i think that should be dph who is receiving these forms. third, counsel did not bring the law for you. i have a copy -- unfortunately it's very marked up and i don't feel comfortable providing it to a deciding board. i have no secrets, but it would just be inappropriate to share my attorney work product with you, but i can tell you this much: the section that he is referring to is "business and profession code section 46-12." and it provides that massage establishments that only employee california-licensed massage practitioners. it goes on to provide however that even for those establishments, a city/county may still adopt reasonable health and safety requirements including requirements in regard to reasonable attire. that is subsection 6. or b-6. and subsection c continues, "that nothing about the state regulatory section shall preclude a local ordinance from authorizing suspension, revocation or other restriction of a license or performance for violation of this chapter or of the local ordinance that occurred at the business premise." i

but i also looked in dph records and looks more like it was 2006. they don't suspend that often. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in addressing the severity of the penalty, in fact, under the law, under both the ordinance and the regulations, the only penaltis that require a showing of prior violations in order to increase are the administrative fines. from the very first infraction the department of public health has the discretion to revoke a massage permit. the fact it hasn't in this case despite repeated violations, discovered both by the public health inspectors and in operations with the police is a gift. it is a gift from the department of public health that that permit will still exist after this hearing, if the decision here is upheld. i really don't think there is any ground to reduce the penalty. i think if anything, the penalty is still quite gracious. you have a repeat violator in front of you. she is unpreentent and keeps doing it. the attempts to nit pick with the hearings and was everything that we did absolutely perfect? no, but that

and if ever exceeded there will be additional review by the dph commission? >> what i'm hearing from the budget analyst is that their audit recommend istion a 10% contingency. the public health commission itself has not acted to change its own policies or contingency policies to a 10% from a 12% level yet. but that the department plans to go back and review that policy with the health commission. and, so, what i would think is probably a better thing to do is allow for the same kind of language so that if the department actually exceeds what the health policies or the health commission's policy is on contingency, then they have to go back for approval. if the health department or the health commission policy should change to 10 considertion, then it should be at 10% level. so, i want to make sure we allow for the health commission to exercise sort of their jurisdiction over the health department's policy on contingency before we sort of say a different level. >> madam chair and supervisor avalos, we concur with what the chair just stated. that seems reasonabl

. * i had thought that jackie would be here, but it's somebody else from dph. please introduce yourself. >> hi, i'm dave woods, i'm the chief pharmacy officer for the department of public health. good morning, supervisors. we are here to request approval of a third amendment to the contract to increase the total contract amount to enable the provision of pharmacy benefit management services through june 30th, 2014. the purpose of the program is to enable more than 50,000 uninsured clients of the community health network. so, those with healthy san francisco, sf pass, healthy workers programs, all who do not have insurance, to continue to receive prescriptions at a pharmacy closer to where they live or receive medical care. without these pharmacies, patients might have to take one, two or three buses to get to san francisco general outpatient pharmacy which is not only convenient to them, but also reduces the likelihood of their picking up their prescription and receiving the care that they need. prescriptions currently are written in one of 13 community health

she certainly had an opportunity to present her case to dph and if she didn't, she certainly had that unt opportunity and more before you. i don't think there is any grounds to overturn the hearing officer's decision and i hope you agree. >> thank you >> are you aware of any other suspensions? how often do these type of establishments have violations and is there a normal standard of suspension or track record? >> i'm not prepared to talk about all of dph's massage cases. i am prepared to talk about this one. i can have ed walsh talk about that one. he is the inspector. >> okay. >> would you like him to? >> if he is able to answer that question. >> are you? >> yes. >> good evening commissioners. i'm ed walsh, i'm the senior environmental health inspector of the massage program for about 8.5 years. i have 28 years' experience as being a city employee with the city and county of san francisco, as a health inspector. regarding penalties for violations, we have a number of violations that we look for, and we fine people or suspend permits. most common violations are practitioners without

so, we're happy to have thomas aragon here from dph. (applause) >> good morning. thank you for being here. one of the ways that i think about this is that pedestrian safety is an important public health issue. and the way i think about it is that i'm raising three children here in the city. i have a 16-year-old, a 15 year old, and a 12-year-old. and what we want -- we want the city to be safer than whether they're biking, walking, going to school. and so that when we invest in pedestrian safety, we're really investing in the future of our city in our children. and, so, from our perspective, pedestrian safety is a public health issue and it's really important for us to invest in making sure that it's safe. the other thing to think about when we think about pedestrian safety is that there's really a multiplier effect. when we have walkable communities, when people are able to walk, not only is it healthy for them -- not only is it healthy for them, but we also have less people that are driving. it helps to protect the environment. so, it really helps to protect ever

and the other key piece is dph is an immediate back up to that with the ability to use our clinics and our other partners to stand up potentially alternate care centers and other types of, depeplding on the situation, other types of areas where people can be triaged or get information or get care if necessary. so those plans are in place, we're constantly developing them because we have to really look and we don't have the ability to predesignate every site, after an earthquake we need to make sure each and every site we announce to the public is safe before it's announced so it's a complex type of situation with constant situational awareness that has to be included. >> i just wanted to add on to that, that dph has a great resource of clinics. we are working with our clinics to take on those potentially minor trauma victims that they can treat and offload the hospitals. it would be a matter of triaging them at the hospital level and get them over there. >> just one other key point on that. we would also be working very closely with our partners in dem and the communications sector to

but, which is why i have been working with dph and other departments have also too, and other entities in terms of how we are going to work with this grant and do out reach and education. so i just wanted to mention that because that information is coming, this will be part of one of the initiatives that i think will be part of our office in terms of education that we do with businesses, also, work with the invest in neighborhoods and job squad folks since they are going to be out in the neighborhoods. and so, i would imagine by early early to mid march. we will have a better idea. but, i think that it is going to be complex and then, there is a certain amount of complexity to it. and then, how and then also, the in addition to out reach and education about the program, how is the covered california and the exchange program and the affordable care act, how is that going to intersect with the san francisco healthcare security ordinance? and you know, how are businesses going to comply and how does that effect businesses complying with the healthcare security ordinance? so, more to come

continued violation of the san francisco health code and california labor code would jeopardize the dph permits that they held for their facility. in the 2011 decision, the decision letter ordered the owners to immediately cease and desist smoking within the enclosed areas of the restaurant. it also required them to immediately remove all the smoking equipment and devices from the restaurant. so in response to the 2011 decision letter, marrakech has sent an email stating that they stopped serving the hooka and we found out later that was not true. we started to receive complaints in may and june of 2012 and i went out july 21st and basically conducted another unannounced investigation and i saw one employee was attempted to hide two group of patrons smoking hooka in a private area of the restaurant. i also saw an employee carrying a hooka pipe and when he saw me he turned around and headed down a flight of stairs located in the back of the dining area. then i did go down to the basement level, where they have the hooka pipes and hoses in the storage rooms. and were also open tobacco con

do he they want to be a dph client, do they want to go somewhere else. there is a lot of uncertainty around that. the governor has made proposals about potentially shifting those responsibilities entirely to the counties which would have significant and -- significant costs and operational issues if that were to happen. finally, this projection does not make any assumptions about any current year supplemental appropriations. so, based on the actions of the board thus far, we have the domestic violence supplemental which is about $1.9 million in annualized costs and the supplemental that we discussed today, the state supplemental. together those would add approximately $7.7 million to the shortfall. people always want to know where have we been and how do the targets or the instructions that the mayor have given compare in prior years. this table lays that out. you'll recall that 2009-10 was a really banner year for us in terms of shortfalls. we projected a $5 76 million deficit. i think it's notable, to me it's notable about this table is that this is th

many other departments were also invashon island, dph, mta, mayor's office on housing, mayor's office on workforce development and one of our non-profits, asian neighborhood design, fernando marquee, who had spent many years early on in the plan bringing this forward. for those who are less familiar with this plan, i thought i would just read its value statement the western south of market task force shall maintain and enhance rather than destroy today's living historic and sustainable neighborhood character of social, cultural and economic diversity, while integrating appropriate land use, transportation and the design opportunities into equitable, evolving and complete neighborhoods. this plan was really in response to a need for comprehensive planning to build a complete and diverse neighborhood, to address your shifting population, social stability, conflict between many conflict uses in south of market, while protecting against displacement of existing small businesses and residents, while also welcoming smart, new development, which enhances this neighborhood and its need. it's

if that ends up exceeding levels that dph deems appropriate or healthy for the people who may be living there. >> any way it remains under discussion and we will be having more information on this probably in the next month or two. >> i don't really have much to add on the state legislation, i am waiting for... to go through some of the new bills. a lot of the bills that did not get signed here in september, died, some of them may be reintroduced. it will effect our jurisdiction as well as others throughout the state and i hope to have more on that next month. >> commissioner walker? >> i think that the seismic retrofitting, i actually spoke to mr. odalini, and there are anticipating introducing this the first meeting in february. and i think that it is wonderful. i think that anybody in our department who has had anything to do with it and the seismic and the mandatory process deserves a pat on the back, this is an important thing that will help to bring the oldest buildings in the city up to safety code. hopefully, so, i just would like to say that any of us who can help with getting

management coordinators from each of the hospitals throughout san francisco who mead regularly with dph and dem to plan and prepare for our medical response. >> as rob mentioned earlier, one of the primary reasons for the medical exchange is to get an understanding of the capabilities, what can the military bring and what are some of the challenges that we as civilians are going to face when we have this large number of casualties. so what i'd like to hear from our civilian panelists is what were some of our observations about the capabilities the military demonstrated down at moffatt >> i think one of the challenges the city faces in a big medical surge event is if patients have to be evacuated and the bridges were out and how would we do that? yesterday we saw a wide range of patient movement vehicles, basically, and it was great to see all those resources and be aware of them. we saw the dual use vehicle from the va that there was one in san francisco and there's one in palo alto and those can take litters of patients. we saw multiple helicopters and we saw the c130j all of those wer

so, this hearing is going to call on dph to outline the reasons for this deficit and call them to present plans to start to address this shortfall. colleagues, i know this is going to be an ongoing item that's something that's really just been identified, but i think something that we're going to need to address or else it is going to plague our future budgets in years to come here at the board. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. >> thank you. on today i'm introducing two hearing requests, both for the select committee of the board of supervisors and the board of education. the first is a follow-up on the ongoing conversation that our office has been engaging in with the mayor's office, the school district and coalition of community stakeholders on the public education enrichment fund which was passed by the voters on march 2004, proposition h. and just on an update on the spending plan and also how we can ensure proper appropriation that spending line item to the school district. second, i would also like to call a hearing and get an update from sfmta on