supervisor. supervisor, but we do think it has some merit. what we do have is a bank, a pharmacy, neighborhood-serving retail. if we can abandon this street, we can put in a lot more neighbor-serving retail and very importantly a large supermarket on been -- the loomis lots, which is part of the rezoning, which is what we want to talk about, and the goodman family members are committed to continuing the process, including with the vernal heights neighbors korea these are now zoned pdr-2, and it could become a shopping district. the loomis lots are vacant. i think the consensus is doing this to build pdr's is not going

to happen. this is, with a single ownership. they'd you very much. please pass what is before you. supervisor maxwel: i am intrigued by this possibility, and it is something we should be open to and talk about, and, again, better late than never, and it really is an opportunity that i think we really should take advantage of, so, again, thank you for coming, and think you for your support. >> good afternoon or good morning. my name is nancy. i am not necessarily against this planning and upgrading note -- upgrading bayshore boulevard.

i went to another one of these, and there were not very many people there, in my concern is that this is a huge change to -- and my concern is that this is a huge change to bayshore. a few thousand people, doorknob and, to let them know what is coming back is going to so greatly affect the bordering community -- door nocking. a door knocking situation, to let them know that there is something coming up the pike. the other is the emergency evacuation process right there where the freeway is for the bay bridge, coming in and out. i do not think the city is prepared. there was a fire where the fumes consumed a portion.

many said they did not know. that is just a few small hours of meeting to go indoors. also, i would hate for something so big to become another selling of dreams-type of project, which is very possible, as we note -- know. it seems to me that at this stage, there are many who are already involved in this process, and there are problems with the big changes that you do not see the little people involved. i would hope for those of you who remain after jan. that as you see displacement happening because of this project on a -- on bayshore, with the exception

of the goodman-0 note -- goodman-owned property. this is definitely what happens over and over. we say "community," win maybe there were 10 people. there may have been five people, and five people, and it is just unacceptable, and if i were sitting in your seat, it would be personally unacceptable to me, and i would be knocking on those doors. [bell] supervisor maxwell: is there anyone else who wants to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, with the amendments as a whole, without objection? so moved. [gavel]

and then the legislation, so moved. [gavel] we had hundreds of people in attendance, not attend, so, again, thank you. -- not attend -- not 10. all right, madam clerk, item number four. madam clerk: item number four, updating the community facilities and infrastructure fee and fund. supervisor maxwell: if you want to comment, this item is not out of planning. >> this is a 50-page document,

and just to let you know what i am talking about, should i stop? supervisor maxwell: i was wondering if we should have planning, but maybe you should just comment. >> i have been involved with this for a long time. there is a whole area called the executive park, which i would you border of supervisors to take a look. it is in the area. -- which i want you board of

supervisors to take a look. what i want to bring to your attention is a lot of the development, condominiums, etc., it has been affected by this economy. and i was listening to the planning department, and i wanted to be part of this, with is a connection between what is being discussed -- for example, they are talking about the park, and one of the planning commissioners said something about the connection. we need to have a connection between live and the hollywood -- a little hollywood, executive park, wrote -- executive park,

that they have child care in supermarkets. it is a long time for the supermarkets to be in place, and that is all i am saying. to get the documentation to see whatever is being deliberated here is done in a good way. i know people, and give presentations. -- people come and give presentations. i know larry. we have to ask questions, and we also need smart planners.

thank you very much. >> my name is espinola jackson, bayview hunters point. i have concern about the recommendation that comes out of this land use committee. there is a history of no hearings and meetings in my community of bayview hunters point concerning executive park. -- bayview hunters point concerning executive park. when they changed it to 34, one person was able to get alone because the bank was not giving loans at that time.

