supervisor squz members of the public. my name is lisa [inaudible] coalition on homelessness and we organized along side a larger coalition made up of organizations throughout san francisco and some individuals who oppose the jail rebuild as it has been proposed. curb, californias united for responsibility budget is a state wide coalition that provided infrastructure but there isn't one organization that is behind this, it is very broad based and many organizations. in fact, a broad-a copy of our most recent appeal to the [inaudible] as well as about 200 cosigners, i would like to submit that to you so you have that for the record. there are many organizations and hundreds of other san franciscans who stand in opposition. what we have been in active struggle with in termoffs the planning department is what we regard and what we think is a gross

negligent to approve this mitigated. when the planning commission approved the [inaudible] they said they were not approving the project, but only the sequa information. this was disengine ws because they are passing the buck to you the board of supervisors because they didn't want to address our concerns about the lack of public comment and process for this project that we believe a full environmental review under sequa would provide. now that it is in front of you we hope you take the opportunity to not pass the buck along again to [inaudible] we have 4 point we would like to present in terms of our appeals and are we ready to start with the first one? >> ya. my name is mohammed sheck with critical resisance and [inaudible] of curb. one of the points that we really wanted to highlight is the fact that this preliminary mitigated

negative declaration is for a project that is not in accordance with state building regulations. we would like to show that here. in the prelim near neg tsk deckler aiz they state the project is a maex mm security facility compliant with codes and standards, however when you look that state regulations defined by [inaudible] section 1231 [inaudible] clearly states that outdoor exercise area or areas must be provided in type or 2 or 3 facilities. according to what the plans for the rdf are, this would codify as a type 2

or 3 facility. we believe it is type 2 because it is a promimity to the court house. if you look that definition here, type 2 use for detentions of persons pending arraignment after arraignment or pending [inaudible] type 3 is local detention facilities used for sentence and convicted persons. type 1 which doesn't necessitate exercise space is just for people on arraignment. this is not a case for maximum security facility. as shown in the reliminary negative declaration and appeal by the planning department they clearly state that the exercise areas provided are defined as interior spaces and they say that multiple times. you see where it is highlighted. interior exercise classroom

space. the sheriff departments responded to these and their response is existing facilities have inside recreation areas and we haven't had a problem. this is a problem for 2 reasons, one is the definition of exercise which is what we are talking about is defined in title 24 and it is different than recreation. these are 2 differently regulated and define #d activities so you can say we have inside recreation facilities so that justifies our plans for bulding a-the proposed rdf without outside exercise areas. and the second point is that the bfcc is a reg trfbly new agency and these reguless are updateed every 2 years so just before previously

constructed facilities did not have to abide by these current standards, any future facilities would have to abide. the main issue for sequa compliance is that the reason we raise this is because having a outdoor exercise area which is necessitated by state regulation has severe impacts on the people who would be housed in those areas and using those areas because of the proximity to a major freeway. sequa calls people that would be effected as sensitive receptors and says that they have to be accounted for when you talk about thefects of toxic pollution from freway squz smog. to assess the environmental impact which this negative declaration doesn't do we think the significant

impacts that would come from being so close to a major freeway on people that would be housed and utilizing outside exercise areas would necessitate a environmental impact report and not a negative declaration that says there won't be significant impacts on the environment or on significant sensitive receptors as defined by sequa and that is referring to prisoners that would use the outside spaces. that is major point we want to bring up. it is quite alarming the planning commission did not recognize this. these are clear cut standards. when we were at the bfcc meth we brought this up and they said without hesitance they would reject san francisco's funding proposal for sba 63 which is before you today. >> in addition to that there other point we want to make with the rest of our time. the

project fails to comply with san francisco proposition m and this is regarding what is stated as a displacement of 14 units of existing affordable sro housing as a result of this construction project which you are experts in the housing crisis in san francisco and losing 14 units on the outside it is only 14 units but those units are doubled and tripleed up so we are talking about displacement of upwards of 50 folks. in addition the negative declaration fails to respond to parking impacts citing the projict is a employment center which according to regulations we researched it isn't a employment center and this has to do with all kinds of [inaudible] in the letter i submitted for your review. wind impacts are underestimated and potentially more significant than the neg deck

