>> we will have this chamber be a place where presenters can make a presentation and where members of the board can deliberate. we ask that folks sit down, if you could. great. so where were we? supervisor h araine?

>> y? >> in terms of the third option that was announced yesterday, do you have -- cap you provid -- ca sense of what that will involve and what the process is around that? i mean, if we're talking about a new facility that is unclear what would be opening in 2030, what will happen between now and then? >> my understanding is if the hall of justice is closed and the count is where it is now, that we'll have to have some place for people go. >> will you make that decision? what role will we have? >> a contract would come your way to approve. >> part of what i was hoping to

have is more of an in-depth discussion of what the immediate next steps will be? so are you involved directly in coming up with what that plan will be or do you expect that will be the sheriff's view? >> this was announced yesterday and i don't think there's a lot of discussion about that. i had preliminary discussions with the mayor who mentioned that she was headed in that direction and then the announcement came yesterday. >> and do you believe that the mayor's understanding is that these individuals incarcerated in county jail four will be sent to alameda county? >> i believe she believes that's the most likely alternative but there are no others, that i'm aware of. >> supervisor walton? >> thank you so much for your

presentation. as i look at your last slide, i appreciate the focus in terms of of mental health, substance abuse, housing to increase capacity to include those exiting from jail because we know people with stable homes, people with stable jobs, people with stable families and support system are let's likely to reohh fenreoffend or offend in the fit place. as i look at the said -- you said something in the beginning of your comments that i just want to say that i disagree but you said there's no appetite to build a new facility. that's not the case.

there's no an appetite to builda new one and a new jail. that's where the discrepancy is. >> go ahead, i'm sorry. >> and i'm also struggling with the statement of, there's a bunch of problems i programs inm pertaining to 850. as you know, there's a linear jail and one place, and the space isn't that big. >> it's small. >> one place where anybody can go to have any type of programming. so that does not apply when we talk about 850. my question is this, because i know that the department wasn't necessarily excited about 2015 and the plan and the no new jail mantra, because other folks are focused on what we can do more in line with the safety and justice challenge, but i see

from yesterday's coincident, 222 bids in the system and that doesn't count the available bids and jail number four. if we focus on a rehabilitative motto and changes and 222 bids right now and not counting the bids in 850, why hasn't there been a focus on what else you can do focus on coming up with a strategy that we have to send folks out of county? >> i think that you're mischaracterizing some of what we have been doing. we've been doing our best to get

people out of our jails. we've been doing electronic monitoring so that the judges would agree to let more people out of jail. so we are doing a lot to get people out and there programs at county jail. when you visited, there was a behavioral health pod in the area and since then we've closed that and moved that to county jail five and now a roads to recovery is out of the county jail four. it's not perfect but we do what we span therwhatwe can. there's a gym now and that's one of the best things and you're right, it's difficult to do quality programs at that location. but we haves child-parent visiting. >> my question was specific to -- i haven't mischaracterized anything because i agree we're doing a lot of things that keep

people from reoffending but with 222 spaces available from yesterday's count, not counting the available bids at county jail number four, knowing that the safety and -- what is it, safety and -- >> justice challenge. >> -- justice challenge is in place and there goes with what their plans are. why is the only focus on closure of the jail including out-of-county placement? >> well, 220 beds is the issue. when you look at the beds. if some are vacant in the women's jail, we can't sell those. we can make sure we're putting people together who need to be together. it's not like a hotel. we don't treat it like a hotel

or put anybody in with anybody. we make sure we're putting people together that will get along or be safe. i think we have a good safety record. so when you look at the jail count, remember, there's a 10 to 15% classification variable. >> i'm look at that and understanding the variables and the goal of maybe opening up 280 more spaces in terms of keeping people from coming back. we have 1300 in the jail everyday and down to a 1,000 and if we do things right and in accordance with that plan. but with that said, why are we not focused on coming up with a better plan than sending folks out of county? >> i don't have a better plan, supervisor. i think that we've looked around. we have plenty of programs in other places. we have ro robust release polic,

