about deferral, but is there a time on here that these services will be changed? by now, i've forgotten, so miss patil, or maybe dr. browner can tell us for sure if we're not certain. >> one second. no. on the -- i don't know if you have copies in front of you, but in the memo that was provided to you on july 17, on page seven of that memo, so for the breast health and mammo graphy center at st. luke's, the expected transfer was august 5. the noninvasive cardiology at st. luke's, the expected transfer was august 5.

the diabetes center at st. luke's and california campuses was -- actually for st. luke's, the expected transfer was august 19. in terms of the california campus, the transfer date was still to be determined as they had not found a location for that program. and then, the outpatient psychiatry clinic at the pacific campus, the expected transfer date was no earlier than may 1, 2019, but the transfer date is still to be determined. >> okay. so do we know that those transfers have occurred already? dr. browner or staff is nodding over there. is that right, according to that, the schedule that we have? okay. thank you. all right. that's for your facts. commissioner green? >> yeah. i'm a little confused, and i just want to make sure i understand this fully.

so it says here that the spmf plans to contract with payers, including managed and straight medi-cal with the exact same contracts that cpmc currently holds. does the sutter pacific medical foundation actually accept the reimbursement rates of state medi-cal and will they accept the straight reimbursement rates that cpmc currently accepts for the same services? i just want to make sure i understand same contract really means the foundation for these services will actually accept the reimbursements are currently straight medi-cal reimbursements. >> thanks, dr. green. you're exactly correct. >> what was exactly right? >> next question.

>> sutter will accept the same -- >> excuse me, dr. browner, could you speak a little louder. >> sutter will accept the same rates at cpmc accepted, assuming that the plans actually will provide them. as you know, contracts are two-way streets, so we can't dictate -- or spmf can't dictate to the plans that they would offer the same rates, but if they do, spmf will accept. >> could i just follow that up for a moment, commissioner green, because it seems to me that if some of these transfers have already occurred, are you -- >> correct. >> so what's happening to those people at this point or have you already negotiated with

plans or you finished with that? what is happening to those people? >> hi. good evening. i can speak to that. so my name is karen jaffrey. i'm with sutter pacific medical foundation. the three programs that have already transitioned, the breast center on august 5, the cardiac echo lab on august 5, and the st. luke's diabetes program transferred on august 19. so far, it is business as usual, and we have not had any contracting issues since the go live dates. and in any situation where we need to request continuity of care, or policy is for those patients that are impacted, we will try to get an agreement with the health plans. and if the health plans agree, we will continue their service. if the health plan does not agree, it is their

responsibility to identify alternative areas of service. >> commissioner sanchez? >> yeah. we've all spent a lot of time together, many of us here from different segments of the community both internally, externally, etc. and the bottom line to me has always been astounding. it's not about the quality of care, because we had families come from all over the bay area who would come and visit their brother, uncle, cousin because they were concerned about the quality of care that they've always had at st. luke's and all of these programs, and now they're going to be dismantled and put in other places. we've heard people talk about the diabetes programs, where we have a multitude of spanish

speaking people involved, and, etc. and it's -- as i said, it's never really been about, you know, the quality of care st. luke's has provided in the community it terrible, no, it's been about -- is terrible, no. it's been about why if we have services that are accessible, that are multilingual, that are sensitive to the community and culture of this area that we've been service are for over 125 years, why do we have to use, number one, forget public transportation. you have a very good shuttle service, but you now have 45,000 additional cars coming into the area every day who pick up people, call ubers and whatever. and things that would take you five and ten minutes could take you as much as 35 to 40 minutes to get to cpmc. i mean, but why would you leave

these services and this really positive community feeling that has been going on for generation and generation by saying we're going to move you to this big new facility which is going up, and it'll be a flagship, but st. luke's -- we have the option, and some of us have the option to attend to your new hospital. that's a fantastic new facility that you're building there, and we had a chance to you can with a through it, all the way from -- walk-through it, all the way from the top floor to the senior beds in the new unit. we went back to the old hospital where many of us have been over the years and remember where the diabetes education programs were, and it's right there, in this beautiful all wooden building that has been services communities for all different years, and a little chapel that

