project. next slide, please. so the l.r.t., this is a critical piece of infrastructure for the transit system. it's about improving speed and reliability for all along tens of thousands of customers along van ness. it's about improving street safety, especially for all pedestrians, but especially along van ness, and it's upgrading hundred-year-old infrastructure, some of which hangs above the road in the form of our muni overhead wires, some of which is deep below in the sewer and telecom utilities. next slide, please. so if you've been out on van ness, and i'm looking out of my office window at it right now, you'll know that the utility is

[indiscernible] the biggest remaining piece of paving that we got done in august, that was the complex intersection of south van ness and mission street. next slide, please. and so we're looking forward to getting this -- getting the construction done at the end of this calendar here, testing and training our operators so that we can get -- get these rapid buses in motion in the first half of 2022. so that's the good news. that's the fact that this thing is at long last, almost done, almost ready for riders. next slide, please. but what's been going on behind the scenes, perhaps from the

public's point of view, we are trying to learn from the van ness experience. starting in 2017 and for the last few years, we started an in-house project office to level up the [indiscernible] project managers, construction managers and design engineers as they work on these complex infrastructure projects. that project manager office has been rolling out new risk management and risk identification procedures. the expectation of the m.t.a. now is not the expectation at the beginning of the van ness

project. every risk is documented, identified clearly to stakeholders, and sometimes those stakeholders are you as supervisors, and sometimes they're city departments or contractors with a plan in place to mitigate it. finally, the construction management general contractor model, which is the model that we have with welsh. one of the key features of the cmdc is welsh is jointly responsible for us with the

performance of the project. now it's up to us to hold walsh responsible, but walsh is supposed to be a partner, and some of the issues that were called out by the civil grand jury are instances where we weren't really feeling that partnership as the owner and the public's representative. next slide, please. all that said, i talked about.

>> -- public works, p.u.c., and the m.t.a. actually broke off their management scopes directly. we found for the particular scopes that we're doing directly, the m.t.a. managed pedestrian safety, roadway work, while p.u.c. handled the paving and public works handled the curb.

finally, i think everybody on each of you have probably heard from me about quick building and vision zero projects, and so in addition to scheduling issues related to contractors, we are trying to shift from an actual change in the streets to an -- actually changing to in-house. >> good afternoon, supervisors. john scarpulla with the p.u.c., and just want to go over some

of the projects a small project on the -- on the projects. tom hit on auto really great point about determining the best delivery method for utility work, so two great examples are the l-taraval, we kept the same approach where we oversaw the project, including the large utility work, whereas on geary street, we went ahead and teal -- actually peeled off the utility work, so make sure

we're taking the right right approach on the right street. one of our responses to the civil grand jury is our agency has [indiscernible] is fairly easy, getting it from the private entities that has infrastructure on the streets can be a little bit more tricky, so pg&e and the datacom folks in the private sector. we have some cmgc projects going on right now, and we're learning best practices for cmgc projects, and i'm happy to answer any questions that may come up on any of this.

>> clerk: just to interrupt, that was the ten-minute bell. >> chair preston: thank you. it looks like you were muted when you were trying to finish up. >> yes. if i could sum it up in two words, thank you, and look forward to talking about the discussion. thank you. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. mcguire and mr. scarpulla. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i think it makes sense to open this up for public comment, and then, i will have to leave. >> chair preston: thank you. mr. clerk, let's open this up to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair, we're looking to see if there are any callers in the queue.

for those of you, if you were watching on cable channel 26, sfgovtv or other streaming link, dial 415-655-0001, enter meeting i.d. 2484-263-4825, and then press pound and pound again, then star, three to enter the queue, and operations informs me that there is one caller in the queue. >> hello. can you hear me now. >> clerk: please go ahead. >> thank you. david pillpel.

in the past, not all civil grand jury reports have been thorough or meaningful, and some have been fairly disregarded by city staff. i think that's not the case this year. i think there was a great job done on all of these reports, and the staff and city responses have been pretty thoughtful and nuanced and the work that everyone has done on this i think has been good and meaningful. although i think it takes a long time, i think it's worthwhile. i think you can address the policy questions here on van ness without involving liability issues, the cmgc method, the potholing, construction, and risk, i think all need a thoughtful response from the board, and finally, i thought it was interesting that both the m.t.a. and p.u.c.

