resolution that imposes interim zoning controls to protect child care facilities here in san francisco. for more than two years, i worked to save children's village, a program run by catholic facilities. i was disappointed to learn that there are no zoning projections for child care facilities. along with supervisors dufty and

daly, i have introduced this resolution to ensure that when a child care center closes or is reduced in size, the new use would require a conditional use of the recession. if the project sponsor replaces the child care on offsite would like services -- with a like services, no cu will be needed. i wanted to note that because this hearing is during the day, many working parents are unable to be here. however, we have received numerous letters in support, and the small business commission has voted to support this legislation as well. we are joined today by michelle rutherford of the human services agency, who will provide a brief overview of the city put the child care fixture, and a representative from the city's planning department to answer any questions you may have. thank you very much for being

here today. >> thank you, good afternoon, supervisors. first, just quickly, for a brief overview, child care is a critical economic support for san francisco, both for the work force and for employers. child care is a significant economic sector in its own right, generating over $191 million annually in gross receipts and employing over 4400 workers. child care lays the groundwork in san francisco for huge economic success by preparing the next generation and helping for school success for children as they come out of zero-five child care. there are 300 licensed child- care centers -- centers in the city and 621 licensed family child care homes with a total capacity of 18,246 serving children ages 0 to 13. i understand that this proposed

resolution really is to address centers, but i present the full picture because families have choices about where their children use care, and currently, we have an unmet need for licensed care that exceeds 40,000 in the city with the greatest and men need for ages 0 to 5. that includes employees who come into the city who seek to care for the city, and that comes from a nexus study that was conducted recently. san francisco has a model child- care facilities fund, which hsa contract with a low investment fund of facilities in place since 1998, we have a program -- a subsidized section 108 program we have done in partnership with moh the subsidized the build out

into new facilities and new sites and expanded facilities. over the past 12 years, we have supported the expansion of 20 licensed centers -- actually, over 20 licensed centers, and dozens of additional sites have been able to maintain slots due to the fund. from 1998, 2002 -- from 1998 to 2002, through our section 108 program, the number of sorely needed infant/toddler slots where nearly doubled to 1000. yet, each of the centers has long waiting lists for infant or child have to care. sorely needed in the city. hsa, in partnership with moh, as i said has a subset as program. that program, in order to be

eligible for the federal hud dollars, the programs that they did not on the property themselves, had to have extended leases -- those leases are all coming up, which is a concern that as the payoff of the loan -- is term, then the leases will need to be renegotiated, and that is a concern for us since those are primarily programs in low-income neighborhoods as a condition of the hud loan. so we are concerned about any of those sites being jeopardized, and more pointedly, catholic charities children's village was really a flagship program. it was the largest, best space with a lot of outdoor space, with certain mixed use of low- income children, homeless families. family and children protective service cases that are served

there along with moderate and upper-income families that are working in the downtown areas, so it is really that how of a program being served, plus it has really come to be a tremendous community for the families there. we have been working with the communities trying to save their site and really are committed even beyond their own. i know how hard it is to look beyond your brood, but these families really stepped up to understand the importance of the city in terms of the city's investment in that site. that site was on an accelerated repayment program, and unfortunately, as soon as it was paid off, it was concurrently targeted for closure and eviction. that has been going on over the last two years. in sum, the proposed resolution

would provide a much-needed planning review to analyze the impact of the threat of loss of license of child care, which is much needed in the city. and if there's any questions, i would be happy to respond. supervisor maxwell: thank you. do you have any questions? supervisor alioto-pier: no, thank you. colleagues, if i may open it up for public comment period, not -- public comment. come on up, and let me read some cards as well. >> thank you. director of the child care facilities fund with the low- income investment fund. i first wanted to acknowledge and thank supervisor alioto- pier for your leadership in putting forth this resolution. i think it is a lot of time in coming. over the last decade in which we

plan for child-care facilities, what we need to be mindful of is as we are planning and thoughtfully planning in the city, thinking about planning for child care is critical. i think folks need to understand the fact that is not what you just read. has to be was sensible. some of the biggest factors we deal with oftentimes is the lack of adequate outdoor space. we know neighborhoods in our cities that do not have the 75 square feet per child in order to get licensed, meaning it is licenseda -- licenseable space. the need to be able charge affordable rates to parents working in the city. we are constantly playing catch- up. obviously, the supply does not meet the demand in the city, and sometimes, parents come to us all the time in terms of trying to figure out ways to build new capacity in the city. i can think of all the work that was done with catholic charities to try to preserve that space.

we have a group of parents come to us that look at some school district faces and we try to figure out ways of helping to partially fund and support development of that phase, so i think this resolution will go far in terms of helping us to look at and thoughtfully plan for needs for child-care in the community, for early care and education programs. at the same time, while we're doing that simultaneously, planning for the long term so we will be able to meet the often increasing demands that we face all the time in terms of quality child care centers. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have been a resident of sand and cisco, luckily, for 21 years. i'm also a member of the nonprofit that the parents' group children's village organized to try to save the

program there. originally in hopes of actually purchasing the property. obviously, i'm here in support of the ordinance, and i think it is really important that this passes so existing child-care facilities would have some protection from child care developers that seem to have no conscience around these items. when our group first heard of the impending sale, of the property where children's village was located, we immediately reached out to the developers in the hope we could reach some form of agreement to save the program or to have some sort of a transition plan to another location. after numerous attempts to look -- to negotiate plan with them, they just rejected one after the other, and this is even acted -- after the developers spoke with their consultants and said they had no immediate plans for the site, so we saw that as an opportunity. again, our suggestions were rejected. what is left is 120 children and

families that are left to find another solution for child care in the city is waiting list from a year and a half to two years long is really not suitable. all the slots for the low-income families that were being served there were lost, and this community that has been created over a decade is going to cease to exist. obviously, i'm in favor of development in the city and understand it is an important need, but at what cost? you know. so i strongly urge the committee to pass this ordinance. what happened is obviously quite sad, and it should not be allowed to happen again. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. next speaker place. supervisor maxwell: if there's anyone who would like to speak, we have a lot of things, so if you could just come right on up

one after another. >> i am the seiu stood, and i will be expecting my first child and will be unable to unable to return to the workforce due to this -- due to the unavailability of affordable child care for my child. children's village have remained open, this would not be a concern. i'm in approval of this ordinance. san francisco needs quality affordable child care, and it is a shame when those needs go unmet due to the profitability of the land. our community needs this. thank you. >> i am a parent of one of the children that attends children's village. having a three year-old attend children's village since she was four months old, i cannot imagine that this is a service that is not protected by any type of zoning rules.

i'm a member of the tennis club, and i know that if someone was trying to evict us there, i would get comparable service somewhere else. yet, my 3-year-old does not have that same luxury. she has to go to another school or she could get some kind of nanny. i just cannot tell you how devastating it is to have to move your child and up through them out of the community that has been billed for them over the last few years, but speaking personally, i just cannot begin to imagine what our lives will look like in september when i have to explain to her that her friends and teachers and everyone that has cared for her is just no longer available. thank you. >> good afternoon, land use. walter. ♪ ooh, child these are going to be easier ooh, child things are going to be brighter ooh,