>> hello, madam chair. >> all right.

good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the october 18, 2019, special meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i am supervisor rafael mandelman. we are expecting vice chair stefani to arrive, our clerk is john carroll. thank you, mr. carol. i want to thank charles and jason at s.f. g. tv for staffing this meeting. machin>> please ensure you've silenced your cell phones, and your completed speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the october 29thd of supervisors' agenda unless otherwise stated. >> i'd like to take item two first and then one and then three.

so, mr. clerk, could you please call item two. >> item two is an ordinance amending the health and business code to replace the requirement that food preparations and service establishments post a symbol issued by the department of public health, and a placard indicating whether the establishment has conditionally passed or failed a health inspection. clarifying some of the terminology pertaining to violations and penalties for same. and increasing permit fees for temporary permits and food vending machines. >> thank you, mr. clerk. this is supervisor peskin's legislation, and we have calvin yang from his office to tell us about it. >> thank you, chair mandelman. first i want to say my name is calvin, and i'm the legislative aide to to

the supervisor. with an abundance of food options, whether delivered or eating in-house, the health is up of utmost priorities. i'm here to present to you and to seek your support for the proposed revision to the current food establishment scoring system. the current system that san francisco has been using is misleading and convoluted for the costumers and the food establishment operators. currently local law authorizes d.p.h. to award them at the end of each inspection. and the score can range between 0 to 100. one restaurant can have a score of 95, and another 75, and regardless of the score, both restaurants can be operational, and may not pose any immediate health risks. for consumers, this means that it conveys little information if it would be safe to eat at a restaurant or not.

for small businesses, the score misleads the consumer about the quality of food being served. in the public health perspective, we want to know if the establishment possess any immediate risk and whether or not anyone can eat there or not. the color-coded placard uses a very simple red, yellow, green light system. the system is more dynamic, and our focus on enforcing the importance of compliance with the critical health risk factors. it focuses on two questions. one, whether a restaurant possess an immediate health risk. and two, whether that risk is abated during inspection. this system has been adopted and approved by a number of areas in the bay area. and has been supported by the small business commission. we went to the commission twice, and they have both approved it and support it. i do also want to add that this legislation, while working with the department, we have also

added into categories of food facilities, and updated fee structures so the department is catch up to the innovative business ideas and ever-changing landscape of the food industry in san francisco. before i bring up d.p.h., i want to think -- pay tribute to lisa miley, who has retired after 38 years severinserving at d.p.h. she has been a respected and valued member, even as an inspector, and i want to thank lisa for bringing this forward. right now i have the department of public health, patrick fosto, assistant director of environmental branch, terrence hong, and mary fronski from the department, principal environmental health inspector. thank you. >> good morning, members, my name is patrick foson,

the assistant director of the environmental health branch. we spent a lot of time working with supervisor peskin's office, and organizations like the golden gate restaurant associations, to craft some changes, as was mentioned, primarily to the way food establishments are scored here in san francisco. we presented before the small business commission, and they applauded the amendments and acknowledged the health department's responsiveness to community feedbacks. we believe the proposed changes represent a win/win scenario for both restaurant owners and the health of the people here in san francisco. with that, i'd like to introduce to you terrence hong, who is one of our food district managers, he will give you a brief overview of the changes that we're proposing. >> good morning, committee

members. ni nammy name is terrence hong, and i'm weren' one of the food program managers in san francisco. current history: in 2004, the current system was adopted. this system, for the better part of two decades, had served its purpose. iit has reported to the public a number based score, with both food safety, administrative violations and the structural violations. unfortunately, the current system, as mentioned, has outlived its usefulness. to share with you what all food inspectors know: we're not the most important person in term of food safety. the most important people are the operators. we're just the checkers of