claims they are and this has do with the fact that the current wind impact is being measured with the house of justice as it is because the project is considered to be a replacement. they have to do the wind analysis to truly and accurately be able to measure what the impacts would be. lastly we believe a null environmental impact report would result in choosing a better alternative. because this process is relatively not transparent for the public and not not allowed public process we haven't been able to effectively look at the alternatives that we could be using instead. as many attested to you time and time again, these alternatives are not hard to find. we talked about them last week sponsored by supervisor breed and kim and believe a full environmental impact review process will allow for that transparency and

necessary public process and input. for all these reasons we really really encourage you to vote in opposition of supporting this negative declaration. in addition to taking a stand against what we think is gross negligence on the part of the planning department, we think it would make it necessary to keep the overview and oversight of the project with you the board of supervisors who are electives and people we are invested in who are accountable to us mptd hired folks in the planning department are not accountable. we urge you to ask questions and applaud you who stand against it. >> thank you very much. now we open up to public commenters who would like to make public comment in support of curbs appeal. any members of the public who would like to comment at this time? please come forward, you have 2

minutes. >> i [inaudible] i do support this appeal because there has been a lot of things you are writing on there that is not fair and [inaudible] homeless projects and the [inaudible] the research of the process of the employment. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is roma guy from taxpayers for public policy and we support the curb position. our angle on this is we want you to pay attention to is that, this resolution before you has 3 parts to it and the resolution is basically saying, if you approve one, you approve all and we want this to be separate. we think there are 3 distinct approval squz in particular what we find

deceptive is the proposal for 384 beds at over a million per bed is not only too expensive but the state doesn't require this in order for you to submit the proposal and you should not. this means that we, the public will no longer be able to be engaged with the struggle forward and you also will not have the same access as you currently have. do not do that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors [inaudible] founded in 1978 in san francisco. we are local community based non profit for 30 years. we are aults founding member of curb,

californias united for a responsible budget. we want to reiterate what is said today. we as san franciscans are oppose today a new jail project particularly one that cost so much and provides so little and agree that the jail is as proposed in [inaudible] of title 24, the california code of regulations that requires the outdoor space that the local law proposition m that we the voters approved years ago would be a great reason for supervisors here today to oppose the jail construction project. i see on todays ajunda supervisors have 3 options how to vote. there is to support the mitigated negative declaration oppose it or a third option to ask the clerk of the board to come back with furter reasons for how the

sporedboard can support or oppose jail construction projects and we see that as a important option to consider that we as san franciscans see the new jail construction project as a big problem not only for the parking impact in the neighborhood, for the wind impact on the environment and construction and also to the cost to the city and neighborhoods were fund could be better spent for mental helths and affordable housing and [inaudible] >> thank you next speaker please >> my name is [inaudible] a member of critical resistance and also the western regional advocacy project both are members of curb. i have spoken about this jail many times and many have seen me so i don't want to repeat myself. i just want to reiterate on the last thursday there was a amazing hearing about the alternative

to the jail where we were able to talk about the other way tooz spend money that would be useful for people in san francisco instead of relying on cages which we know dozen help people. i want to you to think about the fact that accepting the mitigated negative declaration is a step towards putting more people into cage squz putting people into cages i love and care about in the community with. that is all. thank you. >> thank you next speaker please. >> my name is crista [inaudible] i'm a resident of san francisco for 50 years and i'm speaking as a individual citizen and a member of ace and active in houseic issues. i just recently learned more about the jail and the proposed jail project and didn't have a opportunity to testify earlier. i want to strongly oppose a

new jail. i think it is probably the lowest priority in san francisco and it is a gross misuse of funding both at the local level and any state funding that may be applied to it. the fact a negative declaration process is already moving forward i strongly urge you to aprose that and instead to move it forward any other step whether it is more public input and more supervision by the board rather than to the planning department. i think it is important as a project be reconsidered be reconceived and more funding and effort be devoteed to housing and other public services especially services for community services that attend to had mentally ill, any issues with drugs and other situations that tend to

