activities someplace else. so if we bust out of the east aside and go to the east bay or return to the south, we get more capacity out of the transit centre. by identifying potential locations at this point in the study, or at this point in time, we make sure that as we move forward, we are thoughtfully thinking about these. so case in point, we have the seawall conversation coming up. if we ever want to extend to the east bay, understanding where we might need a punch out panel, so that as long as you access the coordinates in the seawall at that punch out panel, then you've already designed to the seawall to accommodate a future connection to the east bay. the fifth component is what gets all the attention and not the love. originally we thought about getting the last 1.2 miles of i.-280 and whether or not it

should be brought down. early on in the process, we realized that -- unlike our other two we have removed, it is a usable freeway. the other two have been damaged by the earthquake. we had to put in a lot of money to fix them or money to take them down. that is not the case in this car a door. and understanding that any conversation about taking down that one .2 miles is a much longer conversation with caltrain and a lot more study to be completed. what we have done in the study is we have identified that what is moving forward does not require the continued use or the removal of i-280 at any time. and then what everybody loves is the cost. again, looking at the three it rail alignments in particular, and including all construction costs, if that includes a southern railyard, that's

included as well. it also includes any value capture such as a district on the fourth and king railyard. you have a cost of around $5.1 billion for the future of surface rail. 6,000,000,004 pennsylvania avenue and mission bay at 9.3 billion. that is because of the unknowns because of the depth and the large bore. you can also see the expected completion date. i want to note the future of service rail is 2026. pennsylvania avenue is at 2027. that doesn't mean we get trains into the train box at 2026. oh, i will go to this one first. sorry, a little out of order. this kind of shows you a schedule of how we would complete the projects. under the pennsylvania avenue, which is the city staff and the safety department's preliminary preferred alignment. you can build the d.t.x. as currently designed, while you

are completing the environmental clearance. and at some point, you catch up. the way which the d.t.x. is designed, allows for what is called the tunnel stub box and we would connect up off line of operations. over the course of a couple of weekends, we can connect up to the d.t.x. and move the trains underground. even if the d.t.x. is in operations. what isn't shown in these costs are any monetization of the social impacts such as connectivity. i like to point those out or some of them. the ability to face the pennsylvania avenue extension. that it reconnects over a mile of the city. not only in the east-west connections but in the north and south. it creates new land-use opportunities. the tunnels can be designed for better resiliency. one thing i didn't denote, the

trenches. they are in sea level inundation zones. we would be trenching our streets, but we would have to figure out a way to dewater them from day one and 24 hours a day. and then the access to the salesforce transit centre where we get all the trains and the salesforce centre under pennsylvania avenue. we have shown that in the next steps. this is a quick timeline. we had our public meeting on may 29th. we are in the process of going to different boards and groups and civic associations for the next couple of months. and then we believe we will be coming with a joint resolution for the mayor and the board of supervisors. asking for getting behind the pennsylvania alignment as the preliminary alignment and asking our partner agencies to work with us to solve the technical

issues that still are outsourcing and ending. we believe there are solutions to all of the technical solutions but we haven't, you know, been able to get them all behind us. as we move forward, this graphic shows how much work, and how inner agency and in our directive it really is. on the left-hand side you have caltrain and the city and other regional agencies and you have individual projects. each one of these projects needs to understand how they are interacting within each other and influencing other projects. as we move forward, there are a few things that we are looking at. they're doing the transit corridor study. san francisco would dose -- they would take on the preliminary

conversation about the 22n 22nd street station and better connections to that station. as well as what should the fourth and king railyard look like if we were to look relocate and/or reconfigure that railya railyard. i want to point out we have had a 22 members citizens group for 18 months now. i want to thank those members who have given up hours of their time to not only understand the technical issues, but also the interconnections and the trade-off and help us so that these types of conversations with the community can continue. that concludes my presentation. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much. that was a great presentation. i think, for me, and i do sit on the joint powers board for caltrain, it is exciting to see this moving forward. what is invisible for a lot of people in san francisco who do not regularly use caltrain, the electrification work has started and is ongoing. and the blue bit in here on the

