[roll call] >> item two, approval of minutes of the march 26th, 2019 meeting. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> the minutes have been approved. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america,... >> please be advised the ring

and use of cell phones and pagers in similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited in the meeting. please be advised the chairman ordered the removal from the meeting room with any person responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing electronic device. a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comment on each agenda item unless the board commissioner adopts a shorter period on any item. item six, item five, public comment on items not listed on the agenda. >> we have a few speaker cards. janet lawson... >> good afternoon. i want to talk about the elephant in the room, and it will not be comfortable. my time is short, so i will be as distinct as i can.

at the last part commission meeting, i remember that a commissioner came out, took a seat, and made a point of telling us that he was still only in favor of this project and recommended we accept our moral imperative to help those less fortunate, but i thought who is this gentleman, in the very first hit i got was a spread in out a living magazine talking about how they are political power couple who have posted fundraisers and they have a spectacular mansion end quote. it was also where i came across the name of a political super pac call progress san francisco which led to an article describing a group of super elite billionaires and millionaires, many of whom live in districts one and two who can bundle their funds, they're comfortable -- the political contributions to the super pack that would normally be illegal, and sent thousands and millions of dollars into other campaigns.

i can't help but think that -- first, i can't help but see the irony and san francisco is fun groups that are yelling at us and paying for some of their things, and probably we could have them arrested if any of them showed up at their home for the fundraiser. what i am going to say, after noticing that an unelected politically appointed official, was also a conservative for san francisco and has publicly stated his support both politically and financially for the mayor, and her upcoming election, the light went off. i was always wondering, what made this piece of property so different than anything else in the city, and that is because it is something that no one can touch, and a politically connected ally is in a position to persuade the board to fulfil his request to, and there's nothing any of us can do about that. so while i am here, and because

there is so much surrounding this, i don't think it is an appropriate to ask him to recuse himself from voting on this lease so that -- i'm sure he understands that this transparency and this project, as well as in the mayor's office are critical to this process, and there should be no question of a person -- personal relationships casting even more shade over this thing, because in the world of franklin roosevelt, in politics, there are no coincidences, and if this isn't politics, i ask you what it is thank you. [applause] >> thank you. diana than alan.

>> hi, my name is diana drew. i have a solution to this problem. i think the navigation center should be built in front of city hall. >> speak into the microphone, please. >> the navigation center should be built across the street from city hall. i believe that's where a navigation center used to be. [applause] >> i think it will better serve the homeless they are because there was a higher density of homeless people they are then there is here, and also, it would be right across the street from air breed so she can view and observe what progress they are making, she can make it as big as she wants, and you will get a lot of support from people from this area. i am not saying we shouldn't build one, i am saying it needs to be more thoughtful as to where it is, also with the good neighbor contract, i believe

there needs to be an independent third party with metrics. there needs to be fiscal penalties for recourse, it also needs to be a cause for eviction of the centre if it doesn't hold up its end of the deal. it was mentioned about san francisco police department, the patrol -- that perfect -- patrol four times a day, that is every six hours, how many officers will that be, and the fact that they are starting talk about controls, basically they say this will be a problem. the fact that a navigation center at city hall should be able to serve the mayor's purpose as as far as accounting for the number of beds she wants to do, it will be central to a lots of facilities in that area. she will have the capability of keeping a good eye on it because i don't know how convenient it will be for her to come, we i think we had better uses for

that possibly -- property to help assist tourism which is important for san francisco and to put something appropriately in the middle of sports fans, highly dense residence areas, with vulnerable people such as children and seniors, we have all sorts of foot traffic up and down the streets, i am just very concerned about what kind of message we are sending if we are not thoughtful about where we are placing the navigation center. i would hope that the portable think about better uses for using it, and also if we are a democracy, i firmly believe that there should be a vote of the residents who actually live there who would be impacted, because we have to abide by what is in our environment, and for people to come and be best from other neighborhoods to be supportive of it is a bit of a hypocrisy because if they want it they're in their back yard, great, but right now, we have so

