and the city government of our commitment to make sure that we do everything we can for rehabilitation. and that boils down to why we're here, because the facility that we're talking about replacing, one of your jails that exists, i think there is probably consensus in this room that county jails 3 and 4 need to come down, but they would replaced with a smaller san bruno type facility. because we cannot get 80% of our rehabilitative or reentry programming which is renowned in many ways to only san francisco, such as our high school, 5 keys charter school, and many of our other programs that have made this department and this city famous, we can't get them in physically in these areas. so, if the goal is to not see them return, meaning prisoners, inmates to return, then i think we are completely undermining and belying what that overall objective is. so, i appreciate the discussion

on math. i appreciate the discussion about cost more than ever, because it is an expensive venture. but i don't -- i really do not support the idea that if we out of sight and out of mind this population to the south bay, to san mateo county and san bruno, that that is what i think is a logical fix. and more than happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. i don't know that we have any questions, but mr. strong, do you want to proceed with your -- >> yes, yes, i do. so, i think kyle, you're from the controller's office, is going to talk a little about the forecast here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kyle patterson. if i may, i believe that maybe

-- i know that we have our chief of police here. i don't know if -- >> that's right, chief suhr just told me he has to leave soon. so, as courtesy can we go ahead to the chief? >> yes, chief, you have a city to protect. so, please -- >> actually, i bumped into the sheriff earlier and he asked me. it wasn't on my calendar so i apologize for cutting in. interesting in the presentation so far has been there's no discussion about the police department's role in all this, and we are the by probably 99% the main supplier of the population to any jail in san francisco. that said, we are also a critical part of why the jail population is so low. working with our other partners, we've talked about all of them, we also believe in trying to figure this thing out without having to arrest or jail our way out of it. but here's some numbers that i think need to be factored into

the reports already given. so, since 2011 we've arrested 10,000 less people a year. so, 10,000 less than 2011, 10,000 less than 2012, 10,000 less in 2013. in 2010 when the state effectively decriminalized marijuana, a lot of the drug offenses went away and the priority at least in my administration has been that we treat users of narcotics as a public health issue and sellers of narcotics. hence the reason why better than 70% of that 10,000 arrests or over 7,000 of those arrests we do not make any more were for narcotics. a reduction of some 85% of where we were in 2009. i do not anticipate a reverse of that trend, so, that's good news. but the other piece to this is we have a record low jail population, but we have a

record low staffing level at the san francisco police department and we drive the numbers, albeit however our mission is to do whatever we can do to not arrest folks, but to divert them from custody so that it does -- they don't become factors of this other number. so, another number -- and it's a big number -- when we replace the 300 officers between now and 2018, there will be 60,000 -- not 6,000, 60,000 more shifts worked by a police officer -- by police officers a year. they're going to make some arrests. they're just going to. it's just -- they're -- it's just going to happen. i'm not going to say it's wholesale, but i'm saying it's going to be more than what's happened in the last three years. >> chief, are there any statistics that show what that number could be, or is that just -- it's just impossible to get to? >> well, i mean, i could figure

it out over time. i mean, certainly, you know, an officer doesn't make a custodial arrest every day, but if you just thought they made a custodial arrest every week, that would be about 20% of the time. 20% of that 60,000 over the course of the year, and then it depends. then that's when all the other great things that we do here in san francisco kick in that don't mean that they stay. another piece to this is the fact that it's being anticipated in sacramento and litigated that there could be a second wave to early release. so, that could also contribute towards the fact that they will count on the city of san francisco to house those people, and i don't think it's [speaker not understood] any member of the board in san francisco that property crime is up a bit in san francisco. so, there is the possibility that some of our more

encouragable folk [speaker not understood]. i know when we met in the chamber last week, all three of you were present in the bike coalition and walk s.f. that they alluded to the fact that the associated very -- abag is speaking that the population in san francisco will exceed 1 million people by 20 40. ~ as a native san franciscan who remembers years when we were in the mid 600,000s, that's a lot of people. we're at about 8 25,000 now. so, if we have another 175,000 people and 60,000 more shifts of police officers working, i think it clearly demonstrates that we're going to need some sort of a facility here in san francisco if not just to process folk.