caltrain business plan, that is what is it will does is what will make sure that caltrain is the newest caltrain that will carry a lot more people and run a lot more service in conjunction with high-speed rail. it is really exciting to see this all started to come together. i just want to say i am so cited by the idea of this all coming together behind this proposed pennsylvania avenue alignment. i want to open up questions to my fellow directors. anyone? >> director hsu: thank you. i have a quick question. i don't see a huge case for the mission bay alignment based on the cost on the fact that there are these other issueswith it. is that something that's, at this point, thought of as being, well we have to consider it, but it's not really that much in the mix? >> i will tell you, i am an engineer and i was a rail engineer for five years. when i look at the mission bay alignment, that is the one that

got me interested. it is a straighter shot, it connects to an area that is not well served by transit, but once we got into the analysis, it didn't pan out. i'm sorry to say it didn't. there was a few reasons. one, the unknowns drive the cost up significantly for two because it is a totally different alignment, we don't get trains into the salesforce transit centre for many years after we possibly could. three, the ridership of the new alignment, if you draw a capture area around that new station, and i've got it up on the presentation, if you were to draw a half mile around the fourth and townsend station at the one around the mission bay alignment, a good portion of the writer capture area is in the bay. i'm sure there is a -- is there a fourth? >> i know there is always to be, but i know there are other reasons. >> director hsu: you said the unknowns, but one of the known sort of unknowns is the grade of

the train coming out of the alignment, right? >> correct. oh, yeah. we have issues with being under that navigate double portion creek. and then the third street brid bridge. there is a lot of pieces that would make me ponder as an engineer and a rail engineer. >> director hsu: so, the fun part of it, to follow up on this question. have you made your preferred course orange and you're not prepared course of blue on purpose? [laughter] >> actually, no. it never even occurred to me. no. the green it was green for a specific reason, but the orange and blue were just colours we picked a long time ago. that's funny. >> chairman brinkman: and on the orange, if i'm doing my math right, on the orange approach, from what i've heard makes the

most sense to me, we would be crossing the tee line while it is still above ground? >> vice-chairman heinicke: you are will we have tunnels stacked? >> in the orange line, if you go back to the graphic, the orange line is a pennsylvania avenue extension. the line would be -- in that central subway, you are at surface, and then you will be within the d.t.x. underneath. >> vice-chairman heinicke: that is a plus. >> chairman brinkman: any other questions? spee seat george. >> director rubke: more construction. that will be so awesome. i'm very excited. no i am. this is all great and the report was really helpful. i look forward to the future. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much for the work on this. we have a lot of work ahead of us but it is very exciting. and the idea of being able to reconnect streets in the city and return that area to a usef useful, a lively neighbourhood is fantastic. >> vice-chairman heinicke: to

director rubke's point, there is a valuable point there. we have just run a very sophisticated live program on how to tunnel the subway and work well with the community and not disrupt the businesses and so forth and so on. i would hope that we would draw from what we've learned in union square and surrounding areas for this project as it goes forward. >> director hsu: independent of the rab study, the tjpa has been looking at the impact that would be felt by the neighborhood of th d.t.x. whether we at the pennsylvania alignment or not, and to the original plans would have been very, very disruptive. they have been engaging the folks to figure out how to minimize, particularly the cut and cover of construction which is the most disruptive part of it. they've made some progress in identifying ways to minimize that both on townsend and on second and it is something that they have heard from the tjpa

board, which i said they have heard from the board of supervisors. i think there are lessons learned from our project, and from the barton project way back, that we have taken into account. construction disruption is a big part of what we are looking at here. >> chairman brinkman: nt why. thank you so much. i want to go to public comment if we have any. >> james patrick followed by roll into lib room. >> chairman brinkman: great. >> thank you board directors. i have been in business for 145 years in the office supply business. i wanted to talk about the fourth street station location. it was third and townsend, you may remember that, and we moved it to fourth and townsend. and the outreach of that fourth and townsend station is not near

as good as seventh street, a little further down. i would like you to visualize seventh street. the location of seventh street. it serves more people. we have heard the analysis of this station and what might be by therrio wa a ballpark. it is less expensive to construct as well. the fourth street station has construction issues. it would only get 24 inches below the surface, which demands cut and cover. number 3, which i really like, is i think we should integrate that into a paris style left bank, right bank. by that i mean, the isthmus flows right up to that station. i visualize walking down to the a tnt station, enjoying the water side on the left and the right as the neighbours are around it and a lot of retail going down there. it is a whole new area of san francisco that no one has talked about. so i am a supporter of pennsylvania avenue process, but

i think the fourth and townsend street station is in the wrong position. it really should be a seventh, mission, whatever you want to call it. but maybe it's the promenade station. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. spee want nice to see you. >> thank you. could we go back to the slide? the same slide? with the blue and the orange. >> chairman brinkman: i don't think we can go back. but we have it in front of us. >> okay. great. let me start with a big thank you do our friends in the planning department for resolving a fatal flaw in the existing d.t.x. alignment. it made it impossible to upgrade caltrain and the high-speed ra rail.

