Tv who recorded each of our meetings and make the transcripts available online. Madam clerk any announcements . Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Submit speaker cards. Items active upon today will appear on december 2015 board of supervisors agenda. Please call items 10 and 11 out of order . Yes, item 10 and 11 are ordinances authorizing federa federalally settlements of lawsuits against the city and county of San Francisco. Before we convene in closed session, is there any Public Comments on these items. If you have any comments, you have two minutes. Seeing no people for Public Comment, then Public Comment is now closed. Members of the public will now be will be convened in closed session. Please meet in the committee room. This should be a were now back in open session. Deputy city attorney. During the closed session the Committee Voted Unanimously to vote items 10 and 11 to the full board with positive recommendation. Colleagues, can i have a motion not to disclose what we discussed. So moved. Motion passes. Madam clerk, please call items one, two and three together. Yes, item resolutions approving agreement with nonprofit Owners Association for Administration Management known as the greater rincon hill. And the dogpatch northwest potrero hill district. Please come forward. Good morning, chair yee. Im an project manager of the office of economic and workforce development. Today before you are two resolutions. Authorizing management contrac contracts. As you know on july 31st the board of supervisors adopted a resolution to establish greater rincon hill cdb. The city must enter into this Management Agreement with both Owners Association. It is adjusted for each cdb. The following language has been added and will be included in all Management Contract. Section 16. 18, section 3. 5 and the general benefit language for the greater rincon Hill Community district is different to reflect their requirement. If approved, this will allow the city to we anticipate approximately 2,000,400 to be contributed. Approximately 2,900,000 to be districted to the ycdbd. Additionally, theres a Management Contract update for the greater rincon hill cdb. In front of you is not the updated version of that. The updated language is in section 3. 5 section d, it makes requirement consistent with the general benefit requirement of the cbd. If you have questionings, ill be happy to take them. Seeing none. I believe Jonathan Goldberg from the green benefit district has a few comments. Thank you chair yee, president breed and supervisor christensen. Im the green benefit Program Manager at the department of public works. This item is an agreement that mirrors the previous two agenda items but tailored for the dogpatch district. The approval of this agreement will enable the Comptrollers Office to pay for green space and citizens transparency and accountability in the boundaries of the district. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any Public Comments for any of those items . Speakers will have two minutes. Thank you very much for considering the greater rincon Hill Community benefit District Administration agreement with the city. Any name is lauren. Im the newly elected president of the newly elected board for the cbd. Board of directors is committed. The cdb was passed with. 5 of the vote in the greater rincon hill. Were very enthusiastic about moving forward and receiving assessment funding in january as property tax payments come in. Thank you very much for your consideration for your agreement. We look forward to working with the city Going Forward. Good morning commissioners, my name is cathy, im the executive director of yerba buena community district. Were here no speak in support of the agreement with the city. Weve been around since 2008 we have just renewed for 15 years. We were very honored to receive that support. We look forward to continuing our work over the next 15 years and were looking forward to working with city departments, neighbor and constituents and other Community Organizations to tackle the issue of pedestrian safety, Bicycle Safety and Traffic Enforcement in our neighborhood. As we are in an on and off ramp to the freeway. Were looking forward to that. I want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for their ongoing support. I want to thank you the members of this commission for your support for all of the work. Thank you. Any other Public Comments. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. Colleagues, any thoughts . I love cbd. I know. What a great idea. Thank you for all your efforts. They serve a wonderful purpose in the city. Glad to see rincon getting one. Can we have a motion to forward all of three items to the full board with recommendations. I move to recommend approval. No objection, motion passes. Thank you very much. Madam clerk please call items four, five and six. Authorizing the planning District Historical property contract. I believe Shannon Ferguson from Historic Preservation division of the Planning Department is here to present on these items. Good morning supervisors Shannon Ferguson. My presentation today involved three historical property contracts that were submitted to the Planning Department on may 1, 2015. On october 7, 2015, the Historic Preservation commission napsly recommended approval. Mill sac legislation authorizes local government to enter into projects with the government. Who can then allocate the saving towards a restoration plan. Every local landmark in San Francisco as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places is eligible to apply for the mills act. The department holds 19 active mills act contract. These include Single Family homes and large scale commercial building. The Program Creates an incentive for proper maintenance. My first slide is the mills sacrament act contract for 722 steiner street. Do you have slighteds slides you wanted to project. Sfgov tv, we have a presentation. Powerpoint. We have a presentation. The first mills act contract is for 722 steiner street. The owners have agreed to invest over 220,000 towards roof replacements, repair siding painting and return for the property tax adjustment. The owners at 807 montgomery street have committed to invest over 114,000 towards Exterior Maintenance and return for the property tax adjustment. The owners of 761 post street, will not see a property tax reduction this year but they have committed to invest nearly 2. 5 million for seismic upgrades and restoration work to rehabilitate the building. Planning Department Work closely with each of them to provide professional guidance with their individual rehabilitation plans and maintenance plans. On behalf of the commission, the Planning Department recommend approval of these mills act contract. The application on the approval on the basis that all work is completed and is consistent with the requirements established by the mills acts. Planning staff is available to answer questions. Also representative from the Recorders Office is present today to answer any questions regarding the property tax evaluation. Thank you. Was he able to project over an overhead. Just quickly showed us the three buildings. This is 722 steiner street. Located in the alamo square historic district. Design in the queen ann style and built in 1892. 807 montgomery street located in Jackson Square historic district. Designed in the renaissance revival style and constructed in 1909. The last mills act contract is 761 post street located in the Apartment Hotel district. It was designed in the ar art deco style in the 1930s. Thank you very much. Colleagues any comments or questions . Seeing none. Are there any Public Comments . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. Can we have a motion to forward all three items to the board for recommendation as a Committee Report . Before we do that, i have comment. Im sorry. Thank you. Supervisor breed. I wanted to say im really excited about the original painted lady in particular. I had a chance to tour this lovely home. The owner allowed me in with my team. We took a look at it and the work that theyve done on this house is just extraordinary. Its a beautiful home. It has a lot of history. I know that it requires a lot of care to take care of. A home of this nature. As i drive pass this area almost everyday, there are hundreds of tourist constantly in this area taking photographs of these homes which this from my understanding is the original painted lady which thing a architecture of architects of all the painted ladies. He actually built this original home for himself along with the other painted ladies which are a icon both nationally and internationally. All over the country. People come here to San Francisco to see these iconic homes. Im really excited and thankful to the owner for investing so much money into preserving its character. I look forward to moving this item forward. With that, i will move these items forward to the full board with positive recommendation as a Committee Report. Seeing no objection, motion passes. Thank you very much. Plaza call item number seven. Its the hearing to receive updates from various city department, coin takenned in the 20142015 civil grand jury report entitled office of the assessor recorder. I believe january sis and gnatty from the city grand jury are here to present. Thats fine, thank you. I have a presentation. I also have hard copies with me. Sfgov tv, we have a presentation. Good morning members. My name is edward m im here on behalf of the office of the assessor recorder. I like to outline a little bit how we got here today and our office involvement. Thank you for hearing this item. Thank you to civil grand jury for their work on the report. We begin working on this item with the civil grand jury in december of 2014. The first half of the year, we coordinated with them on interviews as well as provided them with data and reports for their report that was published in may 2015. Included in those interviews were assessor recorder and myself along with some of our chief appraisers on staff. In august of this year, we provided a response to that report and provided a response to the findings and recommendations to the civil grand jurys report. In september, i came before you and presented on those findings. Shortly there after, we presented a report, a status report on our workload and staffing case load analysis to the board of supervisors and the civil grand jury a few weeks after the initial hearing. Which was requested the report was requested by the board. Here we are today and im going to be doing a presentation on updating some of the numbers that we presented to you in october via email. Before you get into that, i wanted to take a moment to paint a broader picture of what our office has done in support the numbers i will be presented today. When considering our office is responsible for generating one third of the general fund revenue, we feel when the office does well, the city and county of San Francisco does well. Our office had been proactive going to the board of supervisors and advocating for the needs. We are thankful to the board and mayor for approving our most recent budget. Approving our 22 million general fund budget. Because of the support and approving of this budget, weve been able to implement a number of new procedures, better efficiencies as well as some projects that help and speak to the overall productivity of our office. An example of the efficiencies that you all had a hand in and weve worked on implementing is multiple listing service. Its an online tool that provides our staff with the most up to date Information Available on changes in ownership. We came to you to the board to have this item passed. We were able to do our work better. In addition, when we talk about some of the projects that were implemented, that help put our office on stable firm ground Going Forward, weve launched the project of taking our 206,000 copies and bringing them online. What i mean by that, is making them accessible to our staff at their computer. Currently if you are to look for a hard copy files or Historical Information on a property, our staff has to get up, go into another room, search through a whole file, a whole room of files, looking for that particular property, getting that hard copy file and bringing it back to their desk. The purse of this is not only to make it easier and more efficient for staff but also to make our documents, Historical Records more safe and secure Going Forward. With that being said, i wanted to turn your attention to the presentation. Of course, as a followup, this is a refinement of the data that we emailed to the board in october. Moving into slide one, which is the staffing analysis and case load assumptions. Number one, the volume of incoming items for changes in ownership and new construction will remain on the same level as a prior two fiscal years. Number two, the types of incoming items into our office will continue to be the same as fiscal year 14 and 15. The total number of cases worked will stay the same for the projected years. Bullet number four, we assume that our Staffing Levels will be current capacity, as well as new positions approved in the 1 5 16 budget. Next slide sum recognizes our suspected case load for this year. I want to draw your attention to the first highlighted line of total case load. Because, these are the total case loads that we have in our work cue due to outstanding and new cases beginning every year. Its around over the span of currently 15 and 16 around 30,000. The next line is net outstanding. Which is the last line. Which a that number is the items of worked cases in our office. If you look through fiscal year 15 and 16 we have a total of 29,000 cases. Next slide which is the projected outstanding levels. The purpose of the slide is to pull your attention to the total case load. It outlines what the projected changes in ownership and new construction outstanding would be. Youll see over the span of june 2015 to june 2018 theres a slight decline in the number of items well have outstanding. Going to the next slide, which is the assessment appeals board. You are aware that the assessment appeals board is outside of our purview. This is something that is overseen by the board of supervisors. With that being said, i do want to take a minute and call out the board staff. Angela the clerk of the board and her staff. Theyve done great work and coordinating with office to make sure that we have as much information and Data Available on a timely manner. Because of that, we feel Going Forward, this is something thats new, well put both of our departments in a better footing for years to come. With that being said in particular on this slide, i like you to look at the chart, youll see in 20132014, the total number of cases filed was 5051. In 2014 and 2015 in number dropped. That is a 64 decline. Then id also like to call your attention to the number of open items. In 2013 and 2014, we have a total of 6279 that open cases still after being filed and closed. In 14 and 15 we had a total of 4126 cases that were open as of june 30th. Theres a decline of 34 . That concludes the presentation portion of the slide that you have in front of bu you. I wanted to take a minute and explain that the case loads items that were looking at, its not something that happened overnight and its not something that can be solved overnight. Its something were very dedicated to working on. Theres no magic ball to figure out the solution because a lot of the work that we do is determined by market forces. There is a number of construction thats taking place in the city. Theres a very popular San Francisco is a popular place to buy property. This all contributes to the work that comes into our office. We feel that the approach in solving this will take createty, will include thoughtfulness and also laying out a realistic goals and obtainable goals. With that, i conclude my presentation and be happy to answer any questions. I like to say thank you to the board of supervisors and this committee for their work and the civil grand jury, thank you for your work as well. I have a quick question for you, the staffing analysis and case load projections, it seems like what im seeing is basically case load projections. Theres no staffing analysis addressing in this particular report. Sure. The staffing analysis is something we provided in october to the board. I believe its in your packet. I can pull it up. Call your attention to the bottom chart which includes staffing analysis. These numbers havent really changed from the last time that we presented in front of you. Or the last time we communicated with the board and staff around this item. We did not include it because the numbers havent changed. That being said, i think its important to note that the work that we do, it includes complex items such as large commercial properties, it includes less complex items, it includes residential properties. The work that we do is depending upon the number of cases and the types of cases that we have. As for the number of staff that we have and their workload productivity thats presented to you. I believe you do have. Supervisor christensen. It must be very frustrating to get as much work out the dar every year as it remains to be edone. Looking at these numbers number of cases that are cleared are roughly consistent with the number that come in each year. What sames to be daunting is this annual size backlog. Everybody is always behind a year. Which is frustrating for staff and frustrating for those who are trying to get the cases through the system. Has there been discussion about a way to clear that backlog so that the annual case load is more consistent with the staffing thats available to handle it . Sure. Thank you for the question. As i mentioned, this is not something that occur overnight. Its something that developed over a number of years. From the perspective of our office, were very interested in not just looking at this as a staffing issue but as an issue for what our office needs as a whole to be more effective and to work down the backlog. Over the last few budget cycles, weve worked diligently in coordination with the board and Mayors Office to advocate for more resources. Those resources consist of funding programs. Not just staff dedicated to our productivity but to supporting the key functions and the key analysis necessary to give us a sense of what we need Going Forward. In the past, we have havent had that support. Going forward, as we continue to refine our numbers and get a better sense of what the long term looks like, this is womb of the first times that one of the first time we had the ability to map out what the next two years look like for us. We expect to come to the board in june and work with them along with the Mayors Office and the budget legislative office to identify ways we can improve. The ways that we can work down our backlog for years to come. In the case of the appeals board, which i realize has limited control, when