6 different scenarios and reduced them to 3 and the most recent presentation. 3 schemes that reflect locations in san francisco and san bruno and san bruno alone. these studies are as a result many months of work by professional architects and engineers and cost estimators to bring forward the project description that was submitted for sequa consideration. i offer here to you an exert from our budget and finance presentation where we show 3 scenarios, 1, 2, and 3. scenario 1 is the project being proposed for 384 beds. it is valued at 240 million dollars and is eligible for state funding of up to 80

million which reduced the cost to the sate of 160 million. the other sunairios in san bruno and san francisco and san bruno provide 384 and 932 beds by virtue of the multiple venue locations. each of the projects, scenario is 305 million. scenario 3 at [inaudible] neither of those projects would be eligible for funding. the lowest cost and most efficient is scenario 1. the second issue is the indoor air quality question or issue. we do acknowledge the comrumizeed air quality at the site. it is the very reason we

expected to provide in the project an enhanced mechanical ventilation strategy that provides a healthy indoor environment comperable to what you expect in a private athletic or sports club. in addition it is important to understand it is infeasible or impractical to provide outdoor exercise area for this type of facility. we would provide as i say the proper indoor air quality. we would also be consistent with the expicitations for the height and volume if you will and the flor area for the exercise space which would be ajais tonight adjacent to the housing area. the last point regarding the application and change in sequa consideration-i

ask the representative from the controllers office jessie ruben to expand upon this, my understanding is that by delaying or denying the sequa and making it not part of our application in august of this year, would effect rfbly deminsh if not actually derail the application to the state for this potential source of 80 million dollars. those are the 3 points and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you are there any other departments who are going to speak at this time? >> good afternoon superizvoers. my name is jessie ruben and represent the controllers office. i want to address supervisor kim's points. what would happen if the negative declaration wasn't approved today, but the resolution amended was approve squd we were able to move forward on

applying for grant funding. right now there are 12 points that are at risk if the mitigated negative declaration isn't approved today, but part of the [inaudible] rfp is that we are awarded 12 points for sequa compliance. right off the top we don't get those points and then there are also 12 additional points at risk if we amend the resolution so that we are not in compliance with sequa at the time of the proposal. those 12 points i'll have [inaudible] come up here and explain why his timeline would be at risk. we are talking about 24 point in total, that is 20 percent of the points awarded by the fcc. that does eliminate competitive advantage and are told the

application as it reads now is competitive so that is what happens if we don't approve the mitigated negative declaration today. we lose our advantage. >> madam president [inaudible] want to address 2 points. one relative to the appellates raising concern about the possibly relocation. real estate contracted with third party expert in providing relocation services and they will provide a relocation plan for us and assist with implementing that relocation plan for the businesses that would be effected as a result of the purchase for this site. secondly, to expand on jessie's comments, our normal course of operations we would enter into good faiths and negotiation

with property owners after a project has its sequa compliance in hand so we are concerned about the timelines to produce the final acquisitions if the sequa compliance issue was delayed. we do not have a lot of time after receiving the notice of award from the bureau to complete our acquisitions and secure site control, which is a requirement post notice of the award process. i hope that is helpful. >> okay, if there is no further comments from any other city department, i will open it up to public comment for those--supervisor kim you have questions? >> yes, i have a few question s for the project sponsors.

maybe i'll address my first set to mr. updike on the sro units. it is my understanding we are not proposing to rebuild the 14 sro units even if we displace these tenants. >> the project as provided to the planning department before you today for consideration excludes the acquisition of that multiresidential property so it stays as it is. i anticipate displacement as a result. >> if we do pursue using this building i believe for office commercial use because that was cont plated earlier and displacing the tenants we would find housing for these tenants. i trying to remember the sro conversion ordinance.

would we replace the 14 units since we are taking 14 units off the market and converting to office? >> we provide rolocation benefit tooz those displaced. again, assuming the [inaudible] if there was a acquisition they are eligible for relocationb. squz there are a number of possibilities of how those benefits are provided from certain payment string thooz provision of replacement housing. you may recall we dilt with on central subway project so that is one example of how that can be addressed. that is put together by our relocation consultant if that were part of the projex. it is not, but if it were it is part of the plan and something reviewed and approved before we implemented that and then relocation. >> give chb the vastly reduced

size nof jail we don't anticipate we'll need that site? >> that is correct. only businesses will be displaced. >> there was a point brought up by the appellates, i am not sure this is sequa issue, but the appellates stated the [inaudible] requires outdoor exercise area. i remember i believe mr. [inaudible] when i asked the question at budget committee last week you stated we have only indoor recreational areas in all our current jails and the fcc comes and does inspection every year and approves the current site. what the appellate is saying any new jails built would have to conform the the standards of

a outdoor exercise area, so i wundser if you can clarify that. they stated that the fcc requires that and you are stating they are not and wonder if you communicate would the fcc on this issue? >> thank you for the question. [inaudible] public works. the title 24 california code of regulations does identify the outdoor or outside exercise yard as the perfed. in conversation with the fcc they are in appreciation of the fact that in certain instances it is impractical or infeasible to provide that due to the limitation of ground access, a opportunity at the ground level or any other level. in a multistory building they said they would entertain the possibility of providing a

equivalent accommodation for a helthsy air environment via mechanical ventilation system. an earlier point is the project is not fully flushed out and it isn't at this point. we have 2 years of the development of the project to bring it forward along the lines of what this city requires and what we would expect the bfc would require. there is conversation or dialogue to occur to insure when we do present or project to the fcc it is entirely within thbounds of what they expect; you have expect the project will continue to change over the next 2 years including how we provide our exercise or recreation? >> the process of design construction is a intative 1 chblt we build in general and bring it done to a specific.