alternatives to incarceration but the judges are the people who put people in jail and people people in jail, not the sheriff. >> my hope and my plan is that we work on a better plan than what's been put in front of us, because there are things that we can do differently and so i hope as we move forward there is a better plan versus crossing our arms and saying we didn't get what we wanted in 2015 and we'll keep bringing that up. >> i think that's fair to say i'm crossing my arms and saying that, dinne since i worked diliy on the plan and did as much as i could. one of the reasons we did so many out today is because of the work the sheriff did to make that happen. >> i wouldn't take that personally. >> i won't. >> but we need a better alternative, in my opinion. >> i think whoever the number

sheriff is will be welcomed to work with anybody if there's a plan. i would say i hope the safety and justice talents could make headway but as james austin said, he said we've done what we can do and these are the two areas we need to look at and we'll be looking at them. the sheriff's department is also a part of that process. >> and i do want to just end on this note and say, thank you so much for your work. i do appreciate your leadership and i just want you to know i want what's best for the folks in 850 and that goes for the employees, with people housing the jail and i just think we can do much better coming up with an alternative to what exists right now. >> supervisor furer. >> is supervisor morrow here?

i would like to call him up. thank you, sheriff. so as i mentioned earlier in this conversation, is that i am looking at the success of triall services an an alternative to incarceration and speaking about how to expand it. so i want to ask basic questions and forgive me for not knowing this. >> at the next court date, our staff will provide a written report to the judges and then we make a decision at that point. >> do you make a recommendation? >> we give the judges information and they can determine the next step. >> do you know the number of people that actually are remanded back to incarceration? >> no, but we're work on that right now for you.

>> i think that would be helpful. >> you know, i am wondering how many people are eligible for a second look program. meaning that maybe those that we might have thought doesn't meet the initial requirements or special for pretrial, but maybe people with a little bit more support or more resources could be successful in this program. could you talk about that? >> from our perspective, i don't think there's anybody that shouldn't be eligible for a second look. there are always opportunities to connect them with more resources, more programs and our perspective on a second look, we get to spend more time and dig deeper into their needs and look at the community of resources that are available and then our staff will design a treatment plan that's again presented to the judge, so in my opinion, i think everyone should be afforded that opportunity. the question is, what resources are available at the other end? you know, our current referral

program operates as a second look and one of the biggest challenges, we get to a point that we send a treatment plan to the judge but if there's not a bed available or a space available they're going to remain in jail. so a lot of the conversation comes back to what we've been talking about ad ad nauseum. we focus on the other han focusi population, there's a 24-year-old population is a big bulk and having much experience working in the community with adults in that age range, there's a lack of programming. we have to invest in resources on the outside and make sure

there's a plan for transition out of detention into the community. and one other option we thought about is on our caseload, once someone's case is disposed, we lose contact with them. we do a hand-off to a community provider, but almost in a workforce model is to have an aftercare program where we're tracking people into the community and our connected with programs so that we and assure their success. one thing to look at is the first quarter of 2019, we had a 96% public safety rate. so 96% of the people that were on our caseload did not commit another crime. so that's an important stat to look at in the sense that it's working. if we have more community capacity and more connection between detention is community, i think we can do a better job to decrease the jail population. >> and so, in your estimation, you've been doing this a long time, that i think our paths crossed over a decade ago. so i wanted to ask you, in your

opinion, how many more people do you think we might be able to capture through a second-look program? >> you're putting me on the spot here. [ laughter ] >> i'm just asking because i don't think anyone else in this room has the level of expertise as you do because you've been doing pretrial for so long. if you don't want to answer, you don't have to. i know i'm putting you on the spot and to say a number is maybe unfair, but what i want to get to, what impact do you think it will have on our jail population to have a second look? i think that this has been discussed around additional resources and supports, as you say. i also think that many times we don't take into account employment opportunities after incarceration or arrests and so wondering how to fit these pieces together and not working in a silo but working with other

groups. i agree, that i don't think it should be a warm hand-off. i think there should be a follow-through. because you think, also, the data we collect about this, the more we know, the more we can do. i just think that why aren't people successful in in? this? what does it take to bring people back in society and be productive in society? what are the barriers and what are the challenges? and what responsibility is it of our own government, city government to actually provide -- i mean, to provide some supports but also to meet some of these challenges with additional supports or man times i think what we do is we invest in things so we can have a ton of programs but when you see the impact of the programs and you see people returning to incarceration like this, you have to ask yourself, what are these programs working? what is the impact of these

