good morning and welcome to the june 20, 2013 neighborhood safety and services meeting. the clerk of the committee is derrick evans and we want to thank the following members of

sfgtv who are covering the meeting today. mr. clerk, if you could please make the announce /-pls. >> please make sure all cell phone devices are off. items acted upon today will appear on the july 9, 20123 located at 10 california street in district three. >> if we can begin by hearing briefly from the applicant from alcion. >> thank you for bringing my plea today. what we want to do is make a vital home grown and

class inclusive kind of establishment at the bottom of california street. the liquor license is integral to the success of the operation. in a nutshell, i would say alcohol and coffee are social lubricants and we want to make affordable social lubricants for all people to interact -- people who stay at the hyatt across the street, blue color, white collar and everything in between. that kind of business is under threat in san francisco due to rising rent by

way of prosperity that -- i have mixed feelings about it but i feel like small businesses are being priced out. i feel like we would like to make an establishment similar to that where -- which was cool, not too serious, but sophisticated enough to appeal to a bunch of different types of people. >> if i may, one of the things that we always ask anyone who is seeking /aeu /praoufl of this type of license is a little bit about the kind of community outreach that they have done including any communication with the district supervisor. in this case this establishment is in district three. >> we met with supervisor chew

the other day and he said he had no problem with it. he said if it was eight blocks north he would have an issue. we've also spoken with the acting captain santos of central station. he gave us advice on how to make the place safe. we met with him earlier this week. we have done some outreach with the local civic organizations in the area and in my packet i have a few testimonials to that effect. >> i see that. thank you very much. any questions to the applicants? >> no. >> thank you. if we could now hear from our san francisco police department. >> good morning. >> good morning, san francisco

police department. alcioni has filed an application seeking a type 48 on sale public general license for [inaudible] 16 california street located on the north side of california street. from march 2012 to march 2013 there were 21 calls for service -- police calls for service. for that same time period there was one report. this premise is located in plot 154. applicant premises is located in a high crime area. the premises is located in 117. it is in an undue concentration area. there are zero letters of protest and support recorded with the department of california

alcoholic beverage control. there is no opposition from the police department if they meet the conditions. the following conditions have been recommended -- sales, service and consumption shall be between 8:00 am 2:00 am daily. the sale of alcoholic beverages for off sale consumption is strictly prohibited. and please note that on may 31, 2013 there was an email received from mr. dennis leery which states that he agrees with these recommendations. >> thank you. any questions of the tore? inspector? >> no questions. >> why don't we open it up to public comment. if there is any member of the public who'd like to speak on this item. i

don't see any speaker cards, but if there are any, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee. >> i'm going to go ahead and make a motion to [inaudible] and i have not heard from district chew, but i heard he has no problems with this and i'm glad the applicant reached out to the district supervisor as our chair has mentioned before earlier, it's real ly important for members of this community to know that any applicant that apply for this type of license or permit would reach out to their supervisor. so i make the motion to move the recommendation. >> great, thank you. so there's a motion on the floor. i will support that motion. i

wanna thank you for your presentation, thank you inspector gordon for your work. we want to see community outreach, we want to see an establishment that's working closely with the community. you've done that, you've reached out to the district supervisor and we have been informed that he is supportive. so without objection that motion carries. congratulations. if we can now have item number two. >> item number two is an ordinance amended the administrative code to transfer responsibility from the department and families to the office of early care and and the child care facilities interagency community. >> this is has been submitted by norman yee, soy so i'll turn it over to him. >> thank you chair campos. before i ask michelle to come up, last year the board of

supervisors passed legislation to establish the [inaudible] introducing legislation to shift the responsibility review, the required child care facility study from the department of children youth and families to office early care and education. currently the city requires that any city agency or a private developer can receive city funds for development project of 50 thousand scare square feet or more if providing an on site child care center. i believe that these studies are properly evaluated by the city. this is common sense clean up language and i hope chair campos -- i can count on your support. and

today -- not only that, i'd like to note that this is a new office and it's really time for the city to start highlighting this particular office to start aggressively addressing our child care needs in san francisco. so present this legislation today is michelle from the office of early childhood and education. michelle. >> good morning supervisors. so as supervisor yee identified, this is really just a technical clean up. it also adds language for the review by the interagency child care facilities committee which includes representative from the first five and the mayor's office of housing the community development folks from the mayor's office offing. we

