topics and these are available for your review. the bulk of the appeal issues, in fact, relate to non-sequa related topics, such as project merits. while i will not be addressing these as they are not germane to the appeal proceeding, you have them in your packets. temporary and housing would be provided. the department of hope weatherness and supportive housing generally has not seen an increase in the amount of emergency services required in

the vicinity of navigation centres. calls for emergency services in the area are not expected to increase because of the availability of and connection to services through safe center programmes and staff caring for the clients. even if there were a small increase based on the needs of the population, it would not impact the calls in the area. calls would be at the site due to one location but this concentration would not constitute a significant effect. neighbors have expressed concern about an increase in noise from ambulance sirens. based on date provided by the department of emergency services, in the five months following opening of the civic centre, there were several priority 9-1-1 calls to the site, averaging 14 calls per

month. this is far less than one per day and that, from the navigation center, with the highest call volumes. now these types of calls include top priority police medical and fire calls where sirens were used. but even if it were one or so per day, the socia associated ne would not rise to the level of effect. although, fronted, it may be a nuisance to nearby residents. jeff kazinsky will talk about this in greater detail in his presentation that follows on behalf of the project sponsor. the project will replace 146-space parking lot on the site. the use of the spaces is likely to have generated traffic in the past and this project would mean less daily traffic. appellants raise add ne raised e

and parking is not considered a significant impact under se albuquerque ua. q auction. ua. it would be required to comply with the noise ordinance, the dust control ordinance, public work's standard construction measures and these would be implemented for the project. the appellant's claim that the ordinances would not be followed is spec co speculative. the second topic is the purpose and intent of the design process and waterfront design committee as provided in san francisco planning code section 240. the port has provided a memo that addresses this topic. to som summarize, the foundatiof the review process is the 1997 land use plan, specifically the companion document, the waterfront design and access element. the element contains urban

design, architectural urban and open space policies to guide the development of new waterfront parks, public access, facility developments. the plans overarching goal reunites sanfrancisco with the waterfront, highlighted the desire to ensure that long-term non-maritime developments are properly designed to enhance the 1:3waterfront as adjacent downtn areas. to establish an implementation procedure, to achieve these objectives, port and planning departments created the waterfront design review process administered by the waterfront design advisory committee. section 240 includes the member membership committee with the access elements and procedural requirements for the conduct of

the design review process. the goals, policies and design criteria in the element provide glance for long-term projects, rather than short-term leases. for these reasons, the proposed safe navigation centre does not require review by the waterfront stine advisory committee. a third point that i will reiterate from our appeal response relates to geotechnical issues. the appellants are concerned about the foundation types provided for the project. although the project is temporary in nature, it would be required to obtain a permit from the port chief's harbour engineer, who would require structural and geotechnical reports peer reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. the cheer harbour engineer for the port and public works are here to answer topics. the fourth topic is soil

contamination and this was mentioned by commenters. the project has been enrolled in the city's programme which routinely addresses projects on sites with potentially hazardous soil or ground water. in order to protect the public health and safety. the project will be required to comply with the programme and need compliance. the director of environmental health at dph is here today to answer questions regarding this matter. the fifth and final point that i will cover relates to an email that safe embarkadaro submitted. i was related for species specifically central coast steel head. the email does not explain how project would affect steelhead in the bay. it's about 200 feet away from the bay and is an existing paved

parking lot. as mentioned in our appeal response, there are required measures in place to protect against any impacts to bay waters. thus, no impact to central coast steelhead. in conclusion, for the reasons stated in our appeal response, and at this hearing, the department finds categorical exemption complies with sequa and chapter 31 of the administrative code and it's appropriately exempt from environmental review. while the department acknowledges the concerns raised in the appeal and in the public testimony today, the appellants have not provided any substantial evidence or expert opinion presenting a fair argument to refute the conclusion of the department. the department, therefore, recommends the board upholds the exemption determination and deny the appeal. in addition to the other city staff that i noted present here today, others are available for questions, including laura lynch

and joy retat. >> any questions? >> supervisor hainey in.>> y? >> for the other navigation centres across our city, were those similarly categorically exempt? >> through the chair, laura lynch, yes, the other centers reviewed by the city did receive cat go gor cal exemption.

