tv [untitled] December 30, 2013 4:00pm-4:31pm PST
for reaching out to us on both of those pieces of legislation. i know that some of them have been pending and thank you supervisor avalos for listening to some of our concerned about fine tuning the legislation. we have some outstanding things about october 24th. it's our general belief that a law some be specific whether signed into law and unintentionally punishing people who were operating open be one frame of mind in november when they didn't know this law was presented. also the planning hearing was properly noted and we're not communicating with the public well about the effective date we want to see it thirty days after the mayor signs it into law. thank you for take into account our concerns about evocation.
also i would like to explain to you a little bit from our point of view on file 130441 which supervisor avalos called the mc c. we understand about the ellis act evictions and trying to protect the people but we don't want to see this happen and it was debated at the planning commission there was no one at the rent board to weigh in >> by the president to protect the right of of an owner move in. a lot of times the only way working families can get into working residential believe go is through another movement. i would hate to see more ellis acts occur because we've totally shut adopt a person's ability to do an owner move in for aefgsz for their families
>> we're supportive of the amendment interest. >> thank you very much. is there additional public comment on items 2 and 3. i apologize gentlemen >> good afternoon supervisors i'm president of the small property owners of san francisco. we have the type of owners that some days want to move and enlarge our own homes. and this legislation which is somehow designed to proof housing like the other reekdz thrown at us causes a reduction in the number of rentals that are available. available unit will become more difficult to find because owners try to rent to people that don't want to live forever.
the people out of town will receive priority and only someone know someone that knows someone those two pieces of legislation make it more difficult to make moderate houses for purchase plo through the tick, tick process. if you want to maintain unit in san francisco people are sprel trying to leave the rental process why do people want to get out of the process. you could be increasing the process and our organization will be glad to discuss those with you. all those medicine living will
be exactly your reducing the number of unit and increasing the cost and increasing the crisis as you call it. thank you very much. >> thank you mrs. turner. >> you're welcome supervisor. brooke turner the coalition for better housing. at the everyone for our attention to 80 this issue. sxhooefl we're appreciative of what you're trying to proficient we're eager to support the legislation. and that was that if you want to reoccupy if the taivent tenant was going to reoccupy the person should not be punished for that
he or she. there are a couple of things that are of concern to us. you know, i think janet from the partner association talked elegant about the partnership we know it doesn't go in effect until the mayor's signature but people in the last month i believe are working under good faith to increase the law as they 92 knew it we can all agree that the planning commission is not noticed the same way as this hearing that's certainly better than that the planning dimension you're not going to have a run of evictions which the mayor may sign anyway. we want to see that kicked up a little bit to address that
issue. also the ideas of conversion and the combination of the unit. i think especially under organization m i evictions which are usually san franciscans evoking to be able to stay in the city and oppose a building go that we will rent part of it out that's 2r0u6r78 to folks as well. so withhold to see the - thank you >> thank you, mr. turner. >> independently steve with the housing clinic we support this legislation. i'm here to talk about the red d mc it durnlz demolition of the conversions. the primary purpose those are discretionary approvals by the city to allow a demolition or a conversion or a merger and the
primary information that the city has especially in this current climate we not lose residential housing. since the outlines evocation they've element the units and the basis for the city for the discretionary removal so the city is handicap and can't use the tradition to promote 9 residential housing because it's been removed from the building. again something st. is wrong it happens all the time landlord moves into a residential unit and evokes the longer or long term unit in the building but the landlord doesn't want that
one he moves in and that would be stopped and turn to rental unit into one single-family home. the 10 year moratorium is appropriate for that reason and because of the ellis age so the unit is removed by conversion or demolition or mergers so the landlord is now empowered to offer back to the tenant if they go back into the rental business. with regards to the amendment the temporary evictions i would suggest that - >> thank you, sir.