programs that we see year after year after year? when i look at the pretrial success but maybe how to expand this to have a greater success on a greater pool of people. >> i think one of the beauties of this process is we have a finite number of 313 people and that's a finite number of people that we could do a second look for every one of them and dig into and determine their needs. so it's not this number that's unattainable in our opinion. i think at the conclusion of the jail reenvisioning process, we made recommendations about next steps related to sf pretrial and at that point, we estimated 200, could be up to 300 people released through a second-look process. but that has changed. when you look at the individuals released at set pretrial, the severity of their cases and acuity of their needs has increased since that time and we

have to take that into account. i think 200 is a reasonable number, but to answer your question, i mean, it's really about us getting more creative as a city. our paths have crossed, supervisor walton and i, our paths have crossed and looking at unique alternatives. for example, most of my experience with kind of 25 to 45-year-old arch grou age groupm a business i helped to build in public housing. that it was off the beaten path and we weren't able to get city funding because it didn't fit, but those alternatives are important and those kind of not quite as young men now own and run that business. i think those are alternatives that are city can explore to help fill the gap and the needs of not everyone needs a bed and not everyone needs deep intense treatment but everyone needs that hope and dignity so that when they come out, there's something to look forward to.

so san francisco is fortunate to have a wealth of programs. you agree they're not all effective and i would sit in a funding seat and we had to make tough decisions about who did and didn't make money. we support each other and we can help the programs not as effective with accountability and with the support of getting everything leverage with a pretrial case manager, working with a case manager and if we combine resources, i don't think there's anything stopping us. but it's a matter of who will steer the ship and that's one of the challenges, is that there's no one in charge of all of the moving pieces and helping us to put them in place so that they're effective and focusing on the needs of the people that need them the most. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. i think that i may follow up with yo you, actually, for more data. i'm sorry i have to leave. i have a meeting with the police department but i wanted to just mention, also, that the thought of sending some of our folks to

ritas is frightening and the latest reports about the suicides and the deaths there, the lack of programming, the lack of support, there is just frightening to think that we would send people to that facility. i don't think it's in the best interests of our people who are in incarcerated and not in the best interests of their families. not just that we're separating them from their families, but look at the number of suicides and deaths there and that should give us pause. i'm trying to look at the total system to see where we can reduce the numbers so we don't have to send those folks out to santa riha, becausta because tht the facilities that safe for our folks incarcerated. thank you. >> and we agree. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you, supervisor furr. supervisor hainey. >> any other questions for the sheriff. >> thank you. my original questions were specific to the presentation. i do have a few more and this one is specific holds. >> to what? >> holds. >> ok. >> so my understanding is that the sheriff's department used to provide the public defender's office with hold information at arraignment so attorneys can work on lifting holds pretty quickly.

>> i'm not understanding why they would need us to give them a list but our person in legal services works on that, as well, trying to get holds lifted from other counties. >> i though we have a public defender in the audience. danielle, did you want to speak on that. is that accurate? >> if you can address the panel, please come to the microphone so everyone can hear you. and identify yourself once you're at the mic. >> i'm danielle harris, director the public policy with the public defensor's office since 11999 and on each new arraignmet we would get through the sheriff's department through the bailiffs the hold information on each client. that stopped at some point and i was not privy to why that change was made and that was one of the

recommendations that came out of the 2016 reenvisioning working group, was that it be reinstituted and it has not been. >> thank you, miss harris. >> i honestly don't remember that, but here is what i think happened. we used to keep the calendars in court and we don't do that any more and we had those lists of holds, but the fact is that the public defender gets a copy of the psa and the holds are in that. >> is there a way to make that process -- >> i think we should talk off-line to figure that out. i mean, we don't have a magic hold list, either. so we can figure that out. >> thank you. are we monitoring 48-hour regulations and relationing those folks? >> yes, pretrial is doing that for us. >> do we have -- >> i'm sorry, the 48-hour count

for the probable cause statement? >> yes. >> yeah. >> and then for all of the holds that we have right now, do we know how many are citeable, because it could be the case they fall within the citable category? >> if the holds are citable, we will cite them with the charges. yesterday we were at 95% capacity and the count fluctuates back and forth and for example, in august of last year, we had 1405 people in custody and that was unusual and high. so that's why i tell you that's another issue that we have with the vacancy rate.

sometimes we'll have a cell -- because we have dormitories and there might be beds there, that is another reason. so there's lots of different things to play into this to try our best to keep people safe. >> so yesterday as count was 95%? because i'm looking at -- that's one thing i have in front of me during this hearing and that's not what the numbers are. >> so what was the count yesterday. >> the custody in total at 1255 and total beds at 1506. >> i see. let's look at that more closely, then. >> thank you. >> thank you, sheriff hennessey. we agree that we wish this would have been dealt with and i know that you have put a lot of energy into it and obviously you

will continue to be involved in the next couple of months, as well, and, of course, your successor will be closely involved, as well. so thank you for your presentation and being here in person. >> thank you for having the hearing and thank you for your questions. i appreciate them. i just want to make it clear that i do think it's important to have the services that we need on the outside to keep people from coming to jail. i think it's important to have the services we need inside the jail to help people not come back to jail and anything we can do to increase those services in a way that is commensurate and helps with the re-entry into the community is something that we would always be in favour of. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> our last presentation and thank you everybody for your patience here, is from the no-new jail coalition and they've been at the forefront of this issue and have been advocating for closing this jail didn't investing in community resources and then following that, we'll have public comment.

>> i'm the policy direction of the coalition of homelessness and to represent the no-new jail sf coalition. we heard from the sheriff there aren't any alternatives except to send people out of county and that's not true. there's a people's vision to closing a 50 bryant and we will be going over that right now. and just a little bit of

background, we are community organization and community members, folk who's are formally incarcerated people who sense 2015 hav2015 who have been calln the city of san francisco to shut down at 50 bryant immediately. we represent more than 80 organizations and institutions that have united to demand the city take immediate steps to close a50 bryant. 850 bryant. at the core, it's not just about closing but counseling the jailing in san francisco by addressing the problem at its root through housing, mental health care and decriminalization. so first, we want to be responding to the mayor's proposal to close 80 bryant and

we appreciate this and we're excited about the mayor's investment in pretrial division. but there are a few aspects of the proposal that we are rejecting as a coalition, to wait to close until june of 2021. and also to construct a new jail in 2029. we cannot delay the jail by two years. we know that since 1996, it's been deemed a seismic threat and over 300 people will be in serious danger. it needs to be closed now and we cannot be expanding jail beds. we're rejecting the proposal to place mental health beds in a law enforcement jail setting rather than in the community. we know that mental health services and law enforcement is dangerous for those seeking mental health treatment. in the past, the previous police killings in san francisco involved people who are unhoused, as well as people with

mental health conditions. we are rejecting her use of $400 million from a capital plan than investing of what we know the community needs which is housing and healthcare. we are also -- this plan leaves open the option -- as they were saying earlier santa rita is one of the most dangerous places in alamena counties surrounding deaths, sleep deprivation and suicide. the sheriff's office supports ice to arrest immigrants when leaving jail custody and this also makes visitation difficult for when family and loved ones want to be visiting folks. it leaves open the option for expanding jail beds in san bruno and we can successfully reduce the jail population and we don't need more beds. today we are asking you to close

850 bryant through reducing the population to commit to no-new jail construction and reject transfers out of county. again, diverse stakeholders have developed a plan to close the jail and it's been deemed seismically unsafe over the past five years and there have been a dozen concerning the safety of the jail and the work group to reenvision publics the deficient jails three and four without a new jail. there were 72 recollections out of that work group, many of which have not been implemented due to budgetary needs and a lack of commitment by the city and a lack of oversight and accountability for this process. what we're talking about closing 850 bryant, it's not about public safety but a lack of accountability from the city to close this jail.

