Staff: CPMC generally compliant with development agreement for 2019–2020; community calls for action on service cuts

San Francisco planning and health staff told joint hearings that Sutter Health’s California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is generally in compliance with its 2013 development agreement for the 2019 and 2020 reporting periods, but community members and labor representatives urged stricter follow‑up on service reductions and neighborhood commitments.

Elizabeth Pearl, Planning Department staff, said the development agreement required annual compliance reports and that staff would forward a compliance determination for independent third‑party review and eventual Board of Supervisors notice. Pearl noted Sutter completed required public‑benefit payments in 2017 and that staff would recommend the directors find CPMC in compliance for 2019–2020.

The Department of Public Health reviewed health commitments in Exhibit F. Gretchen Polley said CPMC exceeded the community‑benefit threshold in 2019 and 2020 and that Deloitte verified charity‑care and community‑benefit figures. She reported CPMC cared for 35,246 unduplicated charity or medical patients in 2019 but 28,900 in 2020; the DA permits a two‑year rolling average, which DPH said makes 2020 technically compliant.

Despite staff findings, callers in the public‑comment period described ongoing harms. Hannah Mulder, a midwife at Mission Bernal, said closures and relocations have forced patients to travel farther for prenatal and birthing care and diminish culturally familiar services in low‑income neighborhoods. Multiple callers described the closure or limited admission policies of hospital‑based subacute skilled‑nursing beds and urged the city to require CPMC to admit and retain such patients locally.

Family members and advocates said CPMC closed specialized rehabilitation and aquatic therapy programs that served elders and disabled residents. Raquel Rivera and others described patients transferred out of county; union and community speakers urged the commissions to investigate access to transport subsidies, local hiring outcomes and whether workers had received promised transportation benefits.

CPMC representatives, unmuted for questions, said consolidation and temporary service relocations (including moving inpatient labor and delivery from Mission Bernal to Van Ness) were pandemic responses intended to preserve isolation capacity and hospital readiness. Warren Browner of CPMC said prenatal outpatient services continue at Mission Bernal and that reopening inpatient services depends on the pandemic’s course and system‑level capacity needs.

DPH acknowledged the relocation occurred without the DA’s six‑month notice requirement and identified that as a noncompliance point; staff said they are actively engaging CPMC to understand impacts and to seek restoration plans. Commissioners asked DPH and CPMC to clarify reopening criteria, patient outreach about shifted services, and how the city will monitor and verify CPMC’s self‑reported data.

The hearing closed with multiple commissioners urging ongoing attention to subacute‑care capacity, Tenderloin Medi‑Cal enrollment, transportation benefits for workers and completion of neighborhood obligations such as Guerrero Plaza.