i couldn't agree more with people who spoke about the county jails and the hall of justice. i think it's commendable the sixth floor has been effectively closed. that said, having some experience with fear of the earthquake that's going to happen at some point in time in the next x amount of years, when we speak to our most vulnerable population, certainly one of them is folks that are incarcerated because they're incarcerated. so, the clock is ticking. we need to get something done. it needs to be sooner than later. certainly i'll leave it to the experts on some of these numbers. what does that mean and how big or small a facility we need, but i think the hope that -- the camelot hope of no jail just isn't practical. we're going to need something with the fact that the population's going to be what it's going to be. and it's just a very busy place in san francisco. and to go to take people -- like just in, for instance, we

can't hold people at many of the jail -- at the jails at the stations because a lot of them are just old. they've been ruled out to take custodies. just booking people that are going to be released when sober, you couldn't take them down to san bruno and then release them from there. they get out at alvarious times. san bruno is set aside, but the tributary server residential neighborhood ~, there's no buses. it's right off of skyline. i think these are all just practical considerations that need to be made. and then in closing, i would just say that defending my own crime lab who i think is one of the best crime labs that we have, suffered a hit some years ago in the narcotics testing, which we did take off line. but the san francisco crime lab handled by the police department has never been taken off line with regard to the unbelievable work they do in the way of dna testing and all

the other things that crime labs do. and the new crime lab would just allow us to increase that capacity to make better cases for our district attorney's office and to then retake back the narcotics testing which would save the city significant dollars. so, i'll take any questions. otherwise, that's my -- >> thank you, chief. i don't know if we have any questions, but we appreciate your input and thank you for takeving the time to be here. >> sure. and i appreciate you and sheriff letting me be taken out of order. >> thank you. if we can go back to our controller's office. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kyle patterson from the controller's office and i'm going to present some preliminary findings for you from our jail forecast update. i want to emphasize these are only preliminary findings. we don't expect to release a full written report until march. but before i talk about the forecast update, i want to mention the previous forecast done by our office that was

done in 2013. as ms. campbell noted previously that was based on only jail population data through 2011 and a limited amount of data on state realignment. but based on fa forecast we estimated there would be 100 inmates in jail in 20 1. that translates to the need for replacement jail between 4 81 and 6 88 beds. it would be a significant decline ~ in the number of jail beds in our county jail system. however, the plan was always at a later date to update that forecast when more data became available, which is what we did. our forecast update is based on jail population data through 2013. also a full two years of data on state realignment. in addition, in preparation for our forecast update we spoke with representatives from many different criminal justice agencies in the city including adult probation, the public defenders office, district attorney's office and others. and i'll go from those conversations were one to acquire any data which may inform our population forecast, and two, just to have a basic understanding of the programs ~ and policies whether current or planned which may impact the

jail population into the future. from the next slide, you can see a graph which represents our forecast update. the red line on the chart shows the actual average daily population since 1993 and you can see that between 1993 and 2008 the jail population generally fluctuated, but there is a slow decline in the jail population. however, from 2008 to 2013 there is a much more precipitous dee-dee kline of the jail population. the blue line represents our forecast, which predicts a continued decline of the jail population. but based on our forecast we predict there will be an average daily population of 1,5 20 inmates in 2019. even more so than our previous forecast, this would be before i speak more about the forecast update, our analyses have been based on the assumption that we would only be replacing county jails 3 and 4, the two hall of justice jails. however, one key question that will need to be answered in the coming months is whether and to