>> i'm angela jenkin jenkins ane by the group called interrupts racial profiling. i'll introduce a term that we would say is in the dialogue or encyclopedia and this is when something has someone against an individual and they use the police to launch their own effort against them. it's a false report. currently, san francisco is looking into changing its poli policy. it's my belief it doesn't seem to be going on in this.

the san francisco's general orders allows for people to be biaseddebiased. it doesn't look into not liking someone because they're white, because they just don't like them in their neighborhood. they will then phone the police and instead of doing what's righteous saying it's a low-level climb, they will escalate and say that individual has a weapon. that individual has a knife and this, in turn, can lead to greater citations, greater police force. a little bit that i understand about the healthy street's operation center, it was designed to lead by services, not to lead with an armed response which someone who uses biased by proxy can evoke when they escalate something without real data. i do recommend and believe in going forward the city itself is

going to look into doing ordinances similar to what's done in state of oregon when a 9-1-1 call is used irresponsibly and i hope the city brings out ordinances, possibly through rsfpd are here itself to sanction this type of behaviour where someone is misusing services and escalating things unnecessarily. >> and we see a lot of biased buy proxy from two of our most vulnerable populations, those sleeping on the streets of san francisco and those with mental health conditions. housing and mental health are two huge topics, all of the time, but particularly at this point in time in our city and we know that jailing is not the answer to either homelessness or mental illness. statistically, 40% of folks are

homeless at the time of arrest and 36% are people with a serious mental illness. that means 850 bryant is the largest homeless shelter in the city and the largest place that people are getting behavioral health services. we also know that with every engine pangs oexpansion of polie streets, we have seen a rising in jailing. there have been a number from 20% to 40%. in that same period of time, there has also been a doubling of the number of police officers that are assigned to homelessness. that statistics is no coincidence. we are seeing doubling of the rising of homeless people in the jail because of the number of police officers that are quote, unquote, addressing homelessness. not that people are doing more crime but they are being assigned criminality. and so, there must be an investment in permanent affordable hodding and behavioral healthcare instead of

criminalizing these populations. let's talking about a way to shut it down in a way that's dignified to the community. close 850 bryant without increased electronic monitoring and without moving incarcerated individuals to other counties. as we saw with the strong commitment to close the juvenile justice center, it is possible to close 8 850 bryant. so we want to create eligibility for an appeal that occurs for a fraction of the cost and 93% of the people are, again pretrial

and to expand behavioral health service. we know at the root we need to be giving people housing and the services that they need. number four bee to work towards eliminating bail so that people are not locked up for not being able to afford a way out. the decision and other bail reforms should result in people being released pretrial and we shouldn't before understanding that impact and to end the enforcement of life citations. there are over 26 homeless laws on the books that criminalize homeless people for existing in public space and several of those quality of life laws are misdemeanors and lead to people's arrest, for example, the tent ban and illegal lodging. so in closing, we are asking you to make a commitment towards actions that closes the jail through reduction of the number of people in it and without

expanding any beds. thank you so much. >> thank you for that presentation and for all of your advocacy and leadership. i would like to open it up for public comment. i know many people have been waiting for a long time, if that's ok with you all. >> before folks get up. one have cards. so i'll call cards for the folks who submitted them and if there are other people who want to speak, they are welcome to. and i'll sort of reiterate the speakers have two minutes. we ask you state your first and last name clearly and speak into the microphone. if you have a written state, leave it with our files. you have to avoid repetition of

the previous statements. sucati shaw, sarah lee, jordan davis, roma guy, alexander post, steven naylor, courtney hansen, diana black, jose bernall, megan swartz and if folks could line up at the right side of the chamber from your perspective. megan swartz, carrie lambrecht, marty jay.

>> we've been doing this for a long time and we think the new supervisors who are joining in in. roma guy from taxpayers and we're a member of the new jail coalition. so one of the surprises of today, and not to repeat what everyone else said is this renewed polarization from 2015. so i just want to point out that some of the alternatives like pretrial or whatever have really been effective. one that wasn't effective was one of the partners who should be here who isn't here today is the police. because they do the arrests. and so, you know, they're really important in this on what's going to happen in terms of what

your decisions are and what policies have to be developed so they aren't the front line of alternatives and/or incarceration. this is a key element that hasn't been brought up today and i think it's true. the other thing is that you well know is one of the failures of the jail replacement projects for which i was a cochair with the sheriff and department of public health, barbara garcia. so when we made a unanimous decision which you agree to that we would develop an alternative around the seriously mentally ill, with a bond, a health bond, that bond investment has disappeared. at least to the knowledge that we know of. and so, the renovations at san francisco general is for the expansion of the navigation

