supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is a doddthv and the ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> colleagues, can we go to the items having to do with the schlage lock project, items 48 and 49? >> item 48 is ordinance amending the general plan to amend maps 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the commerce industry element, map 6 of the transportation element, maps 4 and 5 of the urban design element, and the land use index to implement the visitation valley/schlage lock special use district, which generally includes the properties bounded by bayshore, blanken and tunnel avenue to the san francisco/san mateo county line to the south, including the properties fronting bayshore boulevard from arleta avenue to the san francisco/san mateo county line to the south, and including the properties fronting leland avenue from cora street to bayshore boulevard; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> 48 and 49? >> item 48 is ordinance amending the general plan to amend maps 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the commerce industry element, map 6 of the transportation element, maps 4 and 5 of the urban design element, and the land use index to implement the visitation valley/schlage lock special use district, which generally includes the properties bounded by bayshore, blanken and tunnel avenue to the san francisco/san mateo county line to the south, including the properties fronting bayshore boulevard from arleta avenue to the san francisco/san mateo county line

to the south, and including the properties fronting leland avenue from cora street to spec >> and item 49 is the ordinance amending the planning code, section 249.45, to provide for use controls, including controls for formula retail uses, building standards, and procedural requirements, including noticing and community participation procedures for applications for development, including design review and modifications, among other controls, in zone 1 of the schlage lock/visitation valley special use district, which generally includes the properties bounded by bayshore, blanken and tunnel avenue to the san francisco/san mateo county line to the south, including the properties fronting bayshore boulevard from arleta avenue to the san francisco/san mateo county line to the south, and including the properties fronting leland called item 40, 48 and 49 together. a no problem. i'm going to talk about all of them. first i'll start with 40. ~ i want to thank you for hearing this item. you've heard many times how important this project is to not only the city of san francisco to begin to address our housing crisis, but also specifically how important this project is to the visitacion valley neighborhood. so, i have one amendment to the ordinance that i passed out to you with clarifies the effective date. you should have that information in front of you. additionally, i've also distributed one change to the underlining agreement which doesn't require an amendment to the ordinance, but hugh lights the results of additional discussions that we've had with the puc. now, while this doesn't require a motion, colleagues, i want you to be aware of the change of this document. this is in the interest of full disclosure and transparency.

also, for item number 40, i also would like to take this amendment to this item and that i ask you continue this item for one week's time. so that there are issues that we are still working out quickly to resolve and i believe that we can do it within the next week. >> so, first of all, on the motion to amend supervisor cohen has made, seconded by supervisor farrell, if we can take the amendments without objection, that should be the case. [gavel] >> and then for all three of these items, supervisor cohen, do you want to continue them to next week? >> no, sir. i'd like to talk about item 48 and 49. >> okay. but you want to continue item 40? >> that's correct. >> and move item 48 and 49 1234 >> that's right ~. >> do you want to move them now? >> i'd like to move 40 now and just like to speak briefly on 48 and 49. >> so, supervisor cohen has made a motion to move item 40 to continue it one week to the 15th of july, seconded by supervisor farrell.

without objection, that item will be continued a week. [gavel] >> as amended, mr. president. >> as amended. and now to item 48 and 49. >> excellent, thank you very much, colleague, for your support. now, items 48 and 49, these are planning items and ~ schlage planning item. 48 and 49 are planning and zoning ordinances that accompany the implement -- accompany and implement the schlage lock development agreement. that's all i wanted to say on these two items, very brief. as i mentioned with the development agreement, i have one item we're working on to resolve that aspect. we'll continue this as well for one week. >> continue items 48 and 49? >> yes, thank you very much. >> if we can continue these items as moved by supervisor cohen. is there a second by that? seconded by supervisor kim. without objection, these two items 48 and 49 will be continued to the 15th of july. [gavel] >> thank you. >> okay. let's move, madam clerk, could you call items 41 through 46 related to a variety of local operating subsidy contracts.

