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. Id 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 peskins 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 im the legislative aide to to the supervisor. With an abundance of food options, whether delivered or eating inhouse, the health is up of utmost priorities. Im 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 colorcoded 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 everchanging 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 peskins 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 Departments 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, id 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 were proposing. Good morning, committee members. Ni nammy name is terrence hong, and im 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 were not the most important person in term of food safety. The most important people are the operators. Were 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 nonfood safety incidents, i already mentioned the administrative and structural, it doesnt 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 selfcritique of the Current System or selfimprovement of the currents system cant 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, youll see all of the other bay area counties use this infinitely more userfriendly 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. Youre San Francisco inspectors can adopt any system. Were 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 reevaluation, 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 im 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 couldnt 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 couldnt 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, well also accommodate that and we can be out there the next morning if your operator needs that afternoon or night to remedy the problem. Thats sort of the convoluted version of what i just described. So lastly, you see the placards again, which were 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 oneofakind 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, offsawitwill serve its the puc convince or necessity of the city or county. Great, lets 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 offsale beer and wine and spirits. There are no letters of offense or support. Theyre 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 theyll prevent the loitering of persons on any property as depected depictd on abc 253. Great. It looks like we dont have any comments or questions. Well 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 stones 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 weve applied for. As you heard, a. L. U. Is supportive of the request, and we would ask that the committee make a favorable recommendation. Id 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. Im the develop manager for this region. I just wanted to thank you all for this opportunity today. And also just to just reiterate targets commitment to the city of San Francisco the city and county of San Francisco. In terms of what weve done in terms of our Corporate Giving over the years, and what we intend to do here as well. Were working with a number of nonprofit 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. Were 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. Were excited to be here. And we do appreciate a positive vote on this today. Thank you. Now, its 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 . Im 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 weve 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, well 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 90day deadline, but we are we generally understand that the abc, even if we dont make our determination by public convenience and necessity within the 90day period, it generally defense to our determination, but after that point they do not have to. Based on that and the supervisors request, im 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, well 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 haneys, so we might just recess for a minute to allow him to get here. So well take a five minute recess. Well do a 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 were 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 well 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 indepth 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 sheriffs view . This was announced yesterday and i dont think theres 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 mayors understanding is that these individuals incarcerated in county jail four will be sent to Alameda County . I believe she believes thats the most likely alternative but there are no others, that im 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 lets 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 theres no appetite to build a new facility. Thats not the case. Theres no an appetite to builda new one and a new jail. Thats where the discrepancy is. Go ahead, im sorry. And im also struggling with the statement of, theres a bunch of problems i programs inm pertaining to 850. As you know, theres a linear jail and one place, and the space isnt that big. Its 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 wasnt 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 yesterdays coincident, 222 bids in the system and that doesnt 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 hasnt 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 youre mischaracterizing some of what we have been doing. Weve been doing our best to get people out of our jails. Weve 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 weve closed that and moved that to county jail five and now a roads to recovery is out of the county jail four. Its not perfect but we do what we span therwhatwe can. Theres a gym now and thats one of the best things and youre right, its difficult to do quality programs at that location. But we haves childparent visiting. My question was specific to i havent mischaracterized anything because i agree were doing a lot of things that keep people from reoffending but with 222 Spaces Available from yesterdays 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 outofcounty placement . Well, 220 beds is the issue. When you look at the beds. If some are vacant in the womens jail, we cant sell those. We can make sure were putting people together who need to be together. Its not like a hotel. We dont treat it like a hotel or put anybody in with anybody. We make sure were 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, theres a 10 to 15 classification variable. Im 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 dont have a better plan, supervisor. I think that weve 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 whats 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 didnt get what we wanted in 2015 and well keep bringing that up. I think thats fair to say im 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 wouldnt take that personally. I wont. But we need a better alternative, in my opinion. I think whoever the number sheriff is will be welcomed to work with anybody if theres a plan. I would say i hope the safety and justice talents could make headway but as james austin said, he said weve done what we can do and these are the two areas we need to look at and well be looking at them. The Sheriffs 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 whats 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 were 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 doesnt 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 dont think theres anybody that shouldnt 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 thats 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 theres not a bed available or a Space Available theyre going to remain in jail. So a lot of the conversation comes back to what weve been talking about ad ad nauseum. We focus on the other han focusi population, theres a 24yearold population is a big bulk and having much experience working in the community with adults in that age range, theres a lack of programming. We have to invest in resources on the outside and make sure theres a plan for transition out of detention into the community. And one other option we thought about is on our caseload, once someones case is disposed, we lose contact with them. We do a handoff to a community provider, but almost in a workforce model is to have an Aftercare Program where were 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 thats an important stat to look at in the sense that its 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, youve 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 secondlook program . Youre putting me on the spot here. [ laughter ] im just asking because i dont think anyone else in this room has the level of expertise as you do because youve been doing pretrial for so long. If you dont want to answer, you dont have to. I know im 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 dont 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 dont think it should be a warm handoff. I think there should be a followthrough. Because you think, also, the data we collect about this, the more we know, the more we can do. I just think that why arent 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 thats 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 its not this number thats 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 secondlook 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, its 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 45yearold arch grou age groupm a business i helped to build in public housing. That it was off the beaten path and we werent able to get city funding because it didnt 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, theres something to look forward to. So San Francisco is fortunate to have a wealth of programs. You agree theyre not all effective and i would sit in a funding seat and we had to make tough decisions about who did and didnt 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 dont think theres anything stopping us. But its a matter of who will steer the ship and thats one of the challenges, is that theres no one in charge of all of the moving pieces and helping us to put them in place so that theyre 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. Im 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 dont think its in the best interests of our people who are in incarcerated and not in the best interests of their families. Not just that were separating them from their families, but look at the number of suicides and deaths there and that should give us pause. Im trying to look at the total system to see where we can reduce the numbers so we dont 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 Sheriffs Department used to provide the Public Defenders Office with hold information at arraignment so attorneys can work on lifting holds pretty quickly. Im 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 youre at the mic. Im danielle harris, director the Public Policy with the public defensors office since 11999 and on each new arraignmet we would get through the Sheriffs 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 dont remember that, but here is what i think happened. We used to keep the calendars in court and we dont 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 offline to figure that out. I mean, we dont have a magic hold list, either. So we can figure that out. Thank you. Are we monitoring 48hour regulations and relationing those folks . Yes, pretrial is doing that for us. Do we have im sorry, the 48hour 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 thats why i tell you thats another issue that we have with the vacancy rate. Sometimes well have a cell because we have dormitories and there might be beds there, that is another reason. So theres lots of Different Things to play into this to try our best to keep people safe. So yesterday as count was 95 . Because im looking at thats one thing i have in front of me during this hearing and thats not what the numbers are. So what was the count yesterday. The custody in total at 1255 and total beds at 1506. I see. Lets 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 its important to have the services that we need on the outside to keep people from coming to jail. I think its 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 reentry 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 nonew Jail Coalition and theyve been at the forefront of this issue and have been advocating for closing this jail didnt investing in Community Resources and then following that, well have Public Comment. Im the policy direction of the coalition of homelessness and to represent the nonew jail sf coalition. We heard from the sheriff there arent any alternatives except to send people out of county and thats not true. Theres a peoples 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 whos 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, its 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 mayors proposal to close 80 bryant and we appreciate this and were excited about the mayors 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, its 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. Were 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 Sheriffs 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 dont need more beds. Today we are asking you to close 850 bryant through reducing the population to commit to nonew jail construction and reject transfers out of county. Again, diverse stakeholders have developed a plan to close the jail and its 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 were talking about closing 850 bryant, its not about Public Safety but a lack of accountability from the city to close this jail. Im Angela Jenkin jenkins ane by the group called interrupts racial profiling. Ill 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. Its a false report. Currently, San Francisco is looking into changing its poli policy. Its my belief it doesnt seem to be going on in this. The San Franciscos general orders allows for people to be biaseddebiased. It doesnt look into not liking someone because theyre white, because they just dont like them in their neighborhood. They will then phone the police and instead of doing whats righteous saying its a lowlevel 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 streets 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 whats done in state of oregon when a 911 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. Lets talking about a way to shut it down in a way thats 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 shouldnt 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 peoples 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 thats ok with you all. Before folks get up. One have cards. So ill call cards for the folks who submittedm