next question regarding dph case load and staffing. there is a case load and staff member that oversees this, there is voluntary and remedial and this involves projects that come through the ma har area and storage tanks and not in the ma har area and how many staff are devoted to the review process and to accommodate whatever the case load is as implemented. currently as we stated at the last meeting. dph has 5.8 staff, they are 1.5 staff located to the local program under the grant. those staff could be moved to the expanded ma har program if that need arises that is grant is expiring. in addition i will note that applicants in the ma har area do need to pay a fee when submitting application and that fee pays for the review of the documents. the expanded documents increase significantly over that threshold. that associated revenue will also increase and review the documents. in addition and finally dph has the flexibility within the environmental health programs. we are committed to working closely to make sure that review ma har rel

if they are violating city laws we would have that ability and that's what we are discussions with dph about. in terms of the back up generators, i would argue that it's not entirely inconsistent with the residential neighborhood. i received a residential in san francisco notices about the back up generators going up on a care facility where nearby hospitals. it's not a feature that we see in residential districts. there are other institutions. a police station could have a backup generator in a residential location. just because you have a backup generator that you should be within 1,000 feet. >> i know. i just want to make sure that with the purpose for the community that maybe we can put something in place. maybe suggest that we ask for not a hearing, but maybe 6 months or year to report back to this commission and maybe they have done an assessment of the noise. i understand the issue is making sure that, enforcement is hard after the fact and that is a concern and maybe we can put that in the motion and we can get a report back from staff on the status of any noise. >> maybe we ca

if you look at the notice of citation, that was issued by ed walsh, with the dph regulator when he came in there, the time on that was at 6:10 in the evening. and we brought this up at the hearing. initial hearing on this case, that for hours, or from ten a.m. to 5:30 p.m., after she got off work, a friend of her came by the establishment and they were going to go out to dinner. and they ended up in the room with him and yes she was making love to him. and there is absolutely no facts of support that violation of the penal code and she was not questioned by dph officer walsh and she was not questioned by alen para who is also his assistant and they put in both of their declarations that they never had time to question the subject, although they call them as a client and they call them as a customer and he was neither. and it is fine, what i find very odd here is when dph went in there and walsh and para and they were accompanied by the police department and not one of those officers questioned miss lam. and they had an opportunity to question the subject and they did not question him. a

and it is fine, what i find very odd here is when dph went in there and walsh and para and they were accompanied by the police department and not one of those officers questioned miss lam. and they had an opportunity to question the subject and they did not question him. and miss lam was never arrested for the violations of 611 for the penal code and never cited. and walsh knowingly entered that room and looked for money and they would not have found money because she received no money. she was not soliciting or engaging in an act of prostitution in violation of 647 b of the peanl code those facts are not controvered whatsoever and they were not touched when they went to the hearing and i questioned walsh about this, about the facts of money and aside from not being able to make the case that is the findings that there was a 647 b violation. the other issue here is whether the 60-day accompanied by a $500 fine, was appropriate. and i i think on a second ooffense for the improper attire, if you reached out that she was improperly clothed because she was in a room, i submit that she wa

the child care centers and in the k-12 system and teachers are using great curriculum as provided by dph and puc as well. ~ grade curriculum this has been a wonderful hearing, but i'm hoping it's just the beginning as we look at equity and social justice and the privatization of water and making san francisco a leader in this area so that we have a healthier san francisco and communities for everyone. but thanks for giving us so much time as well for this issue. i know there are many others before us. i'd like to urge us to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> okay, thank you very much. all right, colleagues, you've heard the request. supervisor mar would like to continue this to the call of the chair. >> so moved. >> moved by supervisor campos and a second by supervisor katy tang. the motion has been moved and accepted by all to the call of the chair. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, hearing for the city's external auditors to present the comprehensive audit financial report, single audit, and management letters related to city au