track all pipeline projects in the city and threats to centers so it's a very logical place to look at the feasibility. last year there was a project that -- it was very clear didn't make sense to include child care and it was a fire house that was being redone and it just wasn't a proper use. in that instance we wouldn't want to pay for a full blown feasibility study. they staff that committee, so it's the team that's looking at it and this is a technical switch over. all the positions from early ed came over from dcf to us so we're lead on that and this follows that. i would

mention for the committee that in the last -- since 1998 when we did the cpac needs assessment and supervisor yee chaired that on behalf of cpac, we've been able to grow the number of licensed lots. it takes a lot of effort to do that. child care really doesn't pencil out and it takes a lot of strategies to make child care work on the capital side and the operating side. this is really one strategy in our toolbox to make sure that we have affordable care options for families in their neighborhoods and we still have a number of unmet needs in the city rehated to child care and we plan to incorporate this along with the other strategies to make sure that we're meeting families' needs. >> it's really important to

know that in particular, with development in the pipelines and discussion of the development, that we have the right expertise to look at this. i'm thinking in terms of whether or not the stadium will be built in san francisco. whether or not that can house a child care center. we're looking at issues at pier 70 that's going to be a humongous development and also the property -- some other development that's going to be happening along the shorelines. it's going to create some opportunities for us and we need some experts to lock at those issues. even [inaudible] development when this takes off we'll be developing a child care center. so i guess the question i have, and for

clarification to the audience, why in looking at facilities -- you would naturally think that it's city planning that would fake the responsibility of looking at those issues and what's different about child care that maybe city planning staff may not have the expertise to address? >> well, there's a lot of unique aspects to what it takes to meet licensing requirements and even the differences between toddler classes and school age care. planning is important in our partnership. we don't have in planning codes a requirement for review in child care in the way we include other aspects. there's been interest in modifying the

ing planning code to [inaudible] are partnering with us and paying attention, but they are partnering with us and seeking the expertise from the interagency facilities committee to make sure we're thinking about allowable outdoor space and the square footage needs and the fight line needs and all the various aspects of making sure the program's licensable. >> thank you. supervisor, do you have any questions, comments? okay. thank you. i have a couple of speakers that would like to address this issue for public comment. you have two minutes to make your comments. first i have candace wong from the advisory council in san francisco and i have

erica mayborn. >> good morning supervisors, candace, i'm also director of child care facilities funds and low care investment fund. i think with cpac -- we do a lot of coordination [inaudible] i think child care capability

studies transfer is important in allowing the office to take on its role and be effective in coordination for the city. i believe this is important for the office and further establishes the [inaudible] of san francisco. thank you supervisor yee, supervisor campos. >> now that you both are representing the local planning and advisory committee, what's your relationship with office of early care and education? i'm just -- again, just for clarification. >> so on the chapter planning

[inaudible] it includes represents of parents, providers, actually the office of [inaudible] along with other city departments so we [inaudible] as you know we're appointed half by the board of education and half by the board of supervisors. 've of you has at least one appointee to cpac so in terms of our coordination we work with early care and education to ensure that among the various departments as this transition is happening, we continue to work towards making sure there's alignment in the work in terms of surgeon priorities that we've discussed with community and with the departments that we all work together in order to move an event -- the work of ec in the community.

>> any other public comments on this issue. seeing none, public comment is closed now. supervisor, would you like to make comments? >> i wan to thank you for your leadership on this issue and i am fully supportive of this item and i would ask that i be added as a cosponsor of the item. i wan to thank members of the committee who came out and spoke in favor of this. i think this makes a great deal of sense. i make the recommendation with move this forward. >> no objection, the item is moved. >> thank you. item three >> this is a hearing to discuss [inaudible] homeless families to provide proof of residency

to gain access to shellers. >> thank you. this is an item that i introduced calling for a hearing on the proposed policy change by the human services agency. i wanna thank trent and his staff for working with my office to help this hearing take place. i also know that there are a number of members of the community who are here to speak on this item. from my perspective, the importance of this item is that when a significant policy change like this one is made, i think it is important for us to hear from the department as to its reasoning and to hear from the community. and i think that dialogue when something as important as this happens is