many, i believe we have at least two navigation centers in district six, so we will talk about equitable distribution, you know, it is not even math, it is simple arithmetic his, i think they need to start looking in other places. thank you very much. [applause]. >> thank you. [applause] >> in 1968, the burton act authorized all the lands that was created from our seawall was transferred from the state to the city of san francisco. the state, however, wanted to make sure their interests were insured. one of the first concerns they had was that the current or any future mayor would take the land and use it in ways detrimental to maintaining the court -- the port. to protect against this, this commission was created, okay. the port commission became the caretakers of all the lands that was formerly owned by the state,

and the commission is being placed in the responsibility where they must take the interest of the state and put them above the interest of the city. at the second check and balance, there was an amendment process to the burton act that was allowed, and so that's been used 20 times, something that has been done regularly, and during that amendment process, the state land use commission gets to weigh in on if any amendments gets to be approved. so the port has actually been doing a great job here with seawall lot 330. they had an open meeting on february 26th, they had a plan , it is on the website. the media on the public can go look at that. one recommendation to consider as an r.f.p. process. the mayor decided that she was going to use that property for her own purposes. the mayor also took a page out of the president's playbook, and

passed fast-track legislation to remove neighborhood input and feedback by declaring an emergency. [applause] >> in my akin judge opinion, her case will have a serious detrimental effect on the commerce and maritime use in this area, those are the focus points of the burton act for which this commission has been created to uphold. having our our overflow crews ship customers have the first impression of san francisco when getting off their boat, walking over needles and 200 homeless laying about will only be one example to the impact of commerce from tourism. all we need is one incident from the tens of thousands of giant fans passing the property on a game night for the impact of this decision to be felt. we have already had conferences cancelled from the center because of concerns of safety in that area.

the port commission is creating a real possibility of the future cancellations of crews ships making port stops intent san francisco by placing so many drug addicted homeless people in this location. i have three alternative recommendations to the port for the upcoming april 23rd meeting. one, please consider not approving the memorandum of understanding at all. two -- [applause] >> twelve/, tell the mayor that the r.f.p. process must be completed. we have already started it, you will find out the fair market value of what is your most valuable piece of undeveloped property, and i am almost done, number 3, tell the mayor she has to go through the amendment process, at least the state's interest -- >> thank you, thank you very much. [applause]

>> hello, my name is garrett law i have been looking at this and talking to residents, trying to be open and see what is going on , and, you know, if they put this thing there, with 225 beds, jeff kaczynski says that will be about 750 touch at 1,000 people transiting through our neighborhood per year, and we are a small neighborhood, when i moved there 15 years ago, it was a bunch of warehouses and a few condominiums. today, you have the giants stadium, you have the marina, and on the floor i live, over half the residents have children under three years old. this is becoming a real neighborhood, there's a bunch of old folks like me. fifteen years ago, you know, but today, there are young families there and this doesn't fit with young families. i'm sorry, but they have to find another place for this, for a

very large navigation center. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am a pediatric dentist in san francisco for 28 years, and my biggest concern is about the children and their families. we have the highest concentration of children, schools, a day care centers in districts six, and this is not the appropriate place to put it. we already have a two navigation centers in districts six, and i think until every district gets a navigation center, i don't believe we should be taking on a third one. i also think it is inappropriate that the proper permitting isn't having to go through, that they pass where they can just build this center. if any one of us wanted to build a kitchen or add onto our home, go take a heck of a lot longer

than three or four months. i think the fact that it is right near all the giants fans, the warriors fans, it is just not the place to have it. i think crissy field has a huge parking lots. we could easily put one at the crissy field parking lot. we could probably put one in golden gate park. there are a lot of places to put one, by the embarcadero with all of the children in the schools, and the daycare centers, it is not the appropriate place. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have been living in the south beach since 2001, and i have four concerns about the navigation system. one is the safety of the general public, another one is safety of the homeless, and safety of the

nearby residents, and the effectiveness of the navigation center model, and safety of the general public, the navigation center is 30 feet from current munimobile rail and diagonally from the open -- there is no barrier for any want to get onto the rail, and people of high on drugs don't behave predictably or rationally, what if a person high on drugs decided to push a passenger down to the checks from the incoming munimobile train? or jump in front of an incoming munimobile train. and what about the belongings of this person got stuck on the track of the train and the train can derail? this could be a public safety hazard potentially. i put pictures on the second page. my second concern is the safety of the homeless.

the city block is one of the busiest blocks in the city, and you have a profitably intersection with brian and bill to through the intersection have a block between brian and me. and four way intersection between brain as embarcadero in addition to that, there's two more munimobile checks. that makes it six interceptions. we all have seen homeless people cross streets with no regards for traffic lights, and imagine after giants came, a junk fan driving from the game and rushing to get onto the bridge and hits a homeless person who does not -- it is an accident waiting to happen. my third concern is the safety of the residents next door, and according to mr. jeff kaczynski, he said only one third of the homeless people are drug addicts , let's use this number, and put yourself in our she was, how would you feel if you said, i will put 20 homeless people next to your house? and seven tee of them are drug

addicts, and they are free to roam around a neighborhood 24 hours a day and they're allowed to sit by and do drugs outside your door, again, 70 drug addicts, allowed to do jobs outside your door, by the way, don't worry, we have police to patrol the area four times a day [laughter] [applause] >> i'm sorry, it is not your turn. >> also, and the effectiveness of navigation center models, and none of these are haters, we are just concerned residents, we embrace the foundation, and they are good neighbors, they contribute to the neighborhood, we feel safe, we use their various, i go to their café, i buy christmas trees from them every year. >> thank you, thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> tommy clark and then t.j.

>> my name is connie clark. i am a very long time resident of south beach. i moved in in 1996 into the oriental warehouse when it really was more of a commercial neighborhood, and i was a group of women and parents who took our toddler. >> speaker-04: the board of supervisors in 2,000 to argue for the top slots that the giants help put in, and then we argued that south beach was in the transition, becoming a multigenerational neighborhood, so it started a long time ago, it is not a fly-by-night neighborhood, we are in established group of residents. i question the model of the navigation center. homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness, these are problems that many of us have in our own families, and people with means can sense they family members to mountain vista or to some other retreat so they can

get the support that they need, these are smaller groups of people, san francisco general has a very small, i guess it is only 15 beds for people who are mentally ill and those who are substance abusers, it seems like when you scale it to that small of a model, it is much more effective. i just don't understand how it would work with the 200 bed facility with the kinds of intensive services that mentally ill and substance abusers need, thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> hello, i would like to start by saying that i supported the navigation centers at fifth and bryant, i supported it on the van and s., but there are lots

of homeless there and there aren't many homeless here. all those cities to statistics citing the fact that crime did not go up in those neighborhoods it's because you're not transporting a large group of homeless from one area to another, so it defies reason to me to believe that crime will not go up if they filled this navigation center here. my second point is, you know, the city has stated numerous times, they use only three criteria when choosing this site the criteria for the size of the location, availability of electricity and plumbing, and whether it is owned by the city, nothing else, they didn't consider the number of families, they didn't consider again, the actual number of homeless, i would like -- i bike every day

from work here and i just across the street, account on average two homeless people, they don't consider that, the police response time to the neighborhood is dreadful, i mentioned that last time i spoke , but they don't think about any of these things, they only consider those three criteria. those are the only three criteria that you look at, yes, this is a good site, but there are other criteria in the world, and i think at this point, if they looked at some other criteria, there was no way they would pick this site, it just doesn't make sense, it really doesn't, and i think now they are essentially committed to, they can't back down because it would look bad to certain voters , so they are trying to ram this through. it will be stuck in court for a year, two years, three years, so

if your goal is to help homeless people as soon as possible, this isn't going to do that, it really just doesn't make sense at this site. okay, that's all i had to say, we can stop it here, save the city a lot of time and money and we can all come together and find a better site, i just think that would be much more positive for everybody. [applause]. >> thank you. [indiscernible] >> hello, and thank you so many of the neighborhood to speak. much of what i wanted to say has already been said, an