a thousand fewer cases were handled in the recent year than were in the two prior years. I presume that somewhat depending on the nature of the cases. A thousand cases is 20 . The ab is overseen by the board of supervisors. We work really hard to make sure we get through those cases as quick as possible. Weve seen a decline in those numbers. We expect a further decline this coming fiscal year. What we anticipate doing is reallocating Staffing Resources away from ab and focus them on productivity items that consist of new construction and change in ownership. We hope that will contribute to the backlog number. Thank you. No further questions. Could i have janice petty . President breed and supervisor christensen. I served on the 20142015 civil grand jury and was one of the writers of this continuity report. The civil grand jury and its recommendation numbered two, which is what were talking about, asked for a staffing analysis and an aggressive written Long Term Plan for eliminating the backlog. The presentation by mr. Caffrey is not that. It was more report on the current and adequacy of the staffing level at the assessor recorders. It will take decades, if you look at the numbers to eliminate the backlog. Why the city and county continues to understaff the oar is a mystery given their role in bringing in general fund moneys. Eliminating the backlog would bring in increased revenue. Adequately staffing the assessor, the assessor recorder is a good investment. Return would exceed expenses. We hope the assessor recorder will continue to expand their analysis and develop a Long Term Plan along the lines that the jury is expecting. Thank you. Good morning supervisors. My name is daniel chesser, i was a member of the grand jury. Im looking at the case load projections and im reminded of the grants. If you look at the net outstanding for the next three years, essentially, theres a little change but its not very much. What we did our interviews, we were impressed of the professionalism of the assessor staff. They obviously want to do a good job. They clearly knew what they were doing. We appreciated meeting with them. When it comes down to, its a matter of staffing. Its a good investment for the city. All the more so because its a third of the general funds income. I would imagine im not a mathematician or statistician any amount of money spent for additional staffing of the assessors and the support staff, would pay off in eliminating this backlog. Thats essentially what it is. I think all of the given the efficiencies that he spoke about, i think it will be well worth it to spend money on increasing their staff so that the income to the city could be maximized. Thank you. Any Public Comments on this matter . Before we have Public Comment. Theres a question from supervisor christensen. Can i ask you one more question . Less say lets say you pick a time period. 24 months, 36 months to clear the backlog. Is there a number for what that would take either for staff or for resources . Thank you for the question. We dont have the direct number that youre looking for. As i mentioned, the analysis that we put in front of you today is a beginning point. Its a beginning point for us to map out what the next few fiscal years look like and identify the challenges that we face. This coming spring and june is working with the Budget Committee, working with the board of supervisors and identifying the needs of our office. This is the beginning point for us to map out what our needs are and help educate and make better informed decisions Going Forward when we have those conversations six months from now. Were talking about having to increase efficiency 200 in order to clear this backlog. That seems a bit daunting without resources including staff in order to do that. It might be possible to scale back in the backlog is removed. The amount of cases processed annually has been roughly equivalent to those that come in annual. Theres this issue of this backlog. It seems like it would be enormously helpful to have that number and to have the goal. I would leave it to your department to determine over what time period elimination of the backlog could reasonably be handled. Is it 24 months or 36 months. Im sure there are varying costs associated with that. Do we want to clear the backlog. B, is it financially prudent to do so and c, if so, whats the cost of doing it . It seems like having that number is essential in order for any of those conversations to move forward. The numbers identify that we have we work around 13 and 15,000 cases every year. Theres around 14 to 15,000 come in every year. Its very easy to say, well, lets just double our staff. If we can get currently we have 45 staff committed to the production of the Real Property division. Its very easy to say, give us another 45. What we dont want to do what we want to do, we want to go about this in the most strategic way possible. That is thinking not just about hiring staff but hiring supporting programs and projects that will help us for the long term. We have to think about after we clear the backlog, what then happens to that staff. Are those programs do we staff and let them go or do we transition them to somewhere else. We want to be thoughtful. We want to be realistic about what is doable. Thats something were looking forward to discussing come budget season. Thank you. Supervisors. When you got a gentleman here who doesnt answer directly to what has been posed to him by the grand jury, you have what you call in this city bafoonry. Bafoonry of the highest order. Ive been following the Assessors Office when mayor was there and now mayor lee. The Assessors Office is mandated to bring in the income and they cannot do Due Diligence in this Digital World where we can how to do better. Shame on them. He says, oh, we work very hard and we want to hire more workers. But have you ask the Assessors Office if they have a Risk Assessment and do they understand what a Risk Assessment is. Number two, if the employees, starting with chairman chew have been evaluated and graded. If you have inept people, lazy people, people who are not dedicated to our city and to the themselves, shame on you supervisors for allowing the Assessors Office not to address the concerns of the grand jury. The grand jury plays an important role. They do a lot of work. The hard work should not go in vain. Shame on you supervisors. Any other Public Comments . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Colleges. This is the second hearing on this particular item of grand jury. I will report on office of assessor recorder. Any recommendation was this particular one that we spoke of today, which is recommendation number two, calling for to complete a staffing analysis of the department. I think right now, i would say, i can conclude that staffing analysis is nonconclusive. The resolution needs to be au a amended. I suggest that recommendation number two will not be implemented. The staffing analysis will be completed by the end of this fiscal year. Much of it is to honor the suggestion that we given the opportunity to work through the fiscal process and see how many Staff Reports come out of there. Theres always needs. Thats sort of what im suggesting. Can we have a motion to approve the suggested response and amend the existing resolution and move forward number seven to the full board with positive recommendation . I think this is a serious issue, we keep talking about it. It doesnt seem to be moved ahead. My colleagues is prepared to wait for another five or six months, theyll be around to decide if this is enacted. The thank the grand jury and i courage the jury to keep an eye on this. It does need to be resolved. I dont see a staffing analysis here today before us. Lets hope that once forthcoming in the next fiscal year. Supervisor yee what you read will not. Implemented and then a time frame when it will be implemented. If thats the resolution, it should read the recommendation will be implemented and the time ending the fiscal year. Let me rephrase that. Recommendation number two will be implemented with a time frame, staffing analysis by the end of the fiscal year. With no objection, motion passes. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you please call numb eight. Its an ordinance adopting and implementing eight number eight 20072018 memorandum of understanding between the city of and county of 46 and the Firefighters Local 798 unit 1. Department the Human Resources and assistant fire chief gonzalez. Good morning supervisors, Martin Graham Employee Relations director, department of Human Resources. We have before you today an mou amendment that represents ones of several steps the city has taken to improve Emergency Response times in San Francisco. The Fire Department the response times of Fire Department paramedics. The mou amendments lous the Fire Department to mirror industry standards by hiring per diem paramedics. The creation of the per diem class will give the department an additional tool to be able to dispatch as ambulances as possible at both critical times of the day. This agreement reflects the important work of the citys Emergency Medical Services working group, many members of the board of supervisors including president breed. The mayor and the mayor staff, department of Human Resources, the San Francisco Fire Department administrative staff as well as San Francisco Firefighters Union home 798. Together we were able to negotiate a winwin agreement that protecteds the right of our firefighters and paramedics while providing an important tool for the Fire Department to enhance its ability to protect Public Safety. If you have any competent, ill be happy questions ill be happy to answer. Thank you, any comments or questions . Are there any Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Should we be filing motion to file item number six . Item number six is the novak ite mills act item. This was item number eight. This is the memorandum understanding with the Firefighters Local 798. We just need to make a motion on this item. The last item was the civil grand jury item, which we amended board amended their response and read into the record that it would be implemented. We need to make a motion on the firefighters mou. Supervisor breed. I am a cosponsor of this item. I think its an important step forward. This came out of a lot of work with the ambulance working group. This will be an important part of helping us to address some of the challenges that we had with ambulance response time. Which i know, at this time, are actually improving. Im really looking forward to making sure that were providing the resources, the support and everything that we need in order to ensure the capacity to meet todays challenges throughout the city so that we are supporting our growing population and providing appropriate and timely medical services to them. Looking forward to moving this item forward. Thank you for your work. I know chief gonzalez is here. I appreciate you being here today. With that, i like to make a motion to move this item to the board with positive recommendation. Thank you. Any objections . Motion passes. Thank you very much. Could you call item nine. Would you like to make a motion supervisor christensen. So moved. With no objection, supervisor chri christensen will be leaving the meeting. Its been a pleasure to have you serving on the same committee. You always have candid remarks to the items and good luck to your future endeavors. Thank you. Joining us for the rest of the meeting will be supervisor kim. Call item number nine. Its the hearing on the alternative to incarceration including considering the Mental Health status and needs of the current San Francisco jail population. The current rebuild, the associated costs and including the costs of providing Mental Health treatment to those in custody against out of custody. Okay. I will leave this item to be chaired by supervisor kim and breed to conduct this part of the meeting. Supervisor kim. Thank you chair yee. I just want to make some brief opening remarks. There was quite a lengthy discussion yesterday at budget and finance committee on the actual acceptance of the state grant to rebuild the jail. This is a slightly different hearing, which is focused on the alternatives to a jail rebuild and continuation of a discussion that we had started for the july hearing, six months ago. What my expectations are over the last six months is that the city will have more answers around many of the questions that we ask. Six months ago in terms of what alternative program and policies look like. One of the issues that i brought up was San Francisco only explored the single capital option of replacing these jails. I dont believe that we have really adequately explored what policy and program alternatives look like. Were really at a critical juncture with the opportunity, we have an opportunity to really rethink the system. There is so much documentation and work that has come out over the last decade in particular this year, that are demonstrating that jails and current prison system, may not be the best one in keeping our Community Safer and certainly our city safer. Being that we have this opportunity to really reimagine the system with all the data and policy ideas that are being presented and forwarded to us, San Francisco should be at the forefront. We shouldnt be limited to only one option. We should look at every option possible. It may be after we examine and look at all the different options the proposal that the city is putting before us, is still the best us. It is possible that is true. We really deserve to fully explore all the possible options and then decide that the proposal coming before the board is the best one. I dont feel like were at that point. Im hoping that we can kind of dice and work through that a little bit more. We have a number of presentations today. I want to acknowledge our District Attorney who came personally to speak to the public and this committee. Before that, i want to ensure that president breed was able to make some opening remarks. Thank you supervisor kim. This is the second hearing that weve held in regards to this particular issue. We know in we have challenges in our current jail population. I think whats most important here is to talk about what excuse me to talk about alternatives and to talk about how we can better ensure that those individuals who often times cant afford to bail themselves out, have alternatives to being incarcerated in our jails. I know that the jail population has declined considerably over the years. That is because we have done amazing work in San Francisco with alternatives. There is more to be done. I hear time and time again that a conversations about the jail population and a small percentage of that population are actually individuals who have committed violent crimes. What about the other folks . Why are they still in jail . What can we do better to try and provide a. S as alternatives . One effor one of the Biggest Challenges that we face and having the discussions around the new detention center, is the fact that we have not done enough to figure out exactly what we are going to do for those who clearly are mentally ill. That has been the most frustrating issue for me throughout the course of this entire conversation. Ive made. It clear i in Capital Planning. We are not being creative enough to make sure that we come with a comprehensive plan that includes support for that particular population and how we provide the kinds of Services Necessary to take care of that population. Were just not there yet. Today, i know the hearing is about alternatives to incarceration. Its to find out whats out there, what different departments are doing and what as a city should be doing better. I appreciate supervisor kim working with me on this issue. This has been a really challenging issue and really again, frustrating, since our last hearing, i dont think that there had been additional steps or additional anything done to address especially the Mental Health component here and to try and do more with this proposed project in order to help that particular population. We still have a lot of work to do. Im looking forward to this hearing to talk about what those alternatives are and how we can improve on what already exist. Thank you. I want to recognize supervisor campos also joined us. Very brief point. I want to thank my colleges and this committee. I want to thank our District Attorney for the leadership he has demonstrated on this issue. Im not going to belabor the point. The points that have been made i dont know anyone believes that its okay for current inmates of the jail who are in pretty deplorable conditions, no one believes thats okay. Everyone is making sure that is stressed. The prommer the approach that we have taken, it takes sort of the easy way out in the sense that it takes the way out that the Current System favors. The way that it works now is that the Current System favors the building of prisons and jails and there is infatuation with incarceration. Why do i say that . I can tell you that its very seldom that we talk about state grants the size were talking about 80 million being provided for anything other than institutions that incarcerate people. You dont hear that about education. You dont hear about that schools. In some respects what the city is doing kind of make sense. This is the money that the state is making available. You dont want to lose that 80 million. You feel like there are bad conditions in the jail both have to be addressed. We have money available, of course well take it. I understand that but i think that we have to approach it differently. I think that we have to think outside the box and first of all, look at our own need. Not necessarily let the mistakes, misguided principles of values of the state dictate what our needs are. The needs that we have should be driven by the facts and the facts are that we dont have a jail system that has too many people. There are many vacant empty cells. To the extent that theres a need to improve conditions, we should focus on improving those conditions. But lets not tie ourselves to the old way thinking. I hope happens is the knee jerk of doing the easy thing of taking the money available, i think its irreversible. I dont think were ready to we know enough to accept this money. Why dont we come up with a very San Francisco solution that recognizes the nuances of everything thats included and that doesnt tie us up to a jail that i think in the end, wont really address the needs that we have. I look forward to that conversation. I actually think that there is a way that we can all come together on this. For the reasons that the District Attorney has stated, all of these supervisors, i dont think that building a new jail makes sense. How do we address the needs Going Forward . Thank you supervisor kim, thank you supervisor breed for having this discussion. I look forward to hearing from everyone i want to hear from our chief Law Enforcement officer