the checkers. it pales in comparison to the 365 days a year that the operator is there in his or her facility. because this scoring system can be too heavily influenced by non-food safety incidents, i already mentioned the administrative and structural, it doesn't necessarily reflect the current score of the conditions the patron might go into. as a result, too many of the partners, too many of the operators, have lost faith in the system. so the san francisco department of public health is second to none in its commitment to protecting and promoting public health. but the danger of being the best is that there comes with it sometimes an overconfidence or stubbornness to change. fortunately, we also adopt the commitment to staying humble, and humility allows us to disarm any illusions that self-critique of the current system or self-improvement of the

currents system can't be attained. we ask, honestly, is anyone doing it better than us? will we gain to learn and mimic from the success of other counties so not to rein vebt threinvent the wheel. we are actually behind the other bay area counties mentioned, but i think visually for you, and hopefully in the package that you have in front of you and on the screen, you'll see all of the other bay area counties use this infinitely more user-friendly and intuitive system. so that just shows you that san francisco visually is behind the curve. even though we the forerunners to introducing the system into the nine bay area counties. okay association this is what we want to present to you, the placarding system, which has a proven track record in all of the bay area. you're san francisco inspectors can adopt any system.

we're going to provide the exact same food safety inspections. we can adjust to any system. we do it better, in my estimation, than any other county, and we do it well. it is not so much the inspectors of the department that need re-evaluation, it is the methodology we currently use to report it to the public that we serve. so this elegant approach gets out of the business of communicating anything other than the current food safety conditions of a restaurant. in short, what i'm trying to say, less is more. and this is how we win back our partners who many have lost faith in the current system. so kind of to give you an overview of understanding how it works -- it is all based in science. so we take our cue from the cbc on the national level. they identified five risk factors that get people sick. poor employee high jen, improper cooking temperatures, improper

holding temperatures, contaminated equipment for food, and unapproved food sources. these are defined as major violations, and we miss -- any major violation or any condition that causes a major violation is something that would contribute to one of these five factors. so, for example, rodent droppings observed on a kitchen cutting board would obviously fall into a major violation. if you had a cracked tile on your floor, it obviously would not. so how does it work for the actual operator? it is pretty intuitive. in a nutshell, if you have one or fewer violations that can be corrected onsite, which is the vast, vast majority, i would say in the 98% or 99% percentile of places we inspect, you get a green placard.

all facilities who have two or more major violations, and you couldn't correct it on site, you would receive the yellow placard. that being said, the department would make arrangements to come back at a time when they could make adjustments to that and potentially give the green placard again. only if you couldn't abate the major violation on site that the red placard would be issued. the department has always had a good working relationship with the business community, meaning that if, unfortunately, a temporary suspension was made, we come back as quickly as the violation can be corrected. for example, if you had a waterheater that just needed the plumber to adjust it, we could be back that afternoon. if you needed more time to call your pest control operator because you have an infestation, we'll also accommodate that and we can be out there the next morning if your operator needs that afternoon or night to remedy the problem.

that's sort of the convoluted version of what i just described. so lastly, you see the placards again, which we're proud to introduce to you today. i would close by saying it is not enough to maintain excellence, the mindset of complacency. as responsible stewards of special health for this special one-of-a-kind city, we hope you will agree with us we can adopt the placarding system because it is a win/win situation. i remain available for any questions, specifically to the clack car placard system, ad the mayor is here to answer any questions that you may have that addresses some of the introduction of different food category restaurants. >> thank you.

my colleagues appear to be delighted by what they have heard. so we can go to public comment. speakers will have two minutes. you can state your first and last name clearly and speak directly into the microphone. those with written statements are e encouraged to leave copies for the file. and we encourage speakers to avoid repetition of previous statements. so if there are any folks who would like to speak on item two, come on up. it looks like there are none. so public comment is now closed. and...if there are now comments or questions, i will move that we forward this to the full board with positive recommendation, and we can take that without objection. great. thank you. mr. clerk, please call item one.

>> agenda item one, a hearing to consider the premises to premises transfer of a type 21, off-sawitwill serve it's the puc convince or necessity of the city or county. >> great, let's hear from the a.l.u. >> good morning member, members of the board of supervisors. they have applied for a type 21 licence, and if approved, it will allow them to sale off-sale beer and wine and spirits. there are no letters of offense or support. they're on census tract 177. the southern station has no opposition.

the alcohol liason committee approves with the following conditions. number one, sale and services will be permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. midnight. and they'll prevent the loitering of persons on any property as depected depictd on abc 253. >> great. it looks like we don't have any comments or questions. we'll invite the applicant up. >> good morning. beth osalopia for target. this is an application for a determination of public convenience or necessity for a small format target store that will be operating on folsom.

this store will be similar to the other small format target stores in san francisco. one in downtown san francisco on bush, a similar store in oceanview, and one in the stone's town galleria. all of those target stores also sell alcoholic beverages with a type 21license. we would like to be able to order those same products to targets of the costf the new target store. the alcohol sales will be incidental, and it will be for those who, along with groceries, would like to pick up alcoholic beverages. because it is offered at other target stores, it is a product that costumers come to expect from

target. so we would like to be able to offer that. we have reached out to some 200 residents, closest residents to the proposed location, with notification of our alcohol license, and there were no objections. we also did reach out to the soma west community benefits district, and, again, there were no objections to the alcohol license that we've applied for. as you heard, a.l.u. is supportive of the request, and we would ask that the committee make a favorable recommendation. i'd be happy to answer any questions. and there is also a representative of target here who would have a few comments. >> does the representative for target want to come up?

>> good morning. john dues with target. i'm the develop manager for this region. i just wanted to thank you all for this opportunity today. and also just to just reiterate target's commitment to the city of san francisco -- the city and county of san francisco. in terms of what we've done in terms of our corporate giving over the years, and what we intend to do here as well. we're working with a number of non-profit groups, particularly at this store in terms of local hiring for underserved groups within the area, including the san francisco lgbtq center, the youth services, and the positive

resource center. we're working with a number of formally homeless transitional aids youth who identify as lgbtq as part of our hiring process for this store. this goes a along with just our more general community giving of 5% of our annual profits. we're excited to be here. and we do appreciate a positive vote on this today. thank you. >> now, it's my understanding that the district supervisor has been in communication with you all, and is asking that we continue this to allow you additional time for outreach to the community. is that your understanding as well? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> it is my understanding that the district supervisor has been in touch with you all and is encouraging you to do some additional outreach to the community, and has asked us to continue this to

allow time for that. >> we feel like we've done all the outreach to the various groups that have been necessary for this, including, as i said, the local hiring that we will be working on. >> okay. anything you want to add to that? >> not at this point, no. >> great. well, then, we'll open this up for public comment. thank you. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. all right, it is my -- it has been communicated to my office that supervisor haney is requesting that we continue this. the challenge there is that we are up against the 90-day deadline, but we are -- we generally understand that the abc, even if we don't make our

determination by public convenience and necessity within the 90-day period, it generally defense to our determination, but after that point they do not have to. based on that and the supervisor's request, i'm going to move that we continue this to our november 8 special meeting. >> to the november 8 special. >> yeah. and we will -- seeing no objections, we'll take that without objection. all right. mr. clerk, could you please call item three. >> item three is a hearing to discuss the closing of county jail number four at 850 bryant. >> i believe this is supervisor haney's, so we might just recess for a minute to allow him to get here. so we'll take a five

minute recess. we'll do a five minute recess.

viewrvestef yee

>> all right, everyone, we're going to reconvene. i'm going to ask folks to quiet down, sit down. we've been joined by supervisor haney. and i believe we have already called item three, correct? we have not? we have. >> i'm happy to do it again. >> no. once is enough. but since we do have a number of few folks who entered the chamber, perhaps you can say how we work. >> please don't stand in the chamber. we should have enough seats for everyone. please also respect the board rule, 3.1, prohibition against