what extent county jail 6 can be used. this is something others will speak about later in the presentation, but i would like to cite one statistic which is based on our forecast there will be fewer than 100 minimum security inmates in jail in 2019, and county jail 6 is a minimum security facility with 3 72 beds. so, that suggests that more -- merely 3 quarters of county jail 6 will be unusable in the year 2019. so, because that's an open question, though, we present our findings based on two scenarios. in scenario one county jail 6 is open and in use at capacity. in that case the county would need a replacement jail with between 63 and 229 beds. if, however, in scenario 2 county jail is -- continues to be closed, the county would need a replacement jail in the range of 435 to 600 beds. but i think it's really important to note here that any forecast assumes that present trends continue into the future. i think that's a very reasonable assumption to keep in the near term in the next 1 to 5 years. but as we move forward into the future that becomes more and

more uncertain. so, i think it's very kiwi continue to monitor the jail population moving forward. thank you. ~ >> thanks. and i think this is jamoki. >> good afternoon, honorable supervisors. jamoki [speaker not understood] from dpw. i'm the project manager on the jail replacement project. i'm just going to take us through the scope of the project, what dpw has been working with the sheriff's department, capital planning and the controller's office since its inclusion in the 2006 10-year capital plan. the first slide we're going to look at is cj6. we explored different options on the replacement project and one of the things we looked at was cj6 in terms of replacing the new facility there. and the current design is for minimum security jail and

that's 3 72 beds. the current minimum ~ security population -- inmate population in the city is 6%. that's about 90 inmates. and the deficiencies in this facility, the open dormitory style, which does not allow for [speaker not understood] of the inmate population. there are no safety holding cells in the facility and some other deficiencies we've listed out. in addition to that, there is no program space to support the sheriff's rehabilitation program in the county. and the second slide we're going to look at is the scope. the scope of the project is to construct a new facility with 640 beds. that's about a 30% reduction from the current 905 beds in cj3 and 6 and the design is going to be similar to that of cj5. d it's the [speaker not understood] housing design that

enhances direct supervision. it also has the open day room to enhance inmate security and staff security as well. and, of course, it has the program space, medical and mental health unit. and they have submitted projects for this project is $290 million. the last slide is the preferred slide. we looked at the option of constructing the new facility directly across from the east wing of the [speaker not understood], and that's the connectivity to the hoj. through the current population ~ at cj3 is 70% of them are pretrial, there is going to be a secure plan in the design for us to [speaker not understood] between the jail and the courthouse and other functions, sheriff's function that are located in the hoj. and this would also reduce transportation cost and also safety for the inmates and the

staff. and the next slide is the -- it's a very high-level view of the project [speaker not understood] schedule. between now and 2017, when we hope to start construction, there are a few planning that needs to take place. we're starting off with submitting the [speaker not understood] to the board for approval in order for us to move ahead with the c-e-q-a plans, environmental review. and also we are looking at obtaining approval from the board on the bed count. that's going to be in 2015. and also the approval of the cop funding in 2015. and before that, i think the controller's office is going to publish an updated forecast that may reduce the number of beds in the project, final count for the project.

and, so, in summary, the design as i mentioned, and i think the sheriff spoke on that in terms of the program space at cj5, the design that is currently at cj5, the [speaker not understood] housing, the day room for direct supervision, the need for program space. and this option was what we felt was the most prudent plan in terms of replacing the project. thank you. >> that concludes the department presentation, so, we're open to any questions you may have or we can wait. >> i have just a couple quick questions. going back to the question that supervisor yee was asking about, cj2, i know we heard from sheriff mirkarimi on that. bull i'm wondering if you have any plans to study more in-depth where this fits into the need to replace 3 and 4.

~ but >> [speaker not understood] the program manager can speak on that. he's right here in the room. he's from dpw. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, jim [speaker not understood]. >> my name is jim buker with the department of public works. ~ the cj2s was originally built as a work furlough facility and our understanding is that the sheriff's department is currently using it as a housing unit for women that are in the jail system and also for mental health pod. and, so, they are using cj2 as intensively as that facility can currently be used. it isn't constructed at maximum security standards. if we were to convert that facility to maximum security, we would essentially be

replacing the existing beds for maximum security beds and we would still have the same need for beds somewhere in the system for women's facilities for mental health facilities. >> i understand the perspective and the conclusion, but i think what i'm looking for is the analysis. and i know that i certainly would like to ask the budget and legislative ablist to look into that issue further. ~ analyst maybe you have done the analysis. i haven't seen that analysis. i visited cj2 and i understand that even if you continue with its existing use, there are thing that you have to do actually to make it even better. but i do want to see more exploration of how to have -- maximize the use, if you will, of that facility and to make sure that we make it as safe as possible, not only for the inmates, but the people who work there. >> so, we hear the question and, yes, we will consider that

as we move forward, particularly a broader look at the sheriff's facilities as a whole. >> okay. and, mr. strong, i have -- maybe this is for you or sheriff mirkarimi. but in terms of -- do you have a reaction to the report the budget and legislative analyst report that essentially talks about how the number of beds should not be 640, but 384? >> you know, i don't have and i don't know if kyle at the controller's office has any additional response. i mean, we're -- we look at this as a long-term big capital project. we want to make sure we get it -- you know, we get it as close to right as we can. we think it's prudent that we're going to have a couple more opportunities when we do the e-i-r, we're going to have some alternates so that if it is smaller then we can build a smaller jail. we also don't want to preclude, you know, something from happening where we may need a little -- where it could be bigger.

but i do think that this is going to come back. and before these items go to the board, they also come to the capital planning committee and i can assure you we've had a number of discussions about cj2 and about these issues. [speaker not understood]. >> sheriff, did you want to add to that? >> kyle, sheriff? >> sorry. i certainly want to invite the controller's office, too. but real quickly, the notion that the unused, which is like an empty costco facility type facility, pop-up tent in san bruno of of county jail number 6 ~ can easily be converted is false. it's completely false. in fact, i think it's always been a bit of a hanging chad, for lack of a better phrase. it should have been dee commissioned and de rated quite sometime ago. it was designed simply to deal with the overflow and over crowding. so, the analysis that you're just asking about takes in consideration the redistribution of a much

smaller facility in downtown san francisco that the budget analyst had concluded with shared by other remodeling down in san bruno. bottom line for me is philosophically, i think we should not be suburbanizing our jail population. i think we should be urbanizing it because i think it's more consistent with our values of effective rehabilitation and reentry. and maybe the controller may want to weigh in. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to add that the budget and legislative analyst's report forecast is actually quite similar to ours. you mentioned that they said you could build a jail of 384 beds, but their range is somewhere around the same as ours, somewhere 390 to 550 something, around that range and our forecast was 400 to 600. so, they're very close to each other. but one important thing i think to keep in mind when we're planning for this is that, yes, it would be a waste to build more beds than we need, but also there is a potential cost

if we don't build enough beds and overcrowding should be very expensive and could lead to inhumane incarceration for some folks, too. thank you. >> so said, final question, do we have any outstanding debt right now, mr. strong, in terms of financing for existing jails? >> yeah, i mean -- and i'll ask nadia to come up here. she's much more qualified to talk about that than i am. >> good afternoon, supervisors. nadia [speaker not understood], controller's office of public finance. yes, we do have some cops outstanding currently on the san bruno jail of approximately $117 million. >> great. why don't we now turn to -- i know there are a number of folks who are here to respond, to also provide their comments to the report. and if i may begin by asking our chief of probation officer wendy stills to please come on up.

thank you, chief, for your patience and for being here. >> my pleasure. thank you very much for having me here today. in addition to being the chief of adult probation, i almost am partner of the [speaker not understood], and ab 78 and ab 109, that partnership was created to look at alternatives to incarceration trying to assist with reducing the state prison population issues. and, so, my comments are from that. but i also am the definitive pointed board member to the california rehabilitation oversight board which deals with the prison population. so, i'm also speaking from that. there are a lot of moving parts, as you've already heard. and i first want to thank the board for giving me the opportunity to be here to provide input. and i also really want to compliment harvey rose's office, the board's analyst and specifically ms. campbell also. i think that me did an

