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 we've had advantageous bail cases so that those that are suffering from poverty don't have to sit in jail when those that don't 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 -- let's 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, first-degree 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. we've 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 don't dot have to have anyone in jail.

i look at this list, that's not my reality or what i believe. that's 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 right-sizing 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 what's listed in this budget and report and why aren't we operating from that point of reference? >> in terms of capital plannings

in the short-term, we are not plan for a san francisco facility that we would build, ren forenovate to serve that fu. it is not in the short-temple of thshort-termplan. this project does not specify a jail. the capital plan will be revised. that's 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 it's not there. >> and i ask these questions based on what supervisor mandelman said. he did get his stat but i don't care if i get that stat when i ask these question. because two nights ago, a 16-year-old 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, i'm sure there's 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. that's a $10,000 bed facility of

abomabominable conditions. there's 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. it's hard to get away from that responsibility of public safety to your point. >> supervisor furer. >> yes, thank you very much. and i want to thank my colleagues, and supervisor stephanie for her comment. i want to push back a bill lit anlittle bit and i say this as a wife of a husband who worked as a san francisco police officer for 35 years. my husband has worked in, i think, pretty dicey units,

undercover, narcotic, he was a specialist, on a specialist team, a training office, a whole variety. and so, i want to just say that we can look back at 2015, but none of us sitting her here in . i think the conversations that happened then extend to what we're discussing now. i understand we're looking at a jail number and that does not tell the whole picture of our jail system. i think to really evaluate our opportunities, to lower the rate of people incarcerated, we can't look at jail number four. this is not true of jail number five or jail number two. we haven't seen those numbers yet. this report is a narrow scope. we talk about jail number four,

it is inadequate and doing a disservice on the board of supervisors because we have to look at a jail system in the whole entirety and that means there are other jails and other possibilities. when i am looking, actually, at some of the other reports that are before us, we see that a majority of people really are 61% to 62% are released within 96 hours. we look at people who spend overall time and a lot are released within the week and we see a lot of movement already within our jail facilities. yes, the stats on jail number four are frightening and we are just looking at one jail. we don't have just one jail in san francisco. we have a couple of jails in san francisco and if you look at jail number two, which, of course, we'll put a kitchen in, and be more functional, i think together we have not looked at actually everything we can do at

the pretrial. i don't think we've looked at other strategies. we do a great job with pretrial, actually and that's a low-hanging fruit. i think we can do more with pretrial. that's not to say that while we're doing a great job, we should just keep doing what we're doing. but i want to push this board to think about what else could we do the next step with pretrial. i also have some questions about how to further reduce the jail population but using the strategies that we know work and some that are not working, how can we refine them to work for this population? i have been out to the san francisco jail multiple times as a school board commissioner, as i'm sure some of my colleagues on the board have, and we have looked at charter schools and the amount of graduates that have failed and how many

actually get their ged and high school diplomas. all of this reducing the jail population isn't just about the jail or just about number five, number 4 or two but what happens after they're released from jail. as we heard this morning, if we just reduce 60%, we could be reducing a significant amount, actually, of people who are incarcerated on a daily bases by doing one of these strategies. i just want to encourage us -- i understand about public safety and the reason i mentioned my husband, also, i'm not someone who is soft and quite frankly, yes, i think we all know people who have been victims of heinous, horrible crimes but to say county number 4 is a representation of the whole jail system is simply not true and i don't want that on this item. so i felt like i had to say

that. thank you, miss green. >> thank you, supervisor, and thank you so much for your presentation and for answering a lot of questions that maybe you're not usually engaging in, but i appreciate your openness and your sense of what's happening. so i appreciate it. next up, i want to invite sheriff hennessey is here who, as we all understand has a very significant role with this right now but also really a sense of how we got here and what the next steps should be. so we appreciate you being here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much for having this hearing. i think it is a very important hearing and it's important to

understand how we'll close county jail. i don't understand how we'll doing it in terms of getting it closed without having some place to put people or have people live. one of the disappointments is a sheriff coming in and not approving the reduced rehabilitation facility is that i've been trying for four years now to get an alternative to county jail and i haven't had traction because, obviously, there's not much of an appetite to build a new facility, even though people are living in that horrible facility for four years it's been one of the most congressing placedepresses placo visit. i would also say that i agree with supervisor furer, you can't ask this question without looking at the entire jail system, so the focus on county

jail four is not where we should be looking but looking act the entire jail system and what to do there. as you know, i participated what was called the reenvisioning after the decision was made not to build the jail and i think a lot came out of that process but it has not reduced the jail population the way we thought it could. it did get people out safely who could be let out safely, pretrial. i would say, supervisor, that when you characterize people in our jails as 90% or 93% pretrial and not having been convicted, a lot of the people in our jails, and you'll see from a presentation, have holds. and they're not just there because of one charge. and so, there's a lot of nuance that goes along with this. and the other thing i would also like to say to you is that the jail population is not static. these are not the same people coming back.