applause or any other kind of vocal interruption of the meaning today, and any displaying of any signage you have brought in here. and please no eating and drinking here. >> but can indicate their approval of things said or disapproval of things that have been said, but we ex ask that folks not boo or cheer because this is going to be a long hearing, and we would like to move it along. so with that, supervisor aan ne,haney, this is your item. >> thank you, chair mandelman and committee members. i appreciate you all for having this hearing here and for your patience. i'm going to provide some opening comments and then we have a number of presenters, and i want to thank them for being here. and i'll announce them after my comments. we are holding this hearing, which i called, along with my colleagues

president yee, supervisors ronan browning, for a very simple reason: we have to close the jail at 850 bryant. it is far past the time for a time and plan to do so. the building has been marked for demolition since 1996, other than 20 years ago. the city administrator called for the jail to be closed by the end of this year, 2019. despite this, no active plan exists to close the jail. no one believes that this building is safe. i met with the key city officials on this issue, all of whom have spoken out publicly. the sheriff, the city administrator's office, superior court judges and now the mayor, and they all agree this building is siseismicly unfit. everyone who works there will be moved out of the building.

the only group we don't have a plan for are the people incarcerated there, and the people who work directly with them. this is unacceptable, it is shameful, and it needs to change. everyone is in agreement that the jail should close and it will close as soon as possible. one city official actually told me that the building is so obviously unsafe and widely understood to be so, that our own department of building inspections could soon red tag it and close it themselves at any moment. a few months ago, i spent the morning at county jail number four, the jail on the seve seventh floor of 850 bryant. i toured the jail with my staff and the sheriff, and the jail is built in a linear style, forcing those incarcerate there'd thereo spend most of their day in old, crowded concrete walls. most jails house

individuals in pods with recreational space. is however, at 850 bryant, they are largely incarcerated thrin their cells for most of the day. people with severe mental illness has very little ongoing care, and are not in an environment fit for treatment. over 90% of people there have actually not been convicted of any crime yet. they are awaiting trial. many have been awaiting their day in court for months, or even years, and languish there because they cannot afford to pay bail or because of a lack of space in other facilities. continuing to house people in that facility is also an issue of public safety. people housed there need and deserve individualized treatment and rehabilitation, not concrete cell blocks. we are not safer as a community when individuals spend time in this jail without any support or treatment, and then released back on the streets. the jail system also represents the grave racial and economic

disparities of our criminal justice system. 45% of those held are african-american. almost 40% are unhoused. over 30% are in need of mental health care. 25% are under 25, and over 90% are being held pre-trial. these statistics should shock our moral conscience. san francisco can and must act to reduce criminalization, divert people from jail, and have more affective approaches to pre-trial and diversion. those on the seventh floor do not supervise themselves. sheriff's deputies and other employees, including doctors, nurses, and counsellors, and keeping this open is also a violation of workers' rights and endangers the safety of staff who work there. those trapped on the seventh floor in the concrete cells do not get to go home, for the folks who live there, but this is also an incredible

danger to the people who work there as well. a recent news article in 2017 alerted the public to the fact that the building would likely crumble in a major earthquake. just yesterday was an anniversary of one of our earthquakes, and 850 bryant treatmen street is not prepared and we need to act. in 2015, supervisors rejected new jail construction. since that time, there have been more than 10 hearings here, alternatives to jailing, mental health courts & behavioral services, along with countless meetings of working groups and associated committees. the clock has been ticking on this unsafe facility for a long time, and now is the time to act. yesterday mayor breed announced a delayed closure of the jail at 850 bryant that would potentially keep people imprisoned until

july 2021. despite the fact that the mayor announced a closure date of july 2021, which would shockingly mean people would live and work in this facility for another two years, we still don't have any details about how exactly that is going to happen. we don't know how much it is going to cost. we don't know what are options are as a policy body and with regard to the city. the mayor announced a site that would start construction in 2028 and presumably open in the 2030s. we don't know much about this facility, whether it would be a sort of replacement jail or what it would be used for, and we need to know those answers so that we can plan ahead and do the right thing for our city. the goal here is not to relitigate past decisions made by this board or others. it is an opportunity to hear what our options are, plans and costs in more

detail. the mayor says we're going to close this facility in two years, and even if we accepted that timeline, which i have serious concerns about, we have to have a plan in place now. we have heard the possibility that some individuals incarcerated at county jail four would be sent to santa rita jail. i and many others have serious concerns about this approach. these concerns have not been answered or addressed. it would be expensive, burdeburdensome, and would impact rehabilitation and reentry. there are not only concerns about costs and logistics, but most importantly questions about human rights. santa rita jail has a sketchy track record when it comes to people incarcerated there, and it has approaches that are not compatible with san francisco values when it comes to cooperation in immigration officials. in july of this year, 93% of the 313 people

incarcerated in jail number four were awaiting trial. many of those were either homeless or experiencing serious mental illness or addiction. with the focus that our city has on putting mental health care and treatment at the forefront, as well as prioritizing pre-trial reform, we should be planning right now for how we're going to transition many of piece individuals into mental health care, supportive housing, as well as more effective, less costly, more community-based pre-trial services, and i want to hear about our plans to do that. the longer we wait to plan for an affective, smart, and safe san francisco solution to closing this facility, the more constrained our decisions and options are, and the longer we place people in grave danger in this facility. the time for a plan is now. i want to thank, again, all of the departments. and i want to thank the "no new jail" coalition who was very much involved in partnering with my office, and my staff,

abbey river mesa, who did a lot of work on this as well. first wearing going to hear from the budget and legislative analysts. they did a report that was recently released that really broke down what exactly is happening at 850 bryant, what the costs are per individual, the staffing, and some of the things that have been done so far. in analyzing these numbers, i'm interested in hearing from all of our propertieds opresenters on whaty believe these numbers mean for our jail population and specifically for the closure of the jail. >> thank you, supervisor haney. we have been joined by supervisor fewer, and we have comments from supervisor wal toon and supervisor fewer. supervisor wal ton? >> i want to thank you for calling this hearing and for everybody who has come up today. we have known for years

that 850 bryant is seismicly unfit. we've had several discussions about how to best shut down this facility and accommodate both populations. the building is unfit for city employees, not just because of the seismicly unsafe conditions, but also due to the dilapidated state and overall wear and tear of a building that needs much attention and needs to be torn down. in addition, the jail is not fit to exist. the old school-style and prison-like ads fear is noprison-like atmosphere will never provide an opportunity for true rehabilitation to help individuals re-enter society. i, too, visited the jail with my team a couple of months ago and instantly knew this was an inhumane facility. today we're hoping to hear how we will shut down 850 bryant, and make sure all

people who use the building have a viable alternative that addresses everyone's needs. i want to thank the department, and naomi and her team, and the "no new jail" coalition for all of their work on this and for being here to come and witness this hearing and have the conversation about next steps. but we do need a real plan, a viable plan, that takes into consideration employees, as well as individuals housed in the jail, and how we're going to do that thoughtfully and appropriately for all populations. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor walton. supervisor fewer. >> thank you, chair. good morning, everyone. i want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues. i appreciate this hearing and much of our conversation today is about the closure of the hall of justice, specifically about the closure of county jail number four.

but the way i'm looking at this issue is system-wide, and i am looking at the population across the entire jail system. essentially, i want to avoid a scenario where we have to send any people to santa rita or jails out of the county, which has been emphasized by supervisor haney. my office has talked to many departments, looking for strategies to further reduce the jail population. thank you, colleagues, for calling this hearing.

first of all, cost. that was a primary question that we were asked to address.

and specifically the cost of not just the syrup -- share of's department but other departments that provide service to county jail number four as well. this table shows for fiscal year 20, the current fiscal year, as well as her 17-18, what the budgeted costs are for the sheriff, the real estate division, capital spending cost, and the department of public health costs. you can see here, for the current year, it is $19.9 million for just the sheriff, and then the real estate division and capital funding adds $755,000, and the department of public health, which is both jail health services and behavioral health is $4 million. the grand total for the current year is $24.7 million in costs for the departments involved in county jail number four