will be. we have an amazing department of public health and i am sure the department will implement it in the most effective way possible. so, i look forward to voting for this measure today. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much, supervisor mar. you know, supervisor kim raised an interesting point that i don't want to just brush over. she brought up that one of her concerns was this disproportionate fact that mental illness is in the african-american community. i don't know if i misinterpreted your fact, but i think there is something very real there, and there is logical reason as to why when it come to health disparities to african-american, latino, largely working class people are off the charts. and i think a large part of the

reason has to do with toxic stress. and for those who don't know, toxic stress shows in people who are exposed to trauma, violence, much like what we're dealing with in the city, the number of shootings that we've had in this entire city. so, it's not a surprise that the numbers would be very high when we think about how many shootings we've had in the bayview and visitacion valley neighborhood alone. it is of epidemic proportion. so, i want to give some voice to what supervisor kim has raised. i think she's nailed it, which is interesting, because i've come to the conclusion to support laura's law because of that, because we need to provide support for people who are hurting. i appreciate the efforts of the colleague bringing this issue forward to the forefront where hundreds of individuals are suffering from mental illness.

many who i see encounter my district and quite frankly who i have in my own family. many of the people that i seek to help are unable to recognize their own diagnosis and mental illness and today we have a potential opportunity to help them, to provide them with the type of community-based mental health treatment services that they need. now, i don't think we can continue to abandon those with serious mental illnesses and let them continue to slip through the crack -- cracks. i don't think we can continue to send these individuals to the street, or to jail, which is where you see a large number of african-american males and latino males, that we need to provide them with the care and treatment that community and peer-based services can provide. and more importantly, we need to include families of these individuals whenever possible

in making sure that these individuals are connected to whole family units. i want to acknowledge nami for their advocacy as well the host of others, the mental health association for their advocacy, appreciate the constituents across the entire city that have reached out to educate me better on this particular issue. i would agree that it is by definition, the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result. and what laura's law provides is a tool to begin to address some of our challenges that we have here in a very different manner. and there are many things that we are as a board here in this chamber and what i'm hopeful that we are bold today and that we are able to move in a direction that we have not gone in the direction before. so, i am supportive of laura's law, thank you. >> thank you. president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair.

first of all, let me also start like i think all of our colleagues and just thanking everyone for this thoughtful and difficult discussion. i don't think there is a single person in this room who does not have a member of their family, a friend, a neighbor who has suffered or is suffering from a severe mental illness. and i think this is a set of decisions all of us have weighed heavily on. i also want to say i appreciate the comments supervisor kim has made as to some of the changes that she thinks might improve this ordinance. i do think the idea of an outside evaluator could be very helpful. and i'm also very open to the idea of a pilot program potentially maybe a three-year pilot program which have been done in all the other counties that have moved forward with this, just in case. but that being said, i also want to say in 2011 when we first discussed this, i listened to all the sides of

debate and i was ultimately persuaded at that time because the leadership of the department of public health, dr. mitch katz, for those of you who remember that time, he was opposed to moving forward because he didn't think that laura alps ~ laura's law could be effectively implemented. today we have department of public health leadership that think differently, that are ready to implement assistive treatment. and we should give our mental health experts time to do t. that being said, we should put together the best program we can. i do want to thank supervisor farrell for his leadership and advocates who -- who are moving forward because, as supervisor cohen said, we do have to do things differently. and i do support that. i just want to make sure we do it with the strongest program possible. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to clarify my earlier comments. my point was not that there are more mental health illnesses

documented in the african-american and latino community. what i was referring to was a duke university study of kendra's law, a sister law in the state of new york. they show disparities relating to the youth, of course, of court orders related to race and ethnicity. that if you were african-american or latino you are more likely to receive the court order than other prevailing demographics. and this despite the fact we see there is a history of discriminatory practices, disparities in the mental health services associated with these communities, that african-americans are more likely to receive poorer prognosis, diagnosis of more severe condition, lower quality and more sedating drug prescriptions and higher levels of long-term institutionalization than their white peers. so, my concern is not, you know, although i am very concerned about the number of mental health cases we see in all of our communities, my concern is there may be a