>> items 41 through 46 are the resolutions to authorize ~ resolution authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute a local operating subsidy program grant agreement with plaza apartments associates, lp, a california limited partnership, to provide operating subsidies for formerly homeless households at plaza apartments, 988 howard street, for a 15-year period, in an amount not to exceed $19,119,769. ~ and formerly homeless transition age youth, with the plaza apartment associates at the plaza apartments at 988 howard street for a 15-year period, for not to exceed amount of 19 million. with mercy housing 50, for vera haile [speaker not understood]. for 15-year period in an amount not to exceed 435,000. [speaker not understood] broadway street for a 15-year period in an amount not to exceed 4.5 million. with 111 ocean avenue associates for [speaker not understood] for a 15-year period in an amount not to exceed 3.7 million.

with mercy housing california at 1180 4th street, amount not to exceed approximately 10.2 million. and with chp scott street at 3155 scott street for a 15-year period in an amount not to exceed approximately 8.4 million. >> colleague, can we take these item same house same call? without objection these resolutions are adopted. [gavel] >> let's go to item 47. >> item 47 is an ordinance amending the planning code to exclude affordable housing units as defined from density calculationseses for projects that provide at least 20% of their units as affordable units and amending density calculations under certain scenarios; and adopting findings, including environmental findings, planning code, section 302, findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ and adopting findings. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. colleague, this legislation before us, and i want to thank supervisor kim and supervisor cohen for co-sponsoring the legislation. this measure is a straightforward and common sense way to increase our

production of affordable housing in san francisco and it did you so by providing incentive to developers first to do their affordable housing requirement on-site instead of paying a fee. ~ it does so by and do more than the 12% minimum of on-site affordable housing. in fact, at least 67% more by doing at least 20% affordable. the legislation basically provides that if a developer does the affordable housing requirement on-site by producing on-site units and -- and produces at least 20% of the units as affordable, then a the affordable units will not count against unit density limits in the project ~. we know that we want developers to put their affordable units on-site instead of paying the fee and we want developers to do more than the minimum requirement of 12% affordable units.

however, currently on certain -- in certain zoning classifications in this city, there are limits on a number of units you can put into a particular development based on lot size and at times this means there is space that could be used for housing units that can't be used. and then if we encourage the developer to add more affordable unit, the only way the developer can do that is reduce the number of market rate units that puts the developer in a difficult position and this legislation will help eliminate, by choice the developer will be able to a add affordable units without [speaker not understood] if the developer produceses 20% affordable. legislation will also effectively eliminate unit density limits for 100% affordable housing projects. so, colleague, this is a very positive step. we know that we have an affordability crisis in term of

housing in san francisco, a population has grown and continue to grow. we need to produce more housing and part of that needs to be more affordable units. we have seen that the fastest way to produce affordable units is through and connection with development and this will give developers one more tool to be able to add additional affordable units. so, this legislation did receive the unanimous support at the planning commission and, colleagues, i ask for your support. >> thank you, supervisor. colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> we can take item 50 and 51 related to the transbay transit center. >> item 50 is a resolution of intention to incur bonded indebtedness in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000,000 for the city and county of san francisco community facilities district no. 2014-1; and other matters related thereto. and other matters related therein.

item 51 is resolution of intention to establish city and county of san francisco community facilities district no. 2014-1 and determining other matters in connection therewith. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i'd just like to make a motion to continue item 50 and 51 for one week. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to continue these two item to the 15th of july. is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor campos. without objection, these two item will be continued to the 15th of july. [gavel] >> item 52. >> item 52 is a resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit issuance of qualified mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $15,000,000 for 800 presidio avenue; authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not to exceed $75,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify to cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay an amount equal to such deposit to the state of california if the city fails to issue the qualified mortgage revenue bonds; approving, for purposes of internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 15,000,000;

authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implement this resolution; and ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the projectindenture providing the terms and conditions of the bonds; approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a regulatory agreement and declaration of restrictive covenants; approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a loan agreement, authorizing the collection of certain fees; ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the bonds and the project; granting general authority to city officials to take actions necessary to implement this resolution; and ~ senior housing. >> same house same call? this resolution adopted. [gavel] >> item 54. >> item 54 is a resolution determining that the issuance of a type 42 on-sale beer and wine public premises license to larry livingston for the basement, located at 222 hyde street (district 6), will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with the california business and professionses code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. ~ public convenience. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to quickly thank the neighborhood services and safety committee for recommending that this new bar have closureses at midnight instead of at 2:00 a.m. i do think it is important when we do have additional bars coming into a neighborhood ~ that has a flood of liquor licenses that it is important to see its new owners can be good neighbors in the neighborhood neighborhood before we extend their license to 2:00 a.m.. it is [speaker not understood] tenderloin captain for all of his work. >> colleague, can we take this item same house same call? a without objection this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 55. >> item 55 is a resolution determining that the transfer