center which we agreed to, but now, the navigation centers don't include people released from the jail. all of that has disappeared. we need -- >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> santa rita is in an egregious place. now in the last five years in

alameda county, there have been 43 in custody that we know of and 30 plus women in the last four years that have come forward with lawsuits alleging abuse, neglect and all kinds of horrific stories coming out of there. so if you want to talk about any transfers, the transfers need to be transfers from 850 back into the community. we should be talking about transfers into sustainable living wage jobs, into housing and into opportunities that make our community grow and make our community safe. the other point that i want to get across is, as a san francisco resident and someone who spent a significant amount of time at 8 850 bryant, i'm tid of hearing this. i've been hearing this my entire life, since the closure of 850. we've heard enough and enough talking. you can't incarcerate the population. if your own family was there, think about your brother, sister, mother, this would have

gotten done already. so we've talked about this long enough and time to put real weight, teeth and real legislation. the community has come forward and offered those solutions. so it's not like we're talking snag istalkingabout quote, unqus spirational. >> i'm megan swartz a member of the coalition in conjunction with jose. it's shocking that we're talking about a facility. deemed uninhabitable for human beings and it is still open after years and years of knowing this.

you could move all of the people out of there and be done with this. that's first of all. with respect to alameda county, you should be in no way be considering transfers to santa rita jail. the place is an inimaginable house of horrors. our coalition has uncovered so many egregious violations, 43 deaths that we know of, in addition to the fact sheriff ahern is known to cooperate with ice and allow ice into his jails and numerous human right's abuses documented through lawsuits after lawsuits, millions of dollars in settlements, is that something

that san francisco wants to get involved in? i should certainly hope not. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm sarah lee with the free sf coalition and this is my colleague, kotia. >> we'll have two minutes for each of you to speak but you will not be sharing the two minutes. two minutes with one didn't then the other. >> ok, great. >> ok, please start. for both of us, we're proud of the free sf coalition advocating for pro immigrant policies in san francisco including the tree ordinance and we wanted to share the immigrant right's site is the site to close down 850 bryant and completely together, because i think, as many people have said, that the idea to transfer people out of county, completely endangers the it community.

immigrant community. last year alone, the sheriff's office turned over 102 immigrants to ice and this is one of the highest in all of the counties in california. so we wanted to make sure that's clear and that endangers and exposed immigrants to his policies with ice. >> thank you. i'm a expect right's director. our organization was a part of the free sf coalition and the coalition that passed legislation in 2013 and in 2016. and this legislation actually is stronger than the california one to protect the immigrant families and individuals in our city. sheriff ahern has a way to collude with ice despite california sanctuary law.

he persists in allowing ice officers into nonpublic areas of the jail, as well as transferring people who are detained. so you can't send any people to santa rita jail because this would violate due process legislations, the legislations that were passed by this board of supervisors. so you need to make sure that when closing 850 bryant which should happen immediately, immigrants are protected. sheriff ahern is not someone to trust with immigrant communities or anyone, actually. and so if you are going to be transferring people, again, transfer them back to our communities, not into ice custody, not into another sheriff's department that is going to violate the rights or kill them. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon.

my name is tacati shaw and i'm an organizer with a project of legal services for prisoners. my deepest concern is that each of you sitting here, if i'm not mistaken, got here through being appointed as an officer or something of the such, correct? you're voted in. it is our responsibility as voters to make sure that we pay attention to the things that you as public servants are not doing. 850 bryant should have been closed a long time ago because if you did have oh, say, me who owned a house and seismically my house is not up to par, you would have condemned my home and not given me a penny. so my question to you is, and i'm sure i won't get an answer, how are you sleeping at night knowing that the blood will be required at your hands for anyone who possibly dies because

of an earthquake which could happen at any moment? the next step is homelessness. homelessness is the greatest factor for prison. most people who go to prison, including myself, homelessness, homelessness, homelessness leads to mental health and all kinds of certain things. i heard the supervisors say someone in her area was robbed homelessness, change that and recycle that and reuse it for a homelessness center and i bet you crime will go down. great day. >> thank you, next speaker.