these are new people coming into our city, new people coming into our jails. so if you just plan for the fact that the people that are here today, that's not the right thing but for the people coming later and obviously, the ideal situation would be that nobody would come to jail but that's not the case. so i just wanted to comment quickly on the budget analyst acreport. the jail rate is high in san francisco, 2 something dollars per person, but it's high because of all of the programs we provide in san francisco. that's one of the reasons it's high, the good medical care and the general healthcare and the programs and all of these things contribute to that. so i wanted to make sure you're aware of that. i think that's it for now. let me introduce lieutenant buoy

from technical services and you'll run that for me and i have people behind me that i should introduce them, as well. i have sheriff matt freeman here, assistant sheriff kathy johnson, chief deputy paul miamoto here and ali reiker and lisa pratt who is our jail medical officer. and i want to thank the other presenters, the budget analyst, tara, and also heather for all of the work they have done. so we'll start with our presentation. let see, where are we? so this is just kind of an overview of who comes to jail and one effort things we did was drilled down a little bit more on how many times people come into jail and you'll see that more than 30% of the people booked into the county jail each year are first-time books in san francisco. and consequently, the other

thing that you'll see, there are a number of people that are booked into the jails each year. one time is 71%, but it's about 30 people, 30% of the people who are booked more than one time that come into our jails. this slide shows less criminal matters and more people are released on division over the last three fiscal years.

dismissed review by the district attorney. none of the things that are important didn't this goes to the mcarthur grant that's going on right now. on october 10, 90 pip 90 peoplen custody had a court return date and 70% had one 75 days in the future and ten people had sentencing dates more than 100 days in the future and those people are in our jails and including one person with a sentencing date that was set 356 days into the future. so that's one of the items that the mcarthur grant will be looking at. >> why does this sentencing date get set that far out? >> the prerogative of the courts and could be the public defender asks for it or the public defender. i don't know and that's one of the things the mcarthur grant will be trying to find out. right now we're looking at the

fiscal years and releases on bail have declined dramatically. you'll see here from the yellow loiline from the top. alternatives to inarso incarcere increased and the population has remained static. you will see the jail population at 1258 and 1316 as of '18, '19, with the average daily population so it's gone up a little bit. pout you'll also see the sheriff's alternatives to incarceration have gone up at the bottom and that's because of the use of electronic monitoring by the courts. and in pretrial electronic monitoring, there's been a dramatic average, daily increase by the courts with the use of that and this is just taking the

snapshot of that, looking at that for the fiscal year '18-'19. the most serious offense was used, even though people have multiple charges and they represent persons on electronic monitoring during the period and these are not unduplicated criminal defendants. as a person, they may have been rearrested and released by the court. increasingly the courts are releasing persons with serious onlinepointsfelonies to or. so the next one is march 2016 to march 2019 and this tells you more about the psa, san francisco pretrial and how they work and they release people on a certification management with minimum supervision 25% of the

time and new supervision at all, 30%. that's the recommendation from the courts. the court is the one that makes this decision and this may or may not reflect what the recommendation was. this is just the ethnicity. if it's booked, it's static. as we mentioned in county jail four, 35% of african americans and however, they represent 39% of the books. for the year in '17-'18 and '18-'19 and the 26 to 35-year-old age group is the most represented group. that's in our books. so the next few pages are snapshot data of angit active cs on july 31st of 2019. so on 31st, this is what we

had, 3 3100 people in jail. they were not released due to no bail designation by the courts and we'll dig down sow can see what thiso you cansee what thiss from various agency. agencies. that left 185 people for review. who are they? first we start with the people and show you the list, the next page and you'll see where everybody was. so when we talk about 150 in jail processing, that means they were waiting for classification or release and most likely, they were waiting for classification and some for release, so they were in transit and we didn't count those. safe keep, we still have seven

