up to about 1500 beds-15 to 1600 beds which is about 25 0 or 3 50 beds more than the kunt population today. what is the cost of rehabilitation cj 6 to make it usable as a jail? what is the capital cost? >> no costing was done on various scenarios and refer to department of public works to speak specifically of that issue. >> i have another issue for you as well so don't go far. >> the cost of cj 6 to yield 256 beds was about 80.9 million dollars

>> okay, so about 80 million dollars. >> because we need 384 beds, we have to construct a new facility for 128 beds and that cost was upward of about 140 million. the cost of betting 384 beds in san bruno with the retrofit of cj 6 exceeding the cost of building a new jail in san francisco with 384 beds and that is scenario 2 here. >> thank you. back to the the sheriffs department. i heard a number that in terms of one suit you have x number of beds in the jail system that once you 80 or 85 percent you are at

full capacity? >> that is correct. that is the classification factor across corrections industry. that is speaking to is that in any countsy jail system you have to have a inmate classification system because as you can imagine not all inmates can be housed together. we have to segregate disparate groups of populations so when you reach 85 percent, that 15 percent is your buffer that allows you to safely and securely house the inmates which is of direct benefit to the inmates and all the staff both sworn and civilian that work in the jails. >> once you hit 85 percent of the beds being full you are effectively full and that means that if we don't rebuild cj 3 and 4 and demolish and

eliminate them and don't spend that significant capital investment redoing cj 6, that brings us to 1238 beds, but if you take that down to 85 percent effective full cupsty is 1060 inmates we are full. if we tear down 3 and 4 and don't rebuild them then we'll have 1610 beds but at about 1350 beds which is only 100 more than we have today, we would effectively be full. i thank you very much. colleagues i ask these question because when where first heard about the idea of building a new jail shortly after i came in office my immediate reaction is no way. why are we going to

spend capital funds to build a new jail. frankly there are a lot of very passionate and committed people who are in the community and not just the folks here today, a lot of people in san francisco who really do not like the idea of spending money on a jail, so politically easy thing to do is not support a jail. there is no real political benefit. it isn't a constituency advocating to build a jail like there is for muni or park system or rebuilding libraries. i think it is really important to look at the actual numbers. even though we have had a decline in the jail population, when you look at what would happen if we close cj 3 and 4 and don't rebuild them and don't make the investment to rehabilitation cj 6, we are already over capacity

in our jail system and even if we do rebuild cj 6 which requires a fair amount of money, we are very very close to being over capacity meaning if we ooover the coming 5, 10, 15, 20 years the jail population goes up by 100 or 200 prisoners we are over capacity. over capacity bl it is today or 10 years from now means jail over crowding and having to send people to other counties or means having to release people weep don't want to release. i know that there was data requested about who is in our jails right now because i know-and it was suggested in the chronicle this morning there are people in jail for very very mining petty things and the data i see is 88 percent of the people in the county jail are there on felonys

and that in terms of people who are there because of not making bail or not having bail overwhelmingly something like i think 80 percent are either there was no bail granted at all or it was very high bail which tends to be serious crimes. i think it is fallacy the jails are in san francisco are being filled with low level and petty crimes. i think it is inaccurate to suggest that we are not on the cutting edge of alternative to incarceration in san francisco. this city has been extremely innovative and aggressive about funding and promoting alternative to incarceration. many of us supported prop 47. a lot supported effort not to put folks arrested on drug offenses

in jail and treat as a public health issue. that doesn't mean jail beds are not required in some circumstances and the last thing we should do is make a decision today that could mean in the future we are going to have over crowding or have to release people not because they should be released but because we simply don't have a bed for them. that is not a good way to run a public safety system. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you madam president. i have a question for the sheriffs department. this question came to my mind as i listened to have visors kim line of reasoning. i'm curious to know if the state application is a annual opportunity for us or is it biannual? how often does the opportunity to apply for the money come before us? >> thank you supervisor. what

i was speaking to, there is a biannual inspection that the board of construction conducts of every jail system. that inspection happens every fwo years. in terms of applying for a funding source from the bfcc, formally you had senate bill 1022 sw currently what we are talking about here today is 863. we do have information from the state fairly clear information that this will be the last go at the release of state funds for this type of project, so there won't be watt we have been told, there won't be another bite of the apple and another sb something in the next coming years. >> and so to use your word, this is our one shot, our one opportunity for a bite at the apple? >> that is correct. >> okay. listening to the

conversation i'm reminded of a time not too lock ago where the body had a opportunity to vote to accept a million dollars from the state to build a homeless shelter and we hadn't begin the sequa process, there wasn't a project before us but yet the body still took a vote and went to the budget committee and took a vote and accepted the money in a effort to house people because it was seen as imperative. what is nrtd esting to what supervisor wiener was speaking about this conversation is it is a conversation between political ideology and policy and i am in agreement we do need to look at the numbers expressly to find out exactly what our needs- where our needs are currently. i at first blush have been and was also against the building of a jail particularly paying