who i think probably more than anyone else, knows firsthand whats happening. Thank you. Thank you supervisor campos. I like to invite our District Attorney to present to the committee. Thank you so much for being here. My pleasure. Thank you. Thank all of you for the opportunity and good afternoon. I want to start by making three points. I want to go into some further details. Let me begin by saying, i think its really important for us to recognize that the county and city, were a national model. People look at us to using incarceration. We are consistently being talked about, im being invited around the country to go talk about what were doing and how weve been able to reduce incarceration to the levels that we have. I San Francisco has a history of doing very well. Just in the last five years, we have gone from around 2200 people in our jails to half of that most of the time. I think the building new jail is set backwards. Its really not consistent what its going on and what it will continue to go on. The other thing that is important, this jail was in a different time. When we were talking in 2006 about the projections and the need to build a new jail, our jails were crowded. We were exceeding capacity. That is not the problem today. That brings me to the question, what do we need today. I like to tell you that what we need is Mental Health beds. We do not need additional jail beds. It is often estimated, i think quite frankly, probably, below what it actually is. Probably somewhere around 40 of our population our jail have some problems and Mental Health problems. National levels in many places are higher. I was invited to go speak in arizona about 10 days ago, theyre talking about building a new prison. We did a little research, 75 people have a Substance Abuse problem. I dont think were much different. If we have a population that has this need, a prison or a jail is not the place to treat them. I have in my office, we have prosecutors everyday recommending treatment for offenders that must get help in order to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. We have to wait for 90 days for a Mental Health bed. Which means if an individual came in for the low level offense, theres going to be released before there is a bed ready for them. They are going to reoffend. Theyre going to be back in the system within that period of time. I think its we pride ourself for being progressive in providing services. I like to say that the studies have been known regarding the jails, by some of you, i want to repeat it. They have been inefficient. We have not explored the alternatives. The disagreement is not a wrong capacity. I think it revolves around classification. They maybe housed together in order to ensure their safety. The city has now done rigors assessment and cost of renovating, cj2, cj5 and cj6. We continue to go down the road that we need to build facilities. Yets the city has not directed a single staff person to real analysis how muchimplementation will increase jail they have not seen the light of day and has not been contemplated. I want to name just a few that this board should consider. The relate is, our Sheriffs Department, theres currently an over classification of inmates. There are people that could be classified at a lower level. The housing nomads become needs become different. We are currently leasing space to the federal government and housing approximately 45 beds in cj4. Today, as indicated, theres a comprehensive study regarding renovation of cj6 to enhance the space and make Housing Available for medium risk people in that facility. The controller commission use of cj6, found that it could be used for some of the other populations and it was created with additional programming space. We will continue to lower our incarceration rates. Things like introducing a system. Which is something were discussing now. As a matter of fact i was talking to the plaintiff lawyer. My office has been working with the organization for approximately three years to create Risk Assessment tool that will allow us to move smoothly away from a no money jail system. Which is a system that punishes the poor. Because people cannot afford to pay their bail. Theyre often held back in custody and they shouldnt be. I think its really important to say that jails and prisons will never be in acceptable Mental Healthcare facility. It is not where you treat people for Mental Health. We have a sick population and we need to respond with treatment. If you want to wait the cost of transporting, the cost we endure, weigh those against the cost of spending 240 million in a new jail. We need Behavorial Health division center, not a new jail facility. There are promises that we can look to as alternatives. For instance memphis and miami, they work very differently. They include, the centralized approach at the earliest contact. Medical center adequately staff with professionals who can successful and treat. Addressing thinking while linking people to Behavorial Health in primary care. We need daytime activities to restimulate new development. We need Supportive Housing and providing people the ability so they can get the treatment that they need while were enhancing the capacity to reintegrate themselves into society. For over a year, it bothers me, for over a year, we have been begging the county for bandages in this area. I keep being offered bullets. Im talking about Mental Healthcare and the additional yale space. We do not need additional jail space. We must do better. We can do better. I hope this board take this to heart and we move forward and consistent with all the other work that has been done in the criminal Justice System for many years. Thank you. I want to thank you for coming to speak. I think it is particularly meaningful to have District Attorney when your role is really to represent the people of San Francisco. Your primary mission is really the safety of our community and city and to get your perspective on what infrastructure would really address, long term safety of our communities and how jail may not be actually be the way to address that. I think its really important for us to hear. Its actually one of the those unique times when both our District Attorney and our public deferredder Defenders Office a jail rebuild is not the solution. I know that your staff is on the ground. You see all the individuals that come in and out of the Justice System. Your role is to make sure that we are keeping San Francisco safe. Its really important to hear it. Im a little surprised to see that memphis and miami might be ahead of the curve. Theyre way ahead of the curve. Not by a little bit but by a whole bunch. I would love to learn more about the outcomes there. One of my biggest concerns is how were addressing the population with severe and health illnesses. Jail is not the solution to that. Thank you so much. [indiscernible] one of the main concerns it hasnt really been adequately addressed is that those that get incarcerated whether its they cant make bail or whatever. If there were no place in San Francisco and we have to bust it down to i recognize that many of easier are probably coming these are probably coming from the lower income situation. The support that they could use and have, would be better served if they were in the city. So theyre family and loved ones can come visit them. These family members may not be able to go visit or unlikely. Whats your take on that . Lets recognize that we already yesterday we had 649 people in bruin know. San bruno. There are creative ways for families to stay connected with relatives. Quite frankly, the 244 million, which under estimates the cost. We can provide at the love transportation for families. We can do all kinds of Creative Things to make sure families will have access to their loved ones. The Sheriffs Department have some great reentry programs. Especially for people that are going to be that are already posting sentencing and they will stay there for a significant period of time. Theres a lot of conversations that need to be have including possibility of bringing people in and out. We just need to move people in and out more quickly. I think that there are just many other things that we can do other than spend 244 million to build a new jail. Frankly, it makes no sense in so many ways. It makes no sense socially. It makes no sense economically. We built our juvenile facility. We spent significant amount of money. I can speak that it was over 100 million in a fill that people were projecting that we were going to have this need. The facility is consistently less than half full. Anybody that would have taken a real look demographically would have been able to say that we were not going to need that facility. We dont want to remake the same mistakes over and over again. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. We do have a number of presentations today. Wwe have public Defenders Office. You want to come up . Thank you for being here. Good morning. I just want to echo the comments that were made by the District Attorney. This hearing is about alternatives. San francisco has alternatives that are evidencebased, that reduce recidivism and having working more many years. The issue is that these alternatives are severely under utilized. We have drug court, we have Behavorial Health court, we have a veterans justice court, we have Community Justice court and we are currently in all of these courts, operating at under capacity. What we need to do is Work Together and we are working with the District Attorneys office and Probation Department to expand the eligibility criteria, to increase capacity, to dedicate more resources so that we can actually utilize these alternatives that is proven to be effective over and over again. There is no need to build a new jail when we dont have enough housing. When we dont have enough Mental Health beds. We dont have enough treatment facilities, vocational education. All the things that keeps San Francisco safe. All the things that we need to make sure that the people that find themselves incarcerated have better alternatives. There isnt a need to build a new jail. The other thing i want to mention is that, the full impact of the policies that the District Attorney alluded to raws mass incarceration in San Francisco have not yet been fully realized. We have supervisor release. Theres not funded to operate at full capacity so that more people can be diverted from custody and into these alternatives. We have electronic monitoring, however, there are maybe 40, maybe 60 people that are on electronic monitoring. The Probation Department through the justice of reinvestment initiative, were implementing shortened probation length. That is not yet fully implemented. We have bail Reform Efforts as District Attorney mentioned, we have the pretrial Risk Assessment tool that will be implemented soon. So people arent in custody simply because they cant afford bail. Our offer to set up a bail unit in just a month and a half, weve we have we have filed 30 bail motions and through the assistance of our bail unit, approximately eight people have been released from custody. Once the unit is fully operational, we expect those numbers to really rise. Simply echoing what the District Attorney said, theres no need for a new jail. We have plenty of alternatives and they just need to be better utilized and we need to divert the resources that we might consider putting into a new jail into the things that really matter. Just housing and Mental Health treatment and other things like that. I just had a question. Budget of the reason one of the reasons weve been told why we absolutely need to rebuild the jail, is said the public defender can have easy to the client. We want you to be close to your clients and be able to access them easily. What is your perspective on that argument . I think thats a very valid concern. Were already going to the jail now. There are 650 people in custody there. County jail two will not be shout down. Theres a county jail here in the city has well. If we implement all of these different policies, then theres not going to be were not looking to increase capacity at the jail. Were looking at alternatives. Were going to san bruno county scale. Whatre looking at is what were looking at is not increasing the capacity. Other instances can you think it is important to have a select group of the population be on site for the courtroom appearance and etcetera. Would would be from the perspective of the public offender. Absolutely. I think that the new jail, the old new jails can on 7th street, i think thats something that we have to look at. Theres that space there. I think there are classification issues that the sheriff needs to look at. If there is a need to have somebody right across the street in trial who have somebody who has a Court Appearance that day, they can be housed if the intake section there on 7th street. You think theres some need for beds on the existing site . Not new beds but just beds that are already there. It would be a good idea to have which beds would you use given the fact that the site is technically im not county jails three and four, im talking about 425, 7th street. There are empty beds there. Theres space there. Theres an intake unit there. We should look into that and be creative about how to better use that space in a safe way. If there is a need to have somebody who is in trial, there could be there physically. To say that concern outweighs the concerns of having a new jail, i dont think its important for us to hear that the public defenders already spent some time traveling to san bruno, what percentage do you think public defenders going to san bruin know currently and how challenging is that . Ive been a public defender for 20 years. Going to san bruno was just a part of my job. I went and its part of the job all of the attorneys in our office. Its completely hard for the course. During the week and even weekends, thats just part of the job description. Youre going 12miles to san bruno and back. People car pool and commute times. Its really a part of what we do. Had san bruno jail not been built in a different county, many years ago, that would have been a different consideration. Thats the relate that is now. Thank you so much. I dont see any further questions from committee. Thank you so much for being here. Our next presentation is from the Sheriffs Department. We have deputy chief cathy oh, michael freeman. Good morning supervisors. Good morning, or good afternoon. I am a chief Deputy Sheriff with the sheriffs office. Im the Division Commander of the administration and program division. Today i will focus my comments on the alternatives to incarceration and alternatives solely based on post release alternative. I will focus my talk and my conversation on what we countrily do. The programs that we have in place and the success of those programs. Im going to touch on new initiatives. One of the new initiatives will address concerns regarding offenders with mental illness. I will talk about the challenges of our Current Population and the challenges faced by the pretrial averments that we current alternatives that we currently have. I like to start with our first slide. Ill talk about the curb programs current programs that the Sheriffs Department have in place. Its own recog any distance. That packet is taken and delivered to a judicial officer. That officer renders a decision. That decision is whether or not that defendant will remain in custody. If the defendant is released on or, we pross them out and they continue in our Court Process out of custody. If they remain in custody, because or was denied at that point, our staff take that packet thats been completed and they deliver it to the Arraignment Court. The Arraignment Court has the ability to make a decision. Their decision is are they release this defendant what is called ctor, or will they release them to whats called supervised pretrial release. Spr is a function of the Sheriffs Department. This is a level of release that has some requirements with it. Or, the defendant can be denied release and they remain in custody. The last program for pretrial release is whats called Court Accountable homeless services. This program has the greatest level of supervision and targets the homeless in San Francisco. If an individual is denied or and spr, the courts can make a referral to cahs. That individual is reviewed and interviewed for release to cahs. The staff people that operate these programs provide supervision of defendant to make sure they make their Court Appearance, take them to medical appointments. Make sure they interpret information from the court forum. These are the prereleased programs that we offer. The next slide youll see here is lsu called Community Programs and alternatives. This focuses on individual who have been sentenced to a time in the county jail. I want to talk about the first two programs which is swap and em. These are individuals sentenced to the county jail and in lieu of the sentence, we release them to perform meaningful, Community Programs. Sometimes they go out and do graffiti abatement. Other times they participate in the educational program. Thats one avenue to meet the eligibility. The next one em what is called electronic monitoring. This is also a program for sentenced individuals. Previously the sheriff introduced legislation to expand Electronic Monitoring Program which was not supported by members of this body. That legislation was successful. Our current em program is limited to those individuals who are sentenced individuals. Lastly what youll see is nova. This is a no Violence Alliance program. This is a program that we have in the Sheriffs Department in which we target high risk offenders, individual who require housing and Case Management and those that have violence with a current offense. Nova specifically addresses the need of the high risk person. And individuals of nova may remain in nova housing anywhere from one month to a year and a half. I think this slide is very important. We talk about alternatives and what San Francisco has done. This slide articulates the 2014. This is for calendar year 2014. The blue slide is the average or the blue line is the average daily population of the jail. The red line is the average daily population of the Sheriffs Department programs and alternatives. Other than january, you can see that we, the Sheriffs Department, had more individuals released to an alternative to incarceration. I think that bares repeating. We do exceptional work and in identifying successful programs for offenders to release them to the community either pretrial or post sentence in order to begin reentry process to allow them to be productive members of the community and meeting requirements of the court. Very important. In continuing with the services we provide. We also provide services to women. Specific services that deals specifically in recovery classes in seeking safety or healthy relationships. This is a Community Site we operate on 930 brian street. In 2014 we served over 6400 women at this Community Site. 70 oak rose. This is our site thats Community Site that serves men and also women. This also this site provide Services Related to education. Related to batter intervention classes, anger management classes and Substance Abuse classes. 