of a type 21 off-sale general license from 424 hayes street to 559 hayes street (district 5), to ramiz yousef for nabila's naturals, inc., will serve the public convenience or me it of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. ~ will serve the public convenience. >> same house same call? this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> item 56. >> item 56 is an ordinance amending the health code to authorize the implementation of court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment for individuals with mental illness who meet the criteria established by california welfare and institutionses code, sections 5345-5349.5, to require the county mental health officer create a care team to try to engage individuals referred for aot in voluntary treatment prior to the imposition of court-ordered treatment; and making a finding that this authorization will not result in a reduction of current adult and juvenile mental health programs. ~ before imposing court ordered treatment. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, we all know that we have a mental crisis, mental health crisis on our hands across our country. there are far too many who are not receiving proper care and treatment that need to be on the path to recovery. recent studies and reports have shown that over 40 million americans, adults, experience

mental illness. close to 10 million of those experience severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression and close to 4 million of those people have their mental illnesses untreated. we believe and know that people are falling through the cracks not only across our country but also right here in san francisco. we see it on our streets and in our communities, in our families, every single day. additionally with the current mental health treatment options, families often feel helpless after the loved one voluntarily decide they do not need treatment. it should not need to be this way. i believe family and parents and friends need not feel helpless. they should be supported by the community and sdi. the mental health offered by the city to meet their unique needs and situations. if lauren's law weren't in place here in san francisco, san francisco would have the community based treatment they need and deserve to put you them on the the path to successful healthy recovery.

that's why about a month and a half ago i introduced two identical pieces of legislation with my three other co-sponsors and i want to thank supervisor wiener, supervisor breed, and supervisor tang, that we're discussing today to fully implement laura's law here in san francisco. i said it from the beginning and i mean it, that i do believe that passing it here at the board of supervisors is the preferred option, but i was prepared to take it to the ballot if necessary. i want to thank all the members of the public and all the members of our city, staff that have worked to get this where we are today and in particular, a number of community advocates, our department of public health, and their entire staff, and supervisor campos as well to come up with additional amendments that were added in committee to what i believe will strengthen this legislation. each year millions of individuals slip through the crackses and laura's law i believe inside of san francisco will help alleviate that issue inside of our own city. while i would argue that our

mental health service system in san francisco is one of the best in the country, there are still individuals who fall through the cracks. laura's law falls on those who need it most. half of the individuals who suffer from severe mental illness do not recognize they have a disease or recognize they have an issue. and there is a significant deficit and self-awareness. this same research finds a clear link between lack of insight between onance own mental illness and the ability to adhere to treatment and that's what laura's law seeks to address. 44 out of 50 states have similar laws on the books. similar law in new york called tenders law, 74% of individuals experience homelessness. 77% fewer individuals experience psychiatric hospitalization. 83% fewer individuals experience arrest and 87% fewer individuals experience incarceration. it has also become a cost saver

for different cities and counties that implement laura's law and assistive outpatient treatment where these individuals are no longer burdening our public safety infrastructure and our emergency infrastructure, including ambulances and hospital rooms and emergency rooms. by no means is laura's law a panacea for mental health treatment here in san francisco or for some who are suggested homeless. i view it as a tool in the tool box or our city to help us suffering from a clinically severe mental illness. i do believe we need to do more as a city and we need to change how we help those who are clearly suffering and cannot help themselves. in order to make a difference at the local level we need to challenge ourselves and challenge the status quo. to me laura's law is about helping vulnerable individuals suffering from mental illness here in san francisco to get the treatment they deserve and for their families. to save our city valuable financial and infrastructure resources and to improve public safety.