really important. so with that, i would call on trent from the human services agency to come and present. >> as you can see, i'm not trent, but i'm joyce. he just text me and he is on his way and he can speak to that issue. >> do you want us to -- i think it would be important to hear from him. >> yes. >> yeah. so why don't we take a short break and we'll wait for him. we'll take a quick >> great, we are back, the meeting is back in order. i'd like to welcome supervisor jane kim, who has joined the committee for this item. and at this point i'd like to ask

the director of human services agency, mr. rory to come forward. we want to thank you and your staff for helping us put this hearing together. i think it's good to have this public dialogue and i appreciate your willingness to do that. what i'd like to know is jus to simply -- /tkp you -- if you can talk a bit about the proposed changes and the reasoning behind those changes and we'll take it from there. i apologize, before we begin, i do want to acknowledge that we have in the audience the director of the mayor's office of housing opportunity partnership and engagement [inaudible]. >> thanks again chair campos, committee members. director of

human services agency, pleased that you called the hearing today supervisors so we can get on the record in a public meeting the proposed changes and have that dialogue. i thought i'd start with just a brief overview of the family shelter system. we have a very robust system, probably the most robust in the state so i thought it'd be helpful to break that down so you can understand where these changes apply because they don't apply universally across our shelter system. there are base which two components of the family shelter system. one is the emergency shelters and these are shorter term stays and the other are more longer term shelters which are three to six month stays. we have 82 beds that are one night beds at

three different sites and then 34 sixty day beds at the emergency center. these changes do not affect these. the changes do not apply to those beds at those shelters. the changes would apply to the long term family shelters and we have three of them in san francisco funded by hsa and others. campos is one, hamilton family center is one, and then saint joseph's village, which is operated by catholic charities. we have 239 beds in those shelters, we serve approximately 60

families. those shelters are accessed through a waiting list through the connecting point program that's also funded by hsa with some federal dollars as well, so families accessing those shelters would access it from the waiting list. it's this part of it that would be affected. we have about 220 families on the waiting list. there's been an all time high at 270 so we're down a little lower than that. the average wait time for a family on that list right now is about seven to eight months. if you're a prioritized family meaning you have a physical health need, mental illness, something that would priorityize you, the wait

is about two to three months, so clearly we're talking about a limbed limited resource, with heavy demand i think it's important to prioritize families most in need. what we're trying to do is -- when we think about families in need one of the most important things i think about is income so we're trying to target the lowest income families. i think it's important to prioritize families who intend to reside in san francisco and i'll talk about that residency requirement in a bit. the third component of the change is really a way to get families

who are in need. and again, these are among our most needy families in san francisco to get into the services that will most help them address whatever issues they might be dealing with, whether it's addiction, mental illness, need for educational improvement, job training, as well as supportive services like child care, et cetera. the best we have for that is or cal [inaudible] but act says to med-cal, cal fresh, access to jobs and income. and so what we're trying to do is make sure the families on the list get access to that program. so thought it would be helpful to put it in writing for you all since i barely fit

on there. okay. so i'll just walk through this for you all. grab my piece. >> do you have a copy of that document? >> i do. >> thank you. >> i thought one was emailed to your office, but it might have been late in the day. so here you can see on the slide the five bullets. i want to note that i had the opportunity to meet with staff from the agencies that do provide these direct services to families and are working with them everyday. that's represents from compass, catholic charities and hamilton. the slide that's in front of you reflects input

from them. to get on the shelter waiting list families must provide verification of san francisco residence /seu residency or an intent to reside in san francisco. they may have just got here but they say i am planning on living here. so this addresses families who might be fleeing violent situations in other cities, other countries, other states. we want you to have an intention of being here and then enrolling in the services that we can provide you. we're setting a family income threshold which is 35 percent of area median income, which is almost 32 thousand dollars a year for a family of three so that would be the maximum income for a family of three to get on the list. this is in alignment with our other

programs, which the contracts that will start in july. and then the third is we want families to apply for san francisco's cal works program. it's statewide and the benefit levels are the same statewide. what's different is the set of services that each county provides to families and we have the most robust compared to other counties. so if owe're on our county, it would be they transfer their case to san francisco. it's done electronically, but it allows them to get engaged in our services here. a change that we made to initially rolling this out is families where every family member is