of time on this and that we've been actually reserving sort of our -- one of our most precious resources which is the use of certificates of participation to help fund this. that is something that we have limits in the capital plan. it's part of the city's financial policy. the only 3.25% of general fund revenue, general fund discretionary revenue can go toward cops, which is -- so t' reserved for very special projects and it's what we use for san bruno jail and the veterans retrofit. it's what we're proposing to use for this project. and finally, i just want to say before passing to the sheriff is that these are really capital dollars. we have a lot of capital needs. there is some i think misunderstanding that if we don't spend the money to fix up this jail it can then be taken and used for other types of services. the funds are different so it doesn't work that way. we have capital dollars. and again, those are reserved

for capital infrastructure needs like replacing the hall of justice. if those dollars are not able to be used for that, they can't just be shifted wholesale over to programming. so, with that, i will -- finally, i would just like to say, i guess reiterating what supervisor kim was saying before, yes, i think everyone agrees that jails 3 and 4 are not an appropriate place, they're not safe, they're not serving -- they're not meeting current needs. i think we all agree we need to replace those and that's part of what we're trying to do is get them replaced as fast as we can. >> thank you, mr. strong. i appreciate. honorable supervisors, it's good to be here with you today. i just want to acknowledge the members of my staff, both the sworn staff and civilian staff

of the sheriff's department and offer my gratitude and appreciation to the many agencies within the city who have made this a very collaborative process. and it's been an extensive one that even predated me before i became sheriff. and i appreciate the level of attention to detail that has been applied to all the members who, some will be before you speaking today and some are here in the support role. i also want to say thank you to the advocates that are here from all sides of this perspective. i absolutely understand the need to call attention to the justification and reasoning of why we would consider replacing county jails 3 and 4 with another jail. i think it is a discussion that since my administration had begun that we welcome because i

think it spotlights a unique position san francisco is in. i'm the first sheriff and administration that really gets to signify that we are presiding over historically the lowest jail population in san francisco's time of providing incarceration. and per capita, and that is underscored by the fact that we have one of the most under crowded jail populations in the united states. and i don't believe that that is a fluke, simply just unique to san francisco because of a change or altercation in just arrest or prosecution. i think it has been a dividend as a result of something that should make san francisco and san franciscans proud, and that is a unprecedented level of cooperation between criminal justice partners who saw fit before there was state prison

realignment or governor jerry brown who came together a few years ago when i was on the board of supervisors and others who held a respectful positions that they do now, to call attention to the high resid advise many rates in san francisco. ~ instead of just looking on the front end of what arrest and prosecution may be and incarceration, we began to put both the wherewithal and resources into questioning how receptive are we from rehabilitation. thanks to my predecessor mike hennessy and before him jim kisto, really help set in motion what it meant to be a pioneer in effect i have reentry. but now other departments and community advocate organizations have come online to the point where we are really a stand-out city and/or county in this state and nation in how we have lowered our jail population. but that's how we arrived where

we are here today, which is why i insist that when we have really almost 40 to 45% under crowded, and there is no other county that can really report that, then you have to understand the remainder of the jail population that falls within our care. it is our mission objective, it the second large of the law enforcement agency in san francisco to uphold public safety, both inside and outside the jail system. and the people that work in our jail system absolutely know and have learned over the many years that we do not abide by the philosophy that still many do, but hopefully changing, that you lock somebody up, throw away the key, and they bed their time until they exit incarceration ~ which is why i and sheriff have been inspired by predecessors to build on our approach in doing everything we can to make sure people are not returning back to the jail system or into the prison

system vis-a-vis ab 109. and this is why i think we're starting to see the kind of payoff that we would all hope in san francisco. and now it brings us to this unique position, why do we need a jail? well, the fact remains that there is not compensatory space in either san bruno cj5 or in cj2. and to answer the question of supervisor yee, the remainder of beds that exist in county jail number 2 is 93 that exist today, that does not accommodate the remainder delta of a population that would be displaced out of the hall of justice. county jail number 1 is an intake and release facility never designed for us being able to even house inmates in those facilities. in cj5 in our san bruno facility, really is at a point where we still would not be able to accommodate, if we were