excellent job ~. everybody knows me. we've had our differences of opinion with the board's analyst sometimes, but they just did an excellent job on this. >> harvey rose is pleased to hear that, i think. >> yes. just remember that at budget time, right? [laughter] >> but in all seriousness, what they came up with, there are a lot of unknowns. and ultimately the recommendation was we think that there is a need for a lesser amount, but we have time, right? there is this environmental process that we're going to go through. and while we go through that, that's going to take at least a year, it's going to give us an opportunity to understand what some of these moving parts are really going to mean to the system. before i get into those moving parts, i also want to recap the progress that san francisco has made, and we are truly seen as a progressive leader. probation in san francisco won the 2013 american probation and parole association's award for that, being that progressive community corrections leader. we also just last week hit the

high performance, one of only 10 counties in the state to hit high performance under sb678. that's preventing probation failures in state prison. that's one part of the equation. the other part of that equation is we had a 75% successful probation completion rate. so, we have to look at all of them together. with that said, post realignment, we have had -- we're at historic lows. 40 year historic low in the jail population. that's significant. we have also reduced the overall jail population about or prison population, excuse me, to probation by about 25%. i'm supervising in total 25% less people than i did pre-alignment. that's pretty amazing when we had about 800 people realigned to our community supervision. with great success rates. with that, there's no doubt that there are challenges to realignment. the population that we're getting from the prison system, 50% of them, 8 or more prior

felony convictions and 25%, 11 or more. they have serious needs. so what's going to affect -- even though san francisco is invested in evidence based practices and we are producing great results, we are assessed by the criminal [speaker not understood] needs but we're changing the way we supervise risk and needs and that's helping basically produce the results. but we've also invested in a significant amount of services which that's really what we're talking about. if we're talking about alternatives, it's programming. it's assessing not only what the risk and needs of the individual, but then having the services out in the community to address those needs. in addition to that, we also -- the court system, the expansive system of collaborative courts we have created in san francisco, [speaker not understood], courts designed instead of failures to state prison and creating a reentry court, we created a pre-entry

court which is a prevention of failures to state prison and prevention of additional victimization. victimization is a high priority to us with 5400 individuals that we supervise, there are individuals at the end of those other felony sentences. in addition to that, though, we have been working very closely with the justice reinvest initiative from the federal level and they've come in and some of the things that have been mentioned today is looking from a data-driven analysis at reducing the racial disparities in san francisco's criminal justice system, shortening standard probation term to two years instead of 3 and that's really important if we're looking at success. how are we using our resources and then in addition to that expanding pretrial alternatives. and that's significant when 70, 80% of the population that's in jail is pretrial, pre-sentence. and all these strategies would allow san francisco to avoid millions of dollars of cost that could be invested in

supportive housing for individuals in other mental health type services, forensics court out in the community. with that said, i am by no means advocating that we don't need a new jail. what i'm saying is, you know, we've got two years under our belt with realignment and another third year total with sb678, evidence-based probation supervision and we know these strategies are working. but on the other side of the coin we are awaiting a decision from the federal court, the state -- the governor and the legislature could not come to agreement with the plaintiff in the actual part of the state litigation, they are going to have to reduce their population by 10,000 beds. how they do that has the potential to impact every county. in addition to that, part of what the governor's budget also includes, which we won't know ultimately what's going to happen with that until they finish the budget process, but it includes giving additional sentence credits to those that are considered now 20%ers increasing their sentence

credit to 33%. also giving milestone credits to the same population. and another litigation decision, the butler decision is basically going to now force courts to instead of giving 15 years to life with an open-ended sentence when that individual would get out, they'll have to go on record as to what that release date will be. and the only thing that can impact that date would be the in-prison behavior, positive or negative, which also everyone that is in prison right now that has one of those 15, 20-year to life or what have you, they have to by court order be taken back to the board's hearing and decisions being rendered. there are other strategies that have the potential and have, probation has implemented with the court three-day reports. motion to revoke, and what that means is instead of having somebody sit in jail for 21 days while we did a board report, we've shortened that down to three days. well, that saves the difference between 3 jail be