>> i remember in 1978, i was housed in santa clara county and they had me sleeping on the floor and had a contract with san francisco and sent us to san bruno and you be creating safety issues for other people, bringing them from one county to another. i think the money should be spent to more resources, to educate people coming back into the community so they don't be a recidivist. like i said, transferring people from one county to another, that won't solve the problem. we need to try to reduce the jail population and come up with other alternatives and it wouldn't be crowded in the first place. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm alexander post, with the democratic socialists of network of the no-new jails. i work on behalf of people

sentenced to death, challenging their sentences from inside san quentin and i bring that up because my client stories are similar, growing up in poverty, abused as children, with families unequipped to help, bad schools overwhelmed teachers and no councillors and learning disabilities and kids get punished for acting out, end up in juvenile hall. they are treated harshly, they lash out and suffer harm. maybe you can understand when i hear we're considering a plan to improve public safety by building a new jail whether it's called new justice jail or whatever, that sounds absurd. i am willing to bet or residents serve less jail time than people in other districts. is that because we're better people than district 10? i don't think so.

it's because we're whiting and d riching and the city serves us better. we have good housing, good schools, good healthcare, including mental health, good parks, street lighting and the system works for us, basically. that's public safety. we don't need the threat of cages to act lawfulfully because the system is working for us. don't double down on 19t 19th century solutions rooted in racism. it won't include public safety. we know what works, it's investing in communities. maybe the system work not just for us but everything. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is steven naylor and the city has fallen so far short for providing the basic services and care that the people living here need to survive and the reason that we can't see this is because our most vulnerable people are locked away, out of sight, trapped in endless

pretrial processes and on account of laws and enforcement policies that make it a crime to be in public while poor. incarceration invisiblizes the scopech our city'scope of our cd will be true in a crumbmy building or shiny new one. the hard work of solving social problems has been outsourced as a default by the police and jail system for far too long and you must not allow that to continue any longer. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hello. my name is carrie lambrecht. i'm a paralegal and investigator. i've been working on the cases against santa rita jail for conditions, including the morbochr case and upshaw case on sleep deprivations.

this is not something you want to send people to. as a resident of 25 years to the city, this is not an approach you should consider in any way whatsoever. i am echoing the former speakers around the death rate which was reported by fox news on october 1st, as being within of the highest in th county jaif its size. the cases inside i am investigating, women who have lost their babies, deaths, a woman who gave birth in an isolation cell alone without any medical support in santa rita jail. these types of conditions are not anything that i think we need to be considering sending more people to and i think that we need to consider what many of the speakers today have outlined

as no-new jail and we need more resources for people to remain in the community without monitoring and we also need more treatment options which i don't think have been outlined or presented today. so that's what i would like to have you steer your attention towards and i am strongly in favour of you not considering santa rita jail as a direction you want to move in, thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is courtney hansen and i'm a member of the coalition for women prisoners and we have worked with women, trans and conforming for many years. as we've been discussing, a truly number of people we have worked with, over 80% are incarcerated before trial and stuck there for months and years. we cannot reiterate the pretrial point as much.

these folks should not be touching a pre-carc system, period. that does include, electronic, shackles and ankles. we learned how making this finding jobs impossible, not to mention the stress of trying to care for your child with a shackle on your leg. i'm speaking of someone who has experienced house arrest, and incarceration is not an alternative. it is shocking and unacceptable that san francisco has increased the use of electronic monitoring by 300% since 2018 while the jail population has also increased and while crime rates have stayed stagnant. there are nonprofits that can be utilized in this community that have the skills and are the experts like own recognizance project is second-look program. and it is possible to deincarcerate all people at

bryant without tro transfers and someone locked in santa rita, that is an extremely, dark and dramatic place. i'm worked up just hearing people talk about it. and to supervisor stephanie, i understand where you're coming from, but we know for a fact that cops in jails do not prevent inner-personal harm but exacerbate harm. he do not stop instances from happening and they don't create healing and solutions after they occur. it's an illusion. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hello, board. so the jail at 850 bryant is falling apart and needs to be closed. the building is parke marked for demolition since 1996.

to illustrate that, i'll bring in people we've been communicating inside the jails. (please stand by).