And that number was 3,000 that you said were repeat bookings that come back. That was 1,394 individuals. Okay. If we were successful 60 of the time in stopping them coming back, we would realize 154 person reduction in our average daily jail population. Case processing reduction goals, of we just shortened Case Processing timelines, this is the time a case takes to go through the court system by 30 days, we would potentially see a 94 person reduction in the average daily population. Healthy connections and reduction goals, i will say that these arent unique, it cant all be added up together to equal a potential reduction because b. C. Overlap in the populations. So healthy connections, if you look at that comparison of time waiting in custody versus out in community, we could potentially see a reduction in 32 in terms of the average daily population. These are estimates based off of a 12 month prior to the time the grant was submitted. Obviously there have been changes in the jail population associated with Mental Health diversion, busing cases, humphrey case, those are real policy realities that may make these estimates more different today. Okay. What you said to me today is that right now there is approximately about 300 people, individuals. We can reduce the population by about 280, 300 if we were to implement some of these things and be successful at them. Looking at these buckets of people. Is that correct . Looking at the buckets alone, but as i said, summing them up to 300, there is overlap. They are not mutually exclusive. Under this category of repeat bookings we have 1,394 individuals in a single year. We are trying to reduce that. If we are successful, by 60 . This is the largest bucket of individuals we could reduce by 154 arrests, or whatever in a year. Is that correct . With a strategy in place. Yes. My next question is when you are looking at the strategy, are you also looking at the support once they are released from jail because what i am seeing here is nothing about future employment, it is nothing about employment training, and you mentioned yourself, it is about how to get them out of treatment and into programs, but also into community, and i see nothing, i see about how some strategies can be used to reduce the population, but then what happens to this population once we have them out of our jails . I dont see that this grant what this grant is working on with employment or Employment Opportunities while in custody or outside of custody or to prepare for outside of custody. So can you expand on that . Absolutely. The Macarthur Foundation, based on their experience across the country, has restricted jurisdictions to focus on systemic change, and so direct service support, we were not allowed to include in our application. I would also say that part of what we are hoping to do is we leverage the existing resources that exist in the community. I know this from my experience before working in the District Attorneys Office and working with individuals as they transition out of jail and prison back to community. One of the strongest things we can do is enhance those Community Ties and further reduce the reach of the criminal Justice System. I would argue it is potentially inappropriate to have us include those types of services under the scope of this. I will signal and want to acknowledge the work of the Sheriffs Department that have shifted significant resources into discharge planning to having such a robust, in Custody Program portfolio to to the very needs that you have spoken to. Although it may be inappropriate to speak about this in this context of the grant, it is completely inappropriate not to included as include it as part of an Overall Program for success. I just want to emphasize that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Supervisor walton . Thank you for this report. Just a quick question. As we look at bullet number four on page six, or slide six, and we talk about increased jail Health Clinical capacity and linkages to communitybased treatment, how is that going with the actual capacity goal or target . Because after visiting 850, i can tell were definitely missing the mark on that, so how do we get there . As part of the grant, the position that is funded in the department of Public Health is Behavioral Health clinicians. So we are actually that position was posted and it is still active. So any individual that would like to serve the city and the individuals in custody in this capacity is encouraged to apply. Is that enough . One position is enough . That will get us what we need . I would refer back to the hearing called by supervisor mandelman around the Mental Health diversion, specifically, and more broadly where we discuss all the needs relative to Behavioral Health and criminal justice. I think that in that hearing we were asked to come up with a dollar amount, the pie in the sky. It was a very collaborative presentation by all just as partners, and its very difficult to know without going back to my point earlier, our collective ask around data sharing officers to help us best understand our criminal justice involved population. We have priorities that have been said by the city that identify individuals who are on housed, that have been hi prioritized for the resources and are network. We have individuals who have been identified as having frequent contacts with psychiatric emergency or other