>> thank you very much. any other member of the public wish to comment. please come up. everyone has 2 minutes to speak. if more people want to comment, please lineup at the far wall. >> thank you, chair ferrell and members. i'm with taxpayers for public safety. today we want to support the overall capital plan and we like the idea of a capital plan, but we also like that when history as advanced that we need to also modify the

capital plan so we are requesting that the jail project, the jail rebuild project of the capital plan be removed from the capital plan at this time. we would like you to recommend that to the full board of supervisors for some of the reasons that you have already had in your discussion that the population is going down and the fact that in san francisco we have the most under crowded jail in the state and probably in the country and this is because we have diversion programs. today, in our jail we had 1108, no that was yes. 1180 inmates, today there are 1157. when the jail rebuild was proposed there were twice as many. to date we have

almost as many people in diversion programs like the sf pretrial program, behavioral court as we have in the jails. this will continue. we do not need to spend $287 million plus operations to jail people when we can reduce the recidivism rate from 70-40% by increasing diversion. we'd really appreciate that you would take that quite seriously. thank you. >> thanks so much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is ervin. i

with the transient program. people have been sent for any reason. the figure of the united states population being 2% and the african american 47% and indigenous people at 30%. it's clear that incarceration is a huge and whether entrance -- transient of color succeed or not. the population in san francisco that is transfeminine in incarcerated. the hall of justice must be closed because of the size of vulnerability and rather than build one high rise and the two buildings located on the 7th floors, the buildings need to be disbursing in the district

remaining close to court. why are we not locating the model and locating other non-service such as pretrial and laundry to costly building and renovate such as women's recovery center at 930 bryant. would this not be cheaper an appropriate. if we can get more service to women, it will lower the recidivism and please remove the capital plan. >> thanks, very much. next speaker. >> hello, my name is ito. i'm a tenant organizer and i'm an activist

in the housing movement that cease the connections between the jail and the housing crisis. i want to echo the request of the last two people that the jail be removed from the capital plan because we agree with pretty much all of what the capital plan is going to do except for the jail and we don't want to burden or hinder the process of moving forward with the capital plan and i want to also just provide some statistics as to why i do see the housing crisis is linked closely with the jail population in san francisco. a recent report by the recent defense collaborative found that 30% of people evicted in 2013 were black, 65% people were of color and the foundation found that black women have

equivalent rates to eviction to black men in incarceration rate and those in jail county are black where the population is 40%. the connections are very clear to me that what's going on with the housing crisis, with evictions, we are seeing mirrored in jail population and that $278 million can be used to build more affordable housing, bail reform and other mental health care to keep people out of jail. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is collin williams. i would urge you to take the jail budget off. that it will do harm to the people that need

the most help. i think that $276 million is a lot of money and we can do a great deal of good for people who need that help more than restricting their movements. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is johnson with the transgender project. i also wanted to acknowledge it was mentioned about the conditions in the jail with the structure of what the thing looks like but i think the most important thing we look at is the conditions for how people are treated in jail. if there were four officers that sent racist text and there were several more, i promise there is 14 more involved in that whole racist texting. you have no idea the abuse that transgender

face in jail. if you get an opportunity, go to our website and see my busting out video about sexual abuse and disparities that people face in prison. i would encourage you no the to build a new jail. and i would encourage for san francisco to come up with creative ways to create more housing for low income people and more housing to just better medical and mental health. since i have been out, i have been out 3 years and dealing with sexual and psychological abuse i have experienced and i have worked hard to combat that. i became the program director at the tgif project. i would like you to

become closer to the community and we all know that transgender people are coming to san francisco for a safe place and we need to be that safe place for transgenders to come to and i would like you to look at all the murders that happened in the transgender community and do a little bit more and be creative without building a new jail. >> thank you, any other members of the public wishing to speak on item no. 2. okay, public comment is closed. >>supervisor katy tang: someone mentioned if we looked into alternatives, and i wanted to see what alternatives we looked at in the plans. >> i will refer to the project

manager to answer that question because there were several of them. >> good afternoon, supervisors, charles with project management. we are looking at 512 bed facility, one is a 340 bed facility. in appreciation of the fact that the controllers opinion on the size, the requisite size of the facility. we are recommending a scenario of 34 for record of comparison and a scenario where we repurpose cj 2 to the level of security housing that is being proposed in the original project. as well we are looking at a project that would situate the facility whether 512 or 384 entirely