thank you >> good afternoon. i'm peter rice i'm with small property owners. one of the aspects of this legislation that concerns me is that it's going to make it harder for middle income people to purchase housing. with our small rentals i receive acquires almost weekly from different people trying to move out of the remedy area and into buying a home. the only way to do that in san francisco is to start it a smaller piece of property in an older building. this legislation will prohibit people from buying homes and enter the market through the t u ced. i'll leave this to the lawyers
you can tinker with the ellis anchor that you're doing. i think that maybe our doing on to something that's not acquit going to be permitted but i'll leave that to the lawyer as is this any additional comment snoomz >> supervisor avalos all right. thank you for the members of people's no. 1 public who with weighed in on this legislation. it's been many months in the making. we tried to incorporate a lot of input from the community. to you punishment our weighing in open the legislation. i think when it comes to, you know, looking at possible amendment with the residential and group dwellings we can move it forward to tomorrow's meeting
that can be addressed possibly tomorrow and with the amendments we will go brought to the full board. i'm okay with that. when it comes to the issue of temporary displacement i think we have language i'm comfortable with we can test that with the committee to see ways that you're comfortable with but to make sure that the people have the right to return and the landlord are protected against anyone who didn't return to the building they can protect themselves to use the building as they see fit. and overall colleagues that will be a from tool both those are ordinances will help preserve rental housing in san francisco. and so we can look to prevent
displacement that's all two common right now >> just to clarify in terms of the amendment language that mr. gibb in her read before recommending to temporary evictions due to repairs donate not currently in the files is it? >> currently, the ordinance would has a provision about tenant reoccupying the unit. >> but that's 4i6. >> you could make it amendment today. to speak to supervisor avalos residential hotel provisions we can definitely look at that over the next 21 hours. i would want the land use experts in our office make sure we can draft that in time and
not require another hearing happy to look at that if the committee wants us to but i can't promise those amendment will be go-go to go and the board can pass those tomorrow >> okay. but i'll give it the old college try. president chow >> from my prospective if there's clarity on the hotel issue and we're all not wanting to mess up what we currently have do you think that will come back to committee and a i don't believe that will require come back to the committee but i'm g speaking on the fly and i would want the attorney who drafted the legislation to look at that. >> one thought i had i know we
want to try to get this stuff before the holiday and could we send it back to the full board and have it out next week. >> you could do that but it wouldn't be finally, adapted by the board next week. >> okay. i guess one thought i had we could duplicate the file i'm trying if you know the issue we have some closure i think we want to make sure on the second issue i'll be happy to move that amendment for folks who are comfortable now but still there might be some other questions >> in terms of the temporary eviction issues my preference would be to wait until the full
board to see if we could tweak that language that's my preference. supervisor kim >> what if we can before tomorrow's meeting you this provide united states language written that we can have going into the board month to month and i can work with supervisor weiner's offenders office to proceed maybe we can precede that will be around temporary displacement. i actually doesn't seem to me around the dwelling unit around the residential hotel that would be substantive or come back to the committee. to me it's self-seem like that's the case but >> i understand but i get
feeling that everybody wants to move forward with the amendment. it's coming up fresh this afternoon. and i would the experts in any office to review b it before we sign off on that. maybe we could duplicate before the full board and if we have to send a version to committee we can do that more quickly and still keep our deadline. i'd like to have a piece of legislation that would have a date before the ended of this year that would protect tenants against evictions against you know from occasion conversion or - >> would the october 24th would that accomplish that? >> materially perhaps not but it certainly has a disincentive
while protecting anyone from the no fault evictions post the october 24th date to make the conversion or sdpoogs to have a permit for that it's the intent. >> supervisor kim do i have anything? okay. right now we have those two items president chow has suggested we twisted the foil or - >> i'm hearing supervisor avalos it's important we clarify the residential language one other way to do it as you said we need to duplicate the file to send it back to committee. >> okay and we don't need it k34r5k9d today. >> we have two files and one amendment that's supposed be drafted by tomorrow and an one we'll go over the language to
tweak it. anything else outstanding right now. okay. is there a motion >> why don't i suggest there are a number of issues we move it out without representations today, i think we know those issues will be dealt with as a committee report. >> the motion is to forward items 2 and 3 without representations of the committee report. >> i actually you know, i think the core of the legislation is somebody that i hope all 3 would support and i'd like i think the amendments are minor and it would be great to send forward with representations that's my request but it's in our hands. >> upgrade my prospective i want to support legislation i want to support this legislation
occupying we're not completely ready yet. my preference is try to clean things up but i want to respect the desire that we will allow this to be passed by the end of the year were i want everyone to understand that we still have more work to do. 80 so that's why i suggested what i did >> i worry that if we have an ordinance that moves forward await remedies other things could be opened up for destruction. i don't think we've had a lot of discussion it's been planned a number of times and it's going to get taken apart >> this is the first time in this committee we've had the discussion. >> i don't have a strong opinion on this.
