>> and actually, that is a very responsible for us to do. and so. >> item seven, executive officer's report. >> and i wish you all a happy pride weekend. >> happy pride to you as well. >> public comment on the item number seven? >> general public comment, is the next item. >> yeah. great. >> and just, using the opportunity of the executive officer's report because it is an action item, eric brooks, representing san francisco green party, our city. and san francisco and the clean advocates of the co-coordinator of the choice and on the ab 2145, issue, you might remember that you and the executive officer prepared a letter to your almost to send to sacramento, assembly members about ab 2145 and now that ab 2145 has changed the coalition

has to once again, to the senate, get a whole new series of opposition letters. and we could conceivablely ask you in july for this and however, the senate assembly will be taking this up in very early august again. and so if there is a way for the before the july meeting, for you to do an action item and so that you, as the chair can work with mr. freed to send a new opposition letter to incorporate the new problems with the bill, and that will be good and so, you know, i will leave this open to mr. freed to make any recommendations, and what i would strongly recommend that we try to get a letter of opposition, very quickly to the senators, and if you get it to me, we have been in the conversation with senator leno and he wants to see such letters right away and so if you get it to us we can make sure that he sees it. >> thanks. >> thank you, i appreciate that and if we choose to right a

letter, i want to just to state what our position will be, based on the legislation, and so it could be something, and a little bit different, but i think that what we want to see as an out come and it will be what i think that will be the most appropriate and any other member of public that would like to comment. >> seeing none, we will close public comment. and our next item is general public comment. >> item number 8, public comment. >> any member of the public that would like to comment on any item related to lafco purview? and seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment, and or next item? >> item 9, future agenda items. >> colleagues, any future work for lafco? >> seeing none, we will go into public comment? seeing no member of the public come forward. we will close the public comment and our next item? >> ten, adjournment. >> colleagues, we are adjourned happy pride weekend to all.

>> great. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to the thursday, july 10th, meeting of the neighborhood services and safety councilmember frye. my name is david campos. we are joined today by supervisor eric mar, the

vice-chair of the committee. and i know that supervisor yee is also here. i want to begin by apologizing, folks, for making you wait. i actually had a family emergency to deal with this before this. everything is fine, but i apologize. i know that, you know, the last thing you want is to make people wait on something like this, so, my apologies. i want to acknowledge the clerk of the committee, derek evans. and also the following members of s.f.g. tv staff who are covering the meeting jesse larsen and jennifer low. with that, mr. clerk, if you can please call item number 1. >> item number 1 is a hearing regarding the closure of the university mound ladies home, specifically how the university mound ladies home board intends to ensure that none of the remaining residents will be without caron july 10, 2014. >> great, thank you very much. i know that we have a number of

members of the community that are here and we're going to have a brief presentation from a number of folks. but i want to just say that the reason that i called for this hearing is that i believe that what's happening with this institution, with the university mount ladies home, and the fact that the board of directors has given eviction notices and that there are dozens of retirees, many of them, most of them women, that are facing eviction at ages of 80, 90. the fact that that's happening, to me, is symbolic of the larger issue that's happening here in san francisco, which is that our city is changing to the point that i believe we are forgetting what we are about as

a city. and the fact that we can evict dozens of elderly women and men, and in so doing, for many of them it's essentially a death sentence to be relocated at that point in your life. the fact that we're doing that, to me, goes against everything that san francisco is supposed to be about. and i think that we in city government have a responsibility to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to prevent this closure and to prevent these evictions. and, so, i want to begin, before we hear from university mount ladies home, i want to just ask lonnie from the mayor's office, the mayor's office and my office have been working hard in the last few weeks so that the city can do

everything it possibly can to give this board of directors options other than closing this home and evicting these people. so, with that i'll turn it over to the mayor's office. i know that they have been doing a lot of work, and i greatly appreciate the work and the leadership, lonnie, of yourself and mayor lee. and i also want to acknowledge the work of laura ling in my office who has been spending a lot of time. so, with that, thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisors. thank you for having me. my name is lonnie kent, i'm with the mayor's office [speaker not understood]. we have been working on this very closely for the last couple months and just to give you a little bit of background we were notified in early may that residents at university mount ladies home have received eviction notices. we immediately got on the phone with our city partners and tried to leverage our resource he around the city to see what

