district. 10% of the overall ask -- 5% of the overall ask, 10% of the bicycle fortune can go on to bicycle safety projects. supervisor avalos: ok, that is great. just as we look at implementing our by plan -- i know we are looking at city-wide, but i offered to see that a great deal of the resources go in the center part of the city, and a few would go out towards excelsior and son said, and to the extent that we are able to prioritize and make more things happen out that way, i think we will be getting our goals of being a transit-first city. to the extent i want to encourage you to do that, i would love to see that. >> ok, thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. we will open this up to public comment -- or, supervisor, do you have questions?

supervisor mar: i was going to, on that. looks like the repair for sidewalks and disability improvement programs are based on analysis and prioritizing of the areas that need it the most, and also in conjunction with the mayor's office of disability. i know that a number of improvements i have been seeing already on different -- in different recorders, but my hope is that the neighborhoods with the most need are considered first, and it looks like that is the process. and then, for the mta proposals, it looks like it is based on input from a number of community-based organizations. i am guessing the bicycle coalition and other groups. my hope is that the jfk drive improvements, which i think the mayor committed to, and other city officials, to finishing by the end of the year, is a dedicated right lane. my hope is that that gets completed. i'm not sure if these funds are going to the specific project, but that would be my hope as

well. i appreciate the work on this and in glad that the environmental analysis is done and that the lawsuit is behind us so that we can move forward on these big bike lane improvements in the city. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you for your presentation. we will open this up for public comment. three minutes. seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. this item we can move forward with recommendations. ok, so done. please call item 5. >> item 5, resolution authorizing the department of public health and san francisco general hospital to retroactively accept and expend a federal pass-through state grant in the amount of $999,999 from the california emergency management agency to support san francisco general hospital's non-structural retrofit activities for february 15,

2011, through february 14, 2014. supervisor avalos: thank you. anyone from dph? just a brief summary on the item. >> thank you, good morning. in the executive project manager at san francisco facilities, and we are trying to complete one of the last pieces of seismic upgrades to the hospital through this grant acceptance. it will raise equipment inside the service building as well as utilities running from the facility to the existing hospital. supervisor avalos: ok. you have already started work on this. is that correct? looks like february 15 was the start date, or is that when the grant was approved? >> that is when the grant was

approved. we have not yet started -- supervisor avalos: because you have not received it yet. >> we have not yet received your approval. >> i did not actually see a retroactively accept and expend, so i was wondering about that. very good. thank you. we want to make sure the project is going to be successful and move forward. i expect that we will be approving it, but first, we will have public comment. we can open this item up for public comment period and a member of the public who would like to comment on this item, please come forward. >> good morning. i used to work at san francisco general hospital for 20 years. when i took a look at this item this morning, what caught my eye was the dollar amount.

i thought it was interesting that it is only $1 but not to dollars short of $1 million. according to my previous experience, it seems when you are dealing with $1 or $2 short of an actual limit, there is always the slight chance that this might be an example of what they called voodoo economics, which is open to translation, depending on who is practicing. what also caught my eye was that it mentions waiting in direct costs -- waiving indirect costs. an inexperienced person like myself does not know what that means or how much is actually involved. i would like to bring that issue forward for possible explanation. the third thing i would like to focus on is it mentions non-

structural seismic retrofit. what i thought about that this morning, i was wondering -- is that open to manipulation by the people that have control of these funds? the reason why i bring up the idea of possible manipulation is yesterday afternoon, i was at a gathering on folsom st., and i was very impressed by the discussion of transparency, especially by a certain labor speaker. i am just trying to translate that feeling of transparency because i would in a certain sense think that we should explain what non structural seismic retrofit is and compare it to what an actual retrofit is. the reason why i bring that up is because since the bond issue is such a large amount of the

house bill, one would think that it will be covered by the bond issue, so we are going to go for $999,999, that seems to me that that is money that maybe deliberately deleted from the bond issue and somehow put into this item so as to avoid public scrutiny. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. this item we can move forward with recommendation. okay, without objection. if you could please call our next item. >> item 6, resolution approving the community needs assessment developed by the department of children, youth, and their families in accordance with section 16.108 of the san francisco charter. supervisor avalos: we have the director and staff from dcyf.

welcome. >> thank you. what we want to do today is present a very quick overview of our findings from the 2011 community needs assessment. of course, seeking your approval of the report, which will then allow us to move into our second stage of our planning process. i actually have our staff here, our senior policy analyst, who was in charge of the needs assessment for this year, and she will walk through all of the high level findings with you. >> thank you, and good morning. this is the first year of our three-year planning process, so the goal was to assess the needs of children, youth, and their families across san francisco, and that will lead to the next phase, which is the next. this is purely focused on needs.

our approach was twofold. a mixed method approach, one looking at demographic and administrative data as well as collecting primary data about community perspectives and what the needs are. in terms of the demographic data, we are fortunate to have the 2010 census, the first round of data available in march. unfortunately, we do not have all the data available yet in terms of the details about specific numbers of children in each age group, neighborhood, and other demographics, but we do have some high level findings. our approach together -- gathering community perspectives was kind of a multiple tubes strategy. we had 19 community meetings. several different meetings with parents and use city-wide grooves, met with a variety of city wide service providers. we also have focus groups with harder to reach populations, and then conducted a series of

surveys to gather input from community organizations, high- school students, and public school principals. our main findings, again from the 2010 census, the biggest finding is that the number of youth has declined. 5000 less since the 2010 census, where's the bureau had predicted that there would be a growth of about 10,000. again, we are anxious to get more detailed information to understand what each group -- what demographics were really impacted by that shift, especially in terms of the number of families, which is data we do not currently have. we organize our findings in a different age categories, so we look at ages 0 to 5, and we look at the kindergarten to eighth grade age population, and in high school and populationyouth -- high school and older youth. i will briefly go through findings and leave time for questions. see ratified, the big funding from both the administrative

data as well as community input is barely care and education or child care programs continue to be a big need. preschool programs and parents looking for support to help them be able to prepare their students for kindergarten once they enter. issues of access, affordability, and quality continued to be concerned in terms of early care and education. looking at the next age population, a kindergarten to eighth grade or ages six to 13, what we heard from the community in concessions was after-school programs continue to be a need, although our administrative data shows we're doing a good job meeting that need, but there seems to be a big gap in terms of summer programming for the population, and that was something we heard time and time again through the community input process. there are also some concerns are around peer to peer relationships in terms of bullying and respecting each other. moving on to the older youth -- supervisor avalos: on bullying,

does the school district have a policy and programming -- policy and program, or is it school by school and implemented by teachers? >> the district has some district wide initiatives in terms of adopting different curriculums and approaches to creating a positive school climate, such as caring school communities and other efforts such as that, and each school typically has a kind of approach on that as well. they rely on the california health and kids survey, which asks questions each year to gauge how things are happening at school level in terms of which populations are being most impacted, which age groups, that sort of thing. book districtwide and schoolwide approaches. -- both districtwide and school what approaches. supervisor mar: i was going to ask, sometimes anti- discrimination lessons are important. i do not think i have been to a school where bullying was not one of their top priority issues, but what kind of

specific curriculum is used in after-school programs? >> at each site has a different approach. about 65 programs that the district of ministers. most of them use what is called the tribe curriculum, which is really about creating those caring relationships and communities within the program. that would be probably the most broadly used. supervisor mar: i'm learning firsthand how mean girl behavior is part of bullying, based on my child's experience, and as a parent to try to work with her. even the after-school program. i still think there needs to be a broader city-wide or school district wide effort that really uses models that make sense for the different sites under the conditions and different communities. i was also going to ask about, from the pre-k or first to 5,

are nutrition programs and through a key part of this? i know that as budget cuts impacted some key child centers, they were cutting out more of the nutritious food. are those issues for these two different age groups? >> they were issues that rose to the forefront to our soliciting input about what needs are. in terms of the child-care programs and after-school programs, we know our partners fund, nutrition and providing healthy food and healthy snacks is typically a requirement. there are some federal, state, and local and federal funding streams to help support the in a lot of after-school and child- care programs, so it is something that is always at the forefront. it was not something that grows as a particular need in this process. moving on to the older age group, again, looking at mostly high-school students and the disconnected traditional age population, we heard loud and

clear one of the biggest needs was for employment and training opportunities, which runs the continue of apprenticeships, in trichet, job training to actual work placements and work-based learning. that was something we heard with particular emphasis on the transitional ag youth population. also in this category, a big concern around mental health issues. this is developmentally kind of the time when a lot of mental health in terms of interpersonal relationships and other things kind of bring up, and i know our school district is particularly interested in terms of cyber bullying for this age population. violence was also mentioned. our last population was looking at families --

supervisor mar: one question. i know we recently did an in memoriam for high school youth who committed suicide, and the rippling effects from his school and copycat behavior. i just wondering -- what are the trends in older youth, that age group, suicides, and what protocol are we using to address that so that we are learning through the process and really trying to reduce that? supervisor avalos: i have heard about it through various connections to the schools throughout the district as well. it just reverberated throughout. having a good plan to respond. i think there has been a good plan to respond. >> in terms of response, will work closely with the school district to support the wellness center is at the high schools, and they do a lot of writing services, but including support groups and groups for different

populations and a lot of referral to other resources in terms of counseling. there's a big focus on mental health needs of the high-school students. the district does rely on in the california health taste survey. there are questions that relate to screening for depression and thoughts of depression and thought of suicide. i think it has remained relatively stable, but it is constantly concerned and priority. >> for this reason suicide i know there is a trend in high- pressure academic high schools and how it affects their entire family as well. >> particularly for a lowell high school, they are starting with stress free events. having bell this center staff and mental health staff, and

either have all day, school wide event to help young people deal with the stress of private -- graduating, but i also know that this that has also gone into each of the classrooms to make sure that all of the students are aware of the different services. that was in direct response of what happened to that young person. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> the population, families with children, we are interested in having details in the 2010 census on this. there are about 61,000 families with children. we did look at specific populations in terms of low- income, as well as those with special needs involved in various public systems. what we heard is that families

of all income levels struggle with the high cost of living in san francisco, which was a high -- which was a theme throughout. support groups, for parents, glasses on services available and languages in formats that were available. we also heard about the impact of violence throughout the community, mental health kept coming up. it could have a lot to do with the economic climate and stresses on individual family units at this time. those were the main findings. i can answer any questions if you have any specifics. supervisor avalos: how has the funding change for families and family support services? there was a reduction based on

community development block grant monies. what has been done in place of that? is the city going to back fill any of that loss of funding? >> we have made the commitment to continue all of our funding for family resource center is. we believe strongly, particularly after these findings, supporting family's is key to keeping social support intact for the city. we are not proposing any reductions to current providers. we do know that perhaps some of our partners might be undergoing funding pressures in terms of funding from the state and the mayor's office, holding some of our dollars for potential state reductions so that we can

backfill child care services and family resource center is. once again, these are the areas that we feel are crucial for supporting families in the city. supervisor avalos: as far as loss of funding, something that is not being planned, correct? >> i cannot speak for the city, but it is something you would have to ask the mayor's office. in terms of planning, we are working very closely with the human services agency, as these are the departments that currently fund the family resource center is. for those three departments, we are working closely but partners to make sure that current funding levels will stay whole. particularly for next year. supervisor avalos: i know that the family resource center has a good approach to meeting the diversity in san francisco.

what about working with same-sex parent families? >> we have one family resource center that is specific to lgbtq families. that particular center is run by the families coalition. once again, we are proposing that to the mayor's office. supervisor avalos: thank you both for the great report. i would like you to comment on this policy debate that has been going on. we have had limited resources and been trying to serve not just the most vulnerable families. looking at struggling, middle- class families that are trying hard to make ends meet.

there is preschool and trying to be more flexible about other things, but i will just ask, with limited resources, how do you plan to deal with that policy dilemma? >> dcys is mandated by the charter to be universal, in theory. we have funding programs for all of the services in the city, but we do have policies imbedded for allocation plans that ask us and require us to mandate or target services to highest need populations in high as need neighborhoods. within our own policy documents, we have outlined what those are, based on needs assessments, an index that we worked closely to develop with service agencies. so, based on that information, it is how we make our allocation

plan. i realize the san francisco went through their planning process and during that time it was determined that preschool for all initiative was to be universal. we were not going to be means tested. we believed in the framework and the idea that we would want to blend child care programs with children of all economic status. because we believe that it was and is the best practice. making sure that all of our children will learn and grow together. supervisor avalos: i am concerned that despite peerage in terms of preschool programs universally, there are kids that are low-income on the waiting list with access to funds and funding not being available. you have to wonder, if we do have a universal program for

kids from very low income families who are not able to get into preschool, but it is not universal. a way to assess that, whether it is the right policy, we can apply a universal child care program across all of our different populations based on their income. but the scale might be more effective in making sure that low-income families do not fall on the waiting list with programs that are universally applied. >> i agree. i think that the questions you are raising are particularly important, especially during the economic downturn that we have right now. i think that a conversation around how many slots we have

available for high as need families, and the other part of this, the quality of those slots. i think we're the psa initiative came in -- i think that where the psa initiative came in initially, i know that some commissioners have different opinions on this, but it was not to expand and increase slots. it was built upon available and existing slot. i would love to engage in a conversation about how we more effectively use funding for child care throughout the city so that we can make sure that we increase the number of slots, but also improve quality. i think that cassandra, in her leadership, has done just that, where we worked very closely with the school district and said that you have earned the

funding that goes into the programs. so, if we work together to leverage those dollars, building upon the school district dollars so that we can increase the loss and qualities of those slots. because at the end of the day one of the findings in the report is that only 57% of the can of artists are actually entering kindergarten ready. that is not ok. we have a huge problem in terms of quality and the number. i know that my peers would miss them under your leadership further. supervisor avalos: thank you. i appreciate your comments in your presentation. i know that deep down in your heart you wish that our society really cared about kids. based on the ways that we make decisions that on funding in all

levels of government, i think it be better at the local level. i am glad that we have folks like you doing the work. providers who are making these really difficult decisions about how we spend our resources. thank you for that. we will go on to public comment. we are open for public comment on item #6. seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. this item we can move forward with recommendations and without objection. madam clerk, could you please call our last item? >> item number 7. ordinance amending san francisco transportation code, division i, by amending section 7.2.30 to establish a two hour maximum time limit for parking at inoperable or broken parking meters for on-street parking, and adding section 7.2.65 to establish a two hour maximum

time limit for parking at inoperable or broken parking meters for off-street parking. supervisor avalos: welcome. >> good morning. thank you for hearing this item this morning. we are here before you to change the policy for the city as we are implementing sf park. we are experimenting with time limits in certain areas that have no time limits at all. one of the issues we have identified it is the fact that if we are to do that, there could be broken meters with parking for more significant abou