bowing there and futhder ing whatever melthsal health illness they have. when we talk about alternatives it is far beyond cj 1-6 and far beyond rebuilding a jail. we are rethinking a system. this is our opportunity to rethink the system that we have. i think it is easier for policy makers to say this is what we have done for deckeds and lets continue it and imagine a system that will work better. those are the things i'll say. i may support build agnew jail down the road and think we haven't seen all the data and numbers to support that. i want to do a deep dive in terms och percentage of folks. we heard from dph, 80 percent have severe substance abuse issues so what can we do to address the issues coming to the

system. jofe adauchy came out with a [inaudible] and pretrial diversion and bail reform is a issue. something that was highlighted by cliff boughter who committed suicide after being kept in jail for years stealing a back back when he was 16 or 17. we know in san francisco black adults are more likely than white adults to meet the criteria than pretrial release. yet, they are far less likely to be released at arraignment than other white adults with a prior felony. so many opportunities, there are so many different steps we need to look at to how to reduce the population and folks that are there because they committed a crime, but the issue is outside

crimial intentx mental health and substance abuse. before we come to a determination of what the board will approve t is our obligation to look at every alternative before us. the last point i'll make about applying for state funding, i won't support funding for the state grant- >> can i remind the public vocal spegz isn't allowed. feel free use your jass hands and wave but refrain from vocal expression. thank you. >> thank you. this will be my final comment. that being said, i understand why this board would support the state funding grant application because you want to leave as many doors open as possible. what i find unusual is us making a environmental determination 2 years in advance of understanding what the project is actually going to be when we have so many

questions on the table that is being driven by state funding. very different from the shelter and bayview where there are funding available and we want to build it because the state grant was applicable. that is different from what is here before us. we think it is will increase our standing in the state funding grant. that is what i question. i understand if the board supports the state funding grant even though i won't support it. i just don't think we should do a environmental determination today for that state funding grant. thank you >> thank you supervisor kim. at this time i want to epien up to public commenters who are in support of the issuance of the negative declaration. first speaker, please. >> no mecks of the public? with that public comment is closed and now there will be up to 3 minutes for curb representative tooz provide a

rebuttal. >> want to start by thank thg supervisors for what is the first in depth conversation at the full board regarding the jail. appreciate the question you are asking. i think it is important to acknowledge this is 100 percent a 80 million dollar money grab and that is the point of approving. it isn't what is best for san francisco and if there are significant environmental impacts. if we are awardsed the 80 million dollars it is difficult to give it back. i think the other piece that is important to say about the application of the money is that

we do not need to have the neg deck to apply fwr fr the money. it isn't preferred but not necessary. we may have had conversations that make us feel we are strong can dts we have been denied in the past. it will look poor there isn't full board support and guarantee the community will come out opposing this and letting them know what is going on here in san francisco. >> one thing i want to clarify is, we atoneded the fcc conference and they made clear this isn't free money, sthis lease revenue bonds that are repaid by the county. this will still fall on the taxpayers in san francisco over time. another thing is that i didn't come-i came prepared to talk about the environmental process but the conversation has gone broader. i want to

answer supervisor kim question about avenues for litigation. a member of the san francisco [inaudible] involved in health authority litigation on the part of the appellates cost 250 thousand dollars so that is the number as a example we are looking at. in terms of actually needing the jail, the one thing that came from the public work squz planning department is the number of 3804 and that is what we are looking now. i want to remind the board that when the plan was originally made it was for upward of 900 beds and then 600 beds so if it is that easy at the drop of a hat to reduce the number by first in half and then in half again to what we currently are looking at, 384,

why isn't it just as easy to look at alternatives to incarceration and imprisonment that reduce the population in these significant ways? right now we are looking at a 50 percent jail capacity and look at a declining jail population so if we want to make that effort as the planning commission has done to reduce the jail beds for this project we can actually reduce those numbers--[inaudible] >> thank you very much. so, at this time our hearing has been held and it is now filed. this item is in the hands of the board. colleagues are there any other members who would like to make comments?

>> ace washington. ace on the case >> sorry wais we haven't done general public comment yet, we are finishing up with the hearing. >> presidents breed. thank you colleagues for a very interesting discussion about a really important topic and thank you for everyone who has come out today tatalk about it. i think a lot of folks outside the room may be surprised to find out san francisco has 6 jail jz looking to build another one with all most 300 million dollars. i don'ts thinketer of those ideas a new jail or 300 million dollar expense are things i am happy about so while i know this bay be repetitive for some in the

room i want to talk through the circumstances in my own thought process. we have 6 jails we call cj or county jails 1-6. cj 1 built about 20 years ago is a holdsing facility. cj built at the same time has 460 beds raisking from low security beds to high security. cj 3 and 4 are 850 bryant and over 55 years olds and falling apart. cj 3 is is closed and cj 4 housing [inaudible] cj 5 is in san bruno and built 10 years ago and is a very modern humane facility. it is also according to the sheriffs department close to being full. cj 6 built in san bruno all most 66 years goy is like a high school gym built to house

