For a SVP recommitment, it is sufficient to show that public safety required at least a commitment to a supervised community placement. George was an adjudicated SVP who was deemed eligible for placement in a conditional supervised release program. The department was unable to place him in a program within San Francisco, the county of his domicile within the course of a year. When it was about to seek permission to place him outside San Francisco, his two-year SVP commitment was about to expire. The prosecutor filed a new petition to recommit George. Prior to trial, the issue arose of whether in order to establish George’s continuing status as an SVP, it was necessary to prove that public safety required his continued custody in a locked facility, or whether it was sufficient to prove that public safety requires at least a commitment to a supervised community placement. The trial court adopted the former view and dismissed the petition, staying its order to permit appellate review. The appellate court held that in order to recommit George as an SVP, it was sufficient to prove that public safety required either his confinement in a secure facility or supervised community placement. It therefore reversed the dismissal of the petition and remanded for a trial on the issue.