and most importantly, positively impact the lives of families who are dealing with this illness. those in need deserve better and their families deserve better and our city can provide that option. i want to thank a number of people who have been supportive of this legislation. i mentioned my co-sponsors before. i want to thank mayor ed lee for his leadership. our department of public health, barbara garcia for her support and her staff, [speaker not understood], and all the people and psychiatrist at s.f. general who have been very supportive alongedth way. our district attorney george gas cone, our public defender jeff hadachi, dennis herrera. i recently received a letter [speaker not understood] president pro tem of the california state senate, police and fire chiefs, numerous doctors and public health professionals from the california hospital association to the california psychiatric association, and the numerous mental health advocacy organizations.

namis.f. and treatment advocacy center and suicide prevention network. and a number of homeless services providers such as saint vincent de paul society and other labor and business organizations. lastly i do want to thank jeff from my staff who spent countless hours on this issue and my entire staff, but jeff in particular for his tireless work on this issue. colleagues, i know there will be lots of comments on this issue. i want to thank my colleagues for their support, and supervisor campos to find what i believe will be a great solution in terms of implementing laura's law here in san francisco. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, mr. president. i know that a lot of my colleagues want to speak on this issue so i'll try to be as brief a possible. i know this is a very difficult issue for many of us and that passions run very high on this issue. facing mental illness is clearly one of the most difficult challenges that any family must face and i completely understand why some members of some families are

requesting new tools to help -- help them help their loved ones. i think that i've been very clear for a very long time that i have a number of questions about laura's law and doubt whether it is the right answer for people with serious mental health illnesses that refuse treatment. but i do believe that the worst thing that can happen as the city and county of san francisco moves forward with the passage of laura's law and the implementation of laura's law is to have this item decided at the ballot box. which is why, notwithstanding my reservations and my own personal concerns, i thought its was important for me to sit down with supervisor farrell after consulting with the department of public health. and i want to thank hillary ronan in my office. we sat down. i want to thank supervisor

farrell for his willingness to listen, his openness to have a conversation, and the point of the conversation for me was if we are going to implement laura's law in san francisco, which i believe we will, then the question is can we craft amendments that address some of the concerns, some of the very legitimate concerns that happen by those of us who have questions about laura's law. i believe that the amendments that we have crafted, even though do not lead to a perfect law, they are a net positive outcome for our local mental health system here in san francisco. i believe that these amendments will bring new resource he into the system for the provision of voluntary services. it is i believe for those reasons that people like jeff hadachi, our public defender has come out and supported this approach. and i want to specifically talk about the two amendments that we drafted in consultation with

supervisor farrell, the department of public health, and which i believe are important to increasing services that are offered through the department of public health. the first amendment would require dph to create a team of advocates to work with an individual to attempt to convince that individual to accept voluntary services every time a petition for assisted outpatient treatment or alt is requested. the team would consist of forensic psychologist, a family member, and a peer advocate. this team would work with the individual to attempt to convince that individual to engage in voluntary treatment at two stages during the department of public health investigation to determine whether the individual fits the criteria for court ordered assisted outpatient treatment. and after the petition is filed, but before the court hearing is held. if at any point the individual agrees to engage in treatment,

the department will provide that individual with services through full-service partnership. sfp full service partnership allows for not only traditional treatments for mental health disorder, but provides wrap around services to assist an individual who faces challenges in his or her life that are contributing to that individual's vulnerable mental health state. currently it is difficult if not impossible to access sfb voluntarily and by making sfb more available i think that we have made a great deal of progress. additionally, if a petition for a alt is sought and the county mental health director does not find that the individual meets the criteria for court ordered alt, then the department is required -- required to offer voluntary services to that individual using the team of three advocates at the department that the person did

meet the criteria. i believe that this infusion of resource he into our mental health system together with the team advocate approach of engaging individuals in a voluntary treatment are things that are extremely positive. and it's also new to the existing system. many families that currently one sfp cannot access services because there is a waiting list for those services. this makes the services available. also important to note is that written into the legislation is an annual review process which means that the law will be before the board of supervisors in one year and we can look at the data and determine if this law has been effective at meeting its goals of whether or not it should continue. i also know that supervisor farrell has committed to creating an oversight body that will oversee the implementation of this law. i do believe the impact and effectiveness of this law is

ultimately dependent on implementation. and i know that a number of ideas have been floated [speaker not understood] including this idea of making this a pilot. the benefit of having this issue resolved at the board of supervisors and not at the ballot box is that by the issue coming here and remaining with the board, it allows for us as a legislative body well beyond the current makeup of the board is here, when we have future members of this board to actually come back and revisit this issue. and if we want to see how things are going on a regular basis, we have the ability to do that. but the reason we have that ability is because the issue is being resolved legislatively, not by the ballot box. i don't believe that this law is a panacea, as supervisor farrell said, but i do believe that the amendments that have been put in place address as much as possible some of the concerns that have been raised.