2014 we served over 7800 men and women at this location. Lastly, i wanted to talk about our survivor restoRation Program. Put of what we do at the Law Enforcement agency is provide services to survivors of violent crimes. We added 153 new clients to our survivor restoRation Program, which is referred to srp. In addition, they have an ongoing case load of 791 cases. During the fiscal year, theyve had some monumental accomplishments. There were individuals, 53 individuals that they were able to assist and obtain now visas for. Seven individuals obtained citizenship, 34 permanent residency, three permanent housing and eight clients of these survivor res Ration Program were able to be requited with reunited with their children from a native children. These are remarkable numbers. Ive heard concerns about offenders and those offenders with mental illness. These are now initiatives at the Sheriffs Department. I like to touch on mentally ill offends. Earlier in year the Sheriffs Department convened a working group, it comprised our criminal justice partners. Through that exercise, we identified that we needed to provide Greater Services to offenders, low level offenders being released. They were being released without services. What was identified through this working group was the need for housing and treatment. We applied for a grant from the board of state and community corrections. We were awarded money from the bscc. This year period of time, we have expanded housing for offenders with mental i amness. Were engaging them in treatment. Part of the funding will provide for a pier specialist who will assist those individual who are released from the county jail to make sure they attend their treatment program. Thats what the Sheriffs Department is doing to address the needs of individuals with Mental Health issues. The next slide you see is whats called the Public Safety assessment tool. I heard the d. A. And public defender talk about this Public Safety assessment tool. The Sheriffs Department also has engaged with the Arnold Foundation. I want to say the difference between our tool what we do and what were looking at doing in the future, we do use a validated tool in our pretrial release program. Our tool is validate. What we are doing here is reaching out to the Arnold Foundation and trying to identify a different tool, a different mechanism to identify individuals who are prereleased that may be released in addition to what we have. This tool focuses on three pretrial assessment areas. One is future failure to appear, the one is the ability to commit a new criminal act. The Sheriffs Department is committed to this tool. We are actively engaged in the process with our criminal justice partners. This tool really coincides with the tool that we have used in the difference what we do and the others in the criminal justice, we already have the tool in this area. I want a buck the challenges talk about the challenges. The d. A. Touched on this. He said that there are more challenges faced with pretrial released defendants. I want to talk about that. What you see here is the snapshot of one day. This day is august 10, 2015. On that date, the population, the incarcerated population was 1246. Of that population, 943 were 76 of the population had hold and warrants. Insist in addition to this is in in addition to their cases. Those holds in warrants may have ranged from felony wants from another local jurisdiction to local bench warrants. It only excludes infraction. 24 of the remaining population or 303 individuals. These are individuals who had offenses for traffic. If you go to the next slide, you can see that of the 303 people or 24 of that population, 90 of those individuals were 271 people had crimes against people. Their offense was an offense of violence against a different individuals. Thats astounding. Its a significant number. Conversely i want to show you, if you look at the drug related offenses, there were five individuals on it day for drug related offenses or two percent of the population. The thrown take away from the lesson to take away, theres a hardening from the inmate population. These are the challenges that we take away moving forward. Lastly, i wanted to go over about some of the individuals that we have recently denied release or individual who have been returned to custody. They were released on an alternatives and returning to custody. These were the individuals. First individual youll see was arrested for attempted murder, assault with a Deadly Weapon. This individual attacked a victim with a ma shetty. This individual removed a device. Coupled with the behavior of destroying an electronic device, this individual was denied. Next one, stalking or terrorist threats. This individual had a pattern of violating court records. Possession of child pornography, this individual was in possession of an excess 2000 pornographic images. We denied this. Manslaughter, assault with a Deadly Weapon and gang enhancement. This was denied based on the nature of the charges. Then, theres some examples of individuals that are routinely release. Individuals who are in custody for possession of a sale of a controlled substance. This individual was arrested for possession for sale, we realized him to an alternative to incarceration, tested positive for cocaine use. That information was forwarded to the court. Theres an example similar to that. The next individual was arrested for possession of sale. This person tested positive for methamphetamine. That information was referred to the court and he was remanded into custody. I ice these i use these to show the individuals that are in custody. I also think its important to point out that these denials are not done in a vacuum. The Sheriffs Department doesnt say i will deny this person. We look at the totality of the picture. We also reach out to the ada handling this case and get an opinion from the assistant District Attorney. Then we make a recommendation. Ultimately, our primary concern is for the protection of Public Safety. Thank you. Thank you. I have one question, are there any empty pods in cj2. Theres one empty pod. That is david pod. Great. I do want to add that im very proud of our Sheriffs Department. I do think that we run some of the best programs in the country. When i visit it, im so impressed by the leadership and the work of this department and putting in outstanding programs that really serve our inmates. I want to express appreciation for the work thats been done. Thank you supervisor. Just curious, you say theres an empty pod. How many days are in a pod . David pod has a capacity of 56 inmates. Theres 56 beds in that pod. It is an open dormitory of that pod. There are no cells. Mezzanine level pod. Circular design, bunk beds on the lower level and bunk beds on the upper level. There are no cells in that pod. Thank you. Supervisor campos. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. Let me say that i wanted to thank the Sheriffs Department for the openness in which you have approached this whole process. I know that i visited with all of you anopia colleagues hav and i colleagues have visited. Its been very helpful. One thing that im glad you mentioned what happened . Request to expand Electronic Monitoring Program. I was actually on the other end of that vote because i wanted to expand that program and thought that it made a lot of sense. I think its an Important Note to keep in mind a as some of us are pushing for alternatives to incarceration, the bard actually has taken steps that go against that. They have to be consistency. You cant have your cake and eat it too. That said, as someone who wanted to see the Electronic Monitoring Program expanded in a responsible way, can you were proposing to do that, i wanted to continue to push the envelope in terms of minimizing incarceration to really minimizing and limiting it to those cases where its really needed. One question that i have was with the last slade slide that you showed that looked at the samples where electronic monitoring had been denied. It makes complete sense why you would deny. What are the numbers for the examples a you provided . Where does that fit in the Larger Population . I think thats Important Information to know. Electronic monitoring referrals come to us in three different ways. The first way is that our staff, our sworn staff look at the list. Everyday we produce a list of every inmate that has been sentenced to a county jail term. We conducted an individual assessment on those individuals. Thats constantly reviewed. The second referral for electronic monitor is through the public Defenders Office. The third way is through the inmate themselves. Theres a list of criteria, eligibility criteria. An individual must meet that eligibility criteria. If they dont, they can appeal. The appeal goes through the supervisors at our electronic monitoring site. I look at appeals if they are appealed from that level. Once an appeal is made, its either the inmate or their counsel which to appeal the denial at the level of electronic monitoring. I look at those because they come to me as a Division Commander. I can tell you ive, ive upheld only three appeals. Those three appeals that i upheld is no electronic monitoring were cases as severe that posed a significant Public Safety risk. Aside from that, i dont deny appeals if there is a totality of a circumstance where we can identify that the defendant has the opportunity when theyre in the community to reenter the community safely. To be able to provide for the community, their family and meet the requirements of the court within the requirements of electronic monitoring. Cases that are referred to us are generally accepted, except for those that are most severe. There are those that we place on em that violate conditions of the program. Those individuals come back. I will get you the eligibility criteria. I think that would be helpful. None of us are saying every inmate is suitable candidate for electronic monitoring or any kind of alternative to incarceration. There will be individual who need to be in a jail. Its a question whether building this 240 Million Building without counting financing, makes sense. Thats the only thing. Having that information would be helpful. I can tell you primarily, the exclusionary expenses are those listed in the category. As well as the ab109 exclusionary list. We have additional list that we the Sheriffs Department have identified. We will get you that list. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have brian strong whos here from Capital Planning. Good afternoon. Im director of Capital Planning in office of the city administrator. Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to come and speak with you today and we appreciate the opportunity to have hearings like this on various capital projects. The perspective that im bringing is, speaking for the Capital Planning committee, our primary concern is really the health and safety of the staff, inmates and the visitors that are there. The city has been aware of issues with the jail strong, sorry, i know you went over much of that information yesterday. Before us today is not why we should do the current proposal. The hearing today is on alternatives. If we can focus on what a. S you have alternatives that you explored. I understand. Thats why i brought only three slides. I think worth mentioning its important. Its a part of why we are doing it now and why we want to make sure it happens sooner rather than later. Ill leave it at that. Ill let some of the other folks talk about some the oater programs. This replacement jails doesnt enable the programs to move forward. Supervisor campos. I do want to make the point here, though. I think the point to this hearing is to talk about alternatives to incarceration. We had seen the dog and pony show why we need to apparently build this new jail, no one is questioning that there are issues around the seismic safety of where people are now. The question here is what alternatives to building a new jail have you actually considered . Thats what i hope i seen this movie before. I know the ending. I want to know what it is that you have done differently and other things that you have considered other than this new jail being built. The Capital Planning program focuses on Capital Infrastructure needs. That is where our focus is. We are certainly open and want to hear about different alternatives. I think where we are is that, we are deeply concerned about situations where events can happen where where we do not have a place for people to go. Have you considered alternatives to building a 240 million jail . Have you considered alternatives . Every proposal that come before us, we have considered. Weve looked at very different options that have come before us. We know that the jail population has changed quite a bit. Thats why weve made changes. Thats why weve been continue working with various departments, staff, members of the board to get input and to understand what those options are. Part of our program here and our intent in applying for the grant, it does provide a direct benefit before strong, sorry to interrupt again. Im looking through the presentation. I dont see anything that pertains this hearing today. I will ask to move to the next presentation. The 8 million, 4 million goes towards rehabilitation, psychiatric let me be more specific with you. We specifically ask for a presentation from the department on what alternatives have been explored. Not why this is the only option we should explore. Reading through, its just all about why the current proposals is the right one and why of else doesnt work. I want a different options before the bard to pick amongst that were truly studied. I dont see that here. This seems like regurgitation of what was before the Budge Committee yesterday. Youre argue thats not what this hearing. You did ask me one question if i may respond to that came from an email. Why this project was moved ahead of the District Attorneys office. That response is on the first slide there. Its because the folks there in the jail 247. Theyre three times more likely to be affected by an earthquake. Theyre responsible for their livelihood and well being. Jong in this chamber i dont think anyone in this Chamber Wants to in that situation. We want more than one proposal so that were making the best decision moving forward. Supervisor kim. Going back to my question, can you plaza provide for please provide us to do concrete alternatives that you have considered . A, b, c, whatever those are. I will say this, if you dont have the documents, the documentation showing those alternatives today, then i assume that you really havent considered those alternatives. The proof is in the pudding. Lets see the alternatives. The department of public works will provide you with the alternatives that came before the Capital Planning committee. We pond to the proposal respond to the proposals brought before us. Youre the head of the Capital Planning committee. Does the Capital Planning committee have any documentation . Not oral statements, not your oral representation but any documentation to present to this committee today that shows that you have in fact considered other alternatives . Do you have any documentation . Yes. She will talk about the alternatives that have gone before the Capital Planning committee. There have been several. The alternatives that we consider are ones that have been brought to us. They are proposals that go to the capital plan. They are proposals that come to us through budget requests. Any proposal that has been made on this replacement jail or alternatives to incarceration have been considered at that committee. Great, thank you. I do see we have public works. Thank you so much for being here today. Good afternoon supervisor. Good to see you again. A few months ago the city administrator and director of the mayor Budget Office asked public works to study the option to this jail rebuild. We were given it has to be a replacement jail that would address the functional requirements of the Sheriffs Department in replacing county jail number three and four. We have about i submitted the slides to you. I can just go through them. We dont have it. I have something from the department of public health. I do not have anything from your department. Its not connecting to the server. As i mentioned before, this was given to us by the city administrator and Mayors Office for budget. While we were preparing for the applications, they wanted to be sure that we explored different options that are available and the scope to the state. Its something that can be associated and addresses the citys in replacing county jail number three and four. This is account. We went through the count of what was existing within the Sheriffs Department. If you look at county jail number one, which is here in San Francisco, the d. A. Made reference to it, this is just a holding cell im sorry. I apologize, i thought this was capital i do have the presentation. I thought this was Capital Planning presentation. A lot of this is the information that was presented yesterday on Budget Committee on what the Current Assessment is. Weve gone over this information so many times. I want to focus on what alternatives that you have explored and what they look like. I understand that the city and the Mayors Office particular request that the board of supervisors have made a different request of you. S can other than what is being proposed to the board of supervisors, what are the alternatives that you have explored and really studied. If we can skip over to that portion of your presentation thats what im going to talk about i want to skip over the context. Weve gotten this many times. I dont think anyone is familiar with those number. The alternative to building the beds was the cj6. It was d1a. It had to be recomparable to replacing the beds. This scenario talks about cj6. There were at love questions why cant we reuse cj6. We need to build a new building for 128 beds. That cost is 305 million. This includes the cost of the cj6, cost of the new building, the thats the team estimated project for the cost of reuse of cj6 and the new building. Thats why we call it d1a. The Sheriffs Department given cost about 1. 8 million. I think that was their cost for transporting inmates. D2a was the reduction. What if we raws the number raws the number of beds. The retrofit of cj to 2 vicks millio 256 million, it was the same cost of transportation cost for inmate and sheriff staff is there. We were not sure how many trips they would have to take back and forth to san bruno. Quick question, going back to d1a, the 384 number, that number
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.