we can do to stave off the closure and to keep these residents in place. our health department, our human services agency, the ombudsman, were all involved and we are checking in with long with laura ling to make sure that we are understanding -- understanding kind of what we were dealing with and what were our available options. human services agency and department of public health is here today to provide better details about the specifics, but i can provide you sort of the high level. we have been available throughout the process and indicated that we can provide assistance toward any efforts that would keep this facility open and the residents in place. we weren't granted access to the actual proposal coming in for, you know, reasons, contractual reasons, but we did make it clear that we would provide that assistance once we were able to see what the ask

was. we did -- throughout the process, we did encourage and directly support all proposals sent to umlh board. that would maintain the facility and allow the residents to stay in place. our health department worked very hard, too, to make sure that we were rounding up proposals that very specifically addressed our very specific concerns and they were able to produce them to the board. so, that was the last several months. we are very, very disappointed that despite these proposals that were sent to the board they have decided to go in a different direction. we agree losing the facility is a great loss to the city on multiple fronts. it's not just the displacement of these individuals residents, but it's also the loss of beds that are critical to our if infrastructure, and that lends itself to other questions we need to start looking at, but that's another conversation ~. so, once we learned that umlh

decided to go in a different direction, we shifted gears. and instead of working so hard to try to get the facility to remain open, we're trying to make sure that the residents that were evicted have the best possible outcome. we've, again, made it clear that we're able to provide some type of assistance to ensure that. it's just unclear what that assistance will be. so, we have asked that umlh provide us with their transition plan and their path moving forward so we can understand what -- what it is they're trying to accomplish and understand, you know, how they work within that framework to make sure the residents are burdened to the least possible level. we want to make sure that they're safe, that they get the same level of caron an ongoing basis. so, as of last night we received proposal and i haven't been able to look at it more closely and vet it to see what is actually -- what the plan is moving forward. >> again, thank you very much. i really appreciate all of your efforts. and i know that in addition to

those proposals that the mayor's office and the mayor's department have presented to this board of directors, we have even talked about -- my office has proposed and consider doing a supplemental appropriation as part of our budget to provide, you know, money for this board or to this entity to stay afloat until we figure out a long-term solution. do you have -- did you get a response as to why they did not accept -- i know we're going to hear from them, but from the city's perspective, did they tell you why, you know, even though all these different options to remain open and to not evict people, the percentage of them, why they chose to go forward with it? >> that's a real guide question, and i've asked it to -- i actually haven't seen a proposal, but i can say that they believe that the current business model is not an effective one and that they need to do something differently. and that some of the proposals

that were put forward did not offer a big enough difference in what they were doing and what these new buyers might plan to do moving forward. so, i haven't -- i haven't read it so i can't verify it, but that's what i've been led to understand. >> great, thank you very much. i know that we have here our deputy director of public health, collene [speaker not understood]. and if i can ask her to please come up and she has a brief presentation. and i know the department of public health has been working very hard with the mayor's office on this. so, thank you very much for being here, and, again, thank you for your work. >> thank you, supervisors. collene [speaker not understood], deputy director of health. thank you for calling this hearing, and i'm pleased to be able to tell you today about our history, which is a long one with university mount ladies home.

in 2008, dph responded to assist university mount ladies home, which was in danger of closure at that time. the building was in need of repair and the census had diminished. we don't have direct authority over umlh. we are, we are in contract with them to provide services, but they are licensed by the state and the state is their regulatory body. so, the way that we worked to assist them in their financial deficit was to place patients, dph patients at umlh with a patch to a $50 a day to supplement affordability for our clients and to help university mount ladies home address their financial concerns. we placed our first client there in september of 2008 and have maintained ever since an average of 15 clients per year at umlh. to date we have provided the university mount ladies home with over $1.5 million in supplemental payments.

our patients, as the board knows already, are low-income. the patients that we place there are aged or disabled and often medically complex or with behavioral health issue. because they require a high level of care that university mount was providing, we worked with the state and federal regulatory authorities to have umlh certified to participate in a special program that will provide higher reimbursement and recognition of the higher cost of care, higher level of care that the patients were needing. we worked closely with the state and federal government and with umlh to have umlh certified to participate in this program. post certification, however, umlh declined further participation. in light of this recent closure upon our notice to us in may of 2014, dph staff identified two potential buyers for umlh. we worked closely with other

residential care facilities for the elderly that we have strong relationships with and that we know are god providers. and one of those two ended up submitting a letter of interest. that letter of interest would have maintained umlh as a residential care facility for the elderly, made the necessary repairs, and continued serving residents during this time. at the time of umlh's closure announcement, 7 clients resided at this facility. -- at the time of their closure announcement, that is. so, this is just a short timeline about what we have done and what we have known since the time of the closure announcement. so, we were provided with the 60-day closure notice in may of 2014. as i mentioned, the facility is overseen by the state regulatory agency called the community care license division of the state department of public health. the state department of public

