it would be really wonderful if peop÷ if people in san francisco have access to those services before they broke the law. we do not. we do not provide assisted outpatient treatments for people before they break the law. that is a very important distinction. people with severe mental illness, it is a degenerative disease. if you are not treated properly, you keep getting sicker. laura's law gives us the tools so that if they do need mandatory medicine, they get it. that is essentially what we are doing. we are taking a program that works, much like los angeles's pilot program. the behavioral courts are pilot

programs. we integrate it into the way we do business in san francisco. so much attention on the issue of homelessness and on affordable housing. it is interesting that we do not pay that much attention to the sickest of our sick. that very small percentage of the population that is suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar disease. we have heard from people against it. i have heard many more people in favor of it. the people at the hospital have been very vocal. the director of city-wide case management forensic program, judge morgan runs the behavioral court system.

the national association of mental illness. the san francisco police department psychiatric coordinator, the california psychiatric association, this is not something that has been taken lightly. people are not sitting back and saying, why do we not just give this a try? these are people that are very invested in this. we have a great need in san francisco for this. i think that supervisor dufty is on the roster. i would like to give him an opportunity to speak. supervisor dufty: there was an article in sunday's chronicled offered by three psychologists who were on the california psychiatric association reform task force. as physicians, they talk about

the fact that given the tendency towards the examples of inappropriate psychiatric treatment, we should not give doctors the final say about involuntary psychiatric treatment. medication would be voluntarily administers. the person cannot be hospitalized for a severe mental illness. a legal hearing must be held while the person is hospitalized to determine if the criteria for laura's law are met. after the person is released, and stops taking medication and begins to relapse, that person can be brought back to the hospital for reassessment. and they refuse to take medication, the psychologists can call another hearing to make an informed decision to review.

the second hearing is reviewed. only if the hearing officer does not recognize the stopping medication led to the relapse ken medication be given in voluntarily. if they're worried that this will mean delays in treatment for many people of mental illness. laura's law is a giant step in the right direction. the people that i have talked to here that our family members were known to me because they have been here during the budget process. i believe that many of them felt that the answers to their family member's needs were in the jail and that is not where it should be. this is an opportunity to create an avenue for individuals not to be in our jails so that they can receive treatment. they should not be in jails in

our justice system. >> any further discussion, colleagues? supervisor alioto-pier: given the feeling of the head of our own health department, we need to work through some of the details in more detail. i am sure you are always open to more conversations on this. colleagues, perhaps we can send this back to committee, where we can work through some of the comments that have been made here today and we could come back in the fall with something that people feel more comfortable with. >> any discussion on that motion? without objection. this item will be referred back to committee. next item, please. >> item 20. the ordinance amending the code

to establish public safety and public health training programs for san francisco unified school district high school students. >> colleagues, could we take a roll-call vote on item 20? >> supervisor avalos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor chu: aye -- supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. the -- >> this ordinance passes. >> this is the extended hours permits. >> can we do the same? without objection.

this ordinance is finally passed. >> item 22, the third amendment between the city and the third estates oil. this would extend the term for 1 year. >> this resolution is adopted. >> this recognizes the contract health administration and the purchaser with the organization. this is for a term of july 31, 2010 through june 30, 2011. >> this resolution is adopted. >> item 24. it authorizes the mayor's housing to expand under certain conditions in the amount of $2.8 million for on-site affordable renting housing units at harrison street. >> this resolution is adopted.

item 25. >> accept and spend a grant of approximately $417,000 for a replacement project. >> this item is approved. the resolution adopted. item 26. >> the resolution retroactively approving an amendment to provide property management services at the direct access to housing site. this would increase the contract amount by $25 million. >> this resolution is adopted. item 27. >> the resolution declaring the attention of the board of supervisors to renew the mission street business improvement district to be known as the miracle mile business improvement district. >> this resolution is adopted. item 28. >> it is an ordinance

authorizing the department of the varmint to expend a grant for the talks -- toxic substances control and amending the annual salary ordinance to reflect the addition of one the grand-funded position. supervisor chu: there is one amendment i would like to make to the legislation. the legislation was created a while ago. the reference refers to last year. the test not reflect the current year that was passed by the board. i would like to make an amendment to adjust page one, line seven to reflect the ordinance number instead of 183- 09. that is on page three, line three. >> supervisor chiu has made a motion. seconded by supervisor mar.

the motion passes. can we take the underlying ordinance? without objection, this ordinance is passed on first me -- first reading as amended. >> the judge of the superior court on recommendations. the civil grand jury report entitled the americans with disabilities act in san francisco. supervisor alioto-pier: last week we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. this reminds us that important work still lies ahead. the civil grand jury issued its report on whether the city is in compliance with the ada. there were great successes. the city will repair many curbs in our city. our commitment to improving the public right of way has remained

strong, even though the budget turned down. the disability council review this report. their active involvement keeps the city focus on these issues. i am pleased with the supervisor's involvement. the continued to assist 7 siskins with disabilities. i hope the mayor'as budget director will consider the recommendation to the grand jury to make sure the office is appropriately staffed. the city attorney was asked to respond and they said that they would do so confidentially to the board for 60 days following the entry in a lawsuit. i do not fall the city attorney. i would say that the city must take into account the consequences and we must assess the legal risks sooner rather than later.

the city family will work together to ensure access and make sure we can do that through the legislative process. let me thank supervisor mar and the government and oversight committee for its work on this. i would ask that we adopt this resolution. this relies on the department of public works as the board of supervisors's official response to the report. >> supervisor mirkarimi. any additional conversation? can we take this item? this resolution is adopted. i understand that supervisor avalos would like to recall item 26. >> i would like to rescind the the vote on item 26. there was an item we were supposed to make in committee that we did not make. >> supervisor avalos has made a motion to rescind.

without objection, that motion will be rescinded. >> the motion is based on the recommendation from the budget analyst. it is to reduce the not to exceed agreement to increase to $300,743 from $10,575,000. to $10,270,900. a total of 70,031,318. -- $70,031,318. >> that this accounted by supervisor maxwell. can we take that without objection? the motion passes. on the underlying resolution,

can we do that? the resolution is adopted as amended. >> item 30, in directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct a review of practices and resources that would allow aging adults to live in their homes and communities independently. >> can we take this? this motion is approved. >> item 31 is from the government audit and oversight committee. it is directing the budget analyst to have early oversight of trauma care and educational programs. supervisor alioto-pier: colleagues, i am asking you to support this motion to add the children and their families to the audits less. i would like every department to be a regular cycle of auditing. the board ruled says that it should be the policy and every city program be a part of the

audit at least once every eight years. the department of children and their families had not been audited. after i introduced the motion that supervisor dufty introduced, we passed a resolution asking the comptroller to assess the process. the report found that although there is only an 11% increase in all concerned, the youngest children will see a 55% reduction. marion -- the mayor proposed a reduction in the human services agency that would relate to the youngest children. this audit is timely and it will focus on the energies of the youngest kids. it is consistent with our rules. we will assess how these programs linked up with the public programs. we on the that ensuring access to health care for our young children is how we detect any

health care conditions early. this is an area where the of study determining how we can do as much as possible for our young children. i would like to thank the budget office for their help. the budget analyst office is here to answer any questions. thank you. >> any additional discussion? i did have one question for the budget analysts. could you discuss some of the committee discussion as to whether this is something that we should do? >> in terms of its coming out of committee without recommendation, they speak best to this. there was a recommended resolution. we did provide a report to the committee. looking at the dcyf management.

we are also looking at the interdepartmental practices. >> thank you. supervisor daily. supervisor daly: i think that the supervisor was unable to appear in committee. without the sponsor having representation in committee, i moved to forward without recommendation. my question in committee was that if there was anything particular lurk around children or family services that caught the attention of the sponsor or the budget or management issue. there has not ben and all that -- been an audit of many departments in san francisco. if there is a particular problem in the delivery of

services or whether this just has not been audited. >> supervisor alioto-pier. >> thank you, president. >> the supervisor was at the meeting speaking on her behalf. it has been narrowed down, the focus on early childhood education so that it is not a full audit. the budget analyst has worked with the supervisor's office to make sure that the narrowly tailored audit will focus on early childhood education. >> thank you. i just want to speak to the committee actions. we did send it out without

recommendation because of a lot of support. there was a scheduling conflict in regards to the amendment. you would have this before you today. it would be given consideration. the budget analyst has made available what the revised scope would be. that is tailored to deal with the young children. >> thank you. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: 4 whenever it is worth, based on the number that had to be made to this department, it seems that this kind of review would be appropriate. i do not think we bedews anything by having this audit. it makes sense that it be targeted and narrow. i would be supportive of this.

>> since we're looking at the early childhood education aspect of this, i wonder a bank that makes sense to look at the first five. it deals with the 0-5 age group. there is a lot of crossover in terms of policy and funding. i do not think it is possible to look at one without the other. i have concerns about cuts that have been made to these departments that make it difficult to carry out their missions. they are experiencing the decline in tobacco funds. we will see that the client continue over the next few years. the services they have been providing are going to get squeezed.

how are we going to make sure that the first five services for the young children are going to get continue? that is a big problem we are facing as a city. we have a lot of families that continue to have children that we have to be able to address. it is a good idea to broaden the scope to include the first five as well. and to make it broader to the early childhood education deal. the human services agency, they are also playing a role in the early childhood education field. we could have a broad look at the services and the departments to provide those services for children of an early age. i would like this to go beyond this. >> he is here from the budget

analyst office. could you tell us what supervisor avalos just suggested? >> the amended resolution would cover it all ready. on the second page of the resolution, it states that the budget analysts be directed to evaluate the department of children, youth, and their families. the human services agency, the department of public health and other city departments are necessary. when we work with the sponsor of the resolution, we did not consider an evaluation. >> there is no additional language that needs to be included? >> we believed it would be within the scope.

>> thank you. >> i was going to answer that question. >> any additional discussion? could we take this item? without objection. this notion is approved. >> investment properties to occupy a portion of the public. >> same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. item 33. >> the resolution adopting findings under the california water quality act for the habitat migration activities. >> this resolution is adopted. if we could call our 3:00 special order, items 34 and 35. >> the board of supervisors has agreed to sit as a committee as

a whole for items 34 and 35. a resolution on the reports on delinquent charges. >> colleagues, today we set as a committee as a whole to consider the means on assessment of cost. i would like to open the hearing at this time. i would like to ask if there is a representative to present what i understand is an amendment -- amended set of delinquent charges. then we will see if there are members of the public who wish to speak to this item. >> good afternoon, members of the board. this is the 16th year that the department has come before you. previously sent to you was a report of charges in july 12, 2010. prior to these hearings, they

have had two in-house hearings. the department appreciates your support in approving the delinquent charges for the tax code. this is an important cost recovery tool for the department. i would also like to thank our support staff for their time. president chiu: any questions? at this time, let me ask if there are members of the public who wish to speak to this item. each speaker will have up to two minutes each. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to propose a solution. there is a problem with the way that notices are being sent out. i received this order of abatement back on december 3, 2009. the department claims that they

have posted the notice on november 17. my time for appeal was on november 27. they said the notices to an old address. i notified the office. because of the city's backlog, they never changed it. on december 8, i filed for a notice of appeal with the abatement board. they returned my check and rejected my appeal, saying that it was not done in a timely manner. with the backlog of the city and changing the appropriate address. i would like to send this issue back to the appeals board. i could have this issue heard. i would like you to notice this in the certified mail.

they did not send it to my correct address until december 3. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak to this issue? step to the microphone. >> i am opposed to that. i am here. i received a notice regarding a lien to be placed on my mom's property. i believe you guys had a hearing date on july 7. i called and left a message. i let somebody in the inspector's office know that i would be out of the country. my mom is 80 years old, so she was unable to attend. i am a little bit confused. there were some items that were

corrected. i do not know if the amount is even correct. i could figure out how to get that rectified. i appreciate that. >> are there other members of the public who would like to speak to this? i would suggest for staff, if you think it would make sense for a quick conversation with these individuals, let us know, otherwise we can adopt the report as recommended. >> i am president of the residents' association. i am very happy that this is being brought up. one of the things we have done since the department of building inspection has initiated the code enforcement violations, one of the things we have been dealing with in our neighborhood, and there are three properties that the

building inspection put liens on the properties with the community. we do support this and look forward to it's passage. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak as part of this hearing? please step up to the microphone. you can speak. >> i received a notice that they were going to put a lien on one of my properties. i have been experiencing a number of partnerships. -- hardships. i am currently working