place people at risk of being detained. i strongly urge that you vote no on this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> please remember board of supervisors, let that price be fair. i see a jail looking great there. it has mr. and mrs. chair. no where to run, no where to hide, build it high. no where to run, no where to hide, just remember board of superers make that jail price there. i feel the jail looking great there, mr. and mrs. chair. no where to run, no where to hide, build it high. thank you, good luck, good bye. >> thank you next speaker

please. >> high name is andrew [inaudible] with san francisco tenant union and part of the no new jail coalition. all us here want you to vote no on the mitigating declaration and [inaudible] because if we are serious about alternatives this vote today will undermine all the efforts we put into finding alternatives and making them work. i know what will happen today, but i think let's remember what we are after today and thank you [inaudible] for the op edthis morning. >> thank you, next speaker please >> my name is david [inaudible] and also here on behalf of legal services for prisoners with children a curb member organization. it is opposition

that if the board votes to go forward with the mitigated negative declaration they are ineligible for [inaudible] at the very least you should vote against this and from a broader policy perspective, i feel this money is much better spent addressing the root problems that cause incarceration like poverty and mental illness and drug addiction. building another jail is just kicking a can down the road and thanks, that is all i have to say. >> thank you very much, next speaker please >> my name is camren [inaudible] and here with legal service for prisoners with children. i beyond the title 24 violation and parking and wind impact which are good reasons not to move forward with this, i think as you heard many heard in the hearing last week, there are so many alternatives to build ing a new jail. build agnew jail isn't

the sw answer. there are so many different things the money can be spent on such as affordable housing, pr trial diversion, reentry [inaudible] the list goes on and on and think this is a opportunity to not move forward with this and to spend that money, let it go to better use. thank you >> thank you next speaker please. >> yes, name is richard [inaudible] i came here today to support the people here and speak against the jail rebuild. i don't have any illusions that the politicians in the room actually represent people out here, but they represent the forces that we don't see that determine what happens in our cities and communities. but i'm here to urge you anyway it vote gaens it. it is asadis grace incarceration rate, 2.4

million people in prison, most would not be in prison if there are opportunities and chances for them to take different paths. we have beepal in prison for 40 years in solitary, this sadis grace. i live in the east bay and road here on my bike and road up the street t is a couple blocks down from [inaudible] i think it is called the tenderloin, but when you ride through there it is staggering the amount of human beings laying in the street, sleeping, poverty stricken, dilapidation and in any civilized society that would be on the agenda here today to fix it and it st. not. it is just left. we see where priorities are in the society. to me it is inlevitan to build more prisons unless we put the 1 percent in them which is rare. i come here to support

the various groups here and that is all i have to say. >> thank you next speaker please. >> my name is jamesy. again to reiterate, the regulations for exercise space and recreation space are different. whatever the sheriffs department tells you about it, whether they know it or not it is a lie if they talk about recreation. the people are here, if you are afride afraid to stand for the real reason to oppose the jail, the people are throwing a bone saying this won't pass [inaudible] if you want to be a representative of the people you can think about the moral implications of why the jail shouldn't be created. jails don't protect us from anything. i know supervisor tang said we need jails because we need a place to house people that are dangerous to society, but that is a myth. what is dangerous

is 56 percent of the people in jail are black folk with 6 percent peep in san francisco are black. 80 percent of those caged can not afford bail. when one and 2 black [inaudible] that is dangerous. jailerize not designed to protect, they are not designed to heal or help the community they are press people. if you don't believe me [inaudible] we have a record low jail population, but when we replace 300 officers between now and 2018 there will be 60 thousand [inaudible] they will make arrests. this jail is being built so we can provide cage frz the people that the cops will criminalize and arrest and you can't let that happen despite the regulations. >> thank you next speaker

