to boys and girls scouts centers, and clubs, so those are all things that would be -. -- negative. government-supported housing. we could go on and on. in this case, this is a pretty vibrant -- pedestrian commercial area. many times i have come before the committee and said we have a nice business plan, but it does not fit the location. we have a great operator, good business plan, but we're struggling with the location the strip -- they chose. in this case, it is the opposite. this is not a concept i would like to see all of the city, but if someone comes in with the right business plan for the right location, we are going to look at it. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. this item is still open for public comment. with any other members of the public like to comment? seeing none come forward, we

will close public comment. >> -- supervisor mar: i just wanted to, that the nine conditions makes sense to me. i did want to say that i just scanned what is online for mr. higgins' business, so i could see the physical layout of the restaurant. looks like the wine bar could be created easily. i also understand it's not a high crime area and the concentration of other businesses that serves beer and wine is a concern as the letter protest races, but i think the condition laid out address my

concerns. i also am understanding that it is sustainable jewelry kind of art store connection with wine and little bit better now. i think i will be supportive of this with the conditions, but i also agree with supervisor avalos that broader citywide perspective on the number of hall licenses and in which parts of the city would be helpful for me as we proceed instead of looking at these case by case like we are now. thank you for the work, and i will be supportive. supervisor avalos: with that, we can forward to the full board with recommendation and acceptance of the conditions. we will take that without objection. ok. great. >> thank you. supervisor avalos: ok. if you could please call item

four. that item four, resolution authorizing the municipal transportation agency to accept and expend a grant from the state transportation development act article 3 funds totaling $696,000 including $341,000 for the department of public works and $355,000 for various pedestrian and bicycle projects in san francisco in fiscal year 2011-2012. >> thank you. i am the manager of finance, budget, and performance at the department of public works. before you is our annual tda article 3 application. each year, it is a joint application between the mta and dpw for bicycle and pedestrian projects. it is a relatively small amount of money, as you can see, that

comes to us. the department of public works portion is used for sidewalk repairs around dpw responsibility sidewalks, and for design and planning activities in our curve ramp program. both of these programs have quite a few other funding sources as well. mta is using this for bicycle projects. for a number of years, they were not able to apply for the funds because of the court injunction. their bicycle program is up and running. and representatives from the mta are here to answer questions as well as project managers from dpw. i'm happy to answer any questions that i can. supervisor avalos: ok, maybe briefly, if you could just talk about the general scope of the work specific to these moneys

and where they will be. i'm sure is general all over the city, but if you could describe that. >> it is. with the curb ramp program, we have an americans with disabilities act transition plan that lays out the order and priorities for curve brands throughout the city -- curb ramps throughout the city. the plan has been in effect for a number of years. we have been constructing -- i think this year, we are constructing around 2000 throughout the city. largely with general fund money. this money we used to do design for ramps then constructed with prop k sales tax money. then, the other thing we use it for is maintenance of our

database. that is what is helping us track to make -- to set priorities, figure out where they still need to be constructed, where we have curve revs not in compliance with the latest code, essentially. the sidewalk money is used to respond to particular places where there are trip and fall plans. if somebody has an accident on a street on a sidewalk, it is the responsibility of dpw, we tried to get out there and repair the lifting or the cracking that caused the accident as soon as possible. obviously, a second accident at the same place that we have not taken care of can be much more costly in terms of plans. i think oliver probably can best describe how mta is using the

bicycle funds. he is on his way up now. supervisor avalos: sure. thank you for your presentation. >> good morning. regarding the portion going to the transportation development act, he comes every year. and she was not eligible for several years due to the bike in junction. one of the requirements is to have an improved environmental review. we do have approved environmental review for the right plan. the project identified with the pipeline would be eligible for these funds. the specific projects -- there are several projects coming down the line right now. some of the projects that have not been installed yet that these funds could potentially go to, and i say potentially because we're moving quite quickly, and the landscape for bicycle projects is changing quite rapidly as conjunctions are lifted. some of the outstanding projects are projects like

second, fifth, van ness -- those are some of the projects that have not been installed yet. some of the other emerging work we're doing in bicycle parking in relationship to bicycle sharing, so one of the key things is the environmental clearance act to be in place. would have to be something identified with any bicycle plan. we are setting this projects, and the second thing would be that the project that are caltrans approved for the design manual. those of the stipulations, to ensure this project are eligible because of the two restrictions to the fund. supervisor avalos: ok, anything in district 11 that is being planned with these funds? that at this time, i cannot say specifically because of the pot of money we're using.

i cannot say specifically. for the facility money, however, the safety money is used again throughout the whole city, so there would probably be saved the money occurring in your 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 proces. 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