staff were both fairly defensive in their responses, but their boards were a lot less defensive and modified the responses to be more accommodating and understanding of the certains that the grand jury raised, so those are my -- concerns that the grand jury raised, so those are my thoughts on 8 and 9. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we're checking to see if there are any further callers in the queue. mr. chair, i'm receiving word that there's no further public callers. >> chair preston: thank you. with that, public comment is closed. supervisor mandelman, do you have questions or do you have anything you would like to say at this time? >> supervisor mandelman: well, i'd like to not address the findings, but i'd like to ask a

couple of questions on the recommendations. on recommendation 4, it seems like p.u.c. and m.t.a. came up with different answers on this, and wanted to understand this. wanted to under why m.t.a. disagrees with the recommendation. >> so thanks, supervisor. may i answer that, chair? >> chair preston: please. >> through the chair, thanks for the question. i think that our response is not that we don't agree, i think we're just worried about writing a blanket one-size-fits-all policy, and i'm sorry that didn't quite come through in our response.

i'm thinking a lot more capital response, so i think there would be room to come up with a policy that would be more nuanced. >> supervisor mandelman: i don't think anyone's going to ask you to come up with a one-size-fits-all policy. on recommendation 2, related to derisking -- oh, and the [indiscernible] of derisking activities, which m.t.a. disagrees with. can you explain why it's not a good idea for everyone to know what's going on and how we

would try to reduce the risk? >> yeah. this is a pretty tricky thing to explain, so please tell me if this doesn't satisfy your question. there are -- so we certainly should be sharing as much as we can about the current project state of affairs. the science and art of estimating risk does require us to think a lot about the interconnections between risk, and to think about risk not just in terms of hey, you might hit a gas line here, but our experts estimate that the hitting of that gas line would add 10, 20, 30 days to your schedule. it's up to our contractors to figure out what the cost and time impacts of the information disclosed are. if we go too far and actually document, you know, the actual time or cash value of those risks, we could end up giving

certain bidders an unfair advantage down the road. >> supervisor mandelman: how do you give certain bidders an unfair advantage? >> yeah, i think the simplest way to explain it would be we need to do all the legwork, and on van ness, we need to say there's a [indiscernible] however, there is -- the going

the next step and giving the contractor the cost of digging up that gas line, the cost of relocating it, the scheduled risk of leaving it in place and them possibly damaging it? we want contractors to bid in quality and creativity in their construction approach and them to figure it out. we want them to say, given all the detail we have about the asset underground, here is how we're going to give you the best deal in replacing it. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. i remain a bit confused, so we're probably going to follow up over the next week with you on that, and i think that's related to recommendation 10. recommendation 8, that the

m.t.a. [indiscernible] m.t.a. responded, this will be implemented, and m.t.a. will adopt formal policy, but you don't have a time frame. >> yes, i -- so the -- the recommendation was specifically about cmgc and design contracts. we don't do a lot of cmgc work. i'm not sure what the next one we would even think about would be. i actually heard the grand jury member making a comment on this. we can actually go back and put a time frame on it. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. we probably would need to for our response. recommendation 5, the city adopt a policy to establish best practices for cmgc by city

agencies, that is one that m.t.a. does not agree with. p.u.c. says they've already implemented one. >> yes. i think the -- p.u.c. has a policy. we are -- we don't -- we don't see a ton of cmgc projects coming down the road in the future, so it was not for us to write this policy. i think we'd be willing to -- >> supervisor mandelman: so your position is, for the m.t.a., it's not a useful recommendation because you're never going to do this again. >> i would not say we're going

to do this again, i would say if we did it again, we would look to see industry best practices and see if we would need to adjust the best practices to better impact the infrastructure. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. then i think maybe i have two more. on recommendation 6, that the cmgc policy should specifically include the industry best practice of awarding 30% of contract design, m.t.a. doesn't like that one. >> yeah, and actually, if i may ask my colleague, peter, who's the project manager on van ness to share some of his experience. >> hello.