within the san bruno location. we are looking into this. it's my response. >> in terms of the analysis coming out shortly, i'm glad we are doing that. i think it's very important to continue to make decisions on this, are you basically going to wait for that analysis before moving forward on considering the various options? >> we are expecting to assemble our appreciation for the different scenarios both in logistical and budgetary. it's a matter of examining which of them demonstrate more

feasibility than the other so to speak and as far as the policy which to advance is outside of our view of public works. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar? >> yes, mr. hicker, i just want to ask, the 340 bed option, what is that cj 2 and the rebuild of cj 3 combined. what is that 340, 80 bed option? >> that 340 is a unit of construction of what is possible at the bryant street site. it's 128 less than 512 which is our two pods of 64 beds a piece. it's an exercise of a function we know that is feasible at that location for the configuration

of that particular pod. it could be variable on the 64 number. >> okay. i do feel like the upcoming hearing that will come up will allow us to understand more of the decline in the jail population and the need and having it with some of your staff, i see the safety issues, improving the visitation area like san bruno. so i definitely understand the conditions and to some of the public commenters, the safety of the prison population and dignity and humanity of the conditions there are really important. but i still see the community side are advocating if the numbers are going down, why do we need to rebuild. i do want to say from my perspective, splitting off this part of the capital plan to talk more about the jail, i guess, i'm open to that because i know that's

what's been advocated. i don't sense there is a majority of support on this body but pulling individual items off the capital plan defeats the purpose of having a citywide capital plan. i will ask brian or mr. seg era, if we strip this from the plan what would be the impact? >> first i will respond, whatever the number of beds that the city should decide to commit to provide within the context of a new facility, the most effective and efficient way to accomplish that is through a single venue billion -- building, so to speak. the difference to respond to different buildings, then we create

greater cost and less efficiency to services for those individuals held in the facility. time will tell a couple weeks before we arrive to this understanding how that resonates especially around the accept i don't -- scenario of cj 2. i will let brian talk about the capital plan. >> thank you, supervisor mar for the question. the capital plan is just that, it is a plan. it's a planning document. it does not appropriate dollars, or the sale of bonds and doesn't even require that we apply for a grant. those are subsequent actions that you would need to take. i think it's important for the capital plan to continue to put it's best foot

forward in steps. and stay cohesive. i would further avoid moving away from the project. i see that we part of what we do is we come up with the best numbers as we can and that's why we come back every 2 years to do this and we also recognize when legislation goes forward, when bonds go forward, when those things go forward, the numbers change. that's part of the process. we when we get more information, we want to change the plan. i think it's the best focus for today and that's where we came out with the numbers on this issue. >> i want to defer to the capital plan, i know in 48 hills, tim red

mond the bond that the mayor is proposing and doubling that to $500 million . i know we have a $1.7 billion bonding capacity. but where is the focus that housing is addressing the affordable housing addressing the crisis before us and is it anywhere? >> i was surprised we were going to get through more discussion on this without regard to the housing bond. i can't speak to the numbers i would allow kate howard to talk about that and the

housing crisis. again when the capital plan was created i think it was in 2005. that timeframe where we added a similar crisis to let just let the capital plan focus on city owned infrastructure. it doesn't mean that we don't ignore the other critical and housing issues. i would think the housing crisis would contribute to that and whether the soft story proposal for geo bond for soft story and i think it's perfectly legitimate to talk about here. i don't know if you would talk about that. i know if the numbers go up, it will impact the other

programs, the public health bond and i saw two other folks who just left but it will affect the critical projects that are in the line waiting to come forward. >> ms. howard? >> thank you, supervisor. kate howard, budget director. a couple things to respond, director spoke accurately about the impact about potentially increasing the housing bond on the rest of the geo bond program. over the last nearly 10 years now that the capital plan has been in existence worked really hard to sequence the bonds and to ensure that we stay under the property tax cap which allows us to talk about our bond attend insures that all the members of the public

don't go up even though we are measuring the capital work. that's the 1st thing. the second is i would encourage us to think about is how that bond or type of approach may fit into a broader capital plan over time. so you will note that the capital plan has sort of a repetition almost of bonds that flow through it. so you see an easter bond, health bond and now a transportation bond and for the first time the mayor is proposing housing bond to be part of that. i do think we might think about how to sequence that kind of a bond into our overall planning over time. the third thing i would say to your question about what's enough. this has been one of the mayor's top