disproportionate impact on communities of color, but also immigrant communities where english is not their first language. which is why i propose the concept of a pilot, b, the outside evaluator. make sure those disparities are not happening here in san francisco as well. i do think an outside evaluator can ensure that, that when we run this program, that we are able to look at race, ethnicity and language and make sure there aren't disproportionate impacts. i just think it's important that when we do something like this, especially something as sensitive as this issue, that we're able to collect this data and show that it truly works and that there isn't bias ease that are implemented throughout the system. ~ biases so, again, if there is an openness by [speaker not understood] two amendments i offer to you, one is to make it a three-year program and the

annual evaluation would happen through an outside evaluator. >> supervisor chiu. >> i want to thank the supervisors and supervisor kim's comments. while i appreciate the suggestion, these two suggestions, neither of them is something i would support. and let me just address them briefly. ~. first of all, in term of the pilot program, from my perspective, pilot program is going to undermine what we try and pass today. the result of alt are positive. they're real across different jurisdictionses. we have proof from other states and counties. and in particular, part of the things we added into this legislation was an annual reporting requirement from our department of public health. at any point in time, if we want to tweak this legislation -- that's why i'd rather do it here at the board -- we want to amend it, we can call hearings on it based upon the annual reports. that to me is exactly why we had an annual reporting requirement from our department of public health. to do so otherwise is a half measure.

to do a pilot program, to me we need to take as supervisor cohen said a bold step forward here. put this law into reality, implement it in the strongest way possible which is why i'm so thank. working with supervisor campos's office and our department of public health and advocates to be quite frank who had [speaker not understood] to implement this the strongest way possible. in terms of the outside evaluator, to me, again, i would much rather have our department of public health be the one coming back reporting on this because they are going to be the ones implementing it and from my perspective, after having worked with them for quite a long time on this issue, they are so sensitive to everyone's concerns, not only legislator's concerns, community concerns, patient concerns first and foremost, i have the utmost faith and confidence they are going to be the right people to come back and report and deliver an honest evaluation and opinion what is going on in the program. i appreciate very much the spirit and comments, but the way we amended it today and the department of public health

with their leadership, barbara garcia, collene, joe robinson, these are amazing leaders that have the commitment to work on this process and to see it through. and i feel incredibly confident with where it would be. so, i hope, colleagues, to have your sub mort on this. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you again. ~ support i think there wouldn't be support for the pilot program at this board, but what i would like to continue to push back on is the outside mutual third-party evaluator. i do think it would be helpful to have them evaluate the efficiency of the program, the cost versus benefit. i have great faith in our department of public health. but i don't think it ever hurts to have an outside mutual third-party lens look at our data and make sure there aren't disparate impacts on a variety of different communities. and, so, what i'd like to offer is a motion to add to page 10 line 12 that the department of public health shall have an external evaluation performed of the alt program to evaluate

the efficacy of the program, including but not limited to collecting and analyzing information regarding the demographics of referred individuals and the cost of the program. and the reason, the other reason why i wanted to add this amendment is this is specifically silent in the state legislation on laura's law. no state mandate to collect demographics of the clients they referred and i think it is important that if we are going to have this annual evaluation of the board that we are able to be able to collect that data. >> supervisor yee? >> so, just for clarification, supervisor kim, in terms of outside evaluator, would you be asking that if the outside evaluator would be part of the annual assessment or is it maybe in three years this outside evaluator would really come in and look at all the data? >> actually, that's a really good question. i had initially viewed it as

being part of the annual evaluation that would happen with the board of supervisors. i understand that maybe there wouldn't be enough data to collect within that first year. my suggestion would be for it to be with annual evaluations, but i'm open if there is support for the amendment to extend it to three years if you felt that that would make the outside evaluation more effective. >> yeah, i would support a three-year point where maybe an outside evaluator come in, confirm hopefully what our department of public health is including in their assessments. the other piece of that, and i mentioned this to the staff, that laura's law requires or ask for a certain type of information to be collected from the data and they assured me that some of the thing we're interested in, in terms of if

this be and other issues, they could actually stand the data collection. and one of the things that i was concerned about, with laura's law, the data already talks about who actually gets into the system. and i'm more -- i'm more interested or i'm interested also on collecting data of who are the people that actually were -- the case is made that they would attempt to put them in the system. in other words, i'm afraid one of the things that may happen is people will misunderstand laura's law and think the application is much broader than, than it's intended for and all of a sudden all these people are being dragged into the discussion, even though

they never get to the end point. so, i'd like to have that type of data collected also. >> supervisor farrell. >> thanks. supervisor kim, just to clarify, then, as supervisor yee mentioned, so, this would be an outside evaluator at year three? >> i'm happy to accept the friendly amendment. so, three years after effective date of enactment. >> just to address that point, i would say for me my big objection was around the pilot program. for me that's creating a half measure. that's not what this is about. in term of the outside evaluator as you are describing it, supervisor kim, all of the data you talked about, supervisor yee talked about, is stuff that we've actually been very much discussing with the department of public health to gather. so, from my perspective, if it allows some people to be more comfortable with this to have an outside evaluator come at year three, that's fine from my perspective. this is a minor part of an evaluation. data, we always talk about is

an amazing thing we need to cleatctiontion more of here at the city. if people are comfortable with it, i'm absolutely okay with that and would support that. again, i would just say and with we'll work with our department of public health to make sure that that data is collected in a similar fashion so year three it's allredly available and we can work collaboratively with individuals on that. so, i'm happy to accept that amendment. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i do think that this is a very important discussion. so, and i appreciate the ideas and i appreciate the willingness of supervisor farrell to, to be open to that. so, if supervisor kim makes that a motion, i'd be happy to second that amendment. >> supervisor kim? do you want to restate motion? >> sure. so, the motion is, again, on page 10 line 12, department of public health shall have an external evaluation performed

of the alt program three years after effective date of enactment to evaluate the efficacy of the program including but not limited to collecting and analyzing information regarding the demographics of referred individuals and the costs of the program. >> it looks like our city attorney has something eade like to say. mr. givner. >> sure, deputy city attorney jon givner. i would just ask that understanding supervisor kim's amendment that we may want to just tweak the language a bit consistent with what you're going for here. but i wanted to clarify that the -- so, three years after the effective date is going to be sometime in the end of august 2017. going forward after that time, each annual report that dph produces should include the external evaluation data. is that the purpose of the amendment? >> i hadn't anticipated going beyond because initially this

was envisioned as something that, you know, would accompany a pilot program. being that the legislation as it's moving forward would be an ongoing program, i think it's important at the three-year mark we're able to look at the data and demographics just so we can evaluate the efficacy of the program. so, my amendment is only on the first three years. >> thank you. >> okay. supervisor kim has made a motion. seconded by supervisor farrell. colleagues, can we take the motion without objection? without objection, that should be the case. [gavel] >> any discussion? let's take a roll call vote on the underlying ordinance as amended. >> on item 56 as amended, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu?

chiu aye. there are 9 ayes and two no's. >> the ordinance is passed on the first reading as amend. [gavel] >> item 57, madam clerk. >> item 57 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by cole anderson against the city and county of san francisco for $35,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 25, 2013, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-13-528964; entitled cole anderson, a minor vs. city and county of san francisco. ~ san francisco superior court. >> roll call vote. [speaker not understood]. >> excuse me, this is not the time for public comment. i will mention, i will mention that public comment has already happened on this. [speaker not understood]. >> deputy sheriff? thank you, sir. [speaker not understood]. >> madam clerk, could you please call the roll on item 57? >> on item 57, supervisor cohen? >> thank you, aye. >> cohen aye. supervisor farrell?

farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 58 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by mark morgan against the city and county of san francisco for $238,000; the lawsuit was filed on november 2, 2011, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-11-515615; entitled mark morgan vs. city and county of san francisco, et al. ~ in superior court. >> same house same call? this ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> item 59. >> item 59 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by joseph luebberke against the city and county of san francisco for 100,000; the lawsuit was filed on january 21, 2011, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-11-507528; entitled joseph luebberke vs. city and county of san francisco. ~ in superior court. >> same house, same call? this ordinance is passed on first read. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 60 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by maria reyes jimenez de melendrez and amulfo jimenez against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit what filed

on september 11, 2012, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-12-524112; entitled maria reyes melendrez de jimenez, et al. vs. city and county of san francisco. ~ in superior court. >> same house same call? this orctiontionv is passed on first read. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 61 is a resolution approving the settlement of the unlitigated claim filed by amy blackstone against the city and county of san francisco for $28,544; claim was filed on march 3, 2014, additional material terms of said settlement include title transfer to the city of the artwork created by amy blackstone as a sculptural fence for father alfred e. boeddeker park, the guaranteed physical delivery of the artwork to the city on or before june 30, 2014, and an intellectual property license to the city for the artwork. ~ approximately 29,000 [speaker not understood] 2014. >> same house same call, this ordinance is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 62 is the resolution approving the settlement of the unlitigated claim filed by pacific gas and electric company against the city and county of san francisco for $112,204; claim was filed on may 28, 2013. [speaker not understood]. >> same house same call, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 23 -- >> 63. >> 63 is motion confirming the reappointment of robert muscat to the oversight board of the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco, term ending january 24, 2018. >> same house same call this motion is approved. [gavel] >> item 64. >> item 64 is the motion confirming the reappointment of genre hayv to the oversight board of the successor agency

to the redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco, term ending january 24, 2018. >> same house same call this motion is approved. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 64 is a motion confirming the mayor's appointment of gwyneth j. borden to the municipal transportation agency board of directors, for the unexpired portion of a four-year term ending march 1, 2018. >> same house same call this motion is approved. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 66 is a motion approving the mayor's nomination of christine d. johnson to the planning commission, for a four-year term ending june 30, 2018. >> same house same call, this motion is approved. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 67 is a motion confirming the mayor's nomination of, and appointing, sonia melara to the police commission, for the unexpired portion of a four-year term ending april 30, 2018. >> same house same call, this motion is approved. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 68 is a motion approving the mayor's nomination of rodney fong to the planning commission, for a term ending june 30, 2018. >> same house same call, this motion is approved. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 69 is a charter

amendment (fourth draft) to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to: 1) extend the children's fund for 25 years and increase the set-aside from three cents to four cents over a four-year period; 2) extend the public education enrichment fund for 26 years; 3) create an our children, our families council and require preparation of a children and families plan; 4) create a city rainy day reserve and a school rainy day reserve out of the existing rainy day reserve; and 5) make various technical and administrative changes to the funds, at an election to be held on november 4, 2014. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. i really wanted to give a lot of thanks for the children and family first initiative. first of all, i want to thank all the people that showed up at the press conference this afternoon and showed their support as we move forward with this. as you know, i won't talk about too much of the details, we'll get a chance to do that next

week. but basically the initiative has four components to it. it's a re-authorization of the children's youth fund that was first passed by voters in 1991 and again in 2001. and also reauthorizes the public education enrichment fund passed by voters in 2004 and makes modificationseses to rainy day reserves ~ and number 4, it's asking for creation of children and families council chaired by mayor lee and superintendent [speaker not understood]. this is probably the newest piece to this which will hopefully tie together everything that we are trying to do for children and for our public schools. and i want to thank every single one of the members of the board of supervisors who have signed up to be coauthors to this. and in particular, i deeply