and with that understanding, i believe that we have reached something that i can support at this time. again, i want to thank supervisor farrell. i want to thank all the community members for their input. and i do believe that it is possible for us to respectfully disagree on something as critical as important as this, but to make sure that whatever policy is implemented, it is implemented in such a way that always takes into account what's in the best interest of all the individuals involved. thank you. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. i also want to thank supervisor farrell for bringing this forward and for supervisor campos to introduce those amendments that made it much more acceptable for myself. i believe that this is -- this has been a very, very important conversation about how our city can address the needs of people

living with mental illnesses. i've learned a lot through the process and through the discussions in knowing what we do have and what we don't have. i had several -- a few concerns originally, one of them being my concerns for laura's law centered around ensuring that people who struggle with mental illness receive culturally competent services. i raised this concern at our hearing at the rules committee about non-english speakers and how they were going to be accommodated through the process. after talking with the department of public health, staff members, i'm feeling a lot more comfortable that they are seriously taking this as an issue and will address this issue by having adequate

bilingual staff. because for me, if you don't have that, certainly i have to say that it's going to lead to abuse of such a law. and in the past, when mental services were a lot more available, there were abuses and much of it was because people didn't have language capacity to talk to people that really had nothing wrong with them. it's just that they couldn't communicate. oh, i can't communicate with that person, must be something wrong mentally. the other concern i had was -- and i still have is basically the mental health services, mental health in general has been underfunded and it's been cut for years and years now in california. and one of my concerns really was we have this law, but if you don't have the services or the resources to provide the

services, then what's the point? and i've been assured that there's at least for the [speaker not understood] people that might be impacted by this law, there will be services. and what i like about this whole discussion is that people are realizing that we are underfunding mental health services in general and people that want to voluntarily seek services can't get it at this point. so, i'm hoping that as we move forward in the future we have a much more robust discussion about how do we strengthen the mental health system in san francisco. i also look forward to robust discussion on the evaluation of the program and its outcomes in the upcoming years. as supervisor campos pointed out, we're asking for annual reports and i think it's the right thing to do to monitor and make sure that this program is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

and today -- but today, i am prepared to support this ordinance. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu. i'll be casting a no vote on this ordinance, and i'll just say that it's not because i don't appreciate the hard work of supervisor farrell and the other co-sponsors and supervisor campos for doing his best to make sure that the ordinance protects the civil rights of people with mental illness, but also ha a clear process that involved family members, also others with a care team. ~ has a clear i also want to say i think this is a civil rights issue and people with mental illness are human beings that deserve rights. i wanted to also say i know it's emotional and painful for many family members from laura wilcox and her family from 2001 to many others, but i really feel that if we move forward

without full and adequate funding much our mental health system, this may be leading to a false hope of safety in our neighborhoods and it doesn't address what i would call more of the root causes of problems of why many people -- i think one in five people, according to some estimates, one in five families have someone who is mentally ill, and i worry that there is a danger of further stigmatizing people with mental illness. there are people in my family who are mentally ill and i feel that as supervisor yee said, we need much more culturally com petent community based services. and at department of public health, that uz doesn't reduce the number of beds in a multi-cultural ~ facilities like s.f. general, but is expanding them and is really looking at stronger services. i also wanted to add that i think disability rights california and the mental health association of san francisco and members of our own mental health board in san francisco have helped me

understand more complexly how there may be only about 100 to 130 people that might fall within the guidelines and it's a small number of people that may be impacted, but i feel like it's going down a road of further stigmatizing already stigmatized population of people. i wanted to also add that i think voluntary treatment that's culturally com p/e he tent with strong community based but also san francisco department of public health services is the answer. ~ competent i think healing of families and strengthening of our mental health is critical, and this policy doesn't go anywhere near enough to do that, and i do feel that it may lead to further the danger of violating civil rights of many mentally ill people in our neighborhoods as well. lastly, i wanted to say that the advocates from nami and others have really helped me understand how the