members of the board, i'm the sfmta van ness project manager. yeah, we look at that approach, and we found a couple of challenges with it. one of them is that industry best practices is -- is not something that is codified. you can ask two experts in the industry what the best practices are, and they might give you two different results or two different answers, so we were hesitant to build an entire policy around what might be considered industry best practices without being able to nail down exactly what was a definitive answer. on the advantage project, as something that had happened, in order to issue the cmgc

contract at 30%, we would have had to stop design for almost a year and basically stood down, and that would have delayed the start of construction. at the time -- hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, it was certainly preferable to get the contractor on earlier in the design process, it's not a deal breaker, and it's not a mandatory requirement. we decided that rather than delay the project another year, we made a decision as an agency to move ahead with the design as you brought on the cmgc

contractor, and as a result, they were brought on as 65% rather than 30%. i think the agency is going to want to balance bringing in the contractor early with the scale in question. so we want to balance that so the people on scene can make a judgment call at the time that the next project goes out. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. my last question is just -- is a clarification. so on recommendation 11, about pedestrian monitors, i think the agency is saying you've implemented this recommendation.

it looks like it wasn't implemented prior to van ness. >> i'd like to clarify something on that, and i'm not sure whether there was confusion or not in the way the grand jury understood it. the contracts -- the van ness contract had flaggers whose specific duties were designated as pedestrian control. whenever we were working intersections, the contractor was required to have a certain number of flaggers to control pedestrian traffic. during negotiations, the final construction contract was a negotiated contract, the subject of pedestrian monitors to supplement those flaggers in case there were too many pedestrians for the flaggers to

country, the subject was brought up, and the discussion was we didn't think they would be needed on van ness because we didn't think the pedestrian counts were going to be that high. but if the contractor needed them, they would be added to the contract or the city would provide them in some other fashion. we got into construction, the -- we were having problems controlling pedestrians around the construction site. the contractor requested pedestrian monitors. the city asked the question, well, are you providing the flaggers to control pedestrians required in the contract as written, and the contractor would not answer that question clearly, so we had our inspectors go out to see what was being done, we recommended improvements to the contractor and how they should be doing the work. they disagreed with us.

it required some negotiation to get to the point where the city staff was satisfied that the contractor was meeting the minimum requirements of the contract, and that having seen that they were meeting those requirements, the pedestrian monitors were needed to supplement the contract or the flagger force that was required in the contract. so as a consequence, they were added to the contract. now, the initial ask was $20 million for pedestrian monitors. once we assured ourselves that they were making -- they were using the flaggers that were in the contract appropriately, that number fell to under 2 million -- just under $2 million, so both sides took safety very seriously, but there was a disagreement what

was required in the contract versus what was needed to be added as a requirement. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm going to make a motion that we continue this to our next g.a.o. meeting, and that the city attorney look at whether we -- it's possible to have a closed session agendized for that report for that meeting. >> chair preston: mr. clerk, please call the roll on the motion. >> clerk: so i understand the motion is to continue both agenda items both 8 and 9 to the next g.a.o. meeting. that will be next thursday, 7 october. on that motion offered by member mandelman to continue these items to october 7 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes, and the motion to continue these items to october 7. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. clerk. the motion passes, and do we have any further business before the committee, mr. clerk? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> chair preston: thank you. we are adjourned. >> modifying requirements for in-person meeting.

this committee will convene remotely until the committee is legally authorized to meet in person. public comment will be available only each agenda item. each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. by calling 415-655-0001, access code 24920328638, then pound and then pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial *3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. [inaudible] please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available at sfgovtv.org.

>> chair: thank you, secretary. we're going to call this special meeting of the our city, our home oversight committee to order. this is wednesday, september 29th, 2021. and we'll start with roll call. [roll call taken] >> chair: all right. so we do have quorum. i want to let folks know if we have significant public commenters, we will reducing the public comment today, given the duration that we have

today for our meeting. we'll now go into. (indiscernab. [audio is breaking up] >> chair williams, you're breaking up. >> chair: yes. okay. let me... >> much better. >> chair: thank you. >> can you roll back about a minute? >> chair: okay. i was saying that if we have significant public comment for today, we will only have public comment time for two minutes, given the duration that we have allocated for our special meeting today. with that, we will go to item 2: discussion and implementation of ocoh