overwhelming number of the community has voiced my concerns , i just have a few more pick the city's plan to relocate up to 225 homeless people into an area where they are currently less than approximately 50 people is both reckless and unfair. district six has supported navigation centers. we have two already in our district which is far more than any other district, when he also good neighbors to the delancey street project and the homeless center. now it is time for all districts in san francisco to do as the mayor said in step up and serve the homeless in this crisis. this past friday the giants celebrated their home opener. i watched as hundreds and perhaps thousands of tourists, fence, families with strollers and residents hurried along the embarcadero where the navigation center is proposed -- proposed to be located. they were walking along one of the most beautiful, open, and green spaces in all of san

francisco. this area is not only an important tourist destination and business destination, but it is the main area where we, as neighbors, gather to exercise, walk our pets, hurry to work in the financial district, and to take our children to the playgrounds. it is difficult for me to overstate the negative and costly impact such a large navigation center would have for the hundreds of tourists who visit daily, and the thousands, the approximately 10,000 residents who live within a three block area of this navigation center in the area which we call home. this dense residential and tourist location is simply the wrong site for a navigation center. [applause] >> hello. my name is sam. since the last board meeting i attended, i found out one of my

family members has recently relapsed and has become an addict again. he was last seen stealing packages off the front packages -- front porches. my college roommate and soccer team member is also homeless because of her own homeless issues. i am here because i live next to sewall lot 330, yet there is a homeless crisis a requires attention but not every plan proposed to address a crisis is a good idea. that is the part we have to remember. this is a crisis for our community concert a public safety pick a crisis does not legitimize potential hearings where you pretend to listen to us, but tell us about modular toilets instead of answering questions about needle disposal. [applause] they are not entitled to make

irresponsible decisions about our public safety this is a densely property -- does the populated neighborhood. there are many parks within 1 mile. keep this in mind as you consider a center that will help addicts but will require them to use their needles on our sidewalks and in the surrounding parks facilities. [applause] >> you are turning our embarcadero pedestrian highway into their injection site. this is insanely responsible decision-making when you consider the concentration of the schools daycare is, in children in the space of a navigation center. speaking of credibility, what is undeniable is the norman -- in the immediate vicinity is a sidewalk littered with tents, individuals, feces, and all matter of embedded suitcases and items. if you want to see my photos, i will share them with you, but i

don't think everyone needs to see them because everyone knows that is the case. for the city and the h.s.h. to save the good neighbor because in any capacity undermines the credibility. they fail these commitment stately. -- daily. they continue to cite the good neighbor because knowing it is an anti- promise. they are willing to deceive us on the simple commitments, how do we believe anything they say? i believe everyone in this room wants to help this homeless -- help the homeless, but not every idea is proposed to help pick any crisis can be created if irresponsible decision-making is employed. if i could get my friends and family into navigation centers, i went, but i would not put them at the place you're talking about because of the demons they battle. i know what i'm talking about, i have seen it firsthand. makes me responsible and i asked for the same decision-making out of you guys and out of the mayor [applause]

barbara raymond. >> good afternoon, i would like to thank the commissioners for being here to listen to our concerns. i'm sorry, i will concerns regarding the proposed 225 bed homeless center. my name is barbara raymond, i live at 301 bryant street and i have been there for 17 years. i am a san franciscan, born and raised. my question to you today is that what is in it for the board -- the port of san francisco? an overwhelming outcry from homeowners and business leaders have already spotlighted the inappropriate size, hasty planning, and lack of public information from the mayor's office, lack of budget specifics over the projected for a five year plan. if you build it, many more homeless will find a home along the arc -- embarcadero with the expected undocumented problems that accompany living on the streets.

filth, tents, disease, crime, and more drugs. i have been around long enough to remember the outcry of the 1959 revolts that stops the broadway street extension of the embarcadero freeway. that outcry, and the united public's voice of over 30,000 san franciscans paved the way for the port to develop the embarcadero as a world-class destination. the walkable and well integrated community for young and old alike. why would you go back to the dark days of skid row as the embarcadero was and will be again if you let this happen instead of suggesting other sentences neighborhoods that will have the same objections, i ask you to consider an alternate