>> can you talk about the relationship green this project and the additional restrictions and review requirements that might fall in under that district? >> through the chair, joy evert, district number 3 does provide for projects that are principlably permit and projects that require conditional use by the planning commission. it provides things such as conformance with the waterfront land use plan and design access plan. it and i requires any buildingst taper down into the barcadaro and provides open public space and consistent with the character of the vicinity. the planning department did determine that the project was principleblprinciple permitted s

not conflict with district number 3. port staff is here to answer any questions. >> any other uses on port property not subject to the additional review from the waterfront design adviser's committee? >> we have not had the design review for any temporary projects. the stine review is for permanent projects. it's about the way the building interacts with the surrounding environment. so it's for long-term development. and as examples of recent projects that have undergone

this review, the ferry building project, the projects of that nature. >> while i have you there and standing, one of the points brought up from the appellants is that this did not go through the proper channels through the port, the port director and can you respond? did this go through the proper chances achannels? >> one of the fundamentals o ofs that the burton act gives the port exclusive authority for what we call interim leases. they're looking for fisheries to bring people to the waterfront and enhance the bay. but we do a lot of interim leasing for properties that are

not ready for full development. there's capital issues, et cetera, and so the burton act provided the port the ain't to y for a tem of five years and up to an extension of five for a total of ten for the harbour fund to continue earning revenue and supporting the harbour. we have hundreds and hundreds of these kinds of leases that are interim in nature and they're not trust consistent. for those types of leases, we do not require stateland's commission approval. >> can you give an example? you said you have hundreds of leases like that in. >> so what is there currently? commuter parking, storage, business uses, and those are some of the examples. not restaurants, not entertainment venues, not the explorexploratorium.

we did consult with the stateland commission's staff just to go over our fair market rent, determination and let them know of our plans and we had a good conversation with stateland staff. >> i believe there was a requirement to receive a building permit from the chief's harbour engineer relating to some of the points around access and adequate access for emergency vehicles. was that review done and can you share the results of the review? >> i'll turn that over to the chief harbour engineer. >> we have discussed emergency access. with the applicants.

>> so it's ongoing? >> it is ongoing, yes. >> one of the things you're looking at -- or you're looking at how to make adequate access for the emergency vehicles, particularly as a point was raised it may be somewhat of a high level of need there? >> yes, specifically, the port's fire marshall has reviewed plans. >> i'll save the rest of my question for after shs. >> any other questions from supervisors? seeing none, then i will ask to call the department of homelessness in support of housing to present as the project sponsor to speak up to ten minutes. >> thank you and thank you to the sou supervisors. i'm the director if support of homelessness for housing for

thewall lot 330. as you all know, homelessness is at a crisis in san francisco. it's 20,000 people in any given year. when we did our count, there was 5,180 people on streets and we have well over 1,000 waiting for shelter and navigation centers are filling up every afternoon. we're at capacity and desperately need to expand that capacity in appreciation of the we opened six navigation centers in san francisco, five overseen by hsh. there are 270 2700 shelter bedsd

over three have 200 beds in them and navigation centers have been opened in other parts of the state and the country that are 200 beds or larger. the proposed 200 bed sites, safe center, i should say, would keep components of navigation centers low barrier to entry shelter allowing people to come in with storage of their belongings and a trauma-informed approach to services. additionally, there will be a good neighbor policy implemented by the on site provider. there will be a 24-7 phone number to call and we'll focus on addressin addressing homelesd each navigation centre is open and run independently from one another. i would like to address concerns that were raised about community engagement.

as you know, we had over 20 community meetings held between march 2019 and may of 209. 2019. many, many one-on-one conversations, as well as tours offered at the navigation centres as a result of these meetings, we did make a number of changes to the proposed size and design of the site. i would like to address a few of the non-related issues that were raised by the appellants. first, around public record request, i want to point out that since march of 201, the tht of the requests have been multiple components and the city has complied with all requests, producing 6,000 documents with over 55,000 pages. we have responded to the best of my knowledge to all of these requests in a timely manner, which, of course, took quite a lot of work on our part. also, i want to point out

