Is when was that number presented to you by the sheriff . This was when the comptroller forecast was released. The 2015 forecast that estimated bed need between 120 and 393. We previously installed 512 beds. What we did with that, we took out two pods. Hes pod had 64 beds in each pod. Taking out 128 was almost half of the floor. We were able to reduce that to 384 to still fit within it. The comptroller gave a range of 120 . Did you do an estimate for what the cost would be if it was 120 . Well, we did the cost for 256 beds. Which was midrange. I think from the Sheriffs Department, even the he can speak to what the needs are. I understand that. If the comptroller had a range of 120 to 393 why wouldnt you a set of alternatives that looked at the entire range . The alternatives that we presented was the one that met the Sheriffs Department requirement. As my understanding at that time was 120 beds would not meet the requirement. In your analysis, youre aware that the Sheriffs Department i
Releasing anyone earlier than when they would be eligible for release. They are only eligible for release when they have done their time so we are letting our Justice System work and we dont believe we should hold anyone beyond that time theyre eligible for release because of a request that came from ice that doesnt have a stamp approval and oversight like it should be and thats where the due process is denialed and when the requests come forward and its approved. Locally we are doing our work. Our department is exemplary in its work up holding the sanctuary city and our whole Justice System is doing its work best it can to make sure that goes forward but its when we have the request from the outside we see the due process denied and we want to create that separation between the local criminal justice enforcement and federal Law Enforcement and thats the basis and why we want this ordinance separate from an amendment with carve outs for people because of offenses. I appreciate that. My
Reoffense and prior conviction there are changes in the rules in the criminal Justice System how you handle those individuals . I would say by and large as spoken by the sheriff that is the case already by policy but i am suggesting there could be an exception to the rule and could be a violent felon or sex offender or weapon possessor and we wouldnt want to keep from being detained. The question is again i agree with that but when we say by law do it through the criminal Justice System instead of injecting immigration and sanctuary. And thats how it is now and if you made the law and those detained wouldnt be detained and could commit a crime in San Francisco. It depends on the specifics and i appreciate the movement by the Sheriffs Office but i dont think we have the right policy. Its actually not the most progressive policy in the country. Santa clara in fact is and santa clara there is santa clara goes beyond what were proposing here, what supervisor avalos is proposing. Santa clar
Criminal Justice System instead of injecting immigration and sanctuary. And thats how it is now and if you made the law and those detained wouldnt be detained and could commit a crime in San Francisco. It depends on the specifics and i appreciate the movement by the Sheriffs Office but i dont think we have the right policy. Its actually not the most progressive policy in the country. Santa clara in fact is and santa clara there is santa clara goes beyond what were proposing here, what supervisor avalos is proposing. Santa clara makes compliance contingent on funding by the federal government which is not really included here. Now to your knowledge even though santa clara has no carve outs, and in fact addresses the issue of Public Safety through the criminal Justice System has there been an increase in criminal activity in santa clara because of that . I mean i want to make sure when we talk about the fear that somehow people are going to flood the geatds of San Francisco if we have th
I am suggesting there could be an exception to the rule and could be a violent felon or sex offender or weapon possessor and we wouldnt want to keep from being detained. The question is again i agree with that but when we say by law do it through the criminal Justice System instead of injecting immigration and sanctuary. And thats how it is now and if you made the law and those detained wouldnt be detained and could commit a crime in San Francisco. It depends on the specifics and i appreciate the movement by the Sheriffs Office but i dont think we have the right policy. Its actually not the most progressive policy in the country. Santa clara in fact is and santa clara there is santa clara goes beyond what were proposing here, what supervisor avalos is proposing. Santa clara makes compliance contingent on funding by the federal government which is not really included here. Now to your knowledge even though santa clara has no carve outs, and in fact addresses the issue of Public Safety t