the department of public health was supposed to particularly protect the public's health near the to the limit. nearby residents began complaining of high levels of dust and resulting health problems. there are numerous hearings due to the residents' concerns, yet the department of public health always diminished complaints and reassured the residents that their concerns were overblown. as a resident, i was concerned about the monitoring process and the apparent dismissal of the request for tests for toxins, particularly the most vulnerable young children. the presence of airborne asbestos is particularly prevalent. eventually, the plan was approved by the san francisco board of supervisors. now we have evidence that the very agency, the department of public health, that is supposed to be protecting, was collaborating with the the developer, lennar. this was -- all responsible parties must be held accountable immediately. the city must recognize its role in affecting the public health and safety. the many small children in bayview-hunters point are having held a protest. we must be ab

on improving public health, it doesn't do anyone any service by doing anything other than strictly following and believing tax and weapons. these particularly apply to the regulatory work. but the work goes beyond regulation. we monitor environmental health conditions in the population to the extent they can. we must inform policymakers for any knowledge that we know effects of and safety particularly if they develop action will change. we must work collaborative plea to the extent that we can to a improve the environmental conditions necessary for developing strategies. this gets applied in a few ways. the regulation and environmental health assessment, the health department is not the final decision maker about land use regulation and it is not the only factor taken into account. the planning department both making land use decisions as well as making an environmental review. and we are advisory to the planning department in that capacity. would you have certain laws and regulations san francisco has some very unique regulations that are not found in other cities. i will discuss three of t

i have a lot of respect for people in the front lines trying to increase the health of the public. i don't know if it's benjamin franklin, brings us back, did he say health makes wealth? it might've been. the health of the commonwealth is actually important. thank you. [applause] >> what are you reading this summer, booktv wants to know. >> well, i'm reading the book about "the coldest winter," and quite frankly i've held onto this book not wanting to open up the pages to it. it goes over the korean war. and for most people who are for my with the korean war said you don't want to know. and what do they mean by that? well, i was in korea with the chinese, ashley surround the entire eighth army, and it was a nightmare. and fortunately this is over 60 years ago and to the best of my knowledge i haven't suffered two psychologically about that war. it pains me when i think of the number of americans that died in korea, and even becomes more difficult when people ask me to explain my heroic actions. i had no idea where i was or why i was there. so, i thought it would be better not to exp

if we could take that without objection, i want to thank the department of public health for being here. i'm want to thank all the members of the public who have sat through this hearing. i want to thank supervisor cohen. i hope you have a good day. madam clark, can you call items two and three? >> hearing on the budget analyst work plan for 2011. item three, motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct audits in fiscal year 2011 and 2012 to evaluate a city policy to develop affordable housing, oversight of housing development, and governments of city museums and the academy of sciences. -- governments and city oversight of museums and the academy of sciences. chairperson campos: i introduced this. i would like the budget analyst to come up. i see they are here. i see ms. campbell is here. i know there are a number of folks in the audience who are here for this item. once we hear from the budget and legislative analyst, we will give them the opportunity to speak if they would like to speak. but this item essentially, supervisor, is an item that outlines the work plan f

involve a general discussion of the standards and procedures that are followed in the department of public health as they provide a review of land use projects or other projects that come before the board that require their expertise in terms of analyzing and the environmental health impacts of those projects. there may be members. the focus of this presentation and this discussion is for us to hear from the department of public health generally speaking on standards and procedures, the ethical guidelines that they follow. i thought it was important for us to have this discussion because anybody that follows the board of supervisors and of the many complex issues that come before us, including the complicated projects that come before the board for approval, they recognize the very important role that the department of public health plays. it is very useful for us as members of the board and as members of the public to know what those policies, procedures, and standards are. i will ask the doctor of the department of public health to please come forward and began his presentation. let me first th

you should ask the department of public health. they established everything we know about the viewbayview. -- bayview. this was before the shipyard development. when the city created the department of environment, i wrote to the environmental just piece. it was a development concept for the entire bayview huntesrs- point. article 31 came out, the most comprehensive set of regulations. what you have, you have local, state, and federal regulators. it is the bay area quality control. they have been very instrumental. it is something that you must all get a chance to see. [tone] supervisor campos: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> mr. chair and supervisors, the community has been engaged in reviewing and discussing this issue surrounding regulation to clean up bayview-hunters point for more than a decade. no other site in the country has undergone as much investigation, remediation, community process. there are more than 30,000 ground water samples. more than $700 million has been spent on the cleanup of the