you do sort of stop by and say thank you. it has made a significant difference for years and years and years. all i'm saying is my gosh, why leave, a certain part of this where these programs -- you now, where these programs have been based, to say now, we're going to move in the other way? all i'm saying is this: things change, communities change, but at the same time, you have parents, grarnt parent parents, great grandparents, grandparents, you have a number of people, they came to testify, not blasting you, but saying, what a fantastic program you're running and please don't -- don't move it, and -- and that's true with the diabetes and a multitude of other programs. you have a pharmacy there. you have all these other activities going on, and all i'm saying is, it just is

interesting seeing how we're discussing, you know, a -- a fantastic new operation, but it's being moved and will open up where you're going to have to have transportation and time to get in, time to get out, and wait. and if you can't find a facility there, you're going to miss your appointment, you're going to wait to go back to the mission or other parts of the community, the st. luke's and the new bernal mission campus is providing. all i'm saying is that i just hope that as these programs have been moved -- and you're saying that some already have been moved, that maybe you sort of reflect on, in about three months or six months, i think, if, in fact, we are servicing and providing the quality that we've had a strong tradition of in this city, not only in reference to our community, our patients, but also in reference to places like san francisco

general and others who you've always been a partner with us whenever there's a crisis, and we'll work together. you know, all i'm saying is i would certainly take a look at is there any way we could, you know, not change, but perhaps -- you talked about a continuum of care and continuum of access. let's think about it, and the quality your institution has provided in the city for all these years. i would hope you would increase that quality and community involvement and think about these things as you get underway in your new flagship. >> so commissioner, thank you for the comment. i want to make sure none of the other commissioners are laboring under that misimpression. these programs are not physically moving anywhere, they are simply moving from under the egis of cpmc to the egis of spmf.

the program we were talking about at st. luke's now at mission bernal campus, remain there. the mammography remains there. it's sichly a different administration of who is providing the service. the location has not changed by a sonometer. >> thank you for that clarification. >> i actually have some questions in that. >> it was actually commissioner bernal first. >> please. >> i have two questions, and they have to do with a little bit more specificity and an update on some of the information that you provided. the first has to do with the contracts with the plans. i would imagine that at this point, especially since you've already transferred the administration of the services from cpmc to the medical foundation, that you actually

have a much better sense of what will be covered and the rates at which the services will be covered by the plans than you might have shared with us to this point. if you can update more specifically what -- what the status is of the coverage of these services under the foundation versus the cpmc, what may be at risk, and what might not be at risk. that's the first question. the second question has to do with your commitment to do more to increase met cal outreach and acceptance of medi-cal at your outpatient facilities, and if you can give us a little more specificity of how you are actually attempting to do that. >> so at this stage, like i said earlier, we don't know of any -- >> are you actively just passively waiting for problems

to come up or are you proactively -- >> we tried to proactively tried to address any problems in the contracts between cpmc and spmf, and those contracts we have consistency on, we shouldn't have any problems on, and those are the lion's share of the contracts. there may be a few that may be on a case by case basis once the patient presents themselves, and like i said we are going to try to get letter of agreements with the health plans, and if the health plans a approve, we will continue the service. if the health plans do not approve, they will have to find alternative service. >> and medi-cal? can you describe the processes by which -- >> commissioner, you may not be

aware we have a requirement to see a minimum number of medi-cal patients at cpmc and we have exceeded that number some years by as much as 15,000 patients. we've had extensive outreach to make sure, especially nems, to make sure that patients have access to their care. we'd be happy to review that. i think we actually have a meeting on the development agreement coming up soon, and we'll be presenting data from the previous area, and we can go over that in much more detail then. >> commissioner chung. >> so i have questions and then a comment. so- so i want to just get this clear. so the pacific and california campuses are closing, and then, the services would move to the

