president chiu: supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor alioto-pier: one thing. my understanding is that the department is taking a no position on it but one thing to clarify is that right now, the way it works in california is that -- and this is the same as someone who is incarcerated and locked up and they believe they need help and please, if i'm wrong, jump in. you go before a judge in what's called a reef hearing. you sort of show your case and go before this judicial process before anyone goes through taking any type of medication. with laura's law, you would still have the same thresholds to meet. you would still be a person with a lack of history or compliance for treatment of mental illness, serious violent behavior within the last 48 hours or required hospitalization twice in the last 36 months. i think we all remember, for example, the young woman who a few years ago threw her three children off of the bridge down on the pier. well, she had been -- she had been brought into mental -- she had been gone through this process, she'd been in the jail five

president chiu: supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. thank you, supervisor john avalos and i want to thank, too, supervisor john avalos and supervisor chu. i appreciated that conversation just to one comment that supervisor david campos brought up, one thing about laura's law and the a.o.t. program is it provides much more of the collaboration. what happens when people do something and end up in the jail system, they don't have a lot of choices. a lot of those choices are taken away from them. if you treat them in an a.o.t. setting before incarceration, they have the opportunity to sit down with their providers, with their therapists to talk about what types of needs they have. if they're on medication, that doesn't make them feel good, they can get the medication changed. they have more -- you know, it is a more independent place for them to be. once they go into the jails, a lot of those choices are taken away from them and that's one of the reasons the a.o.t. programs are so beneficial, because the patient does have more control over

. >> supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. i would like to thank supervisor dufty for his remarks. i was the dissenting vote in committee on this item and the reason i voted against it had a lot to do with that supervisor dufty just said. there is nothing that would preclude us from establishing a policing policy or a foot beat program within san francisco here at the board of supervisors. there's nothing that would prevent us from doing it by ordinance and there's absolutely no reason it should go to the voters. this is one of those examples, in my opinion, where the people that elected us to do our job say, well, why aren't they doing it? why do we need to make this decision? can't they sit down, come to the table and figure out these problems by themselves? that's what we elected them to do. and i think that that is what we should do. the chief has been a real leader in this regard and in many other parts of the police department and right now, taking any power away from the chief to give to the board of supervisors to me s

supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor sean elsbernd. okay. are the representatives of the city here with regard to the hunter point shipyard project? okay. i understand that representatives of the city have had a chance to take a look at these amendments. i would like to ask mr. cohen if you have questions or comments on the amendments as they were presented to you. >> i'll be happy to. i apologize it took us so long. it's a lot of language for us to go through in a relatively quick period and a lot of city departments that we needed to confer with. the way i've tried to organize this, which i hope will be helpful for you is which amend manies we think were perfectly comfortable with as they're written, which amendments we think we would be comfortable with if they were modiñ modifie. which amendment we will be recommending. if you're comfortable with that, will proceed in that fashion. oalso be the amendment that woud make it clear that there would be no -- on the bridge. moving to the amendments which we would support with certain modificat

supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to thank you supervisor michela alioto-pier for her leadership on this issue. i know the board of supervisors has had two committee hearings on this issue and my ongoing statements has been that i think the county of san francisco is eloquent in not recognizing the complete demands on our city systems in dealing with those who are on the streets with mental health needs and who need the kind of attention that i think the city has resourced and a little bit dated in their strategies in providing. but this conversation that we're having before us, in my opinion, cannot be entirely delinct from the budgetary discussion before us, too. i have concerns that basd

the board used ordinances and the charter to trump board rules, when it came to supervisor michela alioto-pier being appointed to the bay area bay conservation, ordinances and charter trump our board rules. the election code makes clear -- the election code overrides our board rules and the election code mandates that there be additional notice and an additional public hearing when there are separate ballot questions that have not received public notice. the ordinance, the code trumps the board rules. president chiu: supervisor david campos. supervisor campos: i will respectfully disagree with sean elsbernd and the statement by the city attorney's office. i think that the interpretation that has been provided is inconsistent with the letter of the spirit of the board rules and i think that the president is the ultimate person who decides what happens here and i think that consistent with the intent of the rules, i think that there should be a separate vote on each divided item but i don't think it's consistent with the rules to say that one supervisor can keep something from the ballot by simp