but here's the point, this crisis pointed out the fundamental contradiction of american public health law at the turn of the 21st century. the government could order the public to get vaccinated, whether they wanted to or not. but they knew absolutely nothing to ensure the vaccine used in the process were saved. the crisis in flint the already widespread compositions of the compulsory vaccinations during the smallpox epidemics in the period and let us say there are many groups that have their own reason for the compulsory vaccination across-the-board workers worked with their hands were deeply concerned about the effect the vaccine might have on their ability to use their hands if only for a period of a few days. no system of the workers' compensation existed in this period and employers to help them out if they felt ill, they were breadwinners and resistant to the compulsory vaccination. african-americans had no good reason to trust doctors and the white public health profession during this period. white doctors and hospital ignored african-americans or the medical needs. during the

once we make that, we for our findings to the department of public health for the standard of care legislation. the department of health can levy fines and develop -- for the meeting compliance. the sheltering monetary committee has come up with four basic categories of policy recommendations. the first category represents case management. we feel that case management is needed for the committee. i just wanted to find case management. -- to define case management. we would like to see the ratio of client case manager for one in every 25 single adults. this was a recommendation that was put out in the in richmond report which was co-authored by the board and the shelter monetary committee. the committee has determined that the city and county of san francisco does not have a universal definition of case management. what the committee is suggesting that each site provides information on site services and access to case management as required by standard 8. all of the courts track the number of requests for case management at each site and how those needs were met. the state can provide the city

reach out to yank parents. >> are public health challenges right now and seeing some very preventable diseases. diabetes the obesity epidemic. things that very aggressive public-health action could protect against, but at the same time really come into conflict with our civil liberties. you know, we tried to have calorie labeling and our menus in philadelphia. we are announced as food nazis. i am wondering, i am excited about your book. of going to get a couple of copies signed in a minute. i am wondering if from a historical perspective if you can give us any sort of thought of how we in public health and more productively reach out to people when we are really dealing with an issue where individual choice comes into conflict with what is going to be healthiest in the long term. >> that is the challenge. i think that it has to occur in everyday practice some, bought through attempting to seize the town square. make this a project for public education. i made an argument recently that this moment right now seems to be the right moment for talking about the risks such as they are and t

department of public health. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the director of community behavioral health care for barbara garcia -- here -- here for barbara garcia. when i look at the work the health department did, it was done with a lot of current knowledge. i come to my current job after having 25 years working within the criminal justice system and health services. we also know that 85% of the current cdcr population has substance abuse issues, and 20% have serious mental illness. so if you look at as getting 700, about 600 of those individuals will have substance abuse issues, and 140 will have serious mental illness. i also recognize that a lot of that 140 will be represented within the 600 because they do have co-occurring disorders. also, when i look to cdcr and the services they are providing to the substance abuse population, right now, there's only about 2700 people in substance abuse services, so that tells me that the individuals that are in our prison population are not receiving the appropriate services. undershare of -- unde

, but the department of public health is forcing the violations. and you're going to get the same reports on a quarterly basis for the same complaints. and the department of public health should not be enforcement agency for the standards of care. and they failed the past three years and in the slow indication that they're going to do any better in the future. thank you. >> thank you. please step up if you want to speak in public aren't. do you want to speak in public comment? >> good afternoon, supervisor kim and supervisor elburg. i am speaking for the department. my name is joyce crumb and i am the directly of housing and homeless division that oversues the shelters for the city. and so i am going to date myself and say theym an original member of the -- i'm going to date myself and say i am an original member of the sheltering committee starting back in 2006 and we have definitely come a long ways. i think the standards of care that have been implemented in the shelter have definitely helped to improve and i understand mr. pecerillo hasn't been

the department of public health. >> in good morning, supervisors. -- good morning, supervisors. i have some information for supervisor kim on our income -- on our hiv prevention measure. some of the changes was to incorporate some data and evaluation, quality assurance, and as well as trying to provide services directly without having a contract and the services did not increase, they stayed the same. we also have some information about the security issue. to supervisor mirkarimi, we did to a survey of the hospitals in the area and through california and as you can see, several of them have some hybrid processes between sheriff's, a contract, or hospital employee. many of them have contracts and one of them have police. supervisor wiener: thank you. this is helpful. for the hybrids, particularly los angeles might be a good comparison. -- riverside, which might also be a decent comparison. do we have any sense how they do it in terms of one thing i know that comes to mind is whether you could have a private security as a general matter and then have surest the peace in the highes

, the executive committee recommended to the board that the director of the permit a public health, and thank you very much. i would like to recognize you, supervisor mirkarimi, for your support and leadership in getting that decision made that that would be the individual who would sit on our committee. the planned bank that is put together mandated -- the plan mandated that the committee put together the realignment plan and submitted to the board for approval. for the board to reject it, it requires a 4/5 vote. if rejected, goes back to the executive committee to make whatever corrections or changes that the board since it back with. and that is, once the plan is approved, and must go to correctional standards authority. and for the funding to be released to the local counties, the plan must be approved and submitted. and when the funding comes through, it will come through to the state -- from the state controller to thel local toer and they will fund the realignment plan. our sport -- it will become effective on october 1, 2011. my first concern is that it is october 1, 2011,

agree with the sentiment that if there could just be a reconsideration of how the department of public health is approaching this issue in entertaining perhaps an alternative proposal but that helps you get to the place you need to go in saving funding, but being cognizant of, as i know you know, issues on all of our minds. this is now the third or fourth time this issue has come before the budget committee. is essentially an annual issue. this has come before us -- i've been on the budget committee for six years. there are some arguments, i don't know if they sit well with people with knowledge we can rely or overlie on private security as opposed to a peace officer. we want the staff and the patience @ san francisco general laguna honda to get the utmost care in safety provided for as well as the general public to visit. if there is a mechanism that recedes back from the contract thing on prop. j or finding middle ground, i would strongly encourage that be the case. >> we have all the same goals in terms of safety, so we would be happy to have that conversation. supervisor mirkarimi: as it

we continue to cut funding to shelters, public health programs that help our homeless population. if we were able to do what we have in place and fund that, we would be a better position on that issue. >> are there any specific programs with respect to homelessness that you feel are moving us in the right direction? >> the watershed moment was 2002 when gavin newsom passed care not cash. it turned things around and forced the city to think more about housing. that was a key movement in the right direction. >> let's talk about housing needs and what you think the board of supervisors should do. >> i was asked about this but a friend i grew up with who now lives in the peninsula. i was fortunate enough that i grew up in the district was able to afford in the district. the vast majority of the friends i grew up with in the neighborhood cannot stay in san francisco. we are really becoming a city that is either for the very rich or very poor. the middle class is losing out. that is the issue of one to focus the board on. addressing it is looking at projects like the park merced project

this crisis pointed out the fundamental contradictions of american public health law at the turn of the 20th century. the government could order the public to get vaccinated whether they wanted to or not, but did absolutely nothing to insure that the vaccines used in the process were safe or effective. the crisis enflamed the already widespread public opposition to compulsory vaccination during the smallpox epidemics of the period, and let us say many groups had their own reasons for opposing compulsory vaccinations. workers, across the board workers, men who worked with their hands were deeply concerned about the effect the vaccine might have on their ability to use their hands if only for a period of a few days. no system of workman's compensation existed during this period, they couldn't count on employers to help them out if they fell ill. they were breadwinners, they were very much resistant to compulsory vaccination. african-americans had no good reason to trust white doctors in the white public health profession during this period. during normal times white doctors and hospitals

services from our department of public health and from the human services agency. a collaboration that this building represents. we have a lot to celebrate because not only is it a complex thing to do, in a needy community, but it accomplishes so many other goals that the city has articulated that are really important. i look forward to many more with the tndc. there is a lot more to do. i walk in and marvel all of the amenities that we have, and units are so precious in this community. i can only thing, how many hundreds of others wanted to be in this situation? and they would want to have a mayor, board of supervisors, city and state agencies all working together in a less political setting, more in a community, social goals setting, where we can collaborate and put our money together and work with wonderful banks, like wells fargo, and others who are contributing to the financing of this building. it is not politics that rules the day. it is people that have great objectives that put down the barriers they can. the biggest barrier is the barrier of poverty. to p

one serious cost that would go up is the cost of public health. the impact of polluting our air and water isn't a speculative matter. we know it will make people and communities sick. more mercury in the air with we -- we breathe means more deaths and debilitating illnesses. more water pollution means families and communities will be subjected to a variety of health risks. in short, more pollution means rapidly escalating health care costs. another cost is the cost to our environment. our rivers, coastlines and wetlands are the places we take our children to experience the wonders of our country. this is where their interest in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. pluletted waters and coastlines means less wildlife, poorer fishing and a lot less beauty in this world. we have to remember that we are merely stewards of our natural resources and the cost of polluting those resources isn't only borne now, it'll be borne by future generations. finally, the e.p.a. helps ensure a fair playing field for businesses. this helps keep their long

>> we already collaborate with the department of public health, and we look forward to strengthening that collaboration, yes. commissioner clyde: ok, so that is something -- >> we have talked about, for instance, there are restaurants inspectors to do restaurants -- restaurant inspections, and as part of those inspections, they have done a pilot project investigating the minimum wage notice, and that is certainly something we can collaborate on more. president o'brien: i have got a question for either party.