federal prisoners and you could reduce the amount by that. we have five others for various agencies. sometimes they're from other agencies and sometimes from the hill might have somebodsamateo. we had the number of local charges from other counties. there's post community released super, that's probation and there were 52 brought in and either revoked or waiting for some other type of review. and then we also have probation violation and revocation and that's where the district attorney decides not to go on the charges but files a motion to revoke. cases with no bond set by the

court is 427. >> what's the different between post release and community supervision? >> it depends where they come from. it depends. probation is revoking them and probation violation is a full revocation. so it may be the probation -- i'i'm sorry, this is a post increased incarceration by probation. so then we go down to 427 cases with no bond by the courts and that means no bail. the serious open cases with 500,000 more set by the courts. and this is not the bail schedule. i just want to make sure that people understand that. and then there were 20 people on this date sentenced to prison or sentenced to prison but still had future court dates and not

leaving yet for prison. and then we had 39 sentenced to county jail. and we'll go down on a few of these in a minute. so 86% of people are not eligible or likely to be released from jail prior t to final aadjudication and there was bail at an amount of 500,000 or more. the next dat next page drills dn those people and then a bond. and then of the 105, there were 510 days length of i stay and 65 acts they were booked on.

you can see what the percentages are. crimes against a person and then top angtive crimes, property, drugs and weapons and i'll point you to second-degree burglary, 63, you'll see that, because in san francisco, property crimes are one of the highest and that's where that comes from. we go to the next one, 185 people remaining in custody, in review for custody. and these are people charged with second-degree burglary. now we're looking at the 185 people that are left over. from the previous slide and of those people charged with second burglary, they had been releasey released but returned to custody for failing to return to court or charged with a new case. so you look at 28, on 7/31 and this is different.

7/31 snapshot and looked to see where they were a month later, just to give an idea of how people move through the system a little bit. so you see we had 23 there at 7:31 but only 21 left. so so when you look at this group of people, this 185 left over, four were charged with misdemeanors and three had no-site bench warrants and two were in domestic court of those.

many people are out on electronic monitoring if the judge feet they'r feels they'reo and the recommendation and there's a lot of factors that play into it. but the people here have serious criminal histories and then 39 in custody were stance stepsed o county jail. the 39 was up above but i wanted to talk about why people are in county jail and haven't been released to alternatives in county jail because that's something the sheriff as the ability to manage. and 39 of those were sentenced to county jail and three in

prereview and two were in the review status and two with previous ben bench warrants ande people with non-eligible charges. there's protective order out against that person and the charges were not eligible for release. some of those were 1170 hpss and there's a requirement that you spend time if jail before you are eligible for release and they would be reviewed two active parole holds and three returned to custody because they didn't do that. one of the things i wanted to add and i think tara touched on this is that in may of this year, in jail, we have robust

programs in our county jails and that's something i'm proud of and it's important and we introduced milestone credits and people who are in jail and actively participating in our jail programs can earn milestone credits which can earn time off from their sentences. as of two days ago, we had 280 credits issued, 1,096 jail days were saved. if somebody gets sentenced to stale prison who has milestone credits, we make an effort to let the judge know that so the judge can give credit during the sentencing phase. so just because i know we are very concerned with people with mental illness in our jails, i wanted to make sure that we had -- we pointed out 49 of the

185 that were remaining at that low-hanging fruit, should i say, in the group, were in psychiatric housing. these are the charges for the people in psychiatric housing. this is what happened to them. one of the things you notice between july 31st and august 31st, they went more time in jail and they'll stay longer, most likely. so the next page is -- this is something -- it has nothing to do with july 31st but has to do with august 23rd. we wanted to put this up here. these do not count count the additional number on bail. but if you see what our count would be, the red number is how many people we would have in jail if we didn't have these alternatives to incarceration that we have put up there. and the point is that san

francisco does not engage in mass incarceration. we've been a leader in this area. dr. james austin that is working with tara on the mcarthur grant, as well, he did a report in 2014 and again and updated in 2018 and the title of the report is san francisco county's lip elimination of mass incarceration. we have racial disparity in our system, to doubt about that. so this last page is about closing county jail four. so supervisor hainey, you asked whose responsibility is it and you asked heather. it's my responsibility to run a jail and i take that obligation extremely seriously and we do our best to run a safe, humane jail, even with the challenge like county jail four. believe me, county jail four