health contacted us and contacted the human services agency to establish ongoing communications to support patient transitions and to ensure in the event patients br left on the closure date there was a plan in place to care for those patients. in june of 2014, dph reached out, as i mentioned, to potential buyers for umlh. the formal letter of the one was submited in that month, and we also began securing alternative placements for our clients that we placed in that facility. and in this month the city was just asked to assist with placement of non-dph clients and as the board is aware unction the facility is scheduled to close on july 31st, 2014. ~ so, our role in the placement of residents, 27 residents as of our last count, 27 residents remain at university mount. five of those are dph clients. i mentioned that we had 7 upon

the notice of closure, we've already placed two of our clients in alternative placements, five remain, and placements for all five of these clients has been secured. so, all five of our clients have alternative placement. our staff has made themselves available to consult with university mount ladies home on appropriate placements for the remaining 22 residents, but it is important to note that because of hip a patient confidentiality laws, we cannot actively assist without having the authority to do so, the authorization to have medical information communicated to the department ~. so, we've made ourselves available to assist university mount in whatever way we can. and then finally, as the supervisor mentioned, the supervisor, supervisor campos sponsored an add back in dph's budget of $250,000 in the current fiscal year to help place residents in university

mount to other appropriate placements. it is important to note that we think that though we pay a $50 patch per person per day, it is likely that a larger patch would be required, something along the lines of $80 per person per day in order to find appropriate placementses for all patients. ~ this would result in about $29,200 a year per person placed in an alternative location. we are committed to ensuring that the remaining residents of university mount are placed in appropriate facilities and we'll do what we can to help the organization as it goes out of business to place patients safely. >> thank you very much. i really appreciate the very thorough presentation and all the work that dph has done. and just one thing about the add back, just want to be very clear that none of that money is designated for the board of directors of this institution. it actually follows the residents. it's for them, not for this

board of directors given the actionses they have taken. so, why don't we hear now -- thank you very much. why don't we hear now from the department of aging and adult services. shareen mcpatton. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm [speaker not understood]. as the department charged with providing services for older adults and adults with disabilities, we've always been concerned with the diminishing number of board and care beds in san francisco. so, this is of particular concern to us. because of that, we have -- we worked with the mayor's office and the department of public health in 2008 when it was clear that university mount was running into some difficulties staying open. and we were supportive and worked on the plan to keep it open. we have clients in the

department who are private pay through adult protective services and the public guardian. some time we have clients who are able to pay privately and we have continued to place clients at university mount through these past few years. and as i mentioned, we're very sad to see those beds go away. we have been able to move our clients that we can specifically call [speaker not understood] clients, we have been able to move them into alternate housing for the time being. but in the past couple months we've actually only had four clients there and they have all been successful moved to other arrangementses. we have also identified our quality assurance directors who work alongside department of public health and the mayor's office to help support family in any way we can. and our adult protective services program stands ready to work with the ombudsman and

with department of public health if there are any residents left after july 31st. we know we're also responsible for helping people move into alternate situations. >> i just have a quick question. as an aging and adult services professional, can you talk a little bit about what the impact on, let's say, an 89 year old, 90 year old of a move like this one from the facility, what is the impact on someone? >> well, it can have a really -- it's hard for people to move any time, but when people have -- are older, it's often -- it often has a really negative impact if you have to move them into a new place. they can become disoriented. i think the other issue is that we believe san franciscans have a right to stay in san francisco with their family and with their friends. the diminishing number of beds really makes that near impossible. >> thank you very much. at this point i'd like to call

benson nadel, california long term care ombudsman. thank you for being here. >> supervisor campos, mar and yee, thank you very much for convening this meeting around this particular closure of university mount. i've been the ombudsman director since the end of '86, so, i've seen trends over the years. i have with me a list of licensed residential care homes from 1989, 165 are cfes, mostly of the small mom and pop variety that served low-income individuals. let alone affordable. a lot of people are served on ssi and, and there were -- to the present there are only 77 rcfes compared to 165. and only over 2,100 beds, dropped from 3,500 beds in