-funded case management services at the adult probation department. i believe steve adame is here to present. >> clerk: and before that, the deputy city attorney wanted to admit the committee's oversight role and function. >> chair: okay. so john gibner will go first. thank you. >> thanks. it's nice to see you all again. i am here today because i had a couple of conversations with the controller's office just about how the committee is moving into it's new phase of oversight of the spending that has been appropriated based on your recommendations last summer. and i just wanted to run through some is general rules of the road as you start to embark on this new piece of the

committee's expansion. i talked about your general -- your general roles and duties at past meetings, and they basically said since (indiscernable) wanted soliciting input from the public, and ensuring transparency, including at meetings like this one. second is conducting needs assessment, which is a futurecast for the committee. the third is reviewing the services that are funded by prop "c" to ensure consistency and accountability, consistency with the goals of the measure. and that's really the path that you're jumping into now. and the fourth is advising the board and the mayor, both on funding and on implementation of prop "c." so the committee's oversight and advice

function is obviously central to the success of prop "c" overall, but there are three limitations on your authority as a committee that you should keep in mind as you begin to hold these meetings. the first is, as we discussed before, the committee is an advisory body, which means that it can't direct departments to do anything. your primary oversight role is to gather information and make recommendations to the board and the mayor, and ultimately it will be up to the board and the mayor to make both funding decisions and also policy decisions about how to direct departments in terms of implementation. prop "c" envisions you as advisors primarily to the board and the mayor, rather than advisors to department. although you will certainly be gathering a lot of information from the departments and observing them and asking

them questions, i'm sure, today and into the future. that's the first general rule is that you can't direct departments to take any steps. to that end, because you're a body that is appointees of the board of supervisors, the committee is subject to the same restrictions that apply to the board under our charter. which means that the committee can't interfere in the administrative affairs of departments. and that means you can't involve yourself in departments' hiring decisions, and more importantly, in your context, you can't involve yourself in departments' contrasting decisions. so you can't make suggestions or directions to departments about who should get the contract, and that's a rule that applies whether or not you have a conflict of interest. it doesn't matter if your

organization is seeking a contract. as a committee, you can't be enmeshed in the contracting decisions of the departments. the third big rule to keep in mind, is also a rule that applies to the board of supervisors, and that is that when you're communicating with departments, you need to communicate through the department head. that doesn't mean that every conversation that you have with the department has to be a one-on-one with the department head, but it does mean that the department head can basically choose which staff will be available to communicate with you. so if the committee wants to communicate with a department, the first step would be to ask the committee's staff to reach out to the department head to coordinate. and the department head affectively serves as kind of a gatekeeper for those conversations and decides

who the point people and speakers for the department will be. the committee and the department can work out a plan where department head says, you don't have to run everything by me for the next three months when you're looking at these issues, here are the people you can contact. and that is fine. you just need to get the department head on board with any plan at the outset. so these three rules, don't give direction to the departments, don't interfere with administrative affairs, and communicate through the department head, they apply to you when you're acting as a body, like today, but they also apply to you as individuals when you're communicating with departments in your official capacity as committee members. so sometimes in your roles as liaisons that have been approved by the committee, you will have conversations with the department. when you're acting in that capacity, you need to follow these same rules that apply to the entire

committee. i understand that there are a number of you that have personal and professional relationships with departments and will be talking with departments and advocating with departments in your role that has nothing to do with ocoh. in your role as employees or officers of organizations. and because you wear these two hats, committee member and private advocate, the lines can get a little blurry. in your private advocacy capacity, you can communicate with departments and advocate for positions, but just keep in mind that if you're there, if you're having a conversation in your ocoh capacity, or say you're meeting with them for ocoh or as liaison, all of the rules i summarized apply. i'm happy to answer

questions now, or, also, if any of you want to followup off-line, i'm happy to do that too. i don't want to take up too much of your time. >> i would suggest that we followup on line given the time we have today. but thank you so much forgiving us the rules of the road. we'll go now to our presentation from adult probation. >> thank you, chair williams. >> i will give them the presenter role. just for the record, member ledbetter has arrived. >> i'm with the adult probation department. as a formally incarcerated, formerly homeless, i am always grateful to share our work and the impact we've had on lives and as community

members, we're asking for support. i'm joined today by members of the community leaders from west side community services, dr. jones, from positive directions people's change, fred johnson, cedric atbar, from west side community services. and as most of you know, chief fletcher retired, and i'm glad to introduce our interim chief, sharon jackson. i'm going to turn the meeting over to sharon briefly, and then we'll get started with our presentation. >> good morning. i'm sharon jackson, and i'm the interim chief officer for san francisco. i have over 40 years of experience in working with community corrections, and i have implemented and managed re-enter tree y programsthat were designed to

address those needs for quite a long time. for my last 11 years, i have worked with san francisco adult probation in a variety of rules. i worked with chief steele and helped her implement the evidence-based practices for supervision here in san francisco. our current mission -- i think it is important, when you look at your mission and your vision of the organization because for our department it is very well described what we do and why we do what we do and why we have a re-entery unit. i mentioned it is very simple and very clear: we protect and serve the community. we further justice. we inspire change. we prioritize racial equity so that all people may thrive. and i vision statement further outlines how we go about doing that. and it is a very

convincing one, but i want to make sure with you that i leave with you this unique blend and how probation is unique in the community. and not just in san francisco, but throughout the nation, probations has a certain role. we have to help people, give them the right programs. if we're into reducing recidivism so that people can have a life where they can support themselves, be off of drugs -- so that's what we do. so that's why we billed out over the last few years major services with prop "c" funds, and i want steve to go over and talk about our wonderful progress. because we are a leader in the nation when it comes to evidence-based practices. i think we have some of the best-trained staff, and we enforce the views of evidence-based practices. steve, can you share.

>> sure. so i do think it is important to kind of get an understanding of who we are and what we value and how we got here. in 2009, the senate passed senate build 678, the communities corrections incentive act. and then they passed a public safety realignment. and in response to both of those bills, state funds came locally in an effort to help people rebuild their lives. and our chief at the time, wendy steele, invested all of our funds into creating a division of non-sworn professionals that would design and implement a portfolio of programs that our clients would have realtime access to. i think it is also important to remember who

we support in the community. most of you know that some might be facing a violation and are represented by a public defender, and there is also a district attorney who is prosecuting the case, and then there is a resolution for the case. and we are not out recruiting clients. when we receive from the courts somebody that has a lot of challenges, we are responsible to help them rebuild their lives. so with these limitations as an entry division, we supervise and design and implement a portfolio of service contracts. so providing services through adult probation is nothing new. we've been doing it for 11 years. we currently have a portfolio of 50 reentry programs. and we fund drug treatments and detox.

these are flagship programs in the community assessments and services center. it is the first in the state, behavioral health focused center, and the staff has 16 licensed clinicians. there is no time limit how long somebody can stay in case management. we also have a nurse practitioner who has a caseload of 115 clients on medication. and then there is a array of city and community partners onsite, as you can see from the list of providers on the screen. to support -- >> director, i just want to let you know we have a three more minute time for this presentation. >> the context of this meeting is going to require -- i'm going to need a couple of extra minutes. sorry. >> chair: we have three more minutes. we allocated nine minutes

and we have three more minutes. because we have significant public comment. thank you. >> so additionally we also fund 15 residential housing programs in san francisco. there is array of clients from probation, parole, federal probation, etc. next slide. let's talk about the impact of our services. last year we case managed 600 clients, 120 of our clients went to residential treatment. when the rest of the roles shut down, we shifted to virtual platforms, so all of our clients could access groups, telehealth. next slide. i think it is important in the realm of this project, the adult probation department housed 6,011 adults. and we reduced homelessness by 77,000. our providers helped our clients complete almost 1800 housing applications.

and when nobody was moving anywhere, 61 of our clients moved into permanent housing. next slide. you can see the data yourself, 149 clients got jobs. we invested 25,000 dollars removing barriers to employment. next slide. westside community services, our partner, is led by dr. marion jones. they're a local leader of forensic services. they are an organization that we currently fund for the programs list, as you can see from the slide. next slide. and the proposed project. so i know chair williams said it was for a case management program. i think that was wrong. i think it was for a stabilization navigation center. the object of the stabilization center is to provide a safe place for people to sleep for people

experiencing mental health or homelessness or addiction, as well as those being released from the county jail. the services include transitional housing, drug treatment, permanent housing. onsight services are going to include mental health services and assessment. they have support groups and employment services as well as benefit acquisition. it includes transitional housing, clinical therapy, adult employment and education, and then coordinated entry through (inaudible word). there is no time stamp on how long somebody can stay in thisúcenter. it will be determined by the needs of the participant and the goals of the participants. the partners would include

jail health, the federal probation, sheriff, district attorney, public defender, and an array of community departments. there is our contact information, if you have any other questions. >> chair: thank you so much, director and everyone, for that presentation. i'm going to open it up to the committee for any questions before we go to public comment. i do not see any hands raised. colleagues? okay -- >> chair williams -- >> chair: member reggio, go for it. >> thank you. this is a question for director domi. just a little clarification. i think it is $900,000 this year and 900,000 next year. what is that paying for? is that paying -- i think our paperwork indicates that it is paying for case

management within a navigation center. is that not correct? can you clarify that, please? >> thank you. yeah, so, both navigational centers cost millions of dollars to run. when i was asked to present a budget back in april, we were alleging an array of services. it will pay for onsight, 24-hour clinical staff. >> so the $900,000 would not be the full budget for the navigation center; it is only for the clinical staff within the navigation center? >> correct. if i could run a navigation center on $900,000, i would be running them all -- >> that certainly makes sense. can you tell me what the overall budget of the navigation center is, other than ocoh? >> i don't have it in front of me, but i can definitely forward that to the board. there are other

expenditures, depending on the immediate services onsight. right now there is no renting, so that is a big one. but we have a budget that will include clinical costs, and i can summit that to the board. >> thank you. >> chair: member friedenbach. >> thank you. chair. and thanks, director adomi, for the presentation. i just want to ask you some questions and make a quick comment and maybe bring people up to speed in terms of what has happened to date very quickly. but has -- is the operations manual that was shared for a stabilization center still what is being proposed, or did it change? >> thank you. i want to say it is always

great to see you and meet with you, and thank you for all of your guidance. the policy manual was just a proposed policy. we were able to receive the shelter manual from h.s.h., as well as the participating agreement. so we're talking it over internally with our provider, and we're going to be in line with whatever the policies of h.s.h. are. so there are some things in question. one of them is: can clients leave the building? can people have cell phones? so the policies of the program will be in line with ocoh. we can share it with ocoh and the smaller working group as well. it was just a work in progress, and then we had to cancel a couple of meetings that we were off-sight. so we will get that to you. >> yeah. so the issue at hand, just because folks may recall,

you know, we went through a process and there was a lot of input from community folks around wanting justice-involved initiatives from the equity position, especially among black and brown people and that intersecting with homelessness. so one of the initiatives we added in was a navigation center for justice involved with the idea of people coming out of jails and prison, that they would have a landing spot and not return back to the streets. and so -- and we also got -- after we made the recommendation that went through the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and stayed intact in the end, around having -- there was concern around law enforcement and making sure there wasn't reporting by probation to judges that would negatively impact people and lead to reincarceration. we passed a resolution unanimously around that.

and h.s.h. work-ordered it over to probation. and probation came back with the -- with saying it was clearly not a navigation center, but it was a stabilization center. and so if it is a restriction on spending, if it is in the shelter category, and really what we're talking about is a treatment program, that's one issue. but -- and because, you know -- we need to stay in line with what we're doing. but the other piece that was an issue is that -- the navigation centers are designed by city ordinance, and it is a very clearly defined program. it is very low threshold, and it is trying to serve people who are kind of system-resistant, who don't do well in the

highly -- you know, with a lot of rules and a highly kind of regulated environment. and what we got back from probation was the exact opposite of that. and so they had to turn their cell phones in upon entry. there was some lack of clarity from westside that they were even approached about doing a navigation center. so it felt really like they were asking for one thing with a clear intent to do something very different, and that raised a lot of red flags for me, frankly. and i think it raised some red flags for other folks. and so i just wanted to kind of recap how we got to where we're at today. and, um, you know, of course, i really want to hear public comment on this. we went through an input session, landed on this particular model and a

particular recommendation, and that then that seemed to really shift away. and that was really concerning. so that -- anyway, that's where -- how we got here. thank you so much. >> jennifer, if i could just make one comment about that. i appreciate it. i think what happened was is we play a really unique role at probation, somewhere between the roles of law enforcement and social work. and we do something unique compared to other city departments. i'm not putting the other city departments down, but we really rely on experts to tell us what is best for the people we're serving. and so i think when cedric and his thought was we need a place that is a crisis center, which i think was on the original budget i proposed, and it said "navigation and crisis center" back in april. i think we realized that the term "navigation

center" was determined by the ordinance itself. the vision in terminally was we have clients that we're supporting in the community that struggle. and, you know, i gave you some data on the number of clients that we house per day, and how many we house annually, and our clients still have challenges. and the only piece we were missing was this kind of low threshold-based program where people that were struggling could stay. and so once i found out, first, that there was an ordinance around the navigation center stuff, i spoke to cedric, and we are revamping the policy to be completely in line with that. i do appreciate the guidance on that stuff, but it wasn't intentional. it wasn't, hey, let's get funding on the navigation center and do something different. so i apologize. i think that is where some of the miscommunication came.