i think we've all moved out for consideration for tomorrow. this is the first time it's been sub actively discussions in committee. we have two amendments r that are in fluctuation. i haven't heard anyone talk about any more discussion it doesn't matter much >> i'll be happy to support it for the sake of having it go before the whole board i do plan on supporting it with the amendments today for tomorrow. i'm certainly happy to talk to my colleagues tomorrow >> do we have a motion on the table without objection that will be the order. >> madam clerk, call item 4. >> item four is an ordinance
amending the planning code allowing the operation control. >> and wanting chow is the author of item four. >> thank you, colleagues. colleagues this is an order to allow san franciscans to passage them to serve fodz out of their homes it's a local ordinance that came effective and the planning commission recommended the changes last more that ad the food act allows individuals to prepare and passage certain non-hazardous food that in their kitchens. too years i introduced this as something that was needed in our city. that or with this ordinance we can continue our local source of
food. the movement connects community and decreases the need for the procurement of food. all cottage food operators will have to meet the health and safety code for the foods on the prepared list and you'll have to complete the personness course and meet objected requirement. small property owner are including the businesses in the city and this will also help to provide our families with the opportunity to supplement incomes. under those one concern while they were generally acceptable they have a concern with the fee that's about $100 and ifshg star
has been in discussion with the planning department. i want to thank aaron star prosecute planning. any comments from your department >> thank you the issue or around this had a two parts. first of all, whether we should be reviewing this and who st. should cover the cost of the $130 foe. we feel a responsibility to review the continental applications. like any other land use we're charging with the fees to make sure there with the planning code. their essentially signing off on the location. like any other land use their charging for the plan and not
sending it to the planning code we won't be able to look at it and any violations on the property are addressed prior to the permit being issued. we feel it's necessary for the department to receive issues as well. regard the foe we're required to charge a fee unless the cost is and the do in another way such as a fee waiver. in this case the planning director john is allowing cf is organizations to be waved. we don't - we're not sure how do you plead i how many cf these
will be in the program. so if the impacts on the finances are what they are and re-examine the fee waiver at that time. just a little bit open the applications as supervisor chiu mentioned it was passed on november, october 21st. it allows the operations it would there increase the the areas of a dwelling and expand the usual will or able spaces. and with that i'm open for questions >> thanks. >> the only comment i appreciate mr. star the trailing election for controlling the foe. with that, mr. sherman
public comment? >> sure any. >> prayer by the chaplain. >>. seeing none, we'll close public comment. is there a motion to send this to the full board >> sure. >> i'll take that without objection. >> items 57 and 6 and 7 we forwarded those with the committee reports oh, we sustain i apologize. continue them >> okay madam clerk, is there any other business. >> there's no further business. >> okay. we're
when a resident of san francisco is looking for health care, you look in your neighborhood first. what is closest to you? if you come to a neighborhood health center or a clinic, you then have access it a system of care in the community health network. we are a system of care that was probably based on the family practice model, but it
was really clear that there are special populations with special needs. the cole street clinic is a youth clinic in the heart of the haight ashbury and they target youth. tom woodell takes care of many of the central city residents and they have great expertise in providing services for many of the homeless. potrero hill and southeast health centers are health centers in those particular communities that are family health centers, so they provide health care to patients across the age span. . >> many of our clients are working poor. they pay their taxes. they may run into a rough patch now and then and what we're able to provide is a bridge towards getting them back on their feet. the center averages about 14,000 visits a year in the health clinic alone.
one of the areas that we specialize in is family medicine, but the additional focus of that is is to provide care to women and children. women find out they're pregnant, we talk to them about the importance of getting good prenatal care which takes many visits. we initially will see them for their full physical to determine their base line health, and then enroll them in prenatal care which occurs over the next 9 months. group prenatal care is designed to give women the opportunity to bond during their pregnancy with other women that have similar due dates. our doctors here are family doctors. they are able to help these women deliver their babies at the hospital, at general hospital. we also have the wic program, which is a program that provides food vouchers for our families after they have their children, up to age 5 they are able to receive food vouchers to get milk and cereal for
their children. >> it's for the city, not only our clinic, but the city. we have all our children in san francisco should have insurance now because if they are low income enough, they get medical. if they actually have a little more assets, a little more income, they can get happy family. we do have family who come outside of our neighborhood to come on our clinic. one thing i learn from our clients, no matter how old they are, no matter how little english they know, they know how to get to chinatown, meaning they know how to get to our clinic. 85 percent of our staff is bilingual because we