presents a challenge and county jail four is not a jail that should still be open. it's one of, i feel, like a failure in my administration that we haven't been able to get beyond this to have a way for people to stay in the conditions they have to stay in in county jail four. that includes both of the incarcerated people and the staff that have to work there. so in order to close county jail four, this is the sheriff speaking, my recommendations continue to invest in community, mental health, substance abuse and supported housing to include those exiting the jail, because we know there's competition out there right now. there's all kinds of competition. and people are getting left in jail because the competition is so great on the outside. that's for people in the community to get into services. continue to support a robust,

safe pretrial release program and safe is the operative word here and i think the fact that our pretrial release program includes a casing management, i think that has really -- i've seen a big difference and that's been a path for people to get connected with services and it's been a good path, but even there, having trouble finding beds for people. and then invest in additional mental health treatment and substance abuse programs for those incarcerated and giving us the proper environment and location to serve the people that are in our facilities. and so the primary responsibility is to invest in a humane and safe jail facilities for those incarcerated. i'm not doing against what we can to get people out of jail

safely but i'm a pragmatist and understand that we did have a good plan in 2015. that's a plan that worked for nine years. i didn't get into office january of 2016, and i was disappointed, but you threw myself full hit to see what we could do. and i came to the conclusion with 30% of people coming in, new people coming into our jails and with the length of stay we have and i think we'll see some movement from the mcarthur gra grant, but once again, that's the courts. my number one is to revive the proposal as directed by the capital plan for nine years and build a new facility for the proposed justice campus to include 31 384 beds, including

sheriff support functions, a transport hub, enter ru intervis for court, records, units and other functions now spread out. that to me is the right thing to do, the cheapest thing do in the long run and we've spent tons of money studies alternatives and we haven't come up with anything. i did broach a proposal in 2017 to begin renovating county jail six at estimated cost of 200 million to include a vocational training area for opening by 2024. if we started today, we might have it open by 2024. and this is not the optimum plan because you'll be transporting people back and forth and you'll need holding cells built here and you'll have the kitchen. there's a lot of things that go into this. and then the current 2019

proposal that came out yesterday. close county jail four by 2021. and begin planning for comprehensive justice campus, including appropriate number of beds to be occupied by 2030. by 2030. i won't be sheriff there. [ laughter ] >> but by 2030. so that seems kind of outrageous to me and the only way to accomplish that or any of these, really now, because we've waited for so long, is to send people somewhere else. if we can't close county jail four any other way, we'll have to figure out where will they go? and how will we do that? and the only thing that's really an option right now is almeda county and we've done the research. yes, we've gone there and walked through th the facilities.

they closed the jail in oakland and we looked into that. it's extremely prohibitively expensive. this is a horrible plan because it separates people from their families and legal counsel and support groups. we're about to offer free phone calls in their county jails. we can't guarantee that in other jails. we will have no commission commissary. the one that's the farthest out is option number three. this is the right thing to do is

we should have done it in 2015 and we didn't and now we're here. this was predicted and predicted during the revisioning that we would be here and that we would have to send people out of county and it's not something i'vilike. we had to send people out of county back in the early 1990s for many years and it was a terrible, to alameda county, by the way. any questions? >> i'm guessing there are probably a few. one thing that i can clarify -- >> hold up, supervisor hainey. it does violate the board's rules to have signs up, so maybe we can recess, i guess. >> that's your choice. >> we'll take a five-minute recess.

>> good morning. welcome to thursday, october 17th meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i am joined by supervisor brown, supervisor peskin is running late this morning. thank you to the committee clerk. i would like to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. we are joined by supervisors ronen and mandelman. we are grateful to our

colleagues for joining us today. however, this meeting will be conducted in all respects as a regular audit and oversight committee meeting. any substantive decision will constitute a recommendation of the committee rather than action by the whole board. mr. carroll will make a note. >> at the present moment we don't have a quorum. this committee is operating as the normal committee with a few extra guests. >> do you have any announcements. >> plea silence cell phones. speaker cards and documents should be submitted to the clerk. items today will appear on the october 29, 2019 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. do we have a motion to excuse

supervisor peskin? can we take that without objection? >> who was the mover on that. >> roger brown. >> please call items one, two, three, four together. one hearing to discuss the removal of 41 out of 55 long-term beddings from the adult residential facility. >> agenda item two is an ordinance -- excuse me. agenda item two is a resolution urging the department of public health to rescind. item three is submitting the health code to require 55 bed residential facility. four is ordinance to require department of public health to maintain and operate at full capacity 55 bed facility as soon