, a bit crazy plan that only a port city could offer. refurbish a ship. he would have beds, cafeteria, sanitary facilities, and even medical options. think of the mercy ship, the ships of hope that service people in need around the world with world-class treatment and results. encourage charitable and corporate support. welcome medical and social services, if you have the vision for a plan like this, they will come. be a visionary leader into a brighter future instead of supporting a shortsighted and retrograde plan that forces san francisco back into a darker time. engage in something that could solve the homeless problem instead of relocating it from one place to another, and right

now, you are thinking of putting it in an area that has a stunning and commercially rich district in san francisco. you have that power, think and act beyond the politics. >> thank you. [applause] >> port commissioners, i spoke to last month in opposition to the center on sewall 330. 20 yards from a 3-year-old's son 's bedroom. i heard the vice president state in our last meeting a few weeks ago that with politicians, you have to be relentless, knock on their doors, beat them down. so i'm here again today to persistently voice my concern over the impact that this center will have on the safety of children, and to report to you that the city's politicians are not listening to our concerns. my fear is not of the homeless themselves, but if the type of

people the area will attract. drug dealers and those with substance abuse problems, which will pose risks to the safety of hundreds of small children who not only live in the area, but regularly spend time in our neighborhood. over the last month, residents from the area have repeatedly expressed concerns and posed questions to our civic leaders about the size, safety, and drug use policy, at our questions remain unanswered. you probably heard about the community meeting last wednesday in which we were not allowed to speak, our queries were censored , in fact, i know this because my own question about police patrols wasn't even discussed. over the last month, i have attended eight public meetings on this topic, it is clear to me that the city is not engaging in good faith with the community. their plan continues to lack any detail, and instead they have overweighted their time to discussing things like the color of the walls.

the mayor has recognized that our communities very divided on this issue. it is a difficult situation, and the port is being put right in the middle of it, but it is not your responsibility to address the concerns of residence, that is the responsibility of the mayor. however, it is within your power to help this progress and after the city to pause to conduct necessary due diligence to determine the lasting effects that this center would have on port property. port commissioners, i ask you today to extend your decision on this proposal to a later date. once a city has had more time to properly engage with the community, with more time, i believe that we can work together to find a location that will not jeopardize the safety of children.

>> hello. my name is eleanor. my husband and i moved into the watermark to start our family. we have a 14-year-old son and another child attending this year. is navigation center is a site were my son will ride his bike. we really wanted wanted to be open-minded. we drove past 12-foot of the existing navigation centers on bryant street and ness. multiple times of the day, multiple weeks of the day. each time, we would fear forever son and our family. we saw individuals loiter outside or nearby the building who are intoxicated, likely on substances, mentally unstable, screaming profanities, half nude , these are individuals that my son would likely encounter as he tried to write his bike around the block.

we saw syringes around the block , we saw what looked like to be human feces within the same area, we really asked ourselves, how can that be our child's front yard, how can we let him go outside, take walks, take bike rides, meet up with his friends? in our neighborhoods, we have only looked at the database just to know who our neighbors are, as a look at this navigation center, my questions around how will we know who our devious offenders? who are individuals who had histories of violence against children? we will not know that with the community coming and going. i ask you today to also consider the voice of the young children who cannot speak up here today, for their safety and for their childhood, thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff.

off the bat, my wife and i are strong believers that everybody deserves a second chance. we believe that nobody should be defined for life on their worst day. the best date i have is for 2008 back then, there are 6,500 homeless in san francisco, of which, 3% were sex offenders. f.y.i., the sewall lot has seven sex offenders to date within that same area.

and easily 10,000 residents within three blocks from sewall lot 330. and a rate of 60 some days per client per bed times 225 beds, times they file for your lease, it means over 5,200 and clients will pass through our neighborhood, using the 3% from a moment ago, check this out, 160 will be sex offenders, you hurry to me, 160 will be sex offenders. another way to put it, the shelter would bring over 20 times the number of current sex offenders into the neighborhood, that is unacceptable. [applause] >> they say they will work with referrals, which is very nice, and perhaps some of my numbers are off. i'm willing to stand corrected.