it just wasn't working. our work, as daily dose has begun. we need to combine both tunnel proposals into a single cohesive project. once we do this, and i will speak on to what mr patrick said, we will have an opportunity to eliminate all impacts on townsend street by merging the 22nd and fourth and king stations into a seventh and king hub with caltrain sandwiched between union platforms and a connection to alameda in the basement. i have a little bit of time. with regards to storage. if you start thinking -- 22n 22nd street is gone. it is moved to seventh. we now have the opportunity to cross over. we can connect the new track to the old track and use the old tunnels as storage for up to ten

trains. between mariposa and cesar chavez. last but not least, we need to revisit the alignment between townsend and the successful transit centre. i hope that you will consider leveraging the central subway tunnel expertise and give up a solution that eliminates surface impacts on second street between townsend. >> chairman brinkman: next speaker, please. >> thank you. so, i am in support of having to study this. it seems to me that the green line is the most reasonable. we have to build a connectivity into downtown. when i come from the east bay, whether it be to the temporary trans bay terminal or two-part station, i have to go through

another one or two moves to get to caltrain station. i support us in bringing the trains into the transit centre, and two underground. this conversation is long overdue. because it has been over 100 years that in a new york city, two great rail stations were built completely underground, including grand central terminal, which is the worlds largest railroad station, which has about 65 tracks for boarding and deporting, and 48 acres. so we have some examples to go by. this is only going to grow. at penn station in new york, i believe, is moving over 600,000 people per day. we have our chance downtown by moving the green line in. i'm still digesting this whole

report. i'm not real enthused about the blue line. the deeper you go, the more expensive it gets, and if you have steep grades, it can cause problems for trains that stall, from having to restart them on the grade. and avoiding wheelspin, which was a challenge that the channel tunnel planners had to keep in mind, in order that they can deal with a failure under the channel there. it's important we get started on this so we can do this sooner, rather than later. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> president brinkman, commissioners, i with my pleasure and privilege, it is to chair the working group that helped produce this report,

starting in 2016. our members represented a large segment of the city, both geographically, and by their involvement in all areas of transit. local and regional. and they had a full understanding of the complexities of this project. their decision was absolutely unanimous. there was no one who was not for the pennsylvania street alignment. we understood why it would be good. at the public meing last ek, i asked everyone there to think of the futures. we have tagged this the hundred year decision. believe it or not, i'm old enough to have been around and worked on the beginnings of barth. i ask you, what would happen to this bay area if we didn't have it? and yet, we had counties in the bay area that turned it down at

that point. this is something that has to go ahead. it has to be for, not to me, i'm not going to ride on it. but my kids, grandkids, great grandkids are in this city. it is going to be, in part, your decision to push it forward. the comments you made, just a few minutes ago, really rang in my ears. i appreciate the general support you gave it. i know speakers have mentioned certain technicalities. that is also in the future. we will work those out. as long as we are concerned with the project moving forward, as quickly as possible, we will get where we are going. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. do i have any more public comments? no? fifty non, public comment is closed. i want to thank you again for the presentation you did and we look forward to having this continue to move forward in the

city. thank you. all right. can we please call the next two items together? thirteen and 14? >> yes. it approves amendment number 6 retroactively to a contract for the professional architectural and engineering services with h. vnt b.c., joint venturefor the final construction zone of central subway project track weight, and control systems for a total amount not to exceed at $1.2 million for a total. not to exceed $34 million. i will get my numbers right. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. and then item 14, it approves contract amendment one retroactively and amendment fo four.

on six by 3 million for the additional work necessary to provide engineering services through completion of projects construction for total contract amount not to exceed $47,900,606. we have no speaker cards for either of these items. >> good afternoon. my name is albert ho. i am the acting program director for central subway. today i am here to apologize for these two amendments year. part of the reason that we retroactively, it is under my watch, we discovered that both these amendments, that was presented here was overlooked as part of our board authority.