if you look at the notice of citation, that was issued by ed walsh, with the dph regulator when he came in there, the time on that was at 6:10 in the evening. and we brought this up at the hearing. initial hearing on this case, that for hours, or from ten a.m. to 5:30 p.m., after she got off work, a friend of her came by the establishment and they were going to go out to dinner. and they ended up in the room with him and yes she was making love to him. and there is absolutely no facts of support that violation of the penal code and she was not questioned by dph officer walsh and she was not questioned

so, what is the point of dph to deal with these patients? we see a lot of the increased flow through through these psych facilities. guess what? many of these patients are ending up back in our jails. we're seeing numbers such as recidivism increasing. so, the numbers are on our side as well, but really this is more of a political problem of where is the will to make sure that we have the services and to put the responsibilities where they really need to be put. so, this issue isn't going anywhere and we're hoping that perhaps in the future we can force hospitals to include psych services. >> next speaker. >>> stephanie hoffman, member of national alliance of mental illness. to maintain that san francisco and the bay area in general can withstand more cuts to mental health care and roadblocks to patient access goes well into the realm of dangerous and harmful. all you have to do is look around your districts. the tenderloin, the mission, market street, no one can deny there is great need in these areas for mental health care. when and where

dph is excited to partner with the community groups to who involved in this effort that we hope is a win-win situation to strengthen community health, promote equity, job development and support the small independent stores. thank you very much and i am also available to answer questions. >> thank you. yeah, you reminded me. i forgot to mention kaiser's support for the heal zone and the work in the bay view hunter's point has been significant. >> yes. thank you. >>i wanted to thank the institute for their work and get younger people involved and aware so they're promoters of healthy communities as well, a few people will speak later. the next speaker is larry brusha and a key partner in this effort, especially in transforming stores to be healthier businesses. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am the president /owner of suedian and associates. we have delighted and excited to be part of helping the corner stores develop more new products, especially healthy produce. one of the challenges of course is you have small little stores and one of the goals is when we go in is redesign the st

. >> and if you don't have a copy, we can provide a copy and we will provide it on the dph website if you want to review those. >> i have got a question as well. as the permit holders pointed out there is a discrepancy in the dates. >> that is a typo. it is actually july, 27, 2012 when we did the inspection. i know that it was a mistake by the secretary, i think. >> okay. >> yeah. do you have extra copies of the rules? >> what is the section for sexual conduct? >> there isn't any, there is a 1921 of the health code says that if the department will revoke or suspend permits for illegal activity by a them. >> unlegal by the penal code illegal? >> i think so. >> excuse me i apologize i did not bring extra copies. >> that is okay. >> i have another copy. >> that is okay. we are handing it around. >> but we are looking at is a section 9 gabout proper attire. i am just trying to understand because we have heard an argument and the position of the appellant that the conduct was not illegal. and it was con sen youal voluntary and not for payment, off duty conduct. and so, if it is not conside

one is for dph, office of environment, and the office of emergency management. >> great, thank you so much. >> good afternoon. i actually prepared a powerpoint presentation for you. today i'm going to go over the audit results for 11-12. i'm actually here to present two reports, city reports. the first one is the city's comprehensive annual financial report or what is known as the c-a-f-r. the second report is the board as the governing body of the city. and lastly the third report is the single audit report which is the compliance audit of the city's federal program. i do want to mention that [speaker not understood]. we audit all of the city's funds except for the ones that are audited by kpmg and other auditors which includes the health services, the airport, the puc, the mta, as well as the market corporation. for the city's c-a-f-r, we issue an unqualified opinion which is the highest level issuance that the city may have. i do want to point out that in our audit opinion for 2012, we had two additional paragraphs to emphasize certain matters. the first one related to the solution