vanness. >> so just to clarify, the california campus will be closing in its entirety. the pacific campus will continue to operate as an ambulatory care campus. it will no longer be licensed as an acute care hospital as a result of the seismic standards. all of the current programs the pacific and california campuses will move to one of the new campuses, either davies or the vanness campus when it opens. >> so where would the patients of ski, which -- outpatients of psychiatry, where would they go to? >> we are in the process of building a new outpatient unit on our davies campus, and we are in the process of building

outpatient facilities on the davies campus. when those are complete, then, the clinics will physically move. >> i -- yeah. so my comment to that is, you know, i don't doubt that, you know, like, cpmc has tried to, like, provide, you know, as much services to the community as possible, but i just wonder where the mistrust has come from because this is not the first time we've heard the same testimonies. >> no. and i would appreciate at some point to come back and give my version of what i've heard because i would caution much of what you're hearing is not mist motivated by a respect for what really happened but is much more politically motivated. i would say, for example, that someone previously said that we told the residents in the alzheimer's units to simply go find their own places.

that's simply not true. helped rhenvate space for them, arrange for them to move, and they're very happily moved into a new place. >> commissioner chung? >> yeah. i'm still having some problems with that because, you know, like, with what i heard so far, i also heard that, you know, like, that the nurses, like, losing jobs. like, i think that in the beginning, like, of the process, of the vanness geary campus, we were expecting, you know, a net increase in workforce and not a decrease. but now, i'm not sure whether, you know, at the end what would come out of it. >> so again, this is probably best covered at the hearings on the development agreement, but to be clear, the rebuild of cpmc was not going to result in a larger medical center.

that was the discussions we had over the course of many years with the planning commission, the health commission, and the board of supervisors. the total number of inpatient beds at cpmc when the new vanness campus opens will be less than the current number of beds we currently operate. despite that, we have assured employees at cpmc that no one will lose their job as a result of the transition. so i'm not sure where the impression came that we were building a larger medical center. that simply is not correct. >> commissioner green? >> another point of clarification. so does sutter pacific medical foundation accept straight medi-cal for all service lines? >> no, it does not. >> pardon? >> no, it does not. >> can you elaborate a little more so we can understand the totality? >> i'd have to go down the

rules of contracting here. you do understand sutter pacific medical foundation is a separate corporation, so our contracts are deictated by ter agreements that we make with health plans. we do see medi-cal patients in primary care and in specialty services, but it is a case by case basis. >> commissionthis is a questio department. what authority, if any, will we have to hold a prop q hearing if the foundation determines that it needs to make some movement around its services at the hospitals? is the foundation exempt from the prop q, which is -- was implied here today by some of the public testimony and if it is, i'd like to know that, and if it's not, i'd like to know

that, as well. >> the prop q process will not relate to the foundation because it's not covered as an acute care hospital. it's a separate organization, and so the jurisdiction that you have under the prop q process would not apply to a foundation. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> that is correct, and that actually was a point that we were going to make within a whereas, and i see that it didn't actually make it into the packet here. so if we were to move on this resolution, i would put back in the whereas, that, in fact, the authority to understand changes from the hospital will no longer -- well, that the -- by moving it to the foundation, then, the public scrutiny of hospital services, these hospital services would no longer be available to the

public. >> so commissioner -- [inaudible] >> i would suggest that for a couple of reasons, one being that the transition of patients from an acute care administration to a medical foundation administration is still relative, particularly this large of a population and with so many different services, it's still something that i think is not at common, although it's -- i guarantee it's going to become more common, not just with cpmc but probably throughout the whole health care delivery system. there's little enough known at this point in terms of what the impacts have been, beneficial or nonbeneficial. and then also, because we're at this point, i think still unclear about the potential for the coverages for all of these

services and where their status might be since you've indicated that it's on a case by case basis or you haven't yet heard whether there are cases of denial, that we might want to wait a while to really make a determination of the detriment or the -- or lack of before passing a resolution. >> okay. that's -- that's also within a range of discussion in which we're aware that some of these transfers are still occurring, and that there are opportunities to continue to try to bridge the gaps, and that would be one question. i think the question of public scrutiny does remain, but that would be part of the discussion in the future. commissioner chung? >> so thank you, president.