you have to be honest, we were very transparent. our goal is to be collaborative, not only with ocoh, but also with other justice departments and the community to really provide a place that people can thrive. i think our overarching goal, also -- and i spoke to h.s.h. last week and i said we kind of have different roles. my overarching theme to my team and our department is we want people to reclaim their place in the community. and there are different paths to the top of the mountain. but with the same opportunities that myself, craig, cedric, and other colleagues of ours have gotten, we want to see other people get to that same place if that's what they choose. and this center, in and of itself, will be a place for people to start, to feel safe, to feel like they've got extended family, and start to make

decisions. >> chair: we'll go to the next member. >> chair williams, did you recognize me? i didn't hear. >> chair: yes. my screen froze. member andrews. >> thank you, chair williams. director, thank you for the presentation on the stabilization center. i just have one question. i saw that there was significant efforts and an intention to provide behavioral health services, and i was wondering, are the behavioral health services that you're referencing funded through -- that's the proposal to have them funded? or are you using other funding sources within existing contracts you may have at d.p.h.? and maybe if you could say a word or more of how you envision d.p.h. playing a role in this. >> we fund behavioral

services with d.p.h. we work with d.p.h. money for two licensed commissions that provide one-on-one therapy. we have a direct contact with ucsf that provides and manages a behavioral re-entery center. westside community services are a leading mental health provider in san francisco. so the proposed site is on the same location as a mental health clinic and pharmacy. [inaudible] mental health services is currently funded by the adult probation department at ucsf, and the two clinical therapists that we work with, so it is kind of an all hands on deck approach to ensure that the clients or the people participating in the program have access to an array of students. >> thank you.

>> chair: okay. we will go to vice chair deantonio. >> thank you so much for the presentation, director adomi. i want to leave some time for public comments, even though we have only 25 minutes left. but i wanted to list some of my concerns. will people have their cell phones taken away? will folks be able to leave without having basically a chaperone accompany them whenever they want to leave the site? will folks have their information shared with law enforcement? will folks get in trouble for smoking weed? and is this a nav center? at the end of the day, do you guys envision really aligning to be a low threshold center? because even though people can have the choice to go to this program or not, we

want that to be everyone's choice who is eligible. so basically everyone who is leaving jails or justice-involved folks. i do have concerns that, like, a lack of autonomy and low threshold is going to make this program really just focused on certain types of people versus, like, all reentry folks. and those are really my concerns, that we're not building another 111. >> thank you, julia. as i mentioned this to jennifer, the program is going to be in line with h.s.h. pol seizes. policies.it will be low thresho. we're working on updating the manual. when it is done, we will definitely share it with the group. and, again, as providers, we rely on the expertise of these folks.

when they created the manual, it was in the best interests of the people he worked with on a daily basis. [inaudible] but now that we've seen the manual, i've finally got it, and i got the participants' agreement, and i shared with you and others in a smaller group, when we finally got that, and it is our intention to be completely in line with what everybody else is did, which is low barriers and harm reduction. we will share the manual with the group when it is done. >> thank you so much. >> chair: thank you so much. and with that, i think we should definitely open it up for public comment. so secretary hon, do we have any public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, access code

24920328638, and then pound and pound again. then dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we currently have five listed. would you like to move forward with the two minutes. i'm sure more will pop up. >> chair: yes, let's begin with the two minutes. >> clerk: i'll take the first caller. hello, caller? hello, caller? >> enter your i.d. number followed by pound. >> clerk: i'll take the next caller. hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, my name is wesley runner, i'm a clinical supervisor for city-wide. and i've been working with the adult probation department reentry division in this partnership for a little

over five years. i just wanted to say as someone who has worked in public health and the social services system for about 10 years now, i've seen gaps in care when clients enter and exit the justice system. i found that our partnership has really allowed for us to provide continuity of care and vastly improve the outcomes for justice involved groups who fall into the cracks. this project further addresses the gaps in care. specifically what we see a lot is the travesty that occurs when folks are sitting in jail for months and months, waiting for some sort of placement or any kind of plan, and oftentimes in the middle of the night without a way to connect them to care. i just wanted to say i really, really believe in this partnership with a.p. d.. thank you.

c