the university [inaudible] was founded at that time in history. it has survived world war i, world war ii, the great depression, and many other recessions, the earthquake of 1906 and other earthquakes. so here we are today, we have a building there, they're doing a good job, taking care of elderly women. this makes no sense to eliminate that site. it should continue as is . so where do i go when i'm old? do i have to go to bakersfield? no, it's too far. do i go to sacramento. that's too far. i want to stay in my neighborhood and live in a house where i'm safe and taken care of and when it's time to die, go to the mounds hospice. we have a hospice there too, you can't forget that.

so please consider rezoning this area and keep it as is. thank you. >> thanks, next speaker. >> hello. thank you again for having this hearing, this zoning change resolution. i am jacquelyn, i have lived in the port la since birth. the mound has been a part of my life since i was a little girl growing there to sing christmas carols to the ladies that were there. it is an important part of the neighborhood. we do not have any sort of assisted living facility in our area, nor a hospice. when we had a hearing on the 10th we learned that since

1989, i believe a thousand beds have been lost. we cannot afford to huz anymore beds. in fact, this afternoon my husband tom and i just paid our premium for our long term disability. we would like to be able to have a facility here in san francisco and as he said, not have to travel far and god knows where in order to live. i just want to say that -- please consider passing this interim zoning to continue the wonderful work of the university mound ladies home. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afrng, my name is jon, i'm on the board of trustees

for university mound ladies home and i want to speak about this ordinance. what i'd like -- the urgency ordinance is designed to make sure that we don't lose beds for senior citizens here in san francisco and this one in particular. what i'd like you to do today is to defer this decision for the immediate, for the near term, and here's why. since we had the hearing on july 10 we've been working in the background on this and we have a firm offer from [inaudible] living who is an experienced provider of senior care living throughout the bay area and they have two facilities here in san francisco and heys valley. they're [inaudible] basically secured private funding to purchase university mound ladies home on the same terms as under a right of first refusal under which we are going to sell the property to alta vista school. what i'd like to do -- ask you

to do today is not encumber this property with an ordinance like the one you're considering. the invester is one who's going into this as a partner, but knowing that the property is this as a security as well. the deal isn't done yet and what i'd like you to do is to see if you can wait just a couple of weeks for considering this. let me tell you the dates, on july 31 is when we intend to hand over the building and operation, from july 31 to august 1. they have until august 15 in case that date doesn't hold to initiate their rights under the right of first refusal. so i think what i'd like to say is that i believe this particular ordinance, being encumbrance, make the investor a little jittery and since it's

not firm, perhaps -- >> just only one speaker at a time. thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is isaac and i'm with the san francisco long term care program. i'm here to express our support for any zoning changes that would allow for continuing transfer trauma that often accompanies a resident's relocation to a new setting. these moves involves declines in the health of residents. it is our position that the remaining residents must be allowed to stay and every effort must be made to keep university mound ladies home open. in 1989 there were more than 160 residential care facilities in san francisco.

now we only have 77. we are in a crisis. there are not enough affordable residential care facilities to meet the needs of city residents. frail and vulnerable elders that have lived for all or most of their lives in san francisco are now forced to move outside the county to find placement. we can do better. saving university mound ladies home will go a long way towards preserving residential care beds in san francisco and save the remaining university mound ladies home from the tragic disruption of moving from one facility to another. thank you. >> thank you. next speak. >> good afternoon. my name is peter, thank you president chiu, supervisors. as supervisor campos noted, the concerns that i have are with the lack of transparency of the current board that operates the facility at university mound

ladies home. this lack of transparency in their voting, in their movement towards eliminated the facility itself for its current use and the fact that there is a vested interest in a lot of the supervisor -- a lot of the board members who have invested money in that mound and i would like to know what it is that they're gaining from the sale. are they incurring some kind of interest? i'm sure that that is what is motivating their interest in decided immediately what needs to happen. one of the board members has invested over 100,000 in it without changing the business model. noting that it is a failed business model and still pursuing with that failed business model instead of changing that model to make it a successful facility. we need the time to vest gats this. investigate this. we need the board to actively

look into the actual background of some of these board members to find out what their interest is. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon city supervisors. my name is patricia, my mother is university mound ladies home. much has been spoken here about university mound ladies home and the impact the closure will have on the residents, but the impact can be life threatening. my mother's at the mound, 83 and suffering of dementia. she's here with my dad and this picture was taken just a few weeks ago. this is the face of those being displaced. this is the face of ageing san francisco citizens. this is the face of someone that's spent their life at saint mary's park in san francisco. the move to impact my mother,

this could be life or death for her. her husband of nearly 67 years who is still a san francisco residents, he visits her everyday and currently our only ogss are moving her out of the city. supervisors, these are those affected by what seems to be a morally reprehensible act, the closing of university mound ladies home. my parents have been san francisco residents for over 60 years, they've own add home for nearly 60 of those years. they've owned a business in this city for nearly 30 of those years. they love this city. we look to you to make the correct decision and now support the sale of university mound ladies home and not rezoning the area for anything other than a senior housing facility. decisions that is in the best of interest of the ageing san francisco citizens. thank you.