i think that, you know, for me, i think that it's kind of detrimental. i'm not saying that because, you know, like i -- you know, that i listened to all the testimonies. you know, but, like, we went from the opportunity to, like, apply public scrutiny to the services to, like, losing that oversight, that means that we, like, would not be able to -- we can't be accountable to those people who are going to continue these services. so, like, it's our job, you know -- you know, as an oversight body to really look at the worst case scenario. so in the worst case scenario, i think that it's more than just detrimental because it's not just losing services in an acute hospital, it's about, like, you know, we don't know how the business model would go with -- no offense, with the

foundation. >> so commissioners -- >> i would recommend that we find it detrimental. >> -- so we actually need a motion on -- on the will of the commission, so commissioner chung, is that a motion? >> yes. i'd like to make motions that we -- we -- we adopt the resolutions as detrimental, and with the amendment to the resolutions to add the actual prop q losing -- >> right, i ran some similar, if that's what you're trying to move, whereas the transfer of hospital services to a foundation will remove these services from public scrutiny under proposition q. >> so moved. >> that would be added to the -- your motion.

>> yes. >> okay. is there a second? >> i'll second. >> okay. so the motion has been moved and seconded. this also includes three different resolves. one that -- in this case, it would then say this change in management will be detrimental is what you are motioning. that the commission does strongly urge the foundation to make every effort to contract with all current providers and health plans, and to resolve that, then, the foundation please report back to the commission to indicate the impact of the service transfers in six months. it's possible to split the resolves, if you wish. if not, then, i don't see anybody wishing to divide the

question on the resolves. we'll then have further discussion. if not, we'll then proceed to the vote. commissioner green? >> i just have a question. if we were to defer this, would that mean we'd get return information about how things are unfolding apropos with what commissioner green was asking? if it's detrimental, would that lead to a less rich import in the future? i'm new to this, and i'm a little confused. i'm interested in the information, and if deferring would lead to a richer discussion, more information from spmf, i'd be interested in deferring as opposed to declaring it detrimental now. >> okay. commissioner chung? >> i don't know. that's why i'm asking. >> yeah. i mean, i think i interpret it a little bit differently, like, because once you pass -- you know, you change management, you know, you change the business, we've lost the oversight. so whether they come back in

three months or not, you know, it's really not binding at this point. >> commissioner guillermo? >> yeah. again, being new to this, i also am interested in the information. i don't -- i can't yet be sure about -- and i understand the lack of oversight on its surface or the change in oversight from a public oversight to an internal oversight, essentially, may or may not result in a detriment to the patients. i just don't know enough information -- have enough information to feel a strongly enough about the detrimental effect of a move from a public oversight to a -- to not having the oversight. i'm -- actually, the issues that i'm most concerned about, i think, are different than what you're raising,

commissioner chung. >> okay. commissioners, so the question that you've all raised is whether to actually allow more time before voting on this because you're concerned -- u your concern that you're expressing is you're not certain it is actually detrimental to move services oversight from prop q, and you would like to know if, in fact, they were able to contract for services that tloherefore allo for contract of services. commissioner loyce? >> well, in fact, the breast health, mammography, and others have moved already, we've lost

our oversight already, and that's troublesome that we don't have the public oversight. whatever vote we take today, since they've already made the move, it doesn't matter what we say. that, to me, is a bill troubling. i have stronger language, but i'm troubled, i will say. so i'm not sure what to do with this. >> from the prop q, we are required to come to understand they have told us that they are moving services from a hospital, and many months ago, they actually told us, for example, they were moving the reasonab reasonable -- renal dying sis dialysis to another location. that's what prop q requires, certain hospitals report

termination of services or changes of services. and then, these services then move to wherever they go, of course, and when there are issues that rise during the course of that movement, like, i believe has happened already in terms of, for example, the subacute care and whatnot, of certain issues that have arisen in the public are then acted upon by the administration, and they become less onerous or they become more positive for patient care at that point, but then, that's sort of the end of the question. so the proposition, the prop q is actually meant to surface these issues for the public and thin allow the public input, and there is no other authority on it. it's not like the health accountability where we actually set the parameters.