chapter 106, the appealant claimed the city complies with chapter 106, the san francisco administrative code and it required the city to open a total of six navigation center and we have fulfilled that as of october of 2018. the proposed facility is not a navigation center but a safe center, which is also a low barrier to entry shelter, but again, it is a shelter with a different set of requirements. nonetheless, 106 does allow for the city to open up navigation centers with more than 100 beds with a written determination from the director stating that we can operate the facility with more than 100 beds and i have done so in the case of this site. now, on to some of the concerns that are related to the sequa request. we want to thank sfpd for join

us and for providing us statistics which i'll share with you. crime statistics taken from before and after the opening of four of our navigation centres the bryant demonstrate a decrease in crime and 8% within 1/8 of a mile radius and within 9-1-1 call, one half mile of the proposed site, it shows already quite a high volume with about 3500 calls being made a month and 1200 responses. we would not expect to see more than one additional call on a monthly basis at this site based on the current data that has been presented by both us as well as appellants. speaking generally, we have not seen increases in crime or calls. we've seen a calming effect.

however, to mitigate possible impact, the design site has 24/7 dedicated parking for emergency vehicles. but also, i would like to address the concerns about urban decay. to ensure the neighborhood remains clean, hsh will employ a nonprofit cleaning and employment programme to maintain a clean zone around the navigation center to hire individuals currently staying at that navigation center, not only offering them employment opportunities but ensuring the neighborhood is kept clean. we will also, as far as safety foes, san francisco police department will create a safety zone surrounding the safe navigation sites with dedicated beat officers seven days a week and regularly monitor crime stats for the area around the safe navigation center to ensure that crime does not increase as a result of the safe center

being there. in addition, the safe center will have an on site security guard responsible for the security within the site and proactively work any concerns with the perimeter and work closely with the san francisco police department. i just wanted to conclude by stating that navigation centers and safe centers and all shelters are critical tools in addressing homelessness and we need housing and other interventions wit but with 5,000 people living on the streets, i think it's quite clear, we need to add more. we have engage engaged the commy around the issue and one pointed out, yes, i did send an email expressing my concern around division circle because we monitor the navigation sites everyday and when we see

somebody camped out or nearby the navigation centres, we respond immediately. now, sometimes that takes an hour or two, but generally, we are conscious of ensuring the neighborhoods around the navigation are kept safe and clean of encampments. nhs and the city has complied with all requirements of the site. we need to vote and allow us to proceed with this project. >> soup storsupervisor hainey? >> a couple are directed towards you. so in terms of the community input and public process, you know, is there a standardized process that you have as far as

how to get feedback and input from a neighborhood? is that something that you even through this process have some, maybe, lessons learn ed this might changlearned that youdo i? one experience was that we felt like we were creating a lot of pieces in who to meet with and ultimately, i had over a dozen meetings with hoas and neighborhood associations. can you speak to -- i mean, is there a policy on this at hsh and do you believe we should have one. >> i believe there's a policy and practice as well as the mayor's housing engages in opening up new facilities of any kind in this case and all of the cases within the navigation centers. the first step is trying to identify a suitable site. we go through a process of determining whether or not that site actually is going to work

based on a variety of standards that we're looking at, how big is the site, how long will it be available and looking at the location, making sure it's close to public transportation, et cetera. we will then reach out to the supervisor whose site that may be in and sit down with them and come up with a community engagement plan and make sure that we start raging out to community leaders, neighborhood groups, as well as large scale meetings. i will say that one of the unfortunate events that occurd with this site is the navigation center story that we were looking at. that site got into the newspaper before we able to have our first community meeting and that is unfortunate, but it's not something that we are necessarily able to control. but we did have a plan for a first large meeting which occurred in march and then

pretty much followed our practice of having many, many smaller meetings and as many meetings to make sure that people have a chance to express their opinions. >> so you would say that definitely it is ideal to have more of a process with the community before it comes out publically in the news and that sort of thing? >> that would be i've toll ideat not always possible. >> was it discussed at the public meetings held by standing committees or the local coordinating board? >> supervisors, we have a number of advisory bodies that look at the work of hsh and we did not discuss this prior to meeting with you and your office and having a committee meeting. but as soon as this became public, we began discussions at the local homeless coordinating board with a number of

presentations and discussions about this at that body. >> some of the folks in public comment raised questions about the access that people who are clients at navigation centres have, if they have complaints or they have grievances o or probls and we want to make sure that this navigation centre is working for the people who are there and can you speak to whether folks in navigation centers have similar rights at other shelters or how we ensure that people's rights and outcomes are at the top of the e priority? >> navigation centers did operate different from shelters as far as access to the shelter advocates who addressed concerns. of this nature. at this point, we have expanded that programme and actually, in our budget request, this year we are asking for further expansion to be able to ensure that the shelter advocates from the

resources that they need to be able to address, concerns in our growing shelter system. >> so they would have the same access now as anyone in any other shelt officer. >> shelter. >> we are working with shelter advocates at the centre and need to expand the number of people on that team to do this work as we have grown and have added over 600 beds in the past couple of years. >> last yes for you. how did this shelter crisis impact this project? >> in this particular case to date, the shelter ordinance, crisis ordinance in march did not impact this case because we need to go to port to get a lease and go through the port's process around the land and the permitting, so we followed standard procedures that we would in any other situation. once we get to the place where if this project does move forward and we are going to

accept and select a provider, we can avail ourselves of the shelter crisis in terms of how to procure which organization runs the site. but to date, we have not used any of the elements of the shelter crisis or unanimous to e this forward. >> it wasn't connected to the length of time that in terms of the approval process or anything else, the shelter crisis ordinance did not affect that? >> no, sir. >> is someone from sfpd here? >> yes. >> one of the things that we had a lot of back and forth with the communities, around safety, and the safety plan and there was a commitment to fund two foot patrol officers there which was a part of the outcome of the feedback that we got. can you speak to that plan and specifically, is there funding set aside for those two officers and what is the kind of plan

broadly, as well, for safety for the area? >> i'm lieutenant chicone, the lieutenant for the h-sox field unit. the commitment that the police department is giving for this programme is a foot beat t, two dedicated officers and that would be met by the officers at southern station. a foot beat right now works between 11:00 and 9:00, but depending on the needs of the community or specifically this programme, those hours can change. so these budgeted already within that station. >> thank you. >> and is it part of a broader safety plan? >> it's part of the safety plan that's already set per every station. so all of the planning around where officers are deployed are

based on the needs that are reported. so this one that's so special, we're not going to wait for that. we're deploy two officers, seven days a week, on foot, so we don't have to worry about traffic. you know, the accessibility of getting to that area. and it's just not going to be just at the site, but it will be all around that area. so they've mapped out a safety zone for that area. >> thank you. >> and i appreciate that. i'm glad the resources are there for the foot patrols. in contrast, the entire tenderloin has foot patrol north of market. so this is a big commitment that's met and i think it will have an impact. it's actually something asked for, i think, before this navigation center was there or will be there. >> great.

>> any other questions from any of the supervisors? seeing none, i think it's now giving an opportunity for those that are in opposition to please come forward. you have two minutes. so this is an opposition to the appeal or support of the project. come on up. >> i'm going to ask the appellants if any have. homeless for a considerable amount of time to raise your hand. you have to consider passing

this bill. it's very important to the 200 people out there. i commend supervisor pe secondsr standing up and i want to ask each of you to stand up to get buildings in your district. so what i'm hearing tonight in the previous testimony has met a lot of anti-mayor. is this an anti-mayor campaign or what it is about, property values? so i would have a suspect of motives here tonight. they talked about traffic. there was no opposition to the chase center down the street. there was to opposition to at&t down the street and no opposition to ucsf down street. homeless, we don't drive cars, so we're not going to be an impact. and earlier someone said, i heard a joke, steelhead fish?

really? homeless are being blamed for the fish in the oh ocean?that's a new one. we talked about alcohol and drugs, where there's 26 alcohol licenses within walking distance of this center. i don't think that's an issue. i'm a citizen board member at the local homes coordination and we oversee the department of hsh. we unanimously supported this issue for the center and the last thing i want to say hear, , people were talking about citizens and homelessness, those are the same thing. once you are on our streets for 24 hours, you are a citizen of sanfrancisco. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening, board of supervisors. i'm john ortanny, the director of interim housing shelters at

the centers of san francisco. the community services partnered with the city to open up the first navigation center located at 1950 mission street in march of 2015. ecs manager manages central andy opened up 125 bayshore. ecs manages the next door and sanctuary shelters for a total of 534 single adult shelter beds. 13 supportive housing sites, ecs is the lead agency for the single adult coordinated entry system and we manage a senior center and healthy agent planning across all of our programming and workforce development and programming. benefits of navigation centers, they are an important component of san francisco's homeless response system.

these centers take people off the street giving them needed respite. many street homeless will not enter additional city shelters for many reasons. navigation shelters offer 24-hour staf staffing with no curfews, and minimum rules and high operation's staff to client ratio and room for pets and partners to stay together. it's space to accept all belongs, outdoor space. since they are a much smaller living environment than the legacy single adult shel shelte, people find this easy to adapt. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm the associate director of bryant and central waterfront

center. i'm the both the services at these sites. the navigation center services include on-case management for all guest,e, on site medical clinic, access to treatment, housing navigation for those that have the highest needs as assessed by the coordinated entry team and supportive housing, problem-solving for those not prioritized for housing, legacy shelters. some of the navigation center benefits include decrease in incantments. there's close communication and relationship between the city and providers such as ecs with surrounding neighborhoods, protocols and procedures regarding how navigation leadership deals with complaint, addressing the impact that the

center has is having on the surrounding community. they have a higher staff ratios. case management will work wit person to get them ready for housing or if not prioritized for housing, work with the problem-solvers to end that person's homelessness. navigation centers provide the left of case management required to get people off the streets. thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is kathy and i'm the director of programmes for episcopal community services. ecs is a strong partner in support of housing as we work together to plan and implement innovative programmes to address homelessness. as recently as july of 2018, we were chosen as the lead service provider for the city's single adult coordinated entry system.

our teams of problem solvers, navigators assessed nearly 5,000 single adults across access points, navigation centres on the streets, in the emergency room, at the centers. the importance of the use of assessments in the one system is that we now have a deeper understanding of the people we're serving. navigation centers are one piece to ending homelessness in san francisco and nav centers are triage centers where we determine individual roadmaps out of homelessness which is different, be it housing or problem-solving. we provide services, treatment for substance abuse and benefit's enrollment. i'll end with a tor story as ret

as yesterday. my director of coordinated entry left me a message. he said, kathy, it's working. i share with you, within a four-hour period, there was a man on streets, on mission street, that was wrapped in a blanket, that had limited engagement, that we mobilized our mobile team to go out and they went out with their lap tops and assessed him and right then and there realize edhe reae scored for housing -- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> my name is cal con conroy. i'm here to speak about building

more centers in san francisco. i've had the privilege of being able to visit the navigation center and taken on a tour. i feel a lot of people have never been inside one. they are -- at least the one in the dog patch is amazingly clean. all residents there were very happy. they seemed to be extatic they were not on the trees an street. we should be building more massivnavigation centers in san francisco. next speaker. >> my name is danny drysdale, the community liaison at music city cf, where a hostile and ongoing construction project to provide resources for working musicians. as city resident and landlords, we fully support the proposed

navigation center at the lot discussed today and urge the board to move forward in establishing a navigation center at that location. puover 1600 different people coe through the door and many of whom are low income or currently homeless individuals due to purposefully low prices and, in fact, our hostile has been the first step in achieving a place to live for many formerly homeless individuals. so we would like the city to do much more in supporting them and helping them to get off the streets. it would be disheartening to see the city above towards abandoning this site with potential as the one now. iwe welcome the nav center in or own neighborhood soon as there's a house of fans location discussed. so we're fully supportive and

happy to have one to our location soon. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, evening, supervisors. i'm corey smith and certainly as the deputy terro director as. both organizations are in firm support of the proposal to reject the appeal here today on the simple facts this is not a single issue, that this is not a quality issue and that in and of itself should be enough to reject the appeal. the rest of my comments i'll be making as an individual. i've been to enough of the meetings, thank you to everybody that is over there, work on this and spending the time, as well as supervisor hainey and trying to do what you can to have all of the conversations with everybody. i know that's not easy. i know you take the full brunt of all of the crap thrown at you and it's difficult but i

appreciate it and it's difficult to do. i was at the commission hearing and there were 88 people that spoke in support and 39 people that spoke against it, almost 2-1 support for this proposal because we fo know that people d places to live. we need option and solutions around the city. i've spoken with my supervisor, supervisor brown. we need one. we have people sleeping on the street every single night. and anything we can do to save one life at a time is worth it and it's why all of you do public service. it's why you're on the side of it. so it's not forgotten and all of those people don't show up and give you the thanks and kudos that you deserve, but it is absolutely deserved. lastly, i have to believe we have better ways of doing this and figuring out how to provide homes, especially for the most

vulnerable neighbors than having people come out on a tuesday afternoon, at this point quarter to 6. there's a lot of issue that are facing the city and just want to be speaking about that. >> next speaker. >> my name is brian edwards if district five. one of the things i learn today is that this isn't a sequa issue. but what this is is a san francisco issue. another thing i learned today is that the san francisco version of, i'm not racist, but is the claim that you care about homeless people right before you make some bullshit augments to o keep a navigation center being built. the gentleman before me talking about a 2-1 support ratio. i was at the first one where there were five that spoke in favour of this navigation center and everyone else was against it and not a single person could tell a story about a neighborhood homeless person who

they knew, who they related to, who they spoke to on a regular basis and that is not san francisco. i don't know how you do it out there. i know in district 5, we know our homeless neighbors, we talk to them and feed them and call emergency services if they need help. that's san francisco. this is not a sequ issue and we need to build this. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor. my name is robert fucman. homelessness is a crisis in that neighborhood as its is in mine and in a navigation center will address that issue. it i shoulthere are many expenso buildings with double paned windows around that proposed navigation center so i do not share concerns. much more noise and pollution comes from the multiple i-80

ramps nearby. i've seen and heard them and i eagerly have a concerted effort to oakland and east bay. all of the data about navigation centers shows they are good for the city but i've been to several meetings at the delancey about this project. so many neighbors refuse to believe this. a resident at the dog patch navigation center is a success and a few months ago, a neighborhood association even voted to support an extensionful their navigation center nearby. if anything, the fact that it's taken months to approve this is a sign that the current process is not working. why should we have months of meetings to approve something that we know is both necessary and morally correct? should we repeat this arduos

process? is this good for people to leave work and say, it must be painfully obvious? because it is painful to watch here o and on the sidewalks. >> good afternoon. i used to live off of second and king street. i'm a support of the navigation safe center. what about ballgames? they all cause traffic. i'm in support of the navigation center. it's funny how people's values change when it comes to your property value. i thought the pil bible says toe your neighbor. we need to support people in need. everybody is working about parking, 9-1-1 calls and crimes but nobody sounds concerned about all of the people living in unsafe on the streets. it is a center to help people in

need, a navigation center and we need people. it's homeless people, people need help. so i sport. thank you. i support it. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i live in district 6. i live more or less around the corner from the episcopal center and i have lived there since 1996 and i come home late and guess what? i'm female and i'm not terrified of poor people. i'm not terrified of my neighbors. we're talking that this happens to be george orwells 600t 600th birthday. i think some of you read books and it might help to think about treating people decently in shelters as well as providing shelters rather than sticking people outside. not to be scared neighbors, but to be scared for neighbors is a

pretty good thing, who are, incidentally, hard-working tax-paying citizens. i've always been worried going by episcopal sanctuary that there were ambulances. the answer is oh, not get this thing out of my neighborhood but help people to be in better shape. don't take their property, don't take tents, don't deny them sleep, don't deny them peace of mind or a right to own property or don't deny them hope. and, basically, i am uncomfortable supporting a navigation center where people are going to be mistreated if the city's record holds true, but this is a minimum. anyone who genuinely believes that they want folks to be treated decently doesn't say get if center out of my neighborhood but say make this center in my

neighborhood and make it well explained, provide people with due process and also -- i'm just astonished the director of homeless services says safe and clean free without seeing a contradiction. we need to meet people where they are and not hurt them. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm kelly with the coalition on homelessness. i don't know about you, but i'm so tired of this going to endless meetings. it's just ridiculous. because you know what, we need to be providing shelter and housing for people that are often forced to sleep on our streets.

i'm offended by the bad data and trolling on social media and wasting everyone's time and so many people that are working so hard to be helping folks who are living on our streets. and who are dying on our streets. and i'm glad that we're not having port meetings any more because net were horrible and all of thawful and i walked oute it was grow gross and things tht were being said were gross. but so often, the humanity of people has been lost in the discussions. and that's what we have to get back to. we needed to be doing -- we all need to be doing what we can to be helping our fellow san francisco neighbors and not demonizing folks like that. that's it.

>> hello. as many times have been brought up tonight, there is issue with a navigation center on final and bryant. fifth and bryant. i live across the street and it is a fabulously-run establishment. and they are quiet neighbor, and most of my friends that come by think it's a storage facility. that is how quiet it is and well-maintained it is. my issue here isn't the fact that we should -- i'm not trying to argue for this explicit navigation center. i'm frustrated because we've made this discussio decision may times. the mayor has made this decision. the port commission has made this decision and how many times are we going to come up here and argue with shelter? how many times are we going to deliberate? will we have to do this for the next 2,000 shelter beds across the city? >> look at all of th all of thee

spending on the issue. i know you guys are debating expediting bills right now and they don't address the specific issue, but we need to approach those issues. we need to take hold of the issue that we give voice to a dozen people to splock a whole project. we have people sleeping on the street and we're more concerned about people walking dogs. three, please support this navigation center. >> i live in the tenderloin of constituent 6. everyday, when i walk home in the evening, i see my own neighbors and i want to remind you that is the terminology we should be using. these people are our neighbors

and they are your constituents and many are supervisor hainey's constituents. they deserve to be taken care of and as long we have a shortage, no neighborhood should get to say no to building more of them, especially one that is a mile away from any existing shelter, particularly one in the same district. like a lot of the previous speakers, i'm tired of having this discussion, of the endless meetings. if you are tired of this continuing to come back, i urge you to support changes that would streamline this process and take it away all together. you pass resolutions in supporter opposition and there's one on your agenda right now, in fact. i urge to pass senate bill 48 which stalled for this year and take navigation centres out

entirely and we would not be here and i would be at home cooking dinner right now. thank you. >> go ahead. >> good evening, soup stores su. i'm a resident in district 6 and i live about a block away from the projects. i'm firmly in support of the navigation center and oppose this. the process doesn't have to be this way. this project is fortunate enough to have a categorical exemption under se albuquerququa. it could have a sta statutory exemption. this would enable projects to be proposed with more confidence and avoid watering down, such as what occurd with this project. supervisor hainey, i appreciate your engagement on twitter. but it's unchair why you believe projects like this should be subject to a process to preclude

the exemption from applying. you state that as a policy decision, but you have not clearly stated what policy you are pursuing. i remind the supervisor that people cannot live in percentage or policy. you are in a position to change the process right now. and thus far, have refewed t reo so. you can change the process and you can reduce or eliminate meetings like this and put projects like this on a firmer legal foundation and get more people housed without compromising like i have here and all it takes is to support the charter amendment. thank you. >> hi, i'm laura foot and obviously in strong support of the homeless navigation center but i want to take a minute to think about what is nimbyism. the people who wome came out toy

have repeatedly have said, they're not nimby but nimbyism is a thing triggered. they call come up over and over again and say i support homeless housing in general, just not here. i have an elaborate reason why it shouldn't be here. no matter where you propose something, you will hear that same answer. our neighborhood is special. i don't know a person who has come across a neighborhood that is not special. our neighborhood has families, as do many neighborhoods. our neighborhood has old people. i hope every neighbor has old people. this is what integration looks like, is bringing different kinds of people to live together. (please stand by).

>> president yee: you may start. >> thank you. numb number one, i have three points. miss gibson mentioned this project may be a nuisance. being a nuisance is not a definition of being a good neighbor, it's being a bad neighbor. if the city is not being a good neighbor in this instance, the

project should be rejected. number two, the port director, in response to a question from supervisor haney, said that there were hundreds of interim leases that had not gone to the state lands commission, if i heard correctly. my strong suspicion is that those were public trust leases rather than nonpublic trust leases which is what we're talking about here. in any event, i would request those leases be put in the record in this matter. but let me just read the statute that the port drafted, ab 2797, section 7-e. a nontrust lease, a lease is by definition a nontrust use, shall be subject to approval by the commission -- it's