Services Provided through the department of Public Health. We have yet to have, as a city, a comprehensive look at those individuals that touch our criminal Justice System, our Public Health system, and those are on housed and have our greatest needs. You said something earlier that i 100 agree with in terms of needing this body to make sure that the resources are available to actually do the work and for us to be able to do that, you know, we need to have that information with the what is a capacity in terms of number conditions with the budget meeting . It looks like we need to get this work done together. Initially when we were looking at doing that analysis, it will help us be able to inform f. T. E. And other specific things from the budget process. We were looking at needing approximately 50,000 to help do that analysis. I can go back and get updated on what that could look like, but starting with the data, i know that that is frustrating and infuriating to hear when we have a real problem that we have all seen and want to do in earnest our best to ensure that people are safely out of the jail, but we have a duty to our taxpayers to make sure we are making the right investment and whether or not those investments need to be made in the criminal Justice System or other communitybased places. Thank you. Go ahead. Im going to jump in. Thank you for your presentation and for your work. I have a few comments and questions. One is, i kind of want to echo the question at least that vice chair stefani asked because i think that as we move forward, the goal of reducing the jail population is critically important. It cannot move forward if the public does not believe that that goal and the effectuation of that goal is inconsistent with Public Safety, and increasingly, im hearing from my constituents a real concern that and this is actually not entirely consistent with data, but that San Francisco is becoming more unsafe. We know property crime is high, perhaps the highest in the country, and we know that there is a real experience of on safety in public spaces that is new and changing over the last few years. It is worth pointing out that Violent Crime is down, so i dont think that the evidence is that californias efforts to reform the criminal Justice System are leading to an unsafe place, but i think that we cannot just focus on reducing the numbers of folks in jail. We also need to focus on making our communities safer, and i think those goals can be consistent, but if they are not, in the public doesnt believe that those things are consistent , the goal of reducing the number of folks in jail is not going to be accomplished. I just think it is really important that as we move forward we are mindful that the steps we are taking our, in fact , keeping communities safer. I think there is a good argument around why that is the case, but im not sure the public is believing it right now. I think we have to keep that utmost in our minds. I want to thank you and commend you on identifying this data sharing officer as an important element and one of the terrific frustrations of myself and others on this board is the lack of good data and difficulties it presents to us as we are trying to prioritize resource allocation and new investments when we are having so much trouble and our multiple systems that are interacting with the justice involved population when the data is so bad. More of that, please and thank you. I guess for me, i want to get a little bit clearer on the timeline because we did have that hearing on access to justice, access to Behavioral Health services where the justice involved population. I think it was a little over six months ago. We were asking very similar kinds of questions. I had visited the jails, but also visited the Behavioral Health court and drug court and heard horrific stories about how long people were waiting to get into treatment, evening having a judge and the sheriff and the d. A. And the public defender all trying to get people into the right treatment and it is still taking six weeks or two months. And so i believe that we, as a city, should be making some commitments around getting people into appropriate treatment within a certain number of days of being, at least within one of those programs, but really it ought to be for anyone in the justice involved population. We werent really able, in that hearing, to get to a path to that or a dollar amount or any real specificity around it, which is frustrating, but the answer at the time was, well, we think this work were doing with the macarthur grant will help us get there. And what we talked about doing at that point was a sixmonth update which would be right around now. I may be asking for that and where we have got into and what we have learned. I do think that for our next budget, i hope my colleagues want to make some significant investments and access to Behavioral Health and Treatment Services for the justice involved population with the idea of achieving a particular goal of treatment within a particular number of days. I will advocate for that. I dont think anyone will disagree. But to do that, we will need to answer some of those questions. How do you feel like you are doing in getting there and being able to give us the answers to the questions we were asking six months ago . Because we were not able to secure additional support, the timeline on the analysis i