>> supervisor safai: thank you. thank you, dr. palmer.ç >> [off mic] >> supervisor safai: thank you. liham montano. >> i want to thank you for having this hearing and soing your support in this issue. sometimes when i get here, i don't really know what to say because i get so overwhelmed, i cannot believe that we are in this rich city with so many resources and a corporation like sutter saying that they cannot

afford to have subacute. they cannot afford to have that? but they can afford to build two hospitals. they can afford to demolish one that is in perfect condition and they cannot afford to over this service to the city. they made a commitment to serve this city. the people in this city. how can they go on like this and have no accountability if what they're doing? i mean, i hear what everybody is saying that this is not just their doing, that they need to be -- everybody have to be involved, but they cannot just,

you know, wash their hands and think that it's okay. they need to also be part of the solution. they have the money, they have the capacity to do it and they should be accountable an do it. -- and do it. thank you dr. palmer for everything that you have done. and for helping everybody to understand what the problem is. and thank you supervisors for this support. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. miss galore why yo gloria simpsh gativo, christine reid. >> i'm gloria simpson, i wanted to mention a thought that dr. browner mentioned and also she made a good point that they

had enough money to build these two big hospitals knowing that st. luke's had a subacute unit, they didn't implement that into their new plan. however, they mentioned that in the new facilities they're going to have labor, delivery and i.c.u. and so forth. everybody hospital has that. they should have implemented subacute. they'll probably charge for parking. will they be providing parking vouchers every day that is going to take us to travel over there to visit our family members? thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. marlene cativo, ruth cativo, christine reid.

>> i'm marlene. i am here because i want to begging about my dad one more time. please don't let st. luke's close. this is very convenient for us. i feel very hard -- my heart is broken because when i hear about it, it's all about money. you will see my dad over there and

seeing him yesterday, somebody from the st. luke's hospital said to my brother, i want a meeting with u with you about y. before in the past, nobody contact us. even we have some meeting in september. they community -- the hospital community said we provide the same service in st. luke's, it's not true. my dad has a lot of issues and sores, they have 20 patients. when i go to a sna, they say can you wait? i don't have the time. i feel very bad. i don't know how to tug at your heart and say please keep st. luke's open. the rest of the family is

suffering every day and thinking more every night. [off mic] >> supervisor safai: thank you, ruth cativo. >> thank you so much again for helping us. we are here again because you know, we worry about my father also and the rest of the patients because as a family, we have a hard time now because like my sister says, they calle my brother yesterday and talking about moving my father to the davies hospital. first we think that davies hospital doesn't have the license for this patient. we're talking as a family, we say if they're going to get the license when they don't get it from the hospital next to the st. luke's hospital. they'll have the same job. to get the new license for

davies. but they don't get it for st. luke's and need though move. because this is our neighborhood. you know, all the family here, all the friends, they have to think about that. you know, even i know davies is not too far. but we're not a family. so they have the senior family. they don't have money to get on the bus to go all the way to davis. once on bus, you have to wait a long time. the people that they're not driving [inaudible], now they have a chance that they say they're not going to close any more, but still, they have to working hard for getting a better place for things. before you know it, we worry about when they're going to move. i hope so nobody dies.

they awms lying t -- they alwayo us. they called us yesterday because they're going to see you guys. before that, no phone call. >> supervisor safai: christine reid. c.w. johnson. >> good afternoon, i'm christine reid. my sister is a patient on the 6th floor. she's been there for six years. i had a stroke october 20th. not too long ago. i had the same thing that my sister has. i had a brain aneurysm, fell out on the street on the side of my car. i want to you think about when you leave here when you park your car if the same thing might happen to you. i am subject to be same as my

sister because it is congenial. so i could be like francis. when i went to see her on friday, she was rubbing her hand because she didn't feel well, the nurse knew her and she knew that nurse. i want you to think about that when you want to get rid of the nurses that are highly qualified. we're all subject to long-term care. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you, ma'am. c.w. johnson. eric brooks. >> i'm c.w. johnson, i'm with the mental health association. i want to applaud you guys for stepping up and making sure that these new locations won't be as impactedful without having a voice and you guys are involved in making this process happen. my thing is i have debites type ii. at some point i'll need acute care. that's the reality.

i might end up losing a toe or foot but that's the reality of type ii diabetes. my concern is being a mental health worker for 30 years is what is the mental health impacts of relocation shock? it's relocation shock. you hear about anxiety and people losing their friends and being overwhelmed. you talk about skilled nurses, they don't become nurses because they're going to get rich, but they have a purpose and it's a family in that hospital. what we really need to know is what kind of mental health support, no during, before and after. we know relocation is going to happen. but what is the impact for the nurses? what is the impact to the families? are they getting the support they need? all this stuff should be free.

they shouldn't have to pay a dime to get emotional support they need. because this is hard. it's a reality that is going to happen but it's also very, very hard. my thing is, what do you have in place or what are you looking to put in place to make sure the transition is an emotional -- not as emotional for them. that they need the support during, before and after. >> supervisor safai: thank you. sir. >> good afternoon, eric brooks, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization. quite frankly, i find it is an outrage that we need to have this hearing in the first place. i and hundreds of others who are involved a few years ago in working out this deal and the problem that i'm seeing with this hearing is that we had a deal with cpmc, sutter and the

main issue was neighborhoods like mine where the new hospital is going up is not going to stand for neighborhoods like mission for st. luke's is having their certify service ground graded so we can have a hospital. the deal that cpmc made is that they'd maintain the services in the current hospital in the mission where those services belong and not downgrade any services. that deal is now broken and now you're forced to come to the table to supposedly make a new deal with this corporation. it's just -- basically what we're talking about here is cpmc's attempt to red line a lower income neighborhood in this community. they're trying to take services out of a poor community and they're trying to gentrify their service and make it cheap service for acute care, and gradually ford sem they wa forco

a different position. this clown, even though their charter says they're nonprofit, they're for-profit organization with massive payments they receive in salaries to get up and say that they cannot afford a few s.n.f. beds in san francisco is ludicrous. if i had a dime, if everyone in this loom a dime for every corporation that said it couldn't afford to comply with new environmental regulations clm if we could spend [off mic] >> supervisor safai: please hold your applause. that's the reuflt chamber. last two speakers that i have cards for is kim and carol. >> i'm with the national union

of healthcare workers. i'm really appalled today at some of the things. you know, there are many ways to skin a cat. and that's the sad part. clearly what we saw here was the c.e.o. take about 10 minutes of everyone's time to, no, we're not going to participate and do our shar fair share of beds thad to be done. he was going around and around and around and didn't want to say no. there are things that i think we can look at even though we may not have the right to mandate them to do it, we can force them do the right thing. what about a bill of rights for patients that says once you enter this hospital, you get 16 points like, you could be shipped 200 miles away if you need subacute care. if you're going into a surgery, wouldn't it be nice to know ahead of time that we don't offer the service anywhere in

the county so if something goes wrong, and you require subacute care, you can be shipped to los angeles. then me as a patient would have power to make a decision like i ain't going to where you want me to goo to go. i want full service. i think it has to do with that. i think the patients deserve that. at the top, we should put at the top sutter made $14 billion in profit. we do not offer these services. put that out there. it's a part of educating the public. i think that would go far with the public and really make people understand that they have to start demanding that these facilities do the right thing. they have a moral obligation to do it. the second thing i want to bring up, once again, we're depending on the hospital association --

[off mic] >> supervisor safai: thank you, next speaker. >> carolyn bowdin with the california nurses association. i agree with my sister, $14 billion in profit. i want to point out a statistic here, sutter heat has 25 executives that make over a million dollars a year. and they're total executive compensation an leully is $44,210,000. maybe - they can do for more moy in hospital and subacute and skilled nursing facilities. sutter has already ha -- someone mentioned medical red-lining. they're trying to close beds in berkeley because there are too many patients on medi-cal.

they tried to close sutter santa rosa and are tried to close the marin general hospital because it wasn't profitable. they're closing a facility and harming the patients because it's not profitable enough for them. i agree with the gentleman from sutter who says we need single payer, but while we fight for single payer, these not-for-profit, these hospitals need think about what in means. it doesn't mean they can profit on the ills of other people, because that's exactly what they do. if the insurance companies are not going to pay enough, if your insurance company is a bad one, or medi-cal or something, they don't want you as a patient. that's not right. everybody deserves healthcare and sutter needs to not profit

on people's misfortunes. >> supervisor safai: thank you. any other members of the public wish to come forward and comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] any more questions for any folks out here in the public -- i don't have any other further questions. i saw you raise your hand dr. browner, did you want to comment quickly? because h we have to move on to the next item. i will say, i will ask the chair based on the request that we made the department of public health and director garcia and working with the stakeholders both labor and folks from the community along with hospital council, i know you're having your meetings, i would like to follow up and reconvene this conversation in march. then that way, we can get an update on status of how your

transition plan is going, dr. browner, along with hearing about the post-acute care strategic plan and maybe we can identify some short term solutions. i know we've begun that conversation. again, we'd have cpmc to be part of that. dr. browrn. browner. >> i want to thank the committee of the board of supervisors for this hearing and reaffirm our commitment to take care of these patients at one owfer facilities and participate in solutions that the city comes up with. i also want to clarify just a few things, if you come to a cpmc facility and have medi-cal, medicare commercial insurance or no insurance at all, we'll take care of you the same way. secondly if reverend hope wants

to get on a medicare plan to come to a sutter facility, i can speak to her on that. i know sutter health has taken a beating today, but i remind the board that surt provides more medi-cal care than anyone else in northern californiaened we're proud to do so. >> supervisor safai: anything else? >> just in closing, i do think this was a very good hearing. i think all of the hearings have been useful and great hearings. i appreciate doing this work with supervisor safai. you know, we are now at a point where i think it's incumbent on the city to provide the leadership and using the words of director garcia, cajole, urge, collaborate with and push our entire network of private hospital providers to

participate in a real solution here. and we're on the board of supervisors going to pay close attention to that and going to be very involved in seeing that go forward. i'm a big supporter and believer and fighter for single-payer healthcare and believe that is the ultimately the solution to this crisis and problem and many others when it comes to healthcare. we're a ways from that. until then, we've got to asker k more of our nonprofit hospitals in the city. i look forward to continue to partner with you, supervisor safai and supervisor fewer4wláo pay close attention to this issue. with that, i would suggest maybe continuing this to the march 28th hearing of the neighborhood services and public safety committee, if that works.

>> supervisor safai: sounds good. >> without objection this item will be continued to the march 28th, 2018 hearing of the neighborhood services and public safety committee. thank you. [gavel] mr. clerk, can you call item 2. >> clerk: ordinance amending the public works code to prechoir a permit for the testing of autonomous testing of devices on walks. amending the public workings code and police code to provide for administrative civil and criminal penalties for unlawful operations of such devices and affirming the appropriate findings. >> thank you. this is -- okay, i'm going to give a second for folks to clear out then turn it over to supervisor yee.

>> supervisor yee: okay. i'm going to get started. okay. thank you chair ronen and supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> for allowing me to have this item on your committee meeting. you have this item several times more than several times now. as you know, we've been working on this particular legislation for over half a year. and as you all know, we started the legislation by basically saying we're going to ban delivery robots from our sidewalks to keep the sidewalks safer for beds and keep the

right-of-way for them. since then, we've had many amends that's been worked out between the different parties andsm]nzp so forth and everythis been a compromise of what we could accept and what we can't accept. when the issue of what about our local companies that -- or companies that just wanted to research and development, should we allow that? after talking to advocates about this and even though many of them didn't want that to happen, i decided that, well, we have basically a few values here that we're dealing with, the value that our streets belong to people and our value also toç help local companies do well. so, we made some concessions on that area.

and from the time actually that i moved away when we were saying ban, there are advocates that say forget it, we'll put it on the ballot. in fact, we have language for ballot that is pretty similar to the original piece of legislation. and i promised them, please don't put it on the ballot because we'll try to do this through legislation. if it doesn't pass, i promised them 100 percent to get a ballot initiative on there to ban it. and for us to hopefully support it that way because at the end of the day, it is about whether we want to keep our sidewalks for people. i -- last week we went

through -- or our last meeting we made several amendments that included allowing for these delivery robots to be tested. through a permit. that each permit would allow for three robots to be tested at the same time. and that there would be a maximum of three permits total any time in the city. so, again, once again, we wanted to allow for something, but at the same time we didn't want even testing to take over our sidewalks. and we also talk about what speed they could use on the testing. right now we're asking that --

we talked to the department of public works and for them to come out with a conclusion what speed they wanted it. whatever speed that he thought was right, it would never go over 3 miles per hour. if they choose that, maybe that's too fast in certain places. they could choose to restrict it below 3. we wanted to follow the robots with the testing. originally we had it at 15 feet and moved it to 30 to allow them more flexibility in terms of where they would be placed and so on and so forth. these things were last week. this week there are some other amendments that we're making upon the requests of the department of public works. and they're not substantive but

they're in there and they include things like permit, one-site visit. they would do a site visit during that permit. monthly reporting rather sthanner than upon request. they -- rather than upon request. they wanted that and include in the reports if there are incidents that occur. and flexibility in terms of defining the incidents so we're wear of what is going on. things -- they brought up a good issue about docking. like no, you can't just okay, you want to go out for a cup of coffee and leave your robot in the middle of the street, you can't just dock it there. they basically said that docking must be on -- when not in use, must dock in private property. that's what they need to do.

and there are some other clean-up language in your package. did i give it to you? i didn't give it to you? here you go can. you go. there is cleanup language in there too. i don't know if we need t to go through them. the city attorney-machine no --y attorney, no? okay. so i ask that you go ahead and i'll mac make a motion -- >> motions to make any amendments should be in order after we've taken public comment on this hearing. >> so i'll make a motion to do this at public comment. but i want to say there are companion pieces to this and one of them is to create a task force,ç as you know, we introduced legislation to look at principles that -- guiding principles in which they could

move forward in the future with other issues, new technology. and maybe from the result of that task force and the program that they create, they could modify what we do today. but for today, we need to get ahead of the curve. here is another example, this i, there are sitings of other types of robots now which we need to take into consideration. one siting was at the near the spca, they have a robot there. chasing people and saying you can't be here. it's mostly in the parking lot, but they're going on the streets right now. and saying, you can't do this and you can't do that. another siting was brought to my attention at kaiser. again, o it was on private

property but it seem to be a security robot. but they're taking information as they go around andñr we're basically have no legislation around these issues. so who would have thought that this was going to happen? i didn't. so this other companion legislation hopefully will get ahead of the other things in terms of as they get introduced because if i knew that was going to happen, that would have included into this legislation also. nofn us thought about it. so here we are, we're moving forward and dealing with this for so many months. i'm excited. i think i worked with the advocates in addition to working with some of the companies that have it or are doing research around there and come up with some compromises to allow for it.

and hopefully this is something that could be -- that will be supported by everyone. and i really want to ask, we don't want to do a ballot initiative if we don't have to. that's my opening statement. if there are publicç comments - >> we'll open this up to public comment. if you want to speak on this item, please come forward now. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor yee: i made one more change which, again, was from a request from the companies or at least somebody from the company, the representative. right now, the legislation as written would only allow for a company to apply for one permit, so that would allow for other companies later.

for competition purposes to apply also. i said okay, maybe if you want to do more, but you have to wait. what i wrote in there was if nobody -- if there is one permit available for six months and nobody made the application for that, a company could apply for a second permit but only for a total of six months. to me, it's allowing for some, if nobody applies again for six months, they could do it again. the language is included in there. i'd like to make a motion to accept these amendments. >> second. >> ryan: with that objection, those amendments pass. is there any other comments on this legislation? >> supervisor yee: i would love to pass piece of legislation as amended out of the committee of

positive recommendation, the full board as a full board. >> supervisor ronen: this item moves forward to the full board with positive recommendation. colleagues, before you leave, i was informed by the city attorney because the march date for item number one, we continued to march 28th is so far off, we have no idea what might happen between now and then, it would be better to move that item and with the intention of hearing it on the 28th. if we could go back to item number one and rescind -- i'll make a motion to rescind the vote to continue that item to march 28th 2018 out objection, that motion passes. then i will make a motion to continue that item to the call of the chair. without objection, that motion passes. [gavel] is there any other items, mr.

clerk? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor ronen: then this meet is adjourned. thank you very much.one.

>> commons 3rd thursdays is a monthly event series really

activate service center and un plaza food and music and other social activities oil stephanie the vice president of operations for this. >> in 2016 an initiative called the service center launched an effort by a bunch of the city agencies along with institutional stakeholder and community partners to have a program that is how to get people out here on a monthly and weekly and daily basis. >> my name is a - i'm with the program manager and also commons 3rd thursdays will have live music important in the. >> the city approached us to provide food and beverages at the event kind of the core anchor to encourage attendees to food gives people a reason to stay i really like this like it is

really nice like everybody is having a good time. >> our goal to enjoy the space and eat and drink and listen to music we wanted to inspire people with the un plaza as a place to hold they're community events. >> it is a great way to get people to know about global music and cuisine a great way to bring people together. >> a natural beautiful backdrop the asian art museum and . >> it is welcoming. >> two more events left in the series so, please come and enjoy and check it out we're having a great time. >> we love our city being a san francisco based on company it was important to engage request san franciscans and tourists alike. >> we want to inspire people

and everyone interested in providing and coming out for a large or small-scale event reach out to the commons 3rd thursdays and we'll direct you're seeing to the right people to get to.

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know

to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's