lorisk offenders the kind san francisco doesn't incarcerate anymore because of our amazing programs. cj 6 is also closed and not particularly saich or suited for our needs. one has no bed, 6 is closed and 5 is close to full. now let's talk about 3 and 4 at 8 #2350i6b 0 bryant. sadly my brother spent years. i have been there and know it well. they are old and seismicly unsafe and there is something else you notice. the inmates are clustered in large cells running down narrow hall ways. many are sleeping in bunks because there is nothing else for them to doompt the inmateerize not learning new skills or receiving quality programs, they are not being expose today the kinds of opportunities that will help them stay out of jail. inmates however at the newer jails cj 5

have a quality high school built in the facility. 850 bryant and 2 jail houses are not unshaif for the in-850 brisqunt the twro jails house there'd are not-only unsafe for the inmates but also law enforcement offices who are there and staff. it exaggerateathize cycle of crime and resitivism san franciscans have to indur and pay for about 150 dollars a day per inmate. we clearly need to tear town 850 bryant and think we all agree on that. the question becomes where do we transition the 300 or so inmates? cj [inaudible] does have unfilled capacity, but i want to be clear what i heard throughout the course thf conversation, our jailerize not half empty as

some suggest. the only way the math workicize if we counts the jails that are unsafe and close. the advocates are right with expanded diversion programs we can and we should reduce incourseeration rates but even with those programs and space in cj 2 we need some type of new facility. my problem is i dopet particularly like the plan that is prorosales poed. i have long thought the plan jail was too big and too expensive. i am not convinced it will contain the mental health resources and prefer the new facility be combined with other city needs including the district attorneys office and the court. i raised these issues many many times over the last month and want to thank supervisor

kim for cohosting a hearing with me last week to air these concerns. i want to thank brian strong the project team lead in the controllers office for respondsing to many of my concern squz proud we are able to revise the plan down from 512 beds to 384. that change alone will save us about 62 million dollars, but i'm still not sold on that plan and worry this process has been like death by a thousand cuts. when the 10 year capital plan came through we heard yes, there are concerns about the jail, but that is one project in a multi-billion dollar plan. when the first state grant for the jail came for a vote before the body last year we said, it is only a application for state money. now, we hear this is just sequa analysis, it doesn't tie the boards hands or this is

just a state grant application again, the board will have other votes later. frankly, i'm worried if we get the grant we will hear, you can't stop the project now or we'll lose 80 million dollars in state money. let me be clear, i will support the sequa analysis because it meets the legal standards and will support the funding application because i know we need a new facility of some size and some type. number 2, i'll make a motion to amend the funding application resolution to specifically say, that the board of supervisors shall retain authority tew prove or disapprove a proposed facility. that ew the application we'll still have a is a iin what happens moving forward regardless of the dollar amount we spend on the praunlect. number 3 i'm committed to the the specific plan, i want us to continue

monitoring jail population trends and working to get the number of beds eechb even lower and see a much greater investment in whatever the plan is in diversion programs bail reform recollect mental health services for those who suffer with melthsal illness and are peat incarceration. number 4, i'll follow sth money closely. because we reduced the number of beds #w50e8 rr save about 5.5 million dollars per year. if we receive the state funds we'll save additional 8 million dollars in debt service cost per year and over the life of the project we are talking about all most 140 million dollars in savings relative to what is currently programmed in the capital plan. i serve on the capital planning committee and will lead the effort to use the funds for mental health, supportive housing and job

training and all the other things that keep people out of jail. 8 years ago the city spent all most 50 million dollars on a juvenile facility that is less than half full and happy about that. i'm not going to make the same mistake, we are applying for state funds because we need a new facility but that should be as small as possible and cost effective as possible and most importantly as humane as possible. if it is not, my yes vote today will quickly become a no vote when the issue comes back it the boird for other approvals and with this amendment it will be required to see so along with additional input from the public. thank you. >> thank you president breed. supervisor yee. >> thank you. i was going to save my comments for 65, but it seems like we are considering

everything at once anyway. >> we haven't called item 65 >> i know but people are making comments about it. >> madam clerk can you call item number 65? >> item 65 is renched woit recommendation from budget and finance committee. resolution to authorize the shareches department to submit a funding application to board and state commune corrections pursuant to california senate bill 863 to replace county jail [inaudible] approving the form and execution oof the associated construction and financing documents and adopt admitigated negative declaration. >> supervisor yee. >> first of all i appreciate this discussion we are having