appreciate the work of supervisor avalos and supervisor kim's office and as well supervisor mar's with their staff raquel [speaker not understood], beth rubenstein from avalos's office and sonny [speaker not understood] from supervisor kim's office and from my own office, i really want to thank probably every staff member, but in particular gen low who just worked tirelessly for week on end ~ throughout the weekends, too, on trying to put together, get everybody's input and all the people that provided input to this whole process i want to give thanks to because it does strengthen our ability to move forward with the issues we care about. so, and the person from the

city attorney's office besides jon givner is tom owens who also had to not craft this final version, but craft many versions of this legislation and i want to give him a lot of thanks for tolerating us and dealing with last minute changes as we move forward. and also, of course, the city controller and his staff in providing information we needed to think through what's the ramification of all this in term of financially. and mayor lee, of course, and his education advisor, [speaker not understood] mendoza who worked with our office to make sure that the language is the best language we can have. and, of course, we can't really -- we want to also make sure all the people from the school districts sign including

superintendent karanza and his staff, [speaker not understood], mayor lee, [speaker not understood] who is the chief of staff, and also to the full board of education led by president sandra lee fuer who also provided much, much important input. and all the department heads that came around and provided the language that made sense to them and to the community, people like director of department of children youth and families, maria sue, director of office of early care and education, [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood] laurel klumark, the coordinator of san francisco child care county and advisory council erica ma hem and candice wong who is the chair

of that same organization. ~ and i really want to give a shout out to the community and the coalition that was formed to look at this and they worked tirelessly for two years seeing how we can improve a very good initiative to start off with. so, whether they're from pull man advocates, chelsea who i see would be at city hall on almost a daily basis, making sure that the points that the community would like to have in our legislation is included. ms. cheryl lynn adams [speaker not understood] street youth services who -- others like jody from the lavender [speaker not understood] advocated and wanted to be included in the

children's fund and joe ozaki from the japanese community youth center, sarah louise, and also, you know, she's been acknowledged many time, but you can't acknowledge her enough, margaret [speaker not understood] former director of dcyf with pull man advocates in the past. ~ sole man advocates in the past ~ coleman advocates in the partvthv. ~ past. she continues to be part of the community of trying to make things better. so, again -- and also i want to thank assemblyman tom ammiano who what not only at the press conference, but again, with his leadership in the past, this is one of the reasons why we're talking about reauthorizing anything. it was him that had the first sign in leadership to bring things to, in the past, to the people in san francisco to vote for.

so, today it's about celebrating our accomplishment. we have gone through many iterations of this legislation. and to come up with a final product that we will be voting on next week. so, again, thank you very much for your indulgence and thank you once again, supervisor avalos and jim, for your leadership in the parts that we're able to put together. >> supervisor yee. sorry, supervisor kim. >> thank you, president chiu. actually, supervisor yee i think really articulated all the key pieces of this one measure that's moving forward with children's fund. public enrichment fund and reform to the rainy day reserve. and i'm just really excited to see united support with all 11 supervisors and of course our mayor's office. and it's also -- i just have to note supervisor mar had talked about this.

the changes that i think we've really seen at city hall in terms of support for our youth, but also our public schools. i think many of us remember even ten years ago there not being as strong support for public schools and our after school programs here on this board. and i think it really speak to the voters pushing city hall and showcasing their adamant support that general funds should be spent for children that general funds should be spent to hire librarianses and art teachers and p-e teachers in our public school programs. let me tell you, when i served on the board of education, it was amazing to walk into school and ask a principal where did your prop h dollars go to? and they were always able to point to something physically impacting the daily lives of our kid. we hired that art teacher because of peef. [speaker not understood]. a library that used to be color-coded because we didn't have a librarian that knew how to file book.