what is going on now is that these developers are being demanded to do a fee, but all the money that is being demanded is going to visitation valley, where the city planner -- it went across six lanes of highway of bay shore -- bayshore, highway 101, and the claim was executive park, and that is not a fact. executive park is not in visitation valley, but what the sitting planet -- city planning did do is that $1 million would

go to a little hollywood and 1,000,002 visitation valley, but when it came to your full board, no one got $3 million. this is an unfair thing that is going on here, and it needs to be stopped. and the planner that drew the line after this work was done in bayview hunters point, he became haute a supervisor -- he became a supervisor's aid. is that it pay off? give me a break. >> my name is walter. ♪ ain't no mountain high no visitation valley low can't stop me from trying to find this item to try to make it

better ain't no mountain high no visitation valley low enough i always wanted it better for you and me i do not know where it goes ain't no mountain high enough ain't no visitation valley low enough i do not know about this fee but make it better ♪ >> ♪ ain't no ♪ no.

[laughs] i am just kidding. there is a request that there is a collection procedure in the administrative fee, that that will be put off, because the release speaks to what i have been talking about of day. when we are mounting fees on one community when all of the communities are so severely negatively impact of, you know, all of this can be related to human beings and lives and children being able to eat and mother's not being able to feed their children, so it is just really incumbent from where you are sitting to be sure that people are not being left out for political -- i mean, it just has to stop.

it is not going to pay off. i was watching a program on boston corruption, and now, all of these people are either in prison. some of them are day. one person was convicted of collusion, and now, he is spending 40 years in prison. the fees were being attached to wine cases for payoff. bayview in district -- and district 10 is flooded with corruption, but corruption comes through people, and we have to decide who we are going to be through history, because this is all played out over and over again. do i want to be the person who is impacting if people are dying, if people cannot feed their children, because i make these high-level decisions

because it has benefited me. so have a heart. san francisco needs its park back. daiichi so very much. please reconsider removing no. 18 from tomorrow -- thank you very much. it could negatively impact people. thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: all right, any other public comment? all right, seeing none, public comment is closed, and, colleagues, we will continue it to the call of the chair. item no. 5. madam clerk: a dignified, city child centers for city projects and city funded private projects. supervisor: thank you. i have had a great time coming before this committee, and i

would imagine this is our last opportunity to bring this forward, and specifically the legislation is related to ensuring that the city does impossible to encourage the development of child care in situations where we are either responsible for initiating the development or involved with it, such as departments such as the redevelopment agency. i have had some experiences over the last couple of years, specifically with regard to the new public utility headquarters, where there was the heavily touted child care facility that was in it, and then the project was shelved for a brief period and then was back on the table. all of a sudden, child care was no longer going to be part of this project, and it is very alarming to me. we continue to have meetings, up until as late as this week, as related to the transfer of a project, and it is real important to expand child care

and sort of a lack of commitment and a statement on the part of some of the project sponsors that money is the problem when, as you know, money is generally a problem for most of the projects, and epically these projects are always in short fall, and it seems to me that child care has not been sufficiently prioritized in terms of what our objectives are, and i can reflect on the fact that we probably would not have chub care downstairs even here at city hall had not been for the attorney who had been instrumental in guiding the development of designing the retrofit of city hall and her being adamant that we were going to have child care in this building. one of the things that you find is that if you really planned for child care, you can make it optimal, and we had to shoehorn a child care in the building and having our children in the basement, which is not the optimal setting, having to create outdoor space for

children, and we certainly have had in my experience significant challenges even negotiating with the puc to negotiate outdoor space and to meet the standards that exist, and my colleagues know that the state has a very significant -- a high bar, " for child care, which is not sending that can be dropped into commercial space. we certainly have examples where pg&e or others have made investments into on-site child care and have encouraged a loyal and more productive work force. i wanted knowledge that my warrior in trading at, the coordinator has really been part of my path in this legislation over the last year to make sure

that we are making investments to expand a real estate portfolio, because at you know, without that investment, the economics of child care are not great. we even of circumstances where we subsidize the real estate, where people in child care are not paid a wage for living in san francisco, so i really feel that this legislation assures and insists that the city to a better job. less than half of the families who once licensed child care in the city can get it, and we talk about making this a more family- friendly city. i think that we need to encourage more development, make more space available, and ensure