what we provide for planning is appropriate for this point in time and we have done our diligence in regard to the functional needs and what we understand is the purpose of the facility and continue to evalve that and fine tune, to bring a better alignment with what the state requires and what the city requires. >> thank you. i think that this is still further confirms my earlier statements. i think it is unprecedented and premature to do environmental determination for a project that is 2 years out in terms of what it will look like. i have never made a determination without knhoeing what the projuct looks like. on a basic level we have image and design work and can't imagine us ever doing this for a private gep developer coming to the board and say this is what we think

the project will look like and will come back and want you to to approve the determination today. it seems we are driven by the state grant and not the process and don't think that is a wise way of moving forward, that we are motivated by access to funding and a grant than making the best determination of what is best for the city that meets the public saelft needs and the needs of the sheriff departments and jails and overall a larger conversation that is outside the discussion of us today of the sequa determination, what makes the city safer and that is what we will spend the next 2 years exploring. we have so many alternatives and want to state this doesn't make sense to me today but i appreciate the comment about why this is important for the state application. thank you.

>> just a point of clarification. the architecture of the facility is brought the the [inaudible] if we begin to evalve the design- >> i understand that. normally the environmental determination comes after all of that. i have never seen this before where we have something i can't look at and make a environmental determination. normally all those processes take place before we make environmental determination. i just thing it is unprecedented and premature but i get this is driven by a desire to make our state application look as strong as possible for a project we don't know we'll build. >> thank you. you all a comment? >> thank you supervisors. chief deputy sheriff matte freman. i'm the custody operations commander and to speak just to the sequa issue

and the aappellates issue about indoor, out door exercise recreation space, you heard clearly from the planning commission, you heard from the department of public works who of course the sheriffs department examined the issue as well and know the requirements of minimum jail standards title 15 and title 24 and have spoken with the state, the board of state and community corrections. this project does pass muster as outlined with the current configuration of the inmate exercise spaces. just like the current county jail facilities pass would flying colors every 2 years meeting our requirements and as described the rehabilitation and detention facility we have every reason to believe this will pass mustwer the board of

state and community corrections. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president. i have a question and don't know if this is for the controller or sheriff or a combination of the 2. i read the controllers report about population trends and number of beds in various project scenarios. i think everyone agrees that cj 3 and 4 need to be turned down. they are not seismicly safe and not humane to keep anyone in those build squgz the question is whether they get rebuilt or rely on the other facilities. there is also the question of i think it is cj 6 and whether we do the work on cj 6 necessary to make it fully usable by different kinds of inmates. in terms of

the jail population, we get a daily e-mail from the sheriffs department with what the current population is and in the e-mail we got this morning said today we have 1258 inmates in the county jail system and think that typically in my experience it vaerz from 1200 to 1300, maybe a little more than 1300 at times. we know there is a drop and i know also there are some indications for example in the report that the population without additional policy changes, unlikely to drop significantly further. so, my question is, if cj 3 and 4 are torn down and not replaced and if we don't use cj 6 and don't do the work on cj 6

necessary to make it a fully functioning jail facility, how many usable beds do we have in the jail system? from a controllers report i think that number is 1238. i'm looking at page 5 of the controllers report. >> yes supervisor. i think the question you are askic has merit and think i have a answer that can help illuminate this issue and hopefully answer the question you are asking. we have seen the controllers office update to the jail population forcast. we point out the proposed project rehabilitation and detention facility is within the framework of the controllers update to the jail for cast but one of the things i believe the board of supervisors members and various city leaders do receive a daily jail count

sheet from the sheriffs department, so let's talk a little about jail count vacancy rates and available jail beds. what you see on the overhead projector here, county jail 1 is intake and release facility. there are no beds. inmateerize not housed, there are holding cells only and used for arrival and depatchture. county jail 2 has 464 beds. san francisco county jail 4 has [inaudible] and county jail 5 has [inaudible] gives a total of 1634 beds. if you look at a jail count of 1282 which is what it was on july 13 and you said this morning it was 1250 something so minor difference. that tells you the county jail

is at 78 percent capacity right now today. what some people are doing is say we must consider the beds that are located at county jail 3 which is 64 of the hall of justice. how can we count the beds in a facility that is identified as seismicly defixant? the seraphs department moved out of that facility. there is no intent nor will we ever repopulate that jail. county jail 6 presentss more issues than the 2 jails in the hall of justice, so how can we count 426 beds on the 6th foor and 372 beds at county jail 6? to go to your question- >> if we take away county jail 3 and 4 and continue not to use county jail 6, what would be the total number of available

beds? >> zero. we would be over crowded >> sorry the total number of beds period? >> the total number of beds is controller said 1238, so if we don't rebuild the hall of justice and do not do the significant capital work needed to make cj 6 usable then we are left with 1230 some odd beds which is 20 or 25 beds fewer than our total jail population today, july-whatever it is. 21, 2015 >> that is correct. >> now, if we do shut down 3 and 4 and don't rebuild and make the needed changes to cj 6, according to the controller that brings us to 1610 beds, is

that consistent with your understanding? >> doing some--what was the total? >> 1610 >> i don't know that to be the case because the plans i have seen show that a costly and significant retrofit of county jail 6 that would meet the safety and security needs of inmate jz staff would only yield 256 beds so don't know that gets you to that number. >> you are suggesting if we shut down 3 and 4 and don't rebuild and rehabilitation cj 6 to make it usable it brings us 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