the l.p.s. conservatorship process. i also believe there are changes that would make the l.p.s. process better. for example, it's a no brainer to me and i would change it, shouf happened years ago, that l.p.s. conservatorship includes drug addiction. not sure why it has not happened at the state level. i would be open to broadening the definition of danger to self. under l.p.s. i had a year-long experience trying to help a mentally ill substance user in the mission district, an elderly woman lived at the 16th street bart station for two years and i learned that the only way we could have conserved her is if we had a broader definition of danger to self. she was clearly dying in the streets, but because she could articulate where to get food and that she could make it to a shelter, we were not able to bring her indoors. and that was -- that was hard, that was hard to watch. we eventually succeeded because we did basically the equivalent of intensive case management and got her to voluntarily come

the l.p.s. act provides the legal framework and structure for mental health conservatorships today. the terms are the same, used interchangebly. office of the public conservator, overseeing it. distinguish from probate conservatorships, those are handled by a different division of the aging and adult services and will not be talking about those conservatorships today. >> thought it would be helpful to take a step back and discuss a case we see as potentially served through the housing conservatorship, and somebody like melanie, not her name due to privacy reasons, this is the experience for some of the individuals. melanie is in her 30s, has schizophrenia. she's in crisis. seen running in the streets, taking her clothes off and vulnerable. she's placed on a hold. no longer under the influence of substances, mental health is no longer acute, stabilizes, a meaningful conversation, identify resources and able to take care of herself. legally she has to be released. not able to remain at the hospita

under l.p.s.r-long experience trying to help a mentally ill substance user in the mission district, an elderly woman lived at the 16th street bart station for two years and i learned that the only way we could have conserved her is if we had a broader definition of danger to self. she was clearly dying in the streets, but because she could articulate where to get food and that she could make it to a shelter, we were not able to bring her indoors. and that was -- that was hard, that was hard to watch. we eventually succeeded because we did basically the equivalent of intensive case management and got her to voluntarily come indoors. but that was a hard process. but i want to say i'm looking forward to this hearing and hopefully getting a lot of my questions answered, but i've been very skeptical about 1045, and i'm not yet convinced that it is workable at all or even a useful law to address the people suffering from mental illness and substance addiction on our streets. we have been told that as wr

and that there is a process right now that l.p.s. conservatorship, that works for some, and doesn't work for others, because, for example, substance use isn't a criteria under which someone can be found to be gravely disabled or a harm to themselves. i wish we could change that conservatorship, that to me is a no-brainer. rivals had many experiences, not with the population directly of people, of meth users that s.b. 1045 is meant to deal with, but with other gravely mentally ill people, who are living on the streets, who we have not been able to conserve under l.p.s. conservatorship, because the criteria for harm to self or gravely disabled is so defined in the absolute moment instead of over time, where it's clear that the person is dying in the streets. but i would have to agree with one of physicians who spoke and said, that the illest people are often the ones that are hidden, that don't make a lot of noise in the community. don't generate a lot of complaints by residents. and are not getting the help that they so desperately ne

only that we use them in l.p.s., and it's really so that there is an opportunity for peers to weigh in. >> thank you. so, i don't have any more questions. i guess i would just say that, you know, i definitely believe in tackling some hard issues and putting some policies in place that are really going to address the needs of what the concerns we have in community, and the things we need to change. but i also know that we have to be very careful setting ourselves up for failure in the policies that we implement and approve, and sitting through this hearing, sitting through public safety and neighborhood services hearing, through budget hearings, i have not heard anything that tells me that we adequately have the ability to address the most acute needs and put in a conservatorship policy, typically in alliance with sb1045, and 40 more, but a lot of work we have to do as a city and it's really concerning to me as we continue to have this conversation. i just wanted to say that. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> ok. thank you. we will be giving an opportunity for public comments shortly. th