described is actually extended and will likely wont be completed until the first three months of the new year. Obviously that is unsatisfactory , right . We are trying to work within an leverage other initiatives that are aligning within the city. For example, you have the Public Health commission that has passed a resolution indicating that incarceration is a Public Health issue. As a result of that, you have a work group within the department of Public Health actively meeting around what does that mean. Those efforts are aligned with the work of the safety and justice challenge and help inform more broadly what approaches we would recommend to the mayor and the board of supervisors for funding. I am hoping we can get summary reviews of the connectedness that is happening between frequent utilization of psych emergencies, individuals who have been identified as high priority through h. S. H. , and those individuals who are coming into our county jail system. One practical thing that we have Just Launched is jail population review. So this has been done in a couple of other jurisdictions as part of the safety justice challenge. Some use it as an opportunity to review in the last seven days of who has come into custody. Maybe an early resolution calendar might be appropriate. So this is going to be a space after we have identified some of these target populations that are the key drivers of the jail population. Looking at it through the safety lens, and that is why the initiative is framed in terms of safely reducing the jail population to the points that the supervisors have made here, and so i think that theres a lot of great work thats happening and i think we are primed and ready to be included in some conversations that are prioritizing resources and really looking for a place to ensure those that are highest need are continuing to come to the door of the Sheriffs Department, that we are identifying them as soon as possible, connecting them to the great resources, and getting them out to community with their Great Community providers that we know that we have, and having them go through Wraparound Services that they dont have continued engagement with the criminal Justice System. Thank you for that. I think my office, it is about time for us to talk to you again i do want to follow up on that hearing because i think you are all tremendously motivated. This is the work of your lives, and not necessarily needing motivation in the form of us breathing down your neck. On the other hand, this is urgent and we want to be able to move on this. I think the answers we were getting through last years budget processor this years budget process, and in the Behavioral Health hearing werent fully satisfactory from a policy makers perspective. I want to get us as quickly as possible into a place where we can have a more informed conversation and actually be directing resources in the right way. Thank you. We will follow up. Supervisor haney . Thank you. I appreciate all of those questions and the point about how we consider broader Public Safety as an important one. I think a large part of why were having this hearing is because we do not believe that the current approach is supporting broader Public Safety either. Certainly keeping as many people as we are warehoused pretrial in a facility at the hall of justice is not an effective approach to Public Safety. Could you speak there were a lot of good questions about Behavioral Health. The fact that 93 of the people who are in the jail are therefore pretrial is something that i want to ask you about your approaches to currently, in terms of bail reform, and how you assess whether somebody needs to be held pretrial. Is that a big part of how we are going to reduce the jail population . How are you seeing that now, and why do we continue to have such high numbers of the population that is incarcerated there pretrial . I am just riding a couple of notes for myself. So we, as a public we do a Public Safety assessment for any prearraignment release decisions and the framework is laid over that. That is our current alternative to the bail schedule. There is a settlement and some key aspects of that settlement that are before the city to determine whether or not we can put the resources behind ensuring that a Court Decision that is declared the bail schedule and constitutional, does not result in individuals being in custody longer, and that is something that we are facing prearraignment because the p. S. A. And bail, although inequitable for those who have the ability to pay, they are able to get out in a shorter period of time than a nonmonetary review of their release. So those are very real policy matters that are before us, and others actually who will be speaking after me are probably better position to speak to how those are impacting the jail population as it stands currently, but thats important for us to be looking at. Also looking at, we move entirely away from the monetary bail system, and with the passage of s. B. 10 which is currently up for a referendum. So we are not implementing that as of yet. What has developed is San Francisco is a bit farther ahead than our counterpart jurisdictions across the state, and it is if implemented, it could result in more people being detained prearraignment then under our current p. S. A. And decisionmaking framework just because of some of the exclusion criteria that is