please. >> tom gillburty. i think another example of applause and redirection-so much of the energy for the police is having to deal with drugs, having to deal with mental illness on the street, homeless on the street. instead of jailing these people we need a alternative and for all of the other reasons everybody just said and continue to say, pause and redirection is needed instead of building more jail cells. thank you >> thank you next speaker please. >> hello my name is rilen tom and i just learned about this today, first of all i'm only 16. for myself to just learn about this today and see how huge this is, i want to discourage it because one thing

is that you are encouraging people to be in jail. two, is right now i'm with the mental health board and we are doing a project about how teens are accessing mental helths services. the thing is, if you encourage this, like you are asking them to be in there. money should like, it was said to be given them opportunities, encouraging them and trying to get them outside the poverty and space and environment. sthais huge problem we are having. why is the money being used to build something and encourage them and allow them to go into that space and not having them have a future. that is what i feel you are encouraging if you allow the jails to be built. thank you

>> thank you next speaker please >> my name ismery merryman. i just want to say and support everything that you heard so far. also, there is information available about communities that where prisons are. about when prison is built again or when public money is built on prison thinking they employ people, incarcerating who ever you have much more domestic violence and substance abuse because the level of negativity is obscene. you can go on from there and why are we doing this, even thinking about this instead of helping each other and ourselves. thank you >> thank you next speaker please. >> my name is loren carb nel, i want to say our helths and

safety will not be improved with jail expansion. our county jails are violent, poorly run and waste taxpayer money. the public fund use today police convict and incarcerate people should go to provide housing, education, helt care and employment. safe and helthsy communities dependent on mental helths services. youth centers and affordable house{real opportunities in their community not cages. we want deserve and demand to live in a state that prioritizes heblth, well being cultural and political life. currently we are facing hard times. it is difficult for many people particularly in those of communities of color to find meaningful work, affordable housing and access to good education and sustainable health care. decision makerwise the power to change these conditions however, are not focusing on our communities needs. many political leaders are spending more tax dollars

orbuilding more jails, hiring more police and subsuicizing high in condoes. we don't need more jails. we need the basic resources that make our community whole. >> are there members of the public who would like to comment at this time? seeing none public comment is closed. we are going to move to the presentation from the planning department as well as department of public works. or any other city department who would like to comment up to 10 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon president breed and members of the board. my name issera joans and i'm the environmental review office. from the city. joining me today is christopher [inaudible] senior environmental planner. the board today will consider both

the sequa review for the jail project and cities application for the grant for the prob eblth. you heard comment regarding the merits of the project. the question for the board is whether the planning department appropriately issued a negative declaration. the board has the opportunity to consider whether a fair argument based on substantial evident has been made that the project would have significant unavoidable physical impacts under sequa. it is our view that's no such evidence is provided and all environmental impacts are analyzed and addressed. unlike many sequa items before the body, the sequa determination isn't the only aspect of the project. if the board is in agreement with the planning department and commission regarding the adequacy of the sequa durmt

they have the opportunity to consider the approval or disapproval of the grant application. i'll turn the presentation to mr. [inaudible] to discuss the contents of the consideration. >> thank you sara. good afternoon board president breed and member thofz board. the subject of the public hearing today is the mmd for the proposed rehabilitation and detention facility at 850 bryant street. the project would demaunsh 3 buildings on site and construct a 200 thousand square foot, 110 foot tall rdf ajais tonight the existing hall of justice building. the project replaces the existing county jail facility 3 and 4 and is part of a larger program to relocate city agencies from the seismicly [inaudible] the rdf is constructed as a maximum

security facilities up to 640 beds which reflects a 30 percent reduction of 905 beds in county jails 3 and 4. on july 10, staff sent a memo containing the departments responses to an appeal of the mmd to the planning commission. the appeal was filed by california united for a responsible budget. this was heard by the planning commission june 25, 2015 and the planning commission with a vote of 6 to 0 up hp held the planning department decision that the project impact thonz environment were appropriately analyzed pursuant to sequa with the prepation of the mmd. the board is considering the adquency of the mmd and the board considers a negative declaration of a context ofa peal but because the board is the first decision making body on this project and the decision making body for sequa the board will