that we are leading the way, and expanding access for child care. this planning want to start out? so i want to welcome mr. sullivan. i want to thank the planning department and the city attorney's office for their help in drafting this. >> thank you, supervisor cook dufty. i am with the planning department. -- supervisor dufty. this would require an agency or pretty developer to prepare a feasibility study for on-site child care, whenever it does one vote of two things. when it constructs a new building, leases more than 50% of a new building for more than one year, or alters more than 50% of the space in an existing building. the supervisor's office has been

working with us to work on the legislation. we do thank them for being amenable. the planning commission heard this, and we have recommended several modifications. the first modification is that this provide -- apply to city projects. it would apply to both private developers who lease city-owned property, and the commission and the department feel it should be applied only to city occupied projects only. the second has several components to it. it is refocusing on the requirement of the goal of this legislation, which is to provide adequate child care facilities. in that, the department wants to -- some of the board and in doing the feasibility studies, the department of youth and families agency, we would like

them to provide all of the applicant data related to a specific project. there is an agency of their -- out there. and we would what the analysis done prior to any funding approval. ideally, just a city agency or a private developer, and then after, the provision of childcare is not required in this legislation. this only requires to see what is feasible and what is needed. there was a working group that recommended that this be modified to require the city agencies to develop office projects that create a need for additional child care and decide not to provide the child care as

part of the project to provide evidence that they fairly considered providing these services and why they cannot be provided. so those are the three recommendations that the planning committee made, and i am here to answer any questions. thank you. note supervisor dufty -- supervisor dufty: if we can bring up some other people? >> good evening, supervisors. i am a minister -- in administrator -- i am and administrator -- an administrator at dcyf. our sister departments, when they are in the process of developing a feasibility studies, we do have the resources and data to chop --

talk about child care with them. we think this is a step in the right direction. we need to look at the lack of supply of child care, as supervisor dufty pointed out. many cannot find affordable child care. the other point that i want to make is that we have 30,000 children under the age of 13 where all parents are in the labour force, and they are over $1.40 million annually, so there is an economic imperative here, as well. sadly, the work force is not immune to the crisis of available child care, so we want to make sure that child care is available for the employees of san francisco. supervisor dufty not: do you wao

comment on some of the things that ms. sullivan mentioned? >> we do agree that we do have the resources to understand the supply and quality of child care. we also of expertise and can look at what would be the components of a feasibility study, so we are willing to partner in that effort. we also agree that there is not a provision to mandate a sister department to require the child care. we do feel strongly that if the feasibility indicates that it is feasible that there had better be sufficient reason and evidence as to what the department -- hoping that funding would be held back

until an acceptable response is provided. >> and what about -- supervisor dufty: and then what about the requirements that apply only to some? >> cockill leading in impact fee and requiring developers who are subject to the impact fee, so in that instance, we feel that private developers are subject to the providing on-site child care or the resources to build a child care. that is in place right now and has been for a couple of decades. we believe strongly that we would like to be able to have them look at the feasibility. supervisor dufty: redevelopment?

>> in the instance of redevelopment, we are working in partnership, and they are looking at including child care in their projects. i think there was some concern around state requirements. their resources have some protection. i think our position is that if there is a project that receives significant city funding, like the trans bay, we would encourage them to build up child care. my understanding is that they're subject to the current impact fee. supervisor cook dufty --

supervisor dufty: it turns out that sometimes things are not going to happen, and then there are many problems, and there are big funding gaps for the trans bay project. there is a lot that has to be developed, and it is important for us to get some of the moral imperative, and this is to pressure those to provide child care in a thoughtful manner that can be home -- can be successful. can you talk about the economics

and land cost versus the ability to operate? >> as supervisor dufty was explaining, it has been about four years of discussion to look at the buildout of a very thoughtful community that is bringing hundreds of thousands of people. rda is planning to build some child care centers in the residential component, and one of our concerns is about going back after the building is built, in using your term about shoehorning child care in, i have spoken with many of the supervisors. this creates a need for this