attention to the often sensationalize squd also grounded in some fact about the over pliferation of african americans incarcerated and also in jail. not only here in the state of california but across the entire country. now what is also interesting is that the argument that the jail population has decreased coupled with the very innovative strategies in place to assist people to prevent the resitivism of our formally incourseerated folks and i think a large part of that has to do with the commitment to education. some of the comment you herds in your public comment earlier speak tooz the work that this board and the city and what we have done to

make sure there are jobs, there are housing. supervisor kim and i worked on legislation to minimize barriers to formally incarcerated folks to getting jobs and housing. this is a conversation for me that is balanced. i don't believe that entertaining or even approving the neg deck before us and giving the city permission to apply for the state funds is lopsided. lopsided in the sense we are not building more jails with the intent to building more jails and not doing the work on the ground to decrease are sitivism and increase access to education. what comes to mind is the expansion of the 5 keys charter program we expanded in the south eastern part of san francisco. i just wanted to

remind my colleagues that may be concerned about the negdic and affirming it based on the fact there isn't a project or a plan solidified and well thought out. just want to remind you we had a splar situation where the body had no problem accepting state money without a plan. thank you. >> thank you supervisor cohen. supervisor christensen >> a few questions starting with city attorney. this question of the normal sequence of neg deck and sequa review. i know we see things when they are on appeal and later in the process, but is this completely out of sequence for a normal process? >> the approval definition in

sequa may mean the sequa durmt has to be completed earlier in the process or later in the process. what is happening here is because of the proposal that was submitted to planning they conducted a negative declaration, the analysis for the project. this resolution contains commitments to construction and construction documents and site control so that at least for sequa purposes, it is defined as a approval action and the sequa document needs to be complete. when the project subsequently am come before the city, all the approving bodies including the board if the comes back thothe board would have to look that negative declaration prepared now and ascertain whether the analysis continued

to be valid for the project if it changed in the future and chapter 31 contains a process for that and in approving any aspect of the project in the future the city would have to confirm the negative declaration continued to be valid for that particular approval whether the project changes or circumstances surrounding the project changes. this action is-i don't know how uncommon this action might be for the board. what is uncommon for the board today that i rerfed to in answering supervisor kims questions is that there is no appeal here because the board is the first acting body. let me try to zero in on the question. we all understand this being before the board is unusual but in the terms of normal process, one of the question was the timeline of

sequa review occurring at that stage of a praij eblth regardless of the body asked to approve it. it is my understanding it isn't that unusual for sequa to occur with this much information being available for a project under normal circumstances? >> i think that is correct. i think the environmental review officer can probably give better context on that question. >> yes, supervisor christensen. we complete sequa review prior to the first approval of a project and the project as defined under sequa is anything that may have physical impacts on the environment so in this case because of the terms of the grant application there are potential physical outcomes of the board action to approve it. this is a typical and

appropriate time to complete the sequa review. we conduct the review on the amount of project information available at the time and this amount of information is a typical amount of information to have in conducting sequa review. also, it is not unusual for there to be a substantial amounts of time elapshing between the time that sequa review is completed and the time that all of the approvals on aproject are playing out so there is a fair amount of work that still continues after that first approval occurs typically. >> if can summarize, suquenshly, wree odd but the process is not odd. the fact we are the body asked to review this is out of the ord but sequa occurring at this

statement stage isn't so unusual? >> i would say that is correct >> is there going to be a number och opportunities to review the project and to ascertain its continued compliance with the neg deck as the project develops? >> the project is require today go through a flb of approvals. if you give me a moment, those are list said in the negative declaration as it is required. we can pull that out or give a page citation if you like. >> i understand they are numerous and typical >> yes >> we have plenty of time to [inaudible] >> i can't answer if it is coming before the board. >> the city will. thank you.

i don't know if this is a question for mr. strong or mr. hugairs but one thof things we haven't touched on is that we are focused on a jail that this is about 850 bryant in total and the need to replace that facility. i wonder if we have quick top line so recall why we think it is so important for 8 fifen 0 bryant to go away. >> thank you. good afternoon, this is brian strong director of capital planning. since and the city started doingcometle planning in 06 the hall of justsis the top priority. we rin the process now of completing work on the new general hospital aside from this hall of justice that is the second most used and populated building in the city or city family that the city owns and manages. we are

taking care of the new hospital, this is the next highest priority building. we have over 3 thousand people in and out och the building on a daily basis and this is why it is so important in the capital plan and have so much emphasize on it and study it consistently over the years to make sure that we not only address the safety and welfare of the inmates that are there 24/7 and their health care and well being is our responsibility but provide a opportunity to make sure the district attorney, probation and remainder of the police force there, we moved some of the folks out, that they have a safe and helthsy environment to work in and i should also add there is a portion of the building that we don't own owned by the state of california which is our court system and reproviding a opportunity to replace those courts at the same location is also vital. it is really

important that we move and work closely with the state and provide them with a opportunity to replace those court next to the current jails and next to the district attorneys office and public offender and adult probation and all the services are provided. >> this is sort of the removal of the jail facility there is the first step in beginning to evacuate the rest of the building? >> i wouldn't say it is first step because we moved southern district station out and also moved please heads quarters out and moving forward with moving the office of chief medical examiner out and move forward with erftsd to move the traffic company and crime lab forensic services out. we are making significant progress on moving people out of the hall of