to displace everybody from county jail number 4, back to cj5 where we distribute them between two different jails. really, what the budget analyst report states and what we feel is affirmed is a facility must be built. the question is where. so, if it dials down to the question of where a facility must be built, in my forecast that means that it's either going to be built in san bruno, which i think that some of the perspective of others would help save us money and just kind of kick the can kind of strategy, or perhaps in san francisco. and i've always welcomed the discussion point that the number of beds cell spaces is a fluid discussion. and one that should be refreshed continuously in the timeline of when we actually commit whether to build a jail or not ~. when i came into office as

sheriff, the original proposal was 90 3 beds ~. 8 28 beds that are rated, the remainder were unrated beds. when 90 3 beds that comprise both county jails number 3 and 4 was before me, we regrouped. i saw better forecasts of jail population was declining and that we've reset the number at 640. i get the fact, and we support that if there is a return to us having to adjust that number again with i think the evidence that supports what that adjustment may be, then that makes more sense to me. but as it speaks to supervisor kim's remark is why haven't we shut those jails down before, excellent question. i knew that from the time of working in the district attorney's office that those conditions were deplorable. county jails 3 and 4 and the top of the hall of justice is something that when i was sitting with you all chairing public safety and being the budget committee, we should

have shut that down, but the city gave us no avenue to do so. and i guarantee you, sheriff mike hennessy would have done so if the compensatory space had been made available, and it did not. but in the history -- in the history, the first time ever of the two jails in the top of the hall of justice, my administration shut down county jail 3. that says a lot, where we consolidated county jail 3 with now county jail number 4, and we're now almost stretched completely at county jail number 4 because we needed to consolidate based on those conditions that existed, and so that we'd be more efficient and effective with our administration in overtime. and that is really the outcome of us coming together. but what concerns me a little bit about the debate of whether to build a jail or not, not just where we might house the sheriff, but drawing on my experience of 7 years on the budget committee of the board of supervisors is the question of whether to have a jail or

not frankly is, in the sequence of criminal justice, almost on the back end of the spectrum of the role of having a jail and incarceration in san francisco. and i'm a little concerned or troubled by what i think are simmering contradictions. it's this government that has just now approved a $165 million bond for a forensic drug and crime lab. what does that portend that when in the last several years we have already had off line a drug and crime lab not working to its capacity and contracting out. what occurs -- what happens when it is back online in its contemporary facility? what then does that suggest in the future of potential police dog their job and the dea affirming that job? what happens when we continue to hear about the simmerings of different districts who feel that there is not a reconciling of police who are doing their job, but perhaps criminals or

perhaps inmates or offenders who feel that people feel that are not getting the kind of attention through prosecution. and that's why i think it's a little bit unfair to suggest that the sheriff's department is one that has a role either in prosecution or sentencing. we don't. but we take it to the max in this city and county by using alternatives to incarceration as much as the local and state law invests in the power of the sheriff. for example, electronic monitoring. we have a very robust electronic monitoring program and legislation is pending before you to even extend that. our pretrial diversion program funded 5% by the sheriff's department is the most robust in the united states that we know had prevented 1200 people from even going into incarceration because of pretrial diversion really can speak to that. another concern of a simmering is a fact that we are losing

our black population, the fastest of any city or county in the united states. and considering the fact that not uncommon to any urban center and which i think has been certainly a note of shame and distinction even in san francisco, as enlightened as we seem to be claimed, that population is also too high in its incarceration. but i have to say that part of my ministration's objection is connectivity. and i have a problem that if we go ahead and arrive at the conclusion that we can go ahead and shuttle people or transfer people to san bruno and not connect the pragmatics of what it takes to connect families or keep the inmates in contact with those that they should be in contact with, that to me sabotages the level of community that is already under threat in san francisco. and that is important to us, to

remain i think in the eyes and in the focus of san franciscans 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. and 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