priorities since he took office. he started out by creating the housing trust fund. that's been a huge source of revenue to affordable housing production but that started in the wake of redevelopment solution. that was one of his first priorities. we've done a little bit of looking and i would be happy to talk to you about it off lean -- line but over the next few years we'll been investing nearly 2.5 billion $2.5 billion through a newspaper of different financial tools through gop, bonds, trust funds and housing fees and inclusionary fees. the $250 million bond that it mayor has propose is 1 piece as part of a major package. i would be happy to talk to you more about and go through

the details of and this is certainly his stop priority and we are looking to spending more than $100 million each of the next 20 years on affordable housing. >> can i add that rehabbing public housing and small sites acquisition and rehab are really really important and i'm supportive but i know with the bay area government regional housing needs assessment goals of 60% of hosing -- housing be affordable and like you said it's really important but not getting to what the huge need is. i appreciate those comments. >>supervisor katy tang: i know that a lot of this capital project has been focused on the jail and swapping out with other priorities. i would just say that from my understanding from

past approvals of our capital plan, there have been actually changes. i don't know if this provides any reassurance for any committee members but there have been changes that were made even after a capital plan was adopted. when we were talking about 2014, i was supportive of animal control as part of that bond, however it was not part of that, it was pushed off until later. secondly i know that the crime lab was going to be part of easter one but was part of our second easter bond and now the public health bond and that will include animal control and station 49 and in terms of the transportation bond that we all unanimously worked on, that was also mained as part of our efforts that we could have a geo bond last

year in 2014. i think the capital plan really lays out a framework for us in identifying needs that we have in the city overall. i would feel comfortable moving this item forward because again even though we have passed our capital plans, there have been changes that come subsequently and for example the conversation about the jails really warrants a larger discussion and that would come to the hearing that supervisor kim has called an we look forward inform participating in that but to move forward i would move this resolution forward. i'm glad that san francisco has this plan. it helped us move forward on big significant projects. i know that you spent a lot of time on this. thank you. >> supervisor yee?

>> >>supervisor norman yee: i concur with supervisor tang. i am support ever -- supportive of this plan. if we are going to make any decisions about the jail, we need to have a separate and thorough discussion about that. i'm more than willing to see this move forward. i know that things can change. a few years ago there was no housing bond and now it's included. so i will be supporting the motion to move it forward. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah, thank you. i agree with supervisor yee's approach as well. you mentioned the cascading of bonds over the years and mr. strong did as well, just want to ask what is the san francisco unified school district and community college district may have impacts on this as well?

>> we don't have authority or control over the issuance of bonds by the school district or the city college district. they are part of our capital plan as an external agency and in fact they model the capital plan and moving forward with the general obligation bond since 2016. they have not given us a number as to what that will be. the city college, they are really sort of evaluating and we heard from the new facilities director capital plan they are evaluating what they need and don't need. they have expressed no intention at this time of doing any type of a bond. >> but possibly as schools bond sometime in 2016. >> in november of 2016 is what we heard. >> thank you. >> okay, from my part, mr.

strong, i want to thank you for all of your hard work and concur with the statements that the city had historically not done the type of planning that we have a foresight in the process. i think we are very fortunate that we have that process. thank you for your hard work and getting here today. all right. colleagues we have this item in front of us and budget analyst to approve this item. >>supervisor katy tang: i would like to recommend this to go to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> we have a motion and second. we'll take that without objection. >> item no. 3. 5-year information and communication technology plan fy 2016-2020.:

>> okay. are you all set. >> good afternoon chair ferrell, members of the committee. i'm the director on the committee on information technology. on behalf of koit, it's my pleasure to present to you the proposed communication and technology plan for fiscal years 2016-20. before i begin my presentation i have a request to make an amendment to the legislation. there is a typo online 12, the whereas clause where approved this plan on february

26, 2016, it should say february 2015. >> if i can start that presentation. the itp plan to fund and plan the projects to align with the city's goals to be innovative and resilient. it's updated every other year and adopted by the board of supervisors by may one of 2015. a major part of the development of the ict plan koit gathered data over the last year to widen perspectives and balance for a citywide vision and approach.