1989. so, in my many roles as ombudsman director i've seen an evaporation of beds. i want to separate out the loss of ssi budget, low-income beds is where dph comes in with their patch which is based on the criteria from the affordable crfes or assisted living based on eligibility. and also separate out the dph program from dot program where they have the community living fund at 300% of federal poverty, which might be able to capture through [speaker not understood] the individuals who are in the affordable care home income range. the ombudsman roles are really myriad. complaint investigators, and recently we've been monitoring the closures of both skilled nursing and assisted living and just see our role as a monitor of relocation is to make sure

that they are assurance to mitigate transfer trauma. there is no suffering in the new facility, that there is continuity of care in terms of provider. we had an earlier event in early 2014 mission bay nursing home closed down and everyone was sent -- all mono lingual cantonese in nursing home medicare were sent out of county san jose, alameda. in our small office we called the family members and it was disaster. families were unable to visit daily. with the university mount announcement, i said to my staff and myself, we're not just going to monitor relocationses. we're going to take a stand and say, this place must not close. it must not close and in the future other nursing home that close must not close. so, i have some recommendations. we will continue to monitor where individuals in university mount go to and how they're doing, but i have some recommendations.

recommendation number one, and i want to put this in the public record through my written testimony, is that we have a quasi-balancing hearing as a board of supervisors ordinance so that when a place closes down like a nursing home or assisted living that there be a hearing process. this is not in state law yet. it's not a public health facility or clinic, but that there be a modified bee len son process so the board of supervisors through its various committees ~ can monitor these closures and then address those closures in terms of impact or neighborhood residents and impact on the unfolding care policy in san francisco. another recommendation is that we look at parking tax and revenues and earmark 2 to 3% from parking tax and this revenue can be earmarked for long term care services and supports in san francisco because we need an alternative. and that may include a city patch, and we need to have a

dedicated funding source. this was an old idea. i want to revisit it through some kind of board of supervisors recommendation. and the third thing is that the present assisted living facilities right now are very opaque as to how much they charge, what their private rates are. that in term of doing business, that these private rates should be more publicly distributed so that individuals can choose. and, so, [speaker not understood] can know what's really available out there and what's the lowest rate of affordability. right now those rates are difficult to extricate from the remaining residential care homes and assisted living. and then finally, i would like the [speaker not understood] licensing, this is something the board may be able to put pressure on, to release its computer generated sheets so that the license rcfes or assisted living have better information about them in term of ambulatory or non-ambulatory.

the university nonpopulation is by and large ambulatory and by and large the fair percentage who have some degree of cognitive deficit. and with the money they're paying right now on university mount, they have limited placement options just based on the economy in other places, let's say receiving facilities, they have limited optionses on where to go. assisted living that specializes in dementia care they start at 7 or $8,000 a month. no can do. and, so, i want to assure the board that i will be visiting for the duration of this unfolding or unwinding plan at least twice a week and then collaborating with department of aging services and dph staff to try to have a more coordinated approach in terms of relocation. it only would come through some kind of coordinated approach. and at the end i want to make sure that the care is better

coordinated or as well as coordinated and that there is no loss of continuity of care. and that there is none of that emotional devastation that we subsume under the term transfer trauma. this is a long line of closures. most of the ones that close are from 1989 into the future where your small mom and pop residential care homes with very few specialized workforce in those places. some of them are problematic and now we're down to bare bones if that's the right metaphor. 77 residential care facilities with 2100 beds. most of them are non -- are not nonambulatory, but ambulatory only. and i think the board really needs to consider a process of hearing for these closures from now on so that this can be fed back into policy. the departments have data. they share data. and i think it's time to have a city-wide policy that includes more than just low-income

eligible individuals. thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor mar had a question. >> yes, want to thank mr. nadel for his role at the ombudsman and these recommendations. i think hopefully after the hearing we could hold more because i think the crisis going on right now with the evictions and displacement of seniors and people with disabilities is at a crisis. i know that from the mentioning of -- for many of the antieviction activists, 98 year old who was evicted, university mount home is another example of this. i also want to acknowledge that several years ago we did a budget and legislative analyst report on the housing needs of the existing seniors in the city and i think from the analysis, not only the residential care and assisted living bed, but even just generally affordable senior housing for residents as the

senior population grows at crisis proportions, that was several years ago, but how we deal with the existing eviction crisis and the speculation going on. my understanding from the antieviction mapping project and the san francisco antidisplacement coalition greedy speculators look at buildings that have large numbers of long-term seniors and people with disability in order to make a profit without any concern for the conditions and the -- as supervisor campos said, the death sentence that it seems to put people towards because they have no other options. and i think tony robles [speaker not understood] recently said it's not only pushing people to the margins, but it's pushing them over the edge when a building is flipped or sold. but i'm just wondering, besides your recommendations how would you suggest we move forward as a board with policy making towards the booming senior population and the huge needs that are out there? >> well, i have -- it