>> next speaker. >> supervisors, my name is tony robles, i'm representing senior and disable action. i'd like to thank supervisor campos for bringing this issue before the board today. as the housing advocate for sda, seniors are living in a lot of fear right now and quite frankly i'm disgusting, and that's to say the very least as to the state of affairs for seniors right now going through ellis act evictions, being intimidate and now we're seeing 37 years we're coming on the anniversary of the evictions of the i hotel tenants in 1977, coming on the anniversary of that, we're seeing that we still are having this issue in

keeping seniors housed and from what i understand in the bylaws of university mound, this this mission statement that they're mission was to remain an assisted care facility in perpetuity. seeing the dire need for housing and the conditions right now, the state of affairs with senior housing, how the eviction notices were even issueed is of great disgust. i'm norly disgusting with the situation, being a fifth generation san francisco citizen and someone who sees evictions on a daily basis, see what's going on with the senior

citizens, it's a shame of the city and i would urge you to -- >> thank you. >> thank you for giving us time for this hearing. my name is betty trainer and i'm the president of the board of senior disability action and of course we support the maintaining of this facility , university mound ladies home as a senior facility with all the services they have been providing. i know personally from helping two of my friends who are seniors older than myself who are looking for assisted living in the city and it was very difficult for them to find a place of modest means for them. they did not have a lot of wealth and assisted living places, as you probably know, can be very expensive. for me, i heard some new information today from mr.

sedlender, so i will leave it to the wiz domg of the board to decide what's best. from what he's just told us and what's best for our seniors, at least the minimum this facility remain as a senior place for compassion and care, which it has always been. thank you. >> thanks. next speaker. >> how do you do? my name is deborah, i'm a tenant in the housing advocate. i'm also a nurse and sociologyist and since i've gonen involved in this issue i've been trying to find the back story, how did this happen. well, you go to the articles of incorporation you'll find that in 2009 some board members changed one of the articles so that they previously were forbidden from ever taking a

lien on this property, but was amended to say they shall have the power to execute any intruments of any kind which will purport to create a lien on any real property of the corporation unless approved by 2/3 majority of the voting members of the board of trustees. this decision was maipt made, not 2/3 because they only had a five person board and i think it was three votes, but nonetheless, i would call for an investigation of both financial audit and administrative audit of what went down in the last five to seven years with this board. they have insisted on closed door meetings, the day before supervisor campos' meeting

there was a residents meeting, they would not allow any community advocates into that meeting. there's incredible cover ups, mystification and in fact, i would hope that this board of trustees gets dissolved after an investigation and another board be appointed to investigate and to oversee because if this deal went through they would -- [applause] >> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm here to discuss the need for public comment during these meetings. the public pays your salaries and yet when you don't set a fixed time for public comment we don't know if public comment will be at 2:30 -- >> excuse me this is actually specific

public comment on the university mound ladies home but we will have general public comment to make your point. >> you need to set time for public comment. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public who would like to speak. my name's -- sorry sir. >> it sounds like we have a gem, historically, architecturally, people wise, san francisco needs to protect its gems. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'll give you the balance of your time for this item. >> i wish to support keeping this senior place open. i'm very concerned as someone who is 55 years old that i may need such a facility in this town. i don't think that we have

given enough attention or money to taking care of our seniors who have contributed so much to society, so much to san francisco in ways that we can never measure i'm asking that their needs be put at the top of the agenda for this board and the city. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.

i'm here to say that i know [inaudible] taking away from here, the anti speculator being shot by a former policeman, supervisor and [inaudible]. we have a history of not wanting people to stay in this city and you all today are facing a great big dpeel of what's really going on in san francisco. this crown on my head it come from the aids walk on sunday raising $2 million. we found a cure for aids and we cannot live here. you can be black and have aids in this city and you cannot live here. this is the same thing that you are doing with the [inaudible]. aids was a disease that made you age and if you let them take away these things out here it really just go to show that money means everything in san francisco and we can't keep on

doing this. you know, you coming next, the richer get rich. the rich eat the rich. you know, so it's amazing that housing in san francisco you got rid of the blacks, you got rid of the mexicans, now you going for the seniors and disability. this is what it boils down to. you know what? you go on to different levels, but it's not right and i hope the president announce [inaudible] will get here. housing right is a human right. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. with that, item 49 is in the hands of the board. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much.

i want to begin by thanking you for letting us have this hearing today and i especially want to thank the residents of the university mound ladies home who have come out to speak. i want to thank the families of those residents who have been impacted by this. i came into this hearing not really knowing if there would be a vote today simply because of the unique nature of this nature. just so you know, because it is an emergency ordinance, we actually need nine votes of this board of supervisors to pass it. it is my hope that we act as quickly as possible. and let me say this, that the reason why i think it's important for us to act today if possible is because of the fact that people like alice

parker, and i see mrs. parker sitting right there, you can see she's waving. they've been facing an eviction notice for the last few weeks and there's a great deal of uncertainty that they have been facing. alice parker when she was 19, she was a sheet metal worker. she is a real life rosie the riveter that served during world war ii and i think we need to provide as much clarity and finality about the eviction notices they're dealing with and i have to say that i was very upset that when don, who is the treasurer of the board of directors came up here, his main concern was the possible entity that could potentially buy this property, h song, might get jittery.

well, jittery, talk about jittery. how do you think the seniors who have been facing eviction for the last few weeks, how do you think they feel and the interim controls we're talking about do not do anything to change the pocket of h song or anyone coming in and buying this property, taking over the property. what the interim controls simply do is what i think we have to make sure happens, is that this continues to operate as a retirement home for people of modest means. that is the simple, the simple thing that these controls do, nothing less, nothing more. and so so long as h song or anyone else wants to come in and continue to operate this property, along with the intended mission of helping

people of modest means, there's simply nothing that will be impacted by these interim controls. we as san francisco have to send a message today that it's not okay to treat alice parker and others the way they've been treated by this institution. alice parker and so many of these residents have dedicated their lives to making this city a better place. we owe them to make sure they're not thrown out on the street. it is because of her and every one of the other 27 residents that i'm asking you, colleagues, today, please support the interim controls. let's save this institution and in so doing, let's protect among the most vulnerable of our residents. thank you very much. [applause] >> than you. >> any additional

discussion? would it be okay to reopen public comment to let miss parker spoke? >> okay, if we could do this without objection to allow her to speak, obviously we have public comment during our public comment period but is there a motion to do that and to do that without objection that should be the case. >> this on? >> yes. july the 24th i'll be 89 years old and i did mechanic work on the b 25s when they were in the field. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> with that, let me just

remind members of the public, not to express support or opposition so please respect that. and if there's any discussion, role call vote. item 49, kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, breed i, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there are ten is. >> this ordinance is finally passed. thank you for the [inaudible] and with that why don't we go to our next item, committee reports, item 50. >> item 50 through 53 were considered by the neighborhood and safety committee on july 13 and forwarded to the board as committee reports. item 50 was recommended as amended, an ordinance to amend

the administrative code eligible for the home detention program and authorizing the sheriff to implement any electronic monitoring program [inaudible] in lou of fail. >> colleagues, any discussion on this item? supervisor farrell. >> thank you. colleagues, i don't know if -- who the right person to -- i don't know if the department's here or -- sure -- or the sponsors. i guess a few questions. i will just say to be very frank, i have concerns about this program. i'm concerned about a few things. first of all, it was introduced last year. it feels like it's being thrust on the board of supervisors and i'm curious why the timing here and why we had a committee report of a committee that was just at the end of last week. >> my name is mark, good afternoon.

i'm the a sis tants legal counsel for sheriff's department legal office. i can address some concerns you have with regard to that. this legislation was introduced last year at one of the hearings of that there were concerns with regard to the parameters of the legislation and concerns about what procedures were for the legislation to be put into place to make sure those that were eligible for am, what the procedure was to find out if the court or da would object or not to their placement on em. in this specific case, all of the objections that were made and concerns that were discussed at that time were implemented in the legislation since that time so when it got to committee the concerns were addressed. they were one when the person consented or not, we did include in the legislation that it was for people who consent to that placement on am and more importantly, the other issues with regard to the level of offenses that would be

eligible for the em placement. we define what low level offenses ments. >> could you talk about that in mer specificity? >> sure. it indicates low level offenses are of two types, misdemeanor charge, requiring a person being in custody for at least 30 days before review or recommendation is made. and for those on felony offenses, those are what's called regular felonies, not serious felonies, lower level offenses, a person needs to be in custody for at least 60 days before review for evaluation is performed. what that does is allows the sheriff to present to the district attorney those people who, through their criteria,

believe might be a good fit for electronic monitoring in lieu of bail. if that person objects then the case will be referred to the court for them to make a more informed decision about being put on electroning monitoring or not. or saying no, the person should be put on bail. so it is not discretion by the sheriff of who gets put on em, but a tool for finding who is eligible for em to be approved by the court. >> maybe take a step back and talk about the policy rational here. maybe i'll just leave it carte blanche for you to answer that. i had a few questions as to the way it was phrased before and i want to hear it from you about how you're thinking about this . >> well, the legislation originated because of penal

code 1203.018, which the legislature has said for local jurisdictions the sheriff has the able to place people on em as they deem feet. -- fit. so this legislation really originates from state law, which gives the sheriff the authority to do. based upon this vetting process we are addressed concerns from other agencies regarding who would be placed on em and those safeguards have been placed into legislation. low level offenses -- >> i understand what's happened. i'm asking take a step back. what's the policy rational. i get it -- i see the sheriff is here and granted the authority to do. why though? >> we are doing it because most of the people or a good portion of the people pretrial on low level