justice, the tricky think about the jail is it covers the entire footprint of the building. if we move the jail out we can begin to make steps toward separating the buildings so the court can continue to operate and relocate-move out of our office that we have there and provide the courts with the land to reconstruct. >> and so the other thing i think we haven't touched on is we are focused on replacing the jail, that doesn't proclude us from providing other types of facilities that i think we are interested in seeing to try to reduce the emphasis on incarceration and provide other methods of halgdling the people in custody? >> absolutely. i think one of the-this is a long planning process. relacing a building that is over 1.2 million square

feet takes time to do. we understand we move forward in steps, but it has been part of the consideration that jail related and court related facilities are located ajaistant to the property. the idea we purchase the entire block to provide continuum of care services if the city deems that is the next step that is important we'll have the property in the area to do so. same thing goze with provided enhanced-maybe it is adult probation services or district attorney service or additional sheriff services that we have sth property and ability to do t it in a campus type setting which is another one of the best practices. >> one of the things that has come up is the need for monetal helths and substance abuse services, is that any part of

this discussion of replacement? >> it has and offer joe robinson with the department of public health who can add comments on that better than i could. >> high supervisor. whenever courts require someone to be incarcerated there needs to be health service squz that includes mental helths and substance abruce and there needs to be appropriate space to provide the services. >> my question is if we move forward with this particular project we are discussing in all the various iterations, is it-what provisions are being made to include those kinds of services and perhaps spl of the others we would like to see as part of the bigger conversation? >> it is my understanding it is rifermt of the grant to provide program space and treatment space in any new rebuild.

>> and so then perhaps you are the best person to ask. our being successful in getting the state grant hinges somewhat on the approval of neg deck. if we get that grant, are we more likely to be able to provide the kind of melthal health and social service or less? >> we would be able to provide appropriate services. currently in county jail 4 we have inmates housed there with melthal illness and there is no appropriate place to see these individuals. we rin competition with attorneys for private interview rooms. the aufsh space is probably 3 by 4 for the mental helthd staff that work there which includes housing of equipment, computers

phones and regular supplies so it greatly improved the ability to provide services. >> thank you very much. this is consistent with what i heard when we is ask questions about this. to supervisor wieners point, building a jail isn't anything any of us spare to but the fact we have 850 brisqunt the building needs to go, i think we all watched during katrina what happened to prisoners incarcerated in facilities that were not safe or adequate and know our friends at the da's office deal with situations daily none of us would like to deal with. talking about environmental has zardss. 850 bryant needs to go. we need some measure of continuing jail facilities. i think we are talking about

providing is half. the discussion we want to have is what else? none are very interested in talking about jails. we are interested in talking about ancillary services and my question is are we more likely to get those if we proceed down this path or if we don't. as somebody that is involved in applying for state and federal grants in the past, free money is a tempting thing. it is 80 million that will help provide a safe and state of the art facility and frees up fundsing that can be used for the services i would like to see particularly melthal health services then i think it is win. social justice are issues we need to address, but

if we are more likely to provide compassionate service by proceeding in this direction it is worther to take a look add the bigger picture and see if it gets close toor where we want to be rather than father. >> supervisor tang >> i have a question for planning department looking that memo that was sent the exhibit a and response to appeal. when and if the hall of justice it is mallished it goes through a separate environmental review and so i know this response was in particular to respond to wind concern but want to have a better understanding of what this means if you can elaperate on the environmental review and what that entails. >> yes, good afternoon

supervisor tang. the project proposed to us does ptd include the demolition of had haul orf justice building, so we have no basis and it isn't appropriate to analyze demolition of that building. if at some point we are gichben a application that involves demolition of that building we would consider the whole of that project. if it is demolition of the building with now relacement building we would look at the environmental impacts of that action. even though you take a building away it is still a action that could have physical impacts, one of them being it could change the wind environment, another being what construction related impacts there are from the demolition. if all they proposed is demolition that is

all we look at. if they proposed a replacement building we would also consider whatever impacts are associated with the replacement building so we look at the entirety of all the actions considered. >> okay, and if you are to conduct a separate environmental review based on if there is demolition, is there still [inaudible] for appeal at that time? >> that would be a separate project and there is whatever the appropriate routes for appeal were based on the kinds of document that we were preparing and the approvals that were associate would it. yes, that would be subject-that would be starting from scratch again and a whole new effort. >> thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i did have a question for you regarding your comment earlier. you said it was very normal for there to be

projects with a environmental determination 2 years before more of the design approval planning approval would come before the commission or the board. could you name any of those project snz i had a difficult time thinking of any. >> it is very typical for the projects that go before the planning commission to get a more general level of approval of a site permit and then or possibly a conditional use. one of the more sort of basic foundation approvals that are not contingent on the particulars of the project and many of the projects that you see constructed were approved several-underwnt first approval several years before i then they go through a lot of process through the department of building inspection, through