included in s. B. 10 around previous felonies and how long they were in place. So that is about prearraignment decisionmaking, and then, you know, at arraignment, both Defence Council on the District Attorneys Office present perspectives on whether or not is appropriate for a person to be detained pretrial. The 94 of the pretrial population, as i spoke to earlier, we are notorious for really significant Case Processing times for a case to go through the criminal Justice System here in San Francisco. Often times, if a serious case is resolved, there maybe credit for time served. We also have had the Sheriffs Department who will speak to this and implement milestone credits that give individuals additional credit for any programming they are engaging in during that pretrial time. Our best effort and focusing on after, under the law, a Safety Assessment is considered about whether or not someone should be in custody or not, is shortening the time of their case. Recognizing that very few of our cases are resolved in the system through a jury trial. Most of them are going to be settled through a negotiated agreement and another small proportion are dismissed and released. I know that some other folks asked about specific goals and numbers as a result of this grant. What is possible or likely in this grant . How does that interact with the deadline that the mayor announced mayor announced yesterday around july 2021 to close certain dates . How does that timeline relate to that . The two Year Investment from the Macarthur Foundation we are striving towards that 1,044 daily population goal to have that a year and a half from now. Obviously this is a challenge for a reason. It is ambitious and it will require investments, targeted investment both from the city, but also us being able to collaborate with each other as criminal justice partners in order to achieve that goal. Some think im too much of an optimist, and i accept that criticism and understand that we have a very difficult job ahead of us. It is not just easy enough to say, oh, if we prevent that person from having one subsequent contact through theres a whole lot of Community Work and resources that go into it, and diversion and deflection opportunities that we provide our Police Department that would make that possible. Im not naive to the challenge and how ambitious that timeline is, but that is our grant related timeline. And as a respondent his responded to supervisor fewers question about is their opportunity for continued funding, we will get a nocost extension that would probably bring us somewhere around the mayors identify deadline and then we would have the opportunity for a smaller investment from the Macarthur Foundation thereafter. The key part of this, and this is a big part of the threejudge panel looking at the state correction system. We want to make sure that they werent just approving something because there are a lot of great strategies that reduce populations, reduce certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanours, and we are seeing positive results as part of those initiatives, but what are longterm and sustainable changes . What did those look like . That is what the safety and justice challenge brings to this conversation. What will need to have been is better data sharing. How we are identifying individuals who need our greatest support and are deteriorating in custody. I really see us as a resource to meet that goal, but it will be hard. Thank you. Just one other thing. Where is your staff and your colleagues now and what is the status of where they are . As everyone out of the hall of justice . What is the timeline that you all have . We have moved in phases. Two of our faces have been completed. A large portion of Victim Services division is now at 350 rhode island. As well as our vertical prosecution team, so for those not familiar, that is our child assault, sex assault, gangs, homicide, those units, as well as our crime unit are at the new sight mac. In november, another removal will take place where the general felony team will transition to the new sight. Our misdemeanour team is still slated to remain in the hall of justice for a period of time. That is our greatest they have to show up to court the most so that is why it makes sense for them to remain. They will remain in the court floor arm. I always think about it did not escape me the reality of entering choosing to work in a space every day where there were individuals with Civil Liberties that are compromised. I think about, as an l so the l that includes county jail floors and what was the greatest proportion of the District Attorneys Office or adult probation still resides. That is the portion of my building. My understanding is as it will be seismically safe. Our staff that is remaining behind is in the safer portion of the facility. Thank you, supervisor stefani thank you. You talked about the Public Safety assessment and im wondering what factors go into deciding whether or not someone should be in because custody or released to the Community Based on the Public Safety assessment that is made to the judge. The Public Safety assessment was validated to San Franciscos population. It is based on nine static factors. We also have david moore off here from pretrial. They administer this tool on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco. I would actually defer to them as experts that are implementing this on a regular basis for procedural questions about how it is presented and utilized. Okay. Do you want to bring him up . Yes. Is that your desire . Yes. Sorry. You are the expert. They administered to individuals in the county jail. It looks at age, failures to appear and criminal history. And that information is entered into an algorithm and then it determines the risk level and also sets different boundaries for release. Okay. Do we know how often our judges follow that p. S. A. , whether or not the judges agree or disagree do we have data on that . I dont have it right now, but i can get it to you because there are different phases. I can get you that information. Okay. I would like to know how often that is followed, just based on what we hear anecdotally. I would like to not rely on anecdotal information and rely on all the data necessary out there. Okay. Just related to that data, we are fortunate the sheriff has been in contact with California Policy Lab who has been looking at the p. S. A. Implementation. It is thirdparty validated data that we all use to determine our decisionmaking. Okay. I will stop there for now. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Unless there is anything more that you wanted to share, we will move to the next item. Think for the opportunity to share about the initiative. We look forward to responding to all of your questions that require followup. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next i want to call up representatives from the City Administrators Office. And after that we will hear from the sheriff in the Jail Coalition and then we will have Public Comment after that. Do we have representatives . Good last minutes of morning, supervisors. Thank you for having me. Im the director of Capital Planning and resiliency officer within the office of the city administrator. We have been asked to provide details about the process administrative exit which has been underway and expedited from 2017, but in motion long before that. So i think it is Common Knowledge the background about the hall. Just to provide a little finer point about what it means that this building is a seismic risk, so our city runs they have an analysis, which is a fema approved tool for assessing relative seismic risk in the public portfolio in the most recent run in the most recent run, we reviewed 239 public buildings and it looks at risk across a variety of factors including economic consequences like casualties, vulnerability of the structure itself, and through that analysis on multiple fronts, the hall rises to the top again and again. We have run the analysis four times total and given the number of people in the building, and the structure of the building itself, and all that goes on there, we know we need to prioritize it. We also know from the workforce, and supervisor haney, as you highlighted in opening remarks, this is not a place that is fit to live or a place that is fit to work. The City Administrators Office has received several Union Complaints about the Work Environment and we do want to do everything we can to get folks out of the building. This effort is a longstanding priority of the capital plan. The First Capital plan was published in 2006, before my time, but the Improvement Program was part of it then and it remains a priority. The planning of evolved, but we know that the getting out is the imperative. The admin exit, we are trying to get our City Operations out as soon as possible. The board has already approved a handful of leases and sight acquisitions that will help us to do that. Some of the sites you have already heard of. 350 rhode island where the d. A. Will land. 945 bryant is currently programmed for adult probation. The Space Planning there is being refined and i think that will work out, and then at 777 brannon, we expect to house police and sheriff warrants and records. The board has asked that a presentation on that staffing come in january. You can expect to hear more details once it is ready. The big picture here as just mentioned, the building is an l shape. As you can see here. The longer side, the bryant street side, we are trying to vacate that so we can demolish it. That would give us space to rebuild there and on the harriet street side where we acquired some sights. And then leaving, after the demolition, a smaller and more seismically stable building with the core remaining. That would enable us to adjust the campus for those operations that have been relocated in this interim measure of expedited exit. We were asked to provide a sense of timeline about whats going on. As i mentioned, this has been underway for some time. The Public Safety building, which opened back in 2015, relocated to southern station and headquartered over there. In november 2017, the office of the chief medical examiner took that operation out of the hall as well. Those offices are vacant. In 2019, september the d. A. Began to move and there will be a continued to move over the course of the fiscal year where all staff are expected to be out by the end of june. We also did c. O. P. For the site acquisition for the old mcdonald site as it is commonly known. It will house property, which is a big operation in the basement of the hall. Later this year we hope to seattle probation go to 945 bryant. And then the planning for all of the remaining spots available. There was operational dependence on the hall jail from the sheriffs perspective. Right now all the prisoners both at county jails one and two and county jail four are served by the kitchen at four. We have funded the c. J. Two kitchen renovation so we can divorce that reliance and that contracting is in process and is expected to be delivered by next fall. Next fiscal year, we can expect to see Police Evidence and property to egbert. And also restacking on the port side of the harriet street so we could proceed with demolition. The last piece is that july 2021 move out of traffic companies on the first floor of the bryant street wing. They will be going to 1995 evans as the part of the new Traffic Company and forensics division. We heard the announcement about that target date along the signs so prisoners are not the last ones left behind in a building that is unfit. As far as how this looks in a capital plan, most recently published in spring 2019, approved unanimously at the board on april 30th of this year. There are a handful of certificates of participation projects. The most recently authorized space was for tenant improvements on the sites that we do of that makes. In 2025, we hope to be ready to demolish the building as everybody is out in planning and expeditiously it is conceivable that can move forward in time which would reduce the price of it. The longer we wait, the more it costs. [please stand by] we know theyre and essential component of our Justice System and we need to Work Together with them. The capital priorization is not yet final. The latest date i heard from the Judicial Council is midnovember, november 14th and 15th, hoping to finalize the list and we can, i hope, hear answers back about our positions about that list and the deadline in the legislation is the end of the year and thats when the court responds back to the legislature and gets the ball rolling with the department of works and public finance. All of our reconsolidated will be in partnership with the courts to operate uninterrupted and none of this would pose a slowdown in du due process. Thats what i have for you about our admin. Happy to answer any questions that i can. I have a few. Thank you for this presentation. One, and in has been a challenge with understanding fully whose responsibility when it comes to cj4 and seems the city administrator has taken the responsibility to clearly articulate what will happen with the police, with the d. A. , with probation and yet theres a clear, missing people of the People Living at this facility and those working directly with them. Is it the city administrators responsibility to develop this plan and ar arctic articulate i . If so, why isnt that a part of this plan in front of us . Thank you for the question. So i think its all of our responsibility to do everything we can to get everybody out of that building, so i would not say its everything in this room thats putting in for that. In terms of the custodial responsibility and the welfare of the prisoners, the contracts we would enter intos in terms of assigning where people live, thats a shared jurisdiction so the city staff and operations i described, which fall, like where those offices live is a real estate function. So the office our ad administrae function is a jurisdictional matter. There is a rule figuring out how to pay for solutions. Yoi know the board in this entie room is well aware we have been trying to close this building for some time didnt so in 2015, there was a plan for the rehabilitation and detention facility and that was a new construction project that would quote, unquote, rightsized our jail facility. The required match for that, which was 51 million, i want to say, lived in our capital plan, but when the board unanimously decided that they did not want to accept the state award, that Capital Project went off the burner. The capital plan published prior to this one, admitting we did not want to commit to jail construction we did not need, if we could find another way get people out of the jail, we had certificates of participation for a prisoner exit, that we might have a Capital Project that would advance the exit of people from jail. No Capital Project that would have solved the problem emerged through the reenvisioning the project, which was the outgrowth of the 2015 rejection of state funds. There were many Capital Strategies floated. However, none that were specific to reduce that would have reduced the jail population enough to safely close the jail were identified, with the exception of building another jail, and so capital dollars at this time are not specified fo n the capital plan. When it comes to what we build in the future, i think something that the city has i think we have differences of opinion about whether jail is need. Maybe its fundamentally wrong. That could be, but thats a policy matter and it doesnt matter what we take as our assumptions. So i dont want to communicate on behalf of the city administrator or anyone in this city, you know, what we assume to be necessary. I think we all hope that jail would be unnecessary. That if needed question is the question before you and the role of the office and the mayor and our leaders and the role of the office of the city administrator and Capital Planning function is to find and pull together the funds for the direction we want to move in as a city. And so, to your opening remarks, there is no plan, i