today around the jail issue and also want to especially appreciate president breeds comments. i guess i see closely aligned to the conversation made. the-this negative declaration process we are going through is where we started. it is to me very unusual what is presented in terms of the sequence, but i get the logic of what is going on with that in regards to the general project description that they are working the determination off of and if it were to go beyond the scope it would have to probably do another one. if it is smaller than the scope it makes sense this would be it. so, in regards to supporting the staffs recommendation i will

support it. in regards to funding the state funding that is tied to this whole issues, i came in and still believe that we should apply for the state funding just in the event we do determine in the year or 2 we still need another jail to replace what is existing. i also heard many of the comments from not only today but the other day at the hearing, people from the community saying we need to invest in alternative solutions to incarceration. i believe that we need to really continue providing funding and resources so that we can reduce hopefully in a year or 2 we see a significant reduction in inmates and at that point it

could be well be that we may not need a replacement jail. so, i'll be supporting this things but with a caveat that i will look closely at what is going to be presented to us in a year or 2 in terms of the final project will be and that there snow guarantee that what is presented a year or 2 from now i will be supporting. at this point i'm supporting what is presented today and will also support president breeds recommendation for a amendment. >> thank you. supervisor yee. i would also like to mention before any member of the board make as motion, there is a error in item number 62. city

attorney john gibner, can you specify what that is so we can make the appropriate amendment? >> deputy city tern john gibner. item 6 fwo is a motion to affirm the neg deck and page 2, line 21 refers to the boards disapproval of the neg-dive declaration so that if any member of the board moves to adopt that motion you should also amend the motion to change that word to approves instead of disapprove on page 2, line 21 >> is there a motion to change the disproved to approve for item number 62? motion by supervisor cohen, second by supervisor tang. can we take

that amendment without objection? without objection the amendment passes. supervisor wiener. >> i move item 62 and table item 63 and 64. >> okay, supervisor wiener made a motion to approve item 62 and table 63 and 64. >> supervisor breed, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye. kim, no. mar, no. tang, aye. wiener, aye. yee, aye. avalos, no. there are 7 aye and 3 no with supervisors kim, mar and avalos in the descent. >> okay so the mitigated negative declaration is confirmed. madam clerk for

item number-for the next item which you already called, i would thrike make a motion to amend page 7, line 3 to strike, if such contract is for more than 10 million--second by supervisor cohen. colleagues can we take that amendment without objection? awithout objection the amendment passes. madam clerk can you please call the roll? >> madam president earlier when we discussed the previous items you indicate #d you wanted to make a motion that the board retains authority to approve or disapprove the promect? >> yes and by striking it for that particular line item, it allows for this board och supervisors approve the contract for the dephrine and

propose facility regardless of the amount so by striking that line that is what i'm doing. >> thank you madam president >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the board has the authority to approve contracts in excess of 10 million dollars, contracts under 10 million dollars don't require board approval so in this contract we would advice the contracting department whether they have to come to board and that would typically still be the 10 million dollar 10 year thesh hold and the are construction contracts that require board approval la regardless of the dollar thresh hold. >> #345dm clerk for item 65 can you as amendmented please comthe roll?

>> supervisor breed, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye. kim, no. mar, no. tang, aye. wiener, aye. yee, aye. avalos, no. there are 7 aye and 3 noes with supervisor kim, mar and achb lose in the is descent >> the resolution as amened pass said. madam clerk can wie please go to public comnlt? >> at this time the pucklic may address the entire board of supervisors for up to 2 minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction to include the minutes and items on the adoption reference to item 72 and 73. public comment will not be allowed on a preechbious item subject to public comment.

pursuant to boards rules please direct remarks to there board as a whole, not to individual supervisors nor the audience. speak rbz using translation will be alloyed twice the amount of time to testify. if you would thrike display a document on the ovhead projectors state to sfgtv and remove the document when refer today the live meeting >> those sitting in the disabled and senior section with welcome to come forward before the general public. mrs. [inaudible] will you come forward, please?

>> good afternoon sprooizers mptd my name is rita simal and a commissioner on the human services commission and cofoundser of san francisco [inaudible] i speak in sport of inrecognition--we believe this

is illegal under the surplus land build passed earlier this year and like to ask dh board of supervisors to call a hearing to review that. we would like to make requests as a community who has concerns about the- >> i'm pausing your time. i believe this item is associated with item 56, the deposit and reimbursement agreement with the treasure island authority and the community development with the naval station. is that correction sir? >> no, nuth toog do with that.

>> my apologies. >> that's fine. our community has serious concerns regarding the relocation. since the dda was approved by the board sev sl years ago, sirs it was determine we would only move once the land was cleaned bought and handed over as a single unit from the navvy. now we are city residence and we'll move back to to federal land and moves all these right because we are moving city jurisdiction back to federal jurisdiction and then on top of that we have the housing affordsability crisis which makes the relocation payments inadequate in the cernt time for most families. then we also have concerns in that