again, both these contracts was brought to this board in 2011 for approval. subsequently, they were moved to the of supervisors for a board of supervisor approval. under the normal circumstances, we've been issuing contract mods associated with that. when we are working on the last mod, model number foxtrap. we were advised that under the charter amendment, any contract mod over half a million dollars, that has gone to the board of supervisors, needs go back to the board of supervisors for their approval. because of those reasons, i am here to retroactively seek approval for two of these mods and subsequently, the third mod which is currently active, just in general, the first mod is for additional services for each ntv joint service. there are two parts. one is a design analysis for the

lowering of the tunnel and the railofe. this occurred four or five years ago when we are looking at the rail profile under market street railway. the second is related to this contract that dealt with central subway projects but also jobs related to the main part of the metro. a lot of the tmc related design efforts, and other efforts as part of the main work. this contract, the majority of the cost associated with this was for those activities. all these works have been done already, as i mentioned, a couple years old. that is part of amendment six. the amendment 14 the element is actually to lower the chinatown station. part of the reason why we need to lower the station is to get into better soil so we can, when we deal into the tunnel, that we have a better condition so we will reduce the settlement

around the area. that is the purpose. the fifth amendment we are here for a, which is currently active, is basically, as you know, the chinatown station is mine complete which is a very exciting for central subway. part of the reason why we were able to finish it, even though it delayed our jobs but we did it safely, and in a way that it is minimizing the settlement of the surrounding area. we were able to get some services from experts that basically was at the interface as we did the mining. that is very important. part of the reason why we needed to do that as we wanted to ensure the safety of the mining activity. i think that is money well spent, given the different circumstances. as we look forward to moving forward, in the program, the mining is behind us. all we can do is accelerate to finish the work at hand. that is what we are trying to do. part of the 6 million that is

here is actually to retroactively help pay for some of those activities. the other thing is, dealing with the current contract, we have had a lot of open questions and rfi submittals. the original aspect does estimate was about 1200 rfi that we thought we would get and about 2,000 submittal. subsequently, the amount of rfi has gone up double. in essence, what we plan, the cost has gone up twice and the submittal has gone up 50%. all that's required additional support services. beyond that, the program is one year later than what we originally determined. all those factors add up to us trying to extend the contract for the main designer and construction support service for the station element of the job. that is really what i am here for. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much. i am sorry that you feel you are here to apologize. i am pleased you are here.

i totally intend to support these and have the opportunity to tour the chinatown station not too long ago and it is a marvel what is going on there. it is invisible to the community at large. anybody who sees that station, will be impressed with what we accomplished and what has been done down there. if i have any questions, the staff reports were very well written. do i have a motion to approve? and do i have a second? all in favour to approve both 13 and 14. and he opposed? thank you again for coming. thank you for all the work you have been done for the caltrain projects and from everything i here, you are doing a great job and everyone speaks very highly of you. that concludes the business before you today. >> chairman brinkman: good, thank you. we are adjourned. thank you for spending your to stay with us.

>> clerk: good afternoon. welcome to our june 4, 2018, land use committee meeting i'm katy tang. to my left, supervisor safai and i think we'll be joined by supervisor kim in a moment. our clerk is erica major. madam clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. any documents to be submitted in

the file submitted to the clerk. they will be on the june 4 agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor tang: let call item 1. >> clerk: to re-authorizing the section 210 concerning new production, distribution and repair space and development of new production and distribution and repair appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: afterwards, we'll have planning staff after the presentation. >> thank you, chair, tang. and good afternoon. good afternoon to you, as well, supervisor safai. i'm an aide in malia cohen's office. and we're here to ask for your support for item 1, which supervisor legislation designed to incentivize permanently affordable pdr space. it works somewhat like on-site affordable housing model.