think the plan is to plan collaboratively and so, we look forward to that and we do have the time to do so. Thank you. So as i understood that, the primary responsibility for the people who are incarcerate the iincarcerated iswith the sheriff of the City Contracting with the sheriff. So is that how you describe that . So the office of the city administrator includes the purchasing function to the contracting. So contracts in that way do run through but the scope of contracts come from the departments who are entering into the agreements and in the case of a custodial function, for example, there would be a sheriff. And if we are in a situation where weve determined that the building is seismically unsafe, a dangerous for people who work and live there, at what point would we make the decision as a city that we would no longer occupy that building or contract . I mean, it seems that theres a legal question here, too, of how are we able to continue to occupy that building, even for the next two years, in loot of f what we know about the safety. We should get out of the building as quickly as possible. I would defer to the city attorney. I cant speak to that as an expert. I know there are a number of mechanisms for closing a building, including the redtagging you refer to that closecloses the whole building d thathere are other levers that e could pull, declearing an emergency. Declaring an emergency. But we would prefer a plan and thoughtful plan that does not rely on an emergency measure. Let me just say, and this is not on you specifically, but this is incredibly frustrating to not understand whose responsibility this is and to say that our plan is to plan. You think were long passed that point. Im trying to understand specifically what your offices role is in this process. Would the city administrator be the one to secure and fund, if we had additional kind of Capital Needs around this and other facilities and if so, im sure the sheriff will speak to this, too, but how does this is this a question of how you decide what those facilities would be and what those needs are and how is that taking place and weve heard about alameda county. Is that something youve looked at and toured those facilities. There have been a number of facilities, base proposals floated and they were jail facility. Whether thats construction, new or renovation, those were not the policy will of our elected officials. In terms of our offices role, so we produce the tenyear capital plan and lines up funding and a number of sources, one being the pago program, the certificates of participation and one being or geobonds program. When router priorities arise ine city, we try to match funds is size of the funds to the needs that arise. So there were a Capital Project projected to solve for the jail population, to bring it down to that 1044 that tara mentioned, you know, we could line up the funds to build that. We dont make money appear. The capital plan is fully programmed, so any decision to build something in the shortterm would come at the expense of something else, also planned and expected. But alsbut that is our officesn this. The role of supporting programs, community services, other things that might help to prevent somebody to stay in jail, the workforce support, none of those flow through the capital budget. Those are departmental Budget Programs and so that would be a part of the regular budget process. Last question, because i have many, but we can continue this conversation after the hearing. So yesterday we saw because youre the only person, really, who is here from what would be the mayors from the city, right . But in terms of what was announced yesterday, i know youre not from the Mayors Office but from our sort of department at city hall, what was announced yesterday at the closure of 2021, july, what is the city administrators role in that . Is there a planning process that is a part of getting us there that youre aware of . I ask a lot of questions for the sheriff, as well, but were trying to understand what the plan is. I think you asked about outofcounty of courses. And if there were a placement, santa rita or out of city, those were be budgeted dollars. So on the planning sued, the sie Capital Planning would not be planning the funds there, but were participating with the mayors Budget Office and all of the of the departments try to understand the relative cost. Our office is a storied and we bring information in an anlit cal capacitanlitical option. Were trying to understand what they cost compared to the Capital Projects that we know and also the timing of the Capital Projects that we know. And the timelines of those are about four years. So the extent that 2021, july 2021, not leaving the prisoners to be the last in the building is a target to strive to meet as a city. Theres no capital option that will work. It doesnt exist. Theres nothing we could do to build Something Big enough in less than two years. Thats a fouryear time run andt best, and that pushes this very unpleasant consideration of what else we can do. Could we, through the grant and recommended strategies lower the plays enough . Population enough . We want to pursue the time frame and we dont want this to be last in this building, an operational contracting option outofout and the only thing left on the table didnt it does not bring me joy to say that. I appreciate how candid about the choices and that there isnt options and the other reducing the population is where a lot of the conversation with be. Supervisor stephanie . Yes i wanted to follow up because we see in our budget and analysis on page 5 that in 2015, a full plan and preliminary design was actually presented with that 80 million grant we would have had from the state. Had that plan been filed, would we have had a seismic jail by now for the 384 beds . It would be nearing completion, i expect. Ok, and so that was a reduction from 800 to right size it because we believe it needs to be right sized and i believe that nobody should be in that jail right now because ive toured it and it is seismically deficient and not a good location for those being held. Do you recall exactly what the board said in terms of they didnt want to choose a seismically safe jail to rebuild at that time . By now, it would have been nearing completion and we would have been able to move everything out from 850 bryant, correct. We would have and keep them in jail. The board at the time wanted to pursue alternatives to incarceration and that was the sentiment of the hearing and many different folks spoke. And i agree, there should be alternatives to incarcerate and we have reduced our jail population, especially with the use of the algorithm just explained and the Public Safety assessment and the way that weve had advantageous bail cases so that those that are suffering from poverty dont have to sit in jail when those that dont are able to get out. But my question is, in terms of being very realistic and honest about what we do need in San Francisco, when i look at the bla report on page 34, the types of crimes for which people are held, which is we have the population lets see, we were going to build a jail for 380 and we look at the jail population today with all of the work around bail reform and the psas and we have a population of about 313 based on this one date that the bla gave us and i look at these. I look at the crimes upon which people are being held and we know that we have the psa and i see crimes like murder. 30 people held for that, attempted murder, firstdegree robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping to commit another crime, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, sexual intercourse or sotoomy with a child 10 years old or younger, kidnapping by use of drugs. Weve developed a whole entire office to deal with rape that victims in this town are not treated well when it comes to whether or not their prosecutions will go forward, not just by use of drugs. I look at these, mayhem, torture, these are crimes that nobody wants to happen no any of their loved ones. And these are crimes by which judges and those coming up with the Public Safety assessment usually advocate to a judge that this person for the benefit of Public Safety should be incarcerated but based on a threat to Public Safety and that number we have right now is 313. So realistically, we all hope, and i do hope, that we dont dot have to have anyone in jail. I look at this list, thats not my reality or what i believe. Thats not what i think is the best for Public Safety for the people that i represent. So i would like to know, realistically, and it looks like we had it right in 2015 when we were looking at rightsizing to about 380 and we could have had a jail by now, seismically safe jail by now, and we still have 313 with this list of crimes which seem dangerous to me. So realistically, are we planning for somewhere to locate individuals who do pose a threat to Public Safety based on Public Safety assessments, based on the list of crimes i just read, based on whats listed in this budget and report and why arent we operating from that point of reference . In terms of Capital Plannings in the shortterm, we are not plan for a San Francisco facility that we would build, ren forenovate to serve that fu. It is not in the shorttemple of thshorttermplan. This project does not specify a jail. The capital plan will be revised. Thats in years to come, exiandf it becomes the will of the city to pursue that kind of project, we could. It has not historically been and so its not there. And i ask these questions based on what supervisor mandelman said. He did get his stat but i dont care if i get that stat when i ask these question. Because two nights ago, a 16yearold in my district was robbed at gunpoint at 7 00 walking home from school. These are things that i feel that we have a residen responsio not only address mass incarceration and the injustice of it, which all of us can agree on. And also, balancing Public Safety. So that has to be a consideration, absolutely has to be. And so the language of mass incarceration, im sure theres a variety of opinions in this room. San francisco really is a leader when it comes to pretrial diversion, when it comes to getting the jail count as low as it can be, again, always arguable. But we have made significant progress and not just as a result of state bills but also our own pretrial effort. We saw the news about reichers close. Thats a 10,000 bed facility of abomabominable conditions. Theres not a magic bullet to zero. I would never say that, but there are some legislative realities that i think are hard to shape and that will be what you hear from the sheriffs. Its hard to get away from that responsibility of Public Safety to your point. Supervisor furer. Yes, thank you very