money is going to go for the consultants, the staffing that is going to be coordinating is between dph and oewd is already there. >> the $60,000 is for additional staff? >> for consultants. >> for consultants? >> yes. >> so the gentleman before you is a consulting group that does all of this for a fee? >> correct and it would be an open-process for once the program is up and running for consultants to work under this program. right now there is no program. once the program is up, that money is going to get rfp'd out. >> thank you. >> commissioner dwight. >> the upgrade funds, i guess in the form of a grant and loan, is that from the department of public health? and how many are you prepared to fund initially? >> well, we have been piecing it together. actually some of it comes from a kaiser permanente, and in the tenderloin it comes from dignity health and the san francisco foundation just gave them a small grant as well to replicate the same work there. >> so public-private partnership on a case-by-case basis or neighborhood by neighborhood basis? >> yes. to pilot also, we have been p

the planning department would rely on dph's recommendations, posting final determination on our website for 15 days. members of the public could appeal these determinations by making substantive arguments during the 15-day period. substantive arguments are made, the determination would go to the health commission and would then come to this commission typically the same time as the related entitlement $. your decision could then be further appealed to the board of supervisors or board of appeals depending on the underlying entitlement appeal process. with that i'd like to you turn it back to claudia for next steps. >> thank you, liz. first, i'd like to sort of give you a quick run through of what we at the health commission [speaker not understood]. these are comments that we heard both from the supervisor's aide, from the public, as well as from commissioners. in general, we heard they wanted to ensure that projects would be reviewed against all plan recommendations, not just meet one or two for consistency consisted on balance. at least this is fully our intent just like we do general

first is about dph's own health care delivery system. we are looking to ready our system to be the provider of choice for our patients, our uninsured parents have not had a wide choice of health care providers but health insurance provides them with that choice, we want them to choose us. a recent survey indicated that 60% of low-income individuals who are uninsured would change their provider if they were given the choice to do so so we are responding to that challenge and integrating the service we offer throughout our delivery system so we do a better job to coordinate the care our patients need, we're working to improve quality and capacity to increase access to care, we're enhancing our patient's experience by shortening waiting times and increasing our efficiency in customer service and these are exactly the items that barbara is at the health department working on today. our second role is more citywide in nature and related to our mission to protect and promote the health of all san franciscans, we're maximizing enrollment into t

in dph we have this principal that any door is the right door. i am a san francisco family residents taxpayer and i feel like i would hope that my taxpayer dollars are going to a system that welcomes anybody who wants to stay in a shelter in san francisco regardless of where they're coming from. also i feel like [inaudible] for twitter. they don't require -- documentation issue -- we're waiting for somebody's berth certificate in detroit that we applied for in january. it's important for us to address the supply. we need more resources for people, not de/kroes decrease the number of people seeking those resources. >> like most of the folks here really feel like this new policy is not the direction we want to be taking and i believe it's unnecessary and is meant to target negatively impact some of the most at risk family members. my concern is what i heard in terms about how this policy decision is moving forward. i heard him say we can't be 100 percent on policymaking when we're talking about human behavior. i don't think that making policy based

i'm happy to talk to dph now to ensure that trigger or advance work is in place to have the type of flexibility that we are discussing of course it's more than complicated than moving someone's desk. i'm happy to ask them to move that as soon as possible. >> no more questions. >> commissioners, i would like to thank the staff from environmental for working on this. in this stage, is this an action item? do we vote on it? >> it is an action item. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, there is a roll call vote. >> question, i want to follow up on the timing. so it would move from, if we approve it, it moves from us to the board of supervisors and would there be a land use hearing and from here and then to the board? >> exactly. if it were to move forward. this has already had a hearing in the planning commission as well as the health commission in may. then it would move to the land use commission then to the board of supervisors for the two readings there. >> call the question? >> public comment? >> there is no public comment. the roll call vote on approving proposed ordin

and a large segment of the community and dph and we put together a plan that was adopted by the san francisco mental health board. and signed on by all community-based organizations that provide mental health services. i am saying that we have a plan in d-10 and we know how to get started. now it's time to quit saying it's a problem but don't know what to do. but invest dollars into an infrastructure to build a first-class model around the community. the statistics is that 43% of people coming in clinics in bayview-hunter's point, 60% depression and 40% anxiety. we have a major, major problem in d-10. and we need it start addressing it. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, some of you in the audience probably know who i am. i have been in the construction business for about 40 years. i raised a family in bayview. and when i went into the construction business there were 150 black contractor and today there are three. let me tell you how that happened, the white people in this city has gone on a journey to run every black person out of san francisco. when the population was 28% black, and t

we have staff from dph and dbi as well. i will give you more details. thank you so much. >> chairman wiener, paul with the department staff. this item before you is a proposal to amend certain portions of the buildings by the mahar ordinance which was adopted in 1986, a public health and safety ordinance for handling contaminated soils during construction process. i will put a map down. if we can display that. the mahar ordinance along the eastern shore of the city, at the time mahar was adopted it was known to be contaminated. what mahar requires is that when an applicant getting a permit, is applying a permit that will destroy 50 cubic yards of soil, before the permit can be issued, they are referred to the department to determine whether the soil is contaminated and if necessary how to handle and clean up that site under health department supervision. the existing ordinance only applies in the blue zones. outside of that area, there are other areas in the city that have a high likelihood of soil contamination, those are industrially zoned areas and s

and this health care services master plan and dph being the experts on health, soey [speaker not understood] on maternity leave and couldn't be here with us today as well as collene having been the primary city staff leading the preparation of the plan with the support of our director barbara garcia. also like to acknowledge members of the task force or of the public who may be here today who participated in the community engagement pro shes. [speaker not understood] truly informed the plan on where the key gaps and needs are. so, before i turn it over to collene, i just want to give you an overview of what you'll be hearing today, if i may have the slides. so, again, like i said, collene will give you an overview of the plan. and then we're going to talk to you about the key findings by assessment, the legislation required certain number of assessments and that was in your memos. and then [speaker not understood] will talk about the recommendations and the determination process and it will be kind of less [speaker not understood] for the planning commission and how planning department staf

garcia or anyone else at dph? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: ms. garcia, yesterday at the board of supervisors meeting the number of people testified about the concern about acute psychiatric services especially in year 2 and what the plans are for making sure that we are adequately supporting communities in need and i am just wondering if you could respond? >> with the mayor's mental health cuts -- we believe that we are trying to meet the needs of the community as well as the san francisco general discharge ability. medicare cut -- we cannot have anyone to long in a psychiatric bed. -- as a way to prepare them for the next level of care. they have not opposed that change and there is no loss of clement. most importantly i think the services that we will be re-creating the behavioral health center will meet the needs of psychiatric patients and others in the community. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed: i had two questions. the position being eliminated for the psychiatric social worker position, that is vacant since july, 2011, -- is there a reas

and a large segment of the community and dph and we put together a plan that was adopted by the san francisco mental health board. and signed on by all community-based organizations that provide mental health services. i am saying that we have a plan in d-10 and we know how to get started. now it's time to quit saying it's a problem but don't know what to do. but invest dollars into an infrastructure to build a first-class model around the community. the statistics is that 43% of people coming in clinics in bayview-hunter's point, 60% depression and

of health reform on the uninsured in san francisco, also about the aca implementation activity that dph and noel simmons will talk about the aca implementation verses at the human services agency. so, as supervisor campos said, it was assigned into law by president obama to expand health care coverage, it is the biggest initiative since the creation of medicaid and medicare, as a result of health reform , the rate of uninsurance will be reduced by half, and 92% of all u.s. residents will have health insurance. locally, approximately 56 thousand san franciscans who are uninsured today will have access to health insurance. how does health reform propose to expand access too insurance? it requires that people have insurance and it gives them more options to obtain it. the requirement for people to have insurance is called the individual mandate as the supervisor mentioned previously. most but not all u.s. residents will be subject to the mandate which becomes effective on january 1. those that are not subject to the mandate include undocumented individuals, that will be the largest proport