higher-income, mixed use office space offset the cost of maintaining affordable p.d.r. it's a narrow region and p.d.r. spaces across the city. if we don't build these spaces, they will cease to exist and we want to reser as much p.d.r. space as we can. the legislation was -- this really is removing a sunset from a pilot program that was established in 2015. and it uses a cross-subsidation model, with the ground p.d.r. and the other 2/3 with office spaces. no residential allow. the project sponsor must submit a detailed business plan as specifying who the tenants will be, measures they're taking -- measures to ensure the building types are suitable for p.d.r. users and make an effort to work with the community and the city

on hiring workers from disadvantaged backgrounds. i will invite planner diego sanchez up to give a few more technical details about how this would work. >> supervisor tang: great. thank you. and also in your presentation, you could maybe sure results of the legislation and the -- upon its expiration, i'm sure it's helped many projects in the community. if you could share if it had expired what we would be prevented from doing. >> diego sanchez, planning department staff. superviso supervisors, the planning department heard this may 3. several members of the public testified to show their support and how successful it's been at 100 hooper site. several commissioners remarked, e e expressing their gratitude to supervisor cohen for establishing this and they voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. that's the report from planning

commission. if you have further details, we can fill those in as well. thank you. >> supervisor tang: do we have any questions, comments? okay. seems like it's a good thing. so we'll good to public comment on item 1. any members of the public that wish to speak, please come on up. >> supervisors, kate service, sf maid and i will just answer directly as the project sponsor and now owner of 150 hooper, which is part of the 100 hooper campus. this legislation is really the only tool we have right now to incentivize new construction. and very importantly, on sites that are basically empty. these are p.d.r. sites that there is nothing usable and this is really adding density and making it possible for these kinds of projects to pencil. 150 hooper itself, which is a portion of the 100 hooper project, will be open actual

later this summer. it's four stories, 60,000 square feet of significantly below-market space it will house dozens of manufacturers with guaranteed more than 60% of their employees across the building being low-income at the time of hire. so it's been a resounding success and we're very excited to see more of these kinds of projects move forward. we hope you will consider supporting this today. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members that wish to comment on item 1? okay. yes? come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thor sizloski, 1850 bryant project in the mission, a nonprofit building that we're building in the p.d.r. 1g different hit. we're in support of this legislation we'd like to see if can be considered to include affordable housing as part of this. and also child care, understanding that to

incentivize p.d.r. development in the city is to create public benefit as well, to allow things that create public benefit. if you can allow office, which is something that will generate income for the project, which is a public benefit. so just wanted to submit that for your consideration. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment on item 1? seeing none, public comment is now closed. we're joined by supervisor kim. can we have a motion on item 1? >> i would like to make a motion to send it to full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: we can do that without objection. so moved. thank you very much. madam clerk, item 2, please. lerk citem 2 a president lose authorizing the continued operation of the navigation center located at 1950 mission street through september 30, 2018, and the continued operation of navigation center located at 20 12th street through december 31, 2021.

>> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and this is an item that is sponsored by the mayor's office and supervisor kim, i don't know if she wanted to mke any opening remarks? do you -- okay. >> supervisor kim: thank you, colleagues. this is just the extension of two of our first navigation centers at 1915 mission and at the civic center hotel. because the construction will not start as originally anticipated, we're just temporarily extending 1915 mission until september 30 of this year and continue the operation of our civic center navigation center through december 31, 2021. this ensures as we're waiting for construction to begin, that vacant sites are not being left unused and continuing to house people that live on our streets at the navigation center. as soon as construction is ready to go and ready to build the

housing at 1915 mission, it will be 100% affordable housing for families and that the space will be available and we will have our other navigation centers, which are currently under construction, ready to open. we do have the department of homelessness and supportive services here as well. not sure if you want to make any comments. >> supervisor tang: with that, we'll bring up emil cohen. >> thank you, supervisors. as supervisor kim said, this resolution before you will extend operations at the original 1950 mission street and civic center hotel. you all are quite familiar with what navigation centers are, so i won't go into much detail. the 1950 mission street navigation center opened in march, 2015. it launched our building other centers. it's been part of a solution to address street homelessness. the development on site has been

delayed until at least fall of this year. we're proposing to extend our operations there until the end of september, which will allow the replacement site to open in time, so guests that remain at that navigation center can transition and so that we don't have an ongoing, vacant parcel at 1950 mission. civic center hotel is a 93-room former hotel being operated as navigation center. it will be developed into housing and the construction has been delayed and they don't anticipate beginning the construction on that site until the enf 2021, so we're proposing to continue the use of the site as a navigation center until they're ready to break down. replacement sites that -- or currently sites we're currently working on in terms of navigation centers, bayshore navigation center will have 128 beds. quinn navigation center will have 125 beds.

and the soma navigation center at 5th and bryant will have 86 beds. pacity and preserve the space available to do so. articulates the extensions that we're reqstg and this this articulates how many people have been served at each of the navigation center sites since opening. as you can see, the programs are having impact for critical people unsheltered in our community and we want to continue this as long as possible. happy to take any questions that you might have. >> supervisor tang: great. thank you for the update. questions and comments? seeing none, i know we've talked about a lot of these centers and want to thank the department for all of the work on this. at this time, we'll open up item 2 to public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak, please come on up.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dale seymour. long time person in the city of san francisco and in the tenderloin. spent 18 of my long time years homeless, living out on the streets. so i know a little bout ab this situation with navigation centers. so now i run a school that hopes formerly homeless people that gets their lives together and there's a good number of my students that are living in navigation centers, so they're a very important part of the fabric of the city. i just spoke at a land use summit last week in seattle, washington, and almost every question was directed at our naviion centers. so we really should realize what a gem we have in these navigation centers. the navigation center civic center when i was homeless, i lived in there. the department of homelessness put me in there for two years. so i know the importance of having a place to call yourself

home, even if just for a few more days than we're expecting it to be. both of the navigation centers, actually improve the neighborhoods. i know what civic center was before it game a navigation center. that street was nothing nice whatsoever. i know what mission was before the navigation centers. some people that are protesting it say the navigation center brought all of that population to the mission. no, it didn't. no, it didn't. that population washere way before. and it's people that are in the navigation system that go in and out and mind their own business and don't bother anyone and they're actually improving their lives. so whatever you can do to keep this extension going until september, we may have to be here again in september in case construction doesn't start. i don't want to see that block being vacant not one day for anything. thank you for your congratulations. -- thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon. my name is annotte leonard wiki

and we're with community partnership. we're here to support the centers in san francisco. the civic center has been a safe respite for 336 street homeless adults. we've served folks that otherwise would not access shelters, including 125 women and transgender women that are particularly vulnerable living on the streets. and we have 46 participants that identify as veterans. housing takes time and it's a limited resource, but in our time at civic center, we've ensured that 153 formerly homeless adults are now in safe and permanent housing. that's 58% of our total. prior to coming a navigation center, the neighborhood wasn't so great. the ground floor was mostly boarded up windows and neighbors expressed concerns about quality

of life and safety issues. with our navigation center in place, the entire ground floor is used. it's light and bright and we've rejuvenated the block and addressed concerns. removing the civic center would create opportunity form the community to erode. continued support enables us as a prior to focus on the folks meant to be serving. the continued operation as navigation centers and civic center navigation center in particular displays to the community that serving people experiencing homelessness with respect and is aing nitty is a san francisco priority. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dennis mccray and i'm the director of shelters for episcopal community services. we are the operator of the 1950 mission street navigation center.

as you can see from the statistics, we serve nearly 2,000 people there and we continue to serve people. we have 75 beds there right now. we are -- we are aware that there has been some concern about the impact that the navigation center on the immediate neighborhood where the navigation center is located. we actually are quite diligent about making sure that the immediate landscape around the navigation center is kept as decongested as possible. 95% of the people you may see on that block are already housed. and they have no connection to the navigation center. so we are diligent in making sure that staff go out every day. we clean up every hour. they go out on a regular basis to ask folks to move on.

when we see a tent out there, we immediately call the hot team, to have them come and address folks and see if they are actually interested in services. we have an incredible relationship with the san francisco police department and they come by quite often. and we've been putting up no loitering signs outside. so we will continue to do due diligence to make sure that that area is kept clear. thank you. >> how you doing? i'm joseph livingston. i stay at the navigation. it's a good program. i was homeless. i've been homeless since '95. and they're helping me find a place. i think you should keep that. no don't put no other buildings up because you need buildings like that so they can house

people. if you don't have buildings like that, how they going to get housing? you put it in places you trying to build, you know what imean? keep the place. they doing a good job. and them people that hang out front, they've been hanging out there since that was a school. police didn't get them away from there then. they're not trying now. they're trying to make us look bad. thank you. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is george agler, i'm a resident over there at navigation center. now they help people that want the help. and they have helped me so much. i wish there was more of them. it's great. and -- excuse me. you don't know how much they've helped me. and i wish there was more of them, you know, to help everybody that wants it, you