let's cut in half, only 80 sex offenders within ten blocks of residents. i would like a show of hands right now, who here would like to live for the next four years on the same block with 80 sex offenders? how about a one block away, how about 1212 blocks away, how about three blocks away, nobody. i'm not worried about me, i am a tall, a large, fact, middle-age, ugly guy, and that is no joking matter. [laughter]. >> that means that i am not a typical pray of sexual assault, all four of you are, many here are, this has not been fully vetted, there has been no consultation with stakeholders,

i urge you to send this project back to the proverbial drawing boards. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners , my name is john cornwell, and i may 25 year vest into port side across the street from sewall lodge 330. my family came to san francisco almost 100 years ago and worked on the waterfront. my grandfather was a merchant marine, my mom was born here, my kids are born here, so i am invested, in fact,, i participated in a lot of local groups, right across the boundary, across bryant street is something called the east, community benefit district, and this was established to deal with a lot of the quality-of-life issues of homeless. we all have have voted to assess

ourselves additional property taxes, handle security to try and navigate, if you will, the homeless in the area into shelter services, the burden that you will be pushing on this nation, grassroots effort to improve the communities unfair. there is -- the city keeps mentioning that the center is meant to serve the local homeless problem, and therefore it is a community amenity, that is ridiculous. they cite the 311 call log and that they have hundreds of calls for homelessness, and they say, there must be a hundred of homeless there, which is completely ridiculous. the c.b.d. every night to his people that go out at 4:00 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. and do a night count, they know plus or -1 or two. they know exactly how many homeless are they are. they know their names. so the stuff about the safety that keeps for trying this that

this is a neighborhood serving amenity is absolute garbage. we know how many homeless are there, it is 12 or 13 on the other side of bryant and maybe that number on the other side. you will get maybe 20 to 25 of the problem that i would we want this in our neighborhood it. we have already provided a disproportionate amount of below-market housing, transitional housing a subsidized housing like no other district in the city does. [applause] >> these people are not local residents, okay. i am amazed that as part commissioners, you'd want to have this adjacency yourselves. you already have a problem with homelessness on the terms of the port, not to bring this up, but

kate steinway a guy who shot terry i to see with my kids pick my five and 8-year-old went to school and we saw this guy rising around before three days before this happens. you have already directly experienced -- it it is the understatement of the century, a huge p.r. issue. this is not some abstract concept that the homeless are unsightly, they are a danger. i'm an easy want to put this thing right on the doorstep of your porch property. >> thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners i have attended several public meetings, and this is a first time i have had an opportunity to speak because of rules last week that people were not allowed to speak their minds and previously, the meeting i attended they did not get to everybody. thank you for allowing me this opportunity.

at the many proceedings i have attended, i have heard that no one in the neighborhood supports the navigation center. that is not correct. i live in this neighborhood, i walked past the slot every single day when i walk my dog. walking is my primary more -- mode of transportation, but in addition every day, i pass folks living on our streets. i pass them as a waking up and as i go through and pack up their bedding to hold until the evening. i have learned to i can greet, i've learned to i can chat with, and i have learned to is best to avoid. i support the navigation center. i believe we should construct it without doubt, without delay and without divisiveness, but it is this last item that is really important to discuss today. the proposal looks fine as far as it goes, but there are some really important thing is missing. where are the other five top ten facilities that the city will need to accomplish its objectives? and where is it in the plan that

justifies calling this a temporary facility that will be gone within just a few years. i don't see anything on the back and that went replace this temporary facility. without a coherent, comprehensive plan that addresses these things, the proposal has no credibility, at a proposal with no credibility only feeds suspicions and evasiveness. at last week in charge of public meeting, someone was circulating a sheet that described the percentage of the city charge of shelter resources that are hosted by district six. i did not compile that, account vouch for it, but if it is true, it exhibits a shockingly unequal distribution of the burdens of dealing with adversity's homeless population here in district six. [applause] >> don't steal my time. >> i've heard that the search is still underway for sites for

navigation centers elsewhere in the city. the city is having trouble finding perfect sites that meet all the search criteria, i get it. the city faces hard choices about other locations and i get it, but based on the 35 years and working on development projects, i can assure you that the city's choices will not improve in time. the city needs to make those hard choices now, it needs to complete the comprehensive plan, and a suite of sights across the city that will proceed in the same general time frame. wide, without it, few in this community will believe that the city will follow through. and failure to follow through with centers and services across the city will result in intensifying and densifying the homeless population here in district six and in the vicinity of the proposed centre. it is also important to see the entire package now because the city may conclude it simply can't identify other sites in

other districts. >> thank you. >> can i finish the sentence, it is important to couple this proposal with other benefits to the community that would offset the disadvantages of shouldering such a disproportionate burden. >> thank you. >> burden -- [applause] >> my name is bruce, you have heard from a lot of the local residents that they are not in favor of the mega navigation center at sewall 313. they're worried about safety and cleanliness, crime, open drug use, the negative impact on tourism. my biggest concern is about crime, and open drug use, the people staying there are addicts

, atoms they cannot use and -- on premise, but they can use and are encouraged off premise, so what will happen, i'm worried about a great choice for them for a way to get the drugs will be right across the street on the wharf from delancey street, so you have heard about all of this from all the neighbors. i walk on the embarcadero every day, up and down, and the last few days, i just decided to talk to some of the people that rent from you, some of your renters, the businesses, they are on the west side and the east side. you have the eastside people, and i talk to people on the west side of the café, the harris alone, townsend bakery, crossroads café, rj's market,

those are all in the west side, of a south beach marina, java house, high dive, i can't possibly be done. [laughter] are all people who rent from you , and i mine is not -- it is somewhat anecdotal, but every person -- i did not get to every single one, but almost all of them. without question, every single one is against this navigation center. they're worried about the increase in crime and external drug use and tent cities. i don't know what you will do. it will be hard for you. you are trying to get someone to come into s.b. 38. i know you painted it and i'm sure you are negotiating with someone about that. you want somebody to improve high dive. he is not going to be happy if there is a lots of additional problems that we all think this

will cause, so if water bar or epic, if the business goes down 30%, what are you going to do? will you lower the rent and stuff, there's a lots of problems. the guy he was supposed to speak next is a friend of mine. he had a place at the navigation center on mission, and he had to leave because they crushed his business. >> thank you. [applause] >> neil saunders and then mar.

>> i have been a resident of south beach for over 15 years. i'm a member of see wag, so i'm pretty invested in this neighborhood. i am opposed to the navigation center, but what i would really like to ask today is you postpone the vote for april 23 rd to give a chance for the neighborhood to engage in a process that's being very quickly sort of moved along without adequate neighborhood inputs. there's three principal reasons i would like you to postpone its the first one has to do with your duty. the reason you are port commissioners and you solicit neighborhood feedback is to make certain uses of the port that don't adversely affect neighborhoods. this is a case where the fear in this room is palpable. you know what the neighborhood is concerned about. it is your job to keep them free from fear, to keep them safe, and by voting next week to approve this, you circumvent their ability and your ability to ensure that your duties are fulfilled.

the second reason i like you to consider postponing the votes next week is to consider the quality of life in that neighborhood. these are the people who make the city work. they go to work every day and they pay off their mortgage, they stay for retirement, they pay taxes, and they raise families. there isn't enough consideration of their quality of life in deciding upon this location. when the mayor chose this location, there was no consideration to the demographics of the area. it was a large lot where you could put beds. i ask you to postpone your votes next week so that you can consider the neighborhood's interest and they can get involved in the process and develop some mitigation measures , if you will. in the last reason would be political. if they don't convince you, consider mayor breed. she is deciding that -- dividing the city and come across as arrogant, stubborn, pictorial. that will become an albatross across her neck.

it will be part of her political legacy what she did to this neighborhood. if for no other reason that you want to support to mayor breed, consider postponing next week to ensure that she doesn't end up having that reputation and being really out of touch with the community i have 40 seconds. [applause] >> good afternoon. so my husband and i moved here eight years ago from marina into soma and brought our prop -- bought our property. we are very excited about building our home, building our family, we have succeeded so far we also have a puppy at home. i will give you a few instances of things that had happens. i have been punched, i was

walking with a few friends. a few months ago, i was walking with my child and family. just a few blocks away from port side again, and i was kicked really hard with no provocation whatsoever we talk about a navigation center, that is the phrasing that comes to mind. now we have to deal with -- now i have to deal with and think of my safety, there are many streets around our house, around parkside where i don't walk my dog because my friend charge of dog stepped on a syringe and had to spend $1,200, of course, dealing with the consequences, i am all for a navigation center, but this is a humble request. we don't know what we will do if there is one that opens at 500 feet from her house because honestly, i'm trying to get