as possible but not later than july 1, 2021. before that 41 of the 55 beds may be used as emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness. >> i would like to turn it to supervisor ronen for remarks. >> thank you. good morning i am happy to be here to announce that we have reached a resolution to this crisis that was before us. after months of disagreement on the issue, this past friday afternoon my office, together with worker leaders from the adult residential facility, local 21 and the representatives, dph leaders and mayor's office and supervisor haney's office worked out an agreement related to the future of the adult residential

facility. i am happy to report this will protect is health and stability of the 32 residents who live at the adult residential facility. it is the only boarding care facility for severely mentality ill. no resident will be forcibly removed from their home and the city's long-term beds will be protected. we have incorporated the key aspects into my ordinance. the adult residential facility in committee. there are a few more small details we are currently working on with the city attorney and those changes will be worked out between now and when it is heard at the full board on october 29th. the amendments we have incorporated in my legislation have been distributed they are as follows. for the next five missouri month

-- five months 28 adult residential long-term treatment beds and 27 emergency shelter beds known as hum igbird beds. in april 2020 they will be required to operate an adult residential facility with no fewer than 41 deads. for the five residents who will be offered placements they will we having the opportunity to discuss options with the person before accepting a volunteer transfer. dph shall provide trauma care training to all adult residential facility staff provided by experts that do not work at the center. there shall employee a working group for management and staff where they come together and discuss issues related to resident care, workplace conditions and other issues.

dph shall insure an objective analysis and review is connected where the residential facility is located no later than march 31st. they shall submit the report to the board of supervisors providing updates with the objective analysis. in addition there is a small typo in the draft i passed out to you. there are two small changes on page 2. online 18, it should read at this from 55 to 14 not to 11. scratch out 11 and put 14. then online 19, it should read ccl approval extends through july 30, 2020, not 2021. please cross out 2021 and add 2020. i just want to give a huge thank

you to a huge list of people because this really was an effort that started from the staff at the arf and the patients and came to my office and supervisor haney's office from the front line workers. please give me a minute to say a bunch of thank u.s. first, i have to thank supervisor haney, who has partnered with my office on this from day one, both you and your staff abigail are extraordinary and it is a pleasure to partner with you. caroline gooslin, my chief of staff, has been living and breathing this issue and the mental health system in san francisco. we are going to return to being parents as soon as this is over because our kids have suffered

by not having us present. thank you so much, caroline, your work is extraordinary. i appreciate you every day so much. i want to thank the workers at the adult residential facility and the behavioral health center starting with jennifer who despite being extremely sick is here today because she cares so much for these patients she doesn't let anything stop her. jennifer, we would not have known about this situation if it wasn't for you. this was kept secret from us, disclosure of the beds was never told the board of supervisors. we would have opposed it. we didn't know. you had the bravery to come forward and blow the whistle what was happening on the arf. you put everything on the line for that. i don't know that there is

heroism greater than that. i appreciate you and admire from you the bottom of my heart. thank you for caring so much about your patients. then i also want to thank amy wong, sarah larson and jennifer and the many others who spent every single day of their life doing this heart-loving incredibly difficult work who care so much about these patients, who are their family and who haven't let them down for a moment. you are extra human beings. getting to know you has made this job worth it for me. thank you so much for being the extraordinary people that you are and for caring and loving these patients with the dedication that you do. you really inspire me so much. thank you.

i also want to thank the emergency room nurses who joined with the arf patients. heather, julie and the conservators who take care of the sickest individuals and and advocate on their baffin behalf. michelle and victor. you have just wowed us all. we are so lucky to have the quality of care that we have that you provide every day in this city. i want to thank the arf residents, many are here and families for fighting with us and being courageous and telling their stories, marcus and donna. you have really been the most

incredible self-advocates. the family members and especially parents like judith who will never let their loved ones down. i also want to thank the amazing leaders and staff at local 21 and especially vivian. we see you and love you and admire you. deana and jason and kim from the san francisco labor council for being there from the beginning. it is the unions that provide the safety for workers to be able to feel comfortable coming forward collectively and taking action on their behalf and behalf of their patients. without unions workers wouldn't have that safety. we just appreciate organized labor as always. finally, i really want to thank the mayor and her staff, and

particularly doctor grant colfax and rhonda simons for sitting down and really, really coming to the table and negotiating on the issues. we appreciate you for taking the time and energy and for listening and for changing your minds. that takes a lot of courage and wwe commend you for that. with that we are probably going to hear from some other colleagues. i wanted to ask supervisor mar after they speak if you can move this forward with recommendation as amended. if you can a it and then move it forward and please file the informational hearing and table supervisor mandelman's resolution and soup -- sorry the resolution. i didn't realize they are here

but they both agreed. they can tell you themselves. with that, thank you so much, everyone. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair mar. yes, going back to when i first heard people telling me that the city was closing or downsizing the arf, i couldn't believe that was true. my initial reaction was there is no way we would do that right now in this time when there is such a scarcity of beds. i was familiar with the work that the arf does and the importance of it. as i began digging, the picture became more complicated and more troubling as we learned that in many ways i think the proposal that came forward a couple months ago was a

well-intentioned effort by dph management to fill empty beds. and learning we had for many years had empty beds, not just at the a rf but in the locked facility on the third floor was in a lot of ways even more troubling to me. i thought it was important to make clear that everyone on this board and also to get the mayor's concurrence believes we need the arf, a publicly operated long-term care facility for people who cannot and will not be effectively serve would by nonprofits or private operators in the community. i think that for a couple of months at least there has been broad agreement in city hall about that. it is himself important to -- also important to me as we move

to that goal as quickly as possible we fill every bed, which we have not been doing for several years. i am very pleased and grateful for the compromise that labor, workers, colleagues, mayor and department of health have struck. i think it achieves all of the goals that i would have for that arf facility. it makes sense. it is a great compromise. i am happy to echo the request to have item 4 tabled. i would like to be a co-sponsor to the amended ordinance. >> thank you. supervisor haney. >> thank you, chair mar. i want to echo the long list of thank u.s. both supervisor ronen and mandelman have put out there. i want to thank you, supervisor

ronen for your incredible leadership and advocacy on this. i want to underscore the gratitude for the workers at the arf for the patients and families for raising the alarm on this and not backing down. there was, as we are all aware, many weeks of organizing and direct action and meeting with the supervisors, and i want to thank you on top of everything you do every day for advocating for your patients. i also want to say i am sorry. i think this is something that on top of the incredibly difficult jobs the trauma you experience yourself, hard work and long hours for you and for the people that you serve to then have to have the additional trauma and anxiety and

uncertainty that came with this announcement, one which you were not consulted around, i think is especially unfair, and this should be the compromise itself is a lesson in how we should work with each other and whether it is with the dph or mayor's office or supervisors but it should be a warning this is not the way decisions should be made moving forward. we should be consulting the most important folks, most impacted individuals, residents, workers, unions, and working could lab boratively to lead to outcomes like the compromise if we had done it that way to begin with. i am grateful, and i am also sorry thi this is the way it cae about. i hope we learned a lesson about how we should listen and who we should listen to and how we should work together. i am very thankful we were able

to come together to work out the agreement to support the health of the residents and protect the long-term care beds that we need and address the crisis on the streets as boarding care homes close it is essential to protect the long-term beds that we center, and as we seek to expand more, this is exactly the sort of facility that we need to be supporting fully staffing, protecting, and growing. i am thankful for the solid compromise and thankful for the leadership of supervisor ronen and mandelman and the workers and patients who rogue rose them and got us where we have a solid

compromise and lesson how to do this better in the future. thank you. >> did you have additional comments? >> there are a lot of thank u.s. i made a glaring admission. city attorney ann pearson who has not only been the city attorney on these ordinances but also on mental health sf and those ordinances. as city attorney when there are different parties at the board of supervisors you have to draft all versions of the same thing. that gets hard and overwhelming. i found it strange because normally that would be a conflict of interest. in government, it is not. i have always found it strange as an attorney myself you have

to represent th the dualing sids with confidentiality in a timely manner. i hope you are watching, ann, you have done an incredible job. i know you worked weekends and i wanted to also acknowledge your extraordinary work and thank you so much. >> i want to thank supervisors haney and reaso ronan and manden and i want to thank the staff at the arf unit and the families and advocates for raising your voice to find the best solution. it has been really a great learning experience for me

inning our complicated mental health and behavioral health system, and just learning from all of you and just yesterday i had a chance to visit a wonderful mental health facility or behavioral health facility in the sun set district to learn about the important services they have been providing for decades and to learn a number of their clients are residents in the arf unit and hear from the staff about the importance of the long-term care beds being maintained. i am really glad that all parties have been able to come to agreement on a good plan to teen the unit own and address the issues highlighted that need addressed with the arf