know? an extension would be great to help everybody else like they helped me. they helped me tremendously get off the street and try to get a roof over my head. it's -- they're doing so much work for us, you know? and i want you to understand how i feel in my heart for the place. if you would just think about it. it gets a lot of people off the streets and puts a roof over their head and they help so much the people that want it and a lot of people want it. and the people that are hanging in front and stuff like that, i imagine they've been there. i don't know. but they don't get involved in our stuff. the people coming out there, they come out there and clean the area, to make sure everything's right, you know, for the residents that live in there. and i just -- my heart wishes that you would give the extension and it would carry on,

you know? the navigation center has done so much for everybody there, especially for me, you know? thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. ar other members of the public that wish to comment on item two? please -- please come on up, if you would like to speak on item two. >> my name is michael rodriguez. and i'm a resident at the navigation center. i've been homeless for five or six years, directly in this neighborhood. if there wouldn't have been a navigation center, i wouldn't have been able to get myself get together again. we've had focus and focus on the things that we need in the community. i've worked with the hot team to show them where the encampments are at. in reality, they don't have enough help. there are not enough facilities

to house everybody. there's not enough housing. we get circulated. we go in and get cleaned up and try to work on our paperwork and work on housing. if there is no housing, there is nothing they can do. we go back on the streets again and go back to the same camps. it's just a circle. and i think it's terrible that people are trying to criminalize housing, criminalize being homeless. you know, what we need is some affordable housing. i mean, who can afford $3,000 to $4,000 for a 1-bedroom. i don't make that much money in two months. so, yes, i believe that the navigation center needs some kind of extension and maybe even open up other facilities to help us get us off the streets.

>> supervisor tang: thank you very much for sharing that. any other members of the public, please come up for item 2. >> i guess you got to hear some opposition sometime. i guess my problem with the navigation center is is the city and county of san francisco is not trained in standards of care in the contract. jeff kaczynski and his people

have actually blocked the monitoring committee of doing inspections of the navigation center. so we're at a point where we don't really know what's happening and i don't know what -- i don't know if the city auditor has done another audit to see what's happening, how long have been stayed, what type of services are happening. we just have a lot of problems because the grievance policy, the shelter extension policy, we -- it's just -- it just seems like they've thrown all of the protections with the navigation centers out the window. all of them. the shelter extension policy. the grievance policy. the shelter training manual. it's an excessive list of them

just throwing out laws to protect the homeless. we -- this is a horrible direction that san francisco has taken where we can dump homeless people somewhere and just ignore the laws and protections that people have fought five, 10, or more years for. i think i just really believe that you should do something as to how jeff kaczynski and episcopal services of san francisco has refused overtly to follow the laws of -- and their contract of the city and county of san francisco. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 2? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions, further comments on item 2? okay. seeing none, can we get a motion

to pass this forward with positive recommendation as a committee report? >> supervisor safai: so moved. >> supervisor tang: okay. we'll could that without objection. thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, any other items for us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. we're adjourned. ♪ >> i am so looking forward to the street fair tomorrow. >> it is in the mission, how are we going to get there? we are not driving. >> well what do you suggest?

>> there are a lot of great transportation choices in the city and there is one place to find them all, sfnta.com. >> sfmta.com. >> it is the walking parking, and riding muni and it is all here in one place. >> sitting in front of my computer waiting transportation options that is not exactly how i want to spend my saturday night. >> the new sfmta.com is mobile friendly, it works great on a tablet, smart phone or a lap top, it is built to go wherever we go. >> cool. >> but, let's just take the same route tomorrow that we always take, okay? >> it might be much more fun to ride our bikes. >> i am going to be way too tired to ride all the way home. >> okay, how about this, we can ride our bikes there and then we can take muni home and it even shows us how to take the

bikes on the bus, so simple right here on my phone. >> neat. we can finish making travel plans over dinner, now let's go eat. >> how about about that organic vegan gluten free rest rft. >> can't we go to the food truck. >> do you want to walk or take a taxi. >> there is an alert right here telling us there is heavy traffic in soma. >> let's walk there and then take a taxi or muni back. >> that new website gives us a lot of options. >> it sure does and we can use it again next weekend when we go to see the giants. there is a new destination section on the website that shows us how to get to at&t park. >> there is a section, and account alerts and information on parking and all kinds of stuff, it is so easy to use that even you can use it. >> that is smart. >> are you giving me a compliment. >> i think that i am.

>> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. sfmta.com. access useful information, any

su >> -- and can you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance]