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 without objection, that motion will be rescinded.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 on the other issue as well. that will be taken care of very soon. i appreciate it. that you take into consideration that we are experiencing hardships. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on

this item? at this time, unless anybody has additional comments, why do we not consider this item officially closed? i would suggest that there are a number of individuals that have this. we could go out to the hallway. for the next few minutes, if you could have some private conversations with these individuals and we will call these items later on when they are resolved. colleagues, if we could continue item 35 until later on in the meeting and the move on to item 36. >> this was considered by the public safety committee. the public recommended an item to the board in a committee report. this would increase the maximum fine for loitering and carrying

a concealed weapon. this is on municipal transportation zones and in boss -- bus zones. >> i like to thank you for your consideration of this legislation. many of you know that muni is a top priority for many of us. safety of our transportation routes has then a top priority. we know that there are many efforts under way to deal with the issue of improving public safety on mta transit lines. i do want to thank the leadership for their work on those issues. the of -- the proposal before you today is a proposal that will only solve one component or be part of the multi-pronged

approach. the legislation would increase the fines and penalties for two types of crimes on vehicles including buses, cars, a transit stations. the increased fines do comply with state laws that do regulate the types of penalties that we can impose. the proposal would create or increase the maximum allowable fines and penalties for two areas. one is the area of aggressive pursuit. that is the repeated following or harassment of another person. you could loiter walt carrying concealed weapons to the transit station. we do hope that the message that dissent today is one that make sure that people know that public transportation and safety on our public transportation safety routes is of utmost importance to us. i do want to thank our members

for providing the feedback for these ideas. thanks to the city attorneys for helping us work on this. and thanks to our co-sponsors of the legislation. david chiu, dufty, and mirkarimi. thank you very much for the consideration. >> supervisor daly. a couple of sections of the -- questions about sections 122 and 123. i am wondering if we have an analysis of the arrests. i am interested in the demographics of those who have been arrested and convicted. >> i do not see a representative of the mta here.

do you know if this data is available? >> i thank you for your question. we do not have the representative from the police department to answer your questions. we will try to get that to you before our next vote. >> i am wondering, is there anything being done in order to engage if there are communities that are disproportionately being charged or convicted under these sections if we have specific efforts around violence and crime prevention in this package? >> i thank you again, supervisor daily -- daly, for your

question. this is with the help of many other organizations. they have been working with the mta in partnership to make sure we are doing a couple of things. we are engaging the community in creating and escort program that would help have safeway's of package for many ways of the community. there is work that can curb violence and to make sure we are creating opportunities for youth and those who may be potentially part of this legislation. i will say that this legislation goes towards the back and. these are the penalties related to two things. one is aggressive pursuit. that is the malicious following of a person. also carrying a concealed

weapon. our laws are not able to trump the state laws. we make sure that we just targeted at specific areas. in the legislation, we did have a section where we talked about, i'd be penalties or the crimes were found to be sustained by a court of law for individuals under the age of 18, that the board of supervisors would prefer having community placement or service as an option for the courts to consider as well. >> let me say this. a couple of things. my guess, based on general statistics, is that there are populations in particular that are probably disproportionately going to be charged or convicted under these sections. my guess is that we are talking

about some sort of cross section between the communities of color. specifically, the african- american community and the low income communities of san francisco. we have an issue in the city and the country that we have racial and economic injustice reflected in our justice system. it is a very difficult issue. i appreciate the safe passage thing. when we're talking about programming in communities that are disadvantaged, that our populations that are more likely to end up in jail or in prison

if we're not trying to correct that wrong at the same time, then i am not for it. if we had justice and racial equality across class's, -- classes, i would probably be toughest of law breakers. in the system, where we increase penalties that are going to be applied against communities of color disproportionately and specifically the african- american community and low income people. i am not down with it. i do not think the evidence is out there that increasing penalties reduces crime or make people safer. i think what it does is that it continues the cycle of injustice

that we have that makes us on safe in the first place. i am the only one without a political future. i do not care if someone puts a piece of mail about that i am letting it nice little old ladies get mugged. i think we need a different vision in this country. if is not want to come from san francisco, where is it going to come from? >> it is a rhetorical question. one that requires no answer. >> any additional discussion? supervisor chu: thank you for your comments. many of your points are well taken. i will say that the legislation sets a maximum, not a minimum. it provides for