navigate -- trying to get a school district, trying to get a day care, but at this point, where will we move? we will be housebound, can't get out of our houses if there are 100 mentally disturbed people as well as drug addicts staying right across our house. this is something that should be considered, and i am not alone in saying this. i have spoken to neighbors, i have tried to keep an open mind, i am all for the homeless, but not for drug users that will be giving three access to come in and stay with a no question asked policy. if you want to put up something like this, it should be the civic centre, or dogpatch industrial area or somewhere else, not where we we have 12 homeless people who are attacking us, and i feel like our data has been used against us. we're told to call 311. every time there is a homeless encounter, but it is the same call that we need for those 12 or 15 people. instead of solving a problem,

you are dumping 200 more on s. there has to be a whole lot more thought that goes into this, otherwise we with children and dogs, it is unlivable. it is not, i am not saying this out of nowhere, i have been seeing this first hand. i would like for this to be reconsidered. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is paul, i strongly oppose the proposed navigation center and i asked the commission to postpone the vote here until more diligence can be done. we are being told many things from the city, that we are expected to believe, that we know are not true. we are being told there were no other appropriate sights. we know there are many appropriate sites, with already water and sewage hooked up. we are being told there will not be any crime or loitering or drug use, all you have to do is

go on social media to see the various pictures all over the city outside the navigation center with drug use and loitering and we are being told it is temporary. in a prior meeting, temporary to meet up to 30 years in san francisco. south beach does not have a homeless problem at the moment, we are -- we are dramatically fewer than other districts. this will import hundreds into south beach, it will bring drug abuse, it will bring drug pushers, it will bring crime. the porch needs to slow down. they need to do the appropriate diligence. what effects will this have on south beach? how much crime increase? will sfpd be able to do anything they're already overwhelmed with the rest of their policing duties. if the port to rush is followed with this navigation center, it will greatly endanger the health and safety of the residents of south beach, soma and other areas.

i urge you to postpone the vote and do the appropriate diligence for the health and safety of the residents of this area. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is wallace lee. i have been to a couple of these meetings before, and i've heard several commissioners say that residents with concerns about the navigation center should bring those concerns to city hall, and the port sees itself more of a landlord, and isn't able to address the residents and their concerns. i completely understand that is a fair thing to say, but i'm here to tell you that we have been talking to the city and have received little real engagement. the mayor touch advice on the homelessness when asked at a neighborhood meeting whether the surrounding area is considered

when deciding where to build a navigation center, she quite forthrightly forthrightly said, because navigation centers haven't been shown to have negative impacts on this. and i hope we have shown in previous meetings and also today that at the very least, there is room for reasonable debate. you can't have constructive engagements with someone who refuses to acknowledge even the potential that navigation centers are associated with ill effects. you have probably heard about the community meeting the city held last wednesday at delancey street. residents there weren't allowed to speak. we were asked to submit written questions and quite frankly, they mocked us by answering written questions by what -- like what are the benefits of having a safe space to sleep? i think we are all on the same page there. we all know that it is good to have a safe place to sleep at night, so just the fact that

they brought that up as one of the questions shows that they are not concerned about the community's a real concern, it was reported that a resident approach the mayor who showed up at the meeting and try to ask her a question or try to bring up a concern, and she said, quote, i don't want to hear what you have to say. all this is to say is the city isn't listening and is striving a divisive narrative. anyone who raises concerns is labelled as anti- homeless, which is not true. i think that the rather respectful comments that have been made here to support as a result of the port being able to listen. i hope that the port will slow this process down because the city is using -- the speed at

which this is using to a resort -- to a to look at the community concerns. i hope they will delay the decision. >> thank you. [applause] >> is there any other public comment on items not listed on the agenda we come on up. -- agenda? come on up. >> sorry to prolong things. i'm alice rogers, and i want to second wallace's comments about the possibility of postponing this, and we realize that you are not -- you did not originate this proposal, what you are hearing it, but we need you to

an