so we also have no authority to compel them to return. we can hold the hearing and -- on the issue, so we always have that power, but we don't have the power to say return at a certain time. we'll hold a hearing. if they don't return, then we can draw our own conclusions, but those are the powers we have. we have the power of inquiry, of the hearings, if you want to put, the public approach towards health care services. so that's -- so it's been argued here that that -- that it will be lost and therefore is not on behalf of the public. yet others here now have argued that perhaps that's not as important, and they would like to see that the contracts be in

order and that there is no disruption of service, so that's sort of a different question. i recognize that there are two issues on here. >> just so that -- for the record, again, it's clarified, i think what my understanding is this is really representative of a health delivery model change that is sort of sweeping across us. and there is -- there is a range of services here that are very different from each other, and the administration of which we don't know whether, in fact, under the acute care setting versus the medical foundation setting, there is a detriment to the patients. and i don't know whether over sight makes that difference. that's my point here. i would like to have heard from some patients? i would like to have heard from -- a little bit more of

the practitioners currently serving the patients. that, to me, would make, i guess, a more all rounded sort of data set by which to understand better. i do understand the over sight issue, but because i'm new to over sight from a prop q standpoint, i can't, at this point, make a definitive determination. >> okay. commissioners, further discussion? there is no further discussion, there is a motion before us. there is the ability to to call for a deferral to a time certain, but that would require a motion at this point and vote on the part of the commission. if there is no such motion and second, then we will proceed to a vote on the resolution. commissioner sanchez? >> i was going to see if our colleague has made that a

motion? >> no, i didn't hear a motion. >> >> okay. >> would that be -- >> okay. a motion is in order to make a time certain and to defer to a time certain, and then, we can discuss that. >> would -- four months? >> it's up to you. you're making the motion. >> then i would say given that the transfer occurred this month, that you've got maybe three to four months of data that we should look at before making a determination, so i would put the outside, then, at four months. >> okay. so your motion is to defer this to a time certain four months. and is there a second to that? >> second. >> there's a second to that. okay. so the discussion is on the motion for a deferral to a time certain which allows for a discussion. is there any discussion of that motion? >> commissioners, i would encourage you if you're looking

at a deferral and possible be data to specify what you're looking for, to see if the foundation can honor that. they're in the room with you, and it might be a good reality check to see if what you're thinking about looking for would be something that they can provide for you. >> well, a deferral of time certain is a deferral of the commission. it doesn't require that the foundation or anybody else says when to have it. you then have it come back up, and if you don't have the information you want, you know, you can then take further action. this is not a question, i think, in terms of that, except in the minds of the author of the deferral. >> i think i've pointed out the kinds of information that i was -- >> and you believe four months will be an adequate time to understand? >> yeah. >> okay. so it is four months at this point. so the vote on the motion for a time certain referral is before

you. all those in favor of that, please say aye. all those opposed? we shall then defer the resolution for four months. thank you. >> i apologize, but i actually want to, like, add, you know, a specific questions because it actually says here that 7500 patients are affected, and i'd like to know, like, after the transfer four months from now, where do those 7500 patients go? it's just that simple. >> thank you. i think that the purpose of obtaining the information -- and i appreciate that. commissioners, if we bring that to the attention of our staff, then, that is the information that we will be expecting at our next hearing on this. so what we have done is to postpone further discussion on this item pending further information that we are hoping to get in four months, and we will then give those thoughts

to our staff and will then have the hearing on the resolution as you have voted in four months. thank you. >> thank you very much. and appreciate the public attending 1and we will move ono the next item. >> item 11 is other business. >> commissioners, do we have other business at this point, other topics for discussion? i don't believe we have -- you have the calendar before you, and a reminder, also, about the hearing for the joint planning and health commission on september 6, which is two days after our next health commission meeting. >> and the meeting will be from 10:00 to noon. it's very specification, it ends at noon every year. >> right. can we go onto the next item, please. >> sure. item 12 is a report back from

the august 14 laguna honda joint meeting. >> commissioner sanchez? >> yeah. laguna honda joint cc meet on august 14. it was posted as a closed session regarding our reviews of the quality assurance programs and also medical certification. there was -- when we went to open session, there was nothing reported out other than what's already been approved for the -- excuse me -- the medical staff certification, which is aboard here. any additional comments? >> no. >> i guess i was going to say there has been some additional discussion about shifts in time, but given the fact that we're in the middle of our

operational year, we're going to keep the time for the laguna hont acommittee at the same time, 4:00, until -- just the fact that we're midstream at this point, but we will consider that next year if we serve on this committee. >> okay. all right. we will proceed. >> yes. item 13 is a consideration for closed session and there is no public comment request for this item. >> oh, we're having -- >> yes, a very brief closed session. >> is there a motion for a closed session? >> moved. >> second. you. >> all right. so we have come back into open session, and a motion to disclose or not disclose any of the items of the closed session is in order. >> motion not to disclose the discussion in closed session. >> second. >> and all in favor of not disclosing, please say aye. all those opposed?

we shall not disclose. are there any other items on the agenda? >> no, sir. >> seeing none other, then, a motion for adjournment is in order. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor, please say aye. this meeting is now adjourned. thank you.

>> hello, everyone! good morning. my name is london breed. i tam mayor of the city and county of san francisco and i'm happy to be here today for a really important announcement. sthau -- thank you all so much for joining us. today we are announcing additional funding to fight unlawful evictions and prevent displacement of tenants in san francisco. many of you know i've been a renter all my life and i personally know what it feels like to face housing insecurity. in fact, a couple of years ago, when i was on the board of supervisors, my building was sold and i didn't know what would happen to me and the other folks who lived in the building. we know that one of the best ways to prevent homelessness is to make sure that we keep people housed in the first place. some of us may be familiar with

the fact that almost 70% of the people who sadly live on our streets that are homeless were actually housed in san francisco. before they became homeless. that's why as president of the board of supervisors, i pushed hard to establish the right to council so that people don't have to face eviction alone. and we did not go through the process of that particular legislation since we know that proposition f was put on the ballot and overwhelmingly passed by voter and we know that proposition f did not have a funding source attached to it, i as mayor have made a commitment -- [shouting] that we would fund that -- [shouting] that we would fund that -- [shouting] and people would not have to face eviction. [chanting] the reality is our housing shortage is driving up the prices of citizens across the city.

which can incentivize evictions. you know what's really unfortunate about this situation is we're all fighting for the same thing. and today what i want to announce is that we're providing $5.8 million here in the city and county of san francisco for the right to council for residents facing eviction. in the vast majority of these proceedings, land lords have legal reasons and representation antenanlts do not. we know sadly that most tenants can't afford a lawyer and don't know where to go in the first place when they are served with an eviction notice from their landlord. as a result, too many san franciscans face eviction without knowing what their full rights are. it's not a housing policy that we want to advance in the city and currently the mayor's office of community development

spends over $7.5 million annually on eviction protection tenant outreach and education and short-term rental assistance. but these programs do not provide the full level of scope that so many people need stay in their homes. as i said earlier today, assignment proud to announce that we're investing $5.8 million to fund this program over the next two years to support legal representation for tenants facing eviction. [applause] one of the first things i did as mayor was to work to rebalance our budget to include funding for this very important program. starting in june of 2019,

tenants will now have access to full scope legal representation and be better able to prevent evictions and stay in their home. we are the first city in california and the second in the nation to institute a right to civil council for tenants. and as we work to create more housing and increase affordability for all of our residents and invest in critical tools to prevent displacement, we have to make sure that we're paying attention to everything that's going on and making the right investments. i want to thank the board of supervisors for their collaboration in securing this funding and even though he is not able to attend today, i wanted to recognize asommably member david chu who created the pilot program for legal counsel for san franciscans for civil proceedings in 2011 when he was a member of the board of

supervise source and i appreciate his advocate siz on this i believer ewe over the years. i want to thank the legal service organizations who are here with us today and will assist us in developmenting and implementing this very important program. so now with that, i'd like to turn it over to the district five supervisor, someone who has been on the front lines and an advocate for residents of district five for so many years , ladies and gentlemen, district valley supervisor brown. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. i'm valley brown, supervisor of district five. today is a good day for renters and the city. in june, of this year, the voters of san francisco asked and received right to legal council when fighting evictions. assembly member chu introduced the idea when he was on the board of supervise source.

today we celebrate this work put into place and the funding which is an absolutely important tool. thank you to the hard work and strong partnership between the mayor and board of supervisors, we were able to fund this in less than two months. [shouting] funding is very important. [shouting] it is naornlts we have a great stride to protect renters facing eviction. with the recent passed budge, we now have the necessary resources to fund eviction defense for the residents of san francisco. thank you, mayor breed, for working with the board of supervisors to ensure this critical first step in its funding. going forward, i would -- i am planning on working with my colleagues on the board of supervisors and mayor breed to invest in programs that will help people stay in their homes. and create more opportunities for affordable homeownership so the need for eviction defense

becomes a last resort. when we look at funding for rental subsidy programs that help working families and low-income residents, keeping roof over their heads, existing programs and partnerships are helping folks, but we must explore expansion funding and strengthening of existing rental subsidy programs. while also looking for new opportunities to help san francisco -- san franciscans stailz in their homes. so >> so, the next speaker we have here today, the executive director from eviction defense collaborative, martina -- are you here? >> yes. >> thank you. come on up. [applause] >> good morning. my name is martina and i'm the executive director of eviction defense collaborative. on behalf of san franciscan tenants, we thank mayor for prioritizing keeping people in their homes. we also thank the collective

advocacy of the homeless emergency services providers for their tireless efforts in securing these funds. we also thank san francisco tenants union antenanlzes togethers for their work surrounding prop f and the voters of san francisco who ensured that prop f became the law of the land. we are pleased the mayor is acting diligently to provide an immediate influx of $1.9 million to help keep san francisco tenants in their homes. we haven't seen the devastating impact the housing crisis is having in our communities for years. and we as a community have been failing to keep people in their homes. we know that evictions have been rising at a dramatic rate over the past five years. we know that land lords have been represented by attorneys at a rate of 6-to-1 compared to tenants. we know that having an attorney increases a family's chance of being evicted by over 70%. we know that being evicted from your home in san francisco means being evicted from san

francisco. our family, friends and our neighbors are being pushed out of this city. we also know that protecting tenants preserves affordable housing. unfortunately, the united states of today is a place where is how much money you have dictates your access to basic human rights, including your rights to a home. san francisco residents are saying no more. they are saying this is our city. these are our homes. and we will defend our rights. and with these funds -- [applause] >> whew! that ok right! and with these funds, mayor breed is pushing this agenda forward. she is stepping up as a leader for this movement. she is acknowledging that housing is a human right and she is commited to leveling the playing field for this city's tenants. this combined $5.8 million is a

start. while we have a ways to go, i know that i speak on behalf of all the tenant services providers when i say that we're excited to work with the mayor and city staff. we are ready and up for the task of bringing tenant right to council to san francisco. thank you. [applause] i'd like to now introduce tom drohand, supervising attorney for legal assistance to the elderly. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. i work at legal assistance to the elderly. one of the many community organizations that provide direct boots on the ground, full scope legal representation for tenants in san francisco. we've been providing free legal services for seniors for nearly 40 years. we help seniors who are victims of elder abuse. we help seniors with their social security benefits.

we help seniors preserve their health care. we help seniors with debt relief. but san francisco's current severe housing crisis now over 60% of our calls, are seniors calling for help because they're in distress because they received eviction notices. each year we receive hundreds of calls from desperate seniors threatened wtih eviction. many are low-income, long-term tenants paying low below market rents and they're falsely accused of minor lease infractions or wholly made up alleged nuisances. for them, having an opportunity represent the scouter a difference between keeping their home or being on the street. i worked in l.a. for over 25 years. for a long time i was the only housing attorney there and the hardest part of my job was telling a desperate senior that i couldn't take their case because i was already overloaded with too many cases. with this increased funding from the city, the number of cases we are able to take has

increased greatly. but there's stille a need. no one, and especially not our city's most vulnerable citizens, should lose their home because they can't afford a lawyer. [applause] when we take a case of legal assistance to the elderly, we take it to win. we aggressively litigate eviction case on behalf of our klienltzes. we take cases to trial and we win. this year we won at trial where the landlord was trying to evict our client because other members of the family were involved in an act of domestic abuse. a major land nrords san francisco was alleging that the rent ordinance that we have to protect our tenants did not alie to them. we won the case for that te nanls and also for all the other long-term seniors in that housing. we have a long history of fighting for our clients and

keeping them in our homes. this additional funding means legal assistances to the elderly and all the other tenant organizations here can help many more seniors and others keep their homes in san francisco. i'd like the introduce to you a senior who rerecently helped fight her wrongful eviction and has kept her home and is here to tell you about it. ms. wong? [applause] >> thank you. and good morning to everybody. my name is virginia wong. i came from the fill leans in 1983 and i have lived in a place -- in an apartment where i am now. my husband has been there

living since 1974. i have always paid my rents. and all of a sudden there was a problem. i didn't understand why the landlord said i owed money. i was afraid i was going to lose the small place that i am staying. so, um, -- and that means i would be leaving my small place. i would be leaving my friends. i would be leaving my church and my doctors and my friends. in the community. then i met tony at the legal assistance for the elderly. he said he would help me. i felt my darkness became

lighter. in the end, it turned out the landlord was wrong in the calculation and my attorney got the case dismissed. i also [inaudible] when i heard this and at that point it meant that i was going to be able to stay at home, which is my place. and i'm thankful for the legal assistance. that helped me. and why do we have to choose people who will live in san francisco who, after all, this is san francisco the name of the saint who was so poor but helped -- who was so rich and became poor to help everybody. thank you. [applause]

>> again, thank you and san francisco. only in san francisco. gotta love san francisco. nonl san francisco can you do something like provide $5.8 million for right to counsel to tenants facing eviction and have protesters. thank you, guys, for being here today. [applause] >> i have been living in san francisco since 1957. i live in this area for 42

years. my name is shirley jackson, and i am a retirement teacher for san francisco unified school district, and i work with early childhood education and after school programs. i have light upstairs and down stairs. it's been remodelled and i like it. some of my floors upstairs was there from the time i built the place, so they were very horrible and dark. but we've got lighting. the room seems lighter. they painted the place, they cemented my back yard, so i won't be worried about landscaping too much. we have central heating, and i like the new countertops they put in.

up to date -- oh, and we have venetian blinds. we never had venetian blinds before, and it's just cozy for me. it meant a lot to me because i didn't drive, and i wanted to be in the area where i can do my shopping, go to work, take the kids to school. i like the way they introduced the move-in. i went to quite a bit of the meetings. they showed us blueprints of the materials that they were going to use in here, and they gave us the opportunity to choose where we would like to stay while they was renovating. it means a lot. it's just that i've been here so long. most people that enjoyed their life would love to always

retain that life and keep that lifestyle, so it was a peaceful neighborhood. the park was always peaceful, and -- i don't know. i just loved it. i wanted to be here, and i stayed. planning commission regular hearing for august 23, 2018. welcome back commissioners from your summer hiatus. members of the public, if you would please silence any mobile devices that you may have and when speaking before the commission if you care to do state your name for the record. i would like to take roll at this time. [roll call taken] >> we do expect commissioner fong to arrive shortly