Person to. The port commissions decision violates the public trust and you will be violating that trust today if you uphold the ports decision. We ask you to uphold the public trust by rejecting the ports unlawful position. Thank you for your consideration of our appeal. Thank you. Now, i dont see anybody on the roster for questions. Why dont we go ahead and have anybody that wants to make Public Comment in support of the appeal. You will have two minutes, and then for those who oppose, they will be an opportunity later on the hearing. At this time, those who support the appeal please come forward. For speaker, please. S. F. Viewer real quick, please. This is what you want to build, and Navigation Center. 138 shelter beds. It is not really a bed, it is a caught. Is a kind of Living Conditions you had when you are in custody when you are in jail, and after 60 days, you get kicked out and get put back on the god damn street once all over again. I moved to have you build approximately 2,070 Apartment Building complexes at that location by means of building 227 story towers. I object to the earlier statement talking about that that is not a proper place to build housing. You already have housing right there in the same damn area. That was a pathological lie. By the same response, if you want to build a Navigation Center each and every one and your districts, you have 11 districts. Eleven times 2,070 is approximately 22,770. So if you build these types of towers on each and every one of your districts, you have approximately 22,770 Apartment Building complexes. If you have this demonstration already up and running, the Homeless Center who did a homeless count, 8,011 would not have that type of counted all. Those people no people would be homeless. You have a surplus of 14,759 apartments to be filled by people that need Apartment Buildings to live and not live on the god damn street. By the same response, you have approximately 28,200 Homeless People out in the bay area because of the way you have been taking care of business for one bicentennial to the next god damn bicentennial. Youve got a shortage of Mental Health beds right now because the way you take care of business. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is judy, i have been at south beach and watermarks is 2008. When i first learned about this Navigation Center, i was open minded. I wanted to support it. But as a learned i learned more about it, it is unprecedented in size and the open drug use policy, i became very concerned that i was hopeful that the city would listen to us and address our concerns and modify its proposal. I personally went to more then a dozen Community Meetings, but it was like speaking to a black hole. Nothing we said was heard. The proposal is pretty much the way it has started. It is still the largest Navigation Center ever in history anywhere. Supervisor haney, you said to me at the watermark meeting, you said he would solve what they are proposing here, what the mayor is proposing here is not even Navigation Center. I dont know what it is. At 200 beds, there is no evidence that this is even compatible with the vision of a Navigation Center. This project has been the most opposed, with the least amount of Community Engagement and with the most neighborhood opposition ever in the history of San Francisco. So now we are left with no choice but expensive and protracted litigation. This is like not to the benefit of no one. The neighbors here are united. We will fight this for as long as we can but it doesnt have to be this way. If you would just obey your own laws and negotiate and propose a Smaller Center that has a reasonable drug policy, many of us would be able to support its. I urge you to grant our appeal. The mayor is violating local and state laws. Please dont be complicit in her evil and undemocratic abuse of power. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. My name is wallace. I am a resident of south beach and live on brennan street between first and second. This project has been rest through so quickly that things havent been thought through. The Navigation Center can be expected to meet 40 calls for police, fire and Police Assistance each month. That is based on the rate of services needed in nearby Navigation Centers. There are two big problems with having daily calls. First, this is a very busy area. Traffic is already bad enough as it is with the bay bridge onramp and the embarcadero. Daily emergencies will make it worse. More importantly, First Responders in the area are already stretched. It is a constant community complaint, im sure you supervisors have heard that it takes 20 or 30 minutes for the police to arrive routinely. And supervisor haney has recognized that recognize that the Fire Department is stretched after visiting station eight recently, he tweeted, quote, with the new center coming, we will need to expand staffing and services at that station. If that is not an admission that Public Services are not sufficient for this Navigation Center, i dont know what is. At the record. Vice chair tang with which this project is moving means that these issues havent been considered. I urge the supervisors to support the appeal and to follow the law. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, my name is monica and i live at 38 bryant. First of all, i want to say i 100 support helping our less fortunate brothers and sisters find housing. However, i also come here to say i also 100 support the appeal of this Navigation Center at this lot. I feel like it is very unfair for the 10,000 residents that live within three blocks of the area that this project would basically was shoved down our throat without any knowledge or Community Input. I am a single woman that lives at port side, and they like walking my dog at night. I feel really threatened by having something without Community Input and without it didnt go through the proper channels to be discussed in the neighborhood. That is all i wanted to say. I hope you support the appeal and let it go through the proper channels and i dont think it is right that they should allow drugs to be used in that area, especially if lawabiding citizens arent allowed to use drugs in their homes, then why should it be used at the Navigation Center as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is janet and i have lived here since 1998. I strongly oppose the Navigation Center in our neighborhood and ask that you reject approval of this project. Community input was only solicited after the project was declared a state of complaint and that which was authored was either ignored or rejected out of hand. Local and state laws have been broken, regulations designed to protect us all have been ignored no one is denying the moral imperative of caring for the homeless, but the socalled emergency declared to show a Campaign Promise in time for the next election is no different then the smoke coming out of washington. The board of supervisors is being asked to approve a plan about which there is little credible information and all of that came from city hall. Everyone in the chamber has pontificated to some degree and what an important matter this is , it no one has slipped forward to say, put it in my district. The Mayors Office is never provided a single credible answer to the questions of why here and why now. No one has ever defined the use of temporary, allowing it to disingenuously suggest that there really is a plan for something in the works. If the lack of transparency, questionable relationships and disrespect for the 10,000 plus people who be forced to live with the undeniably negative ramifications of your decision long after all of you have returned to your homes, knocking district six, if you are thinking of supporting this illconceived effort by a leader cynical enough to ignore a workaround what is obvious to most of us, if any of this resonates with you, then i would like to remind you that today is the anniversary of the battle of little bighorn, and we all know how that worked out. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is earl. Im directly across from the proposed Navigation Center. Where as committed to solving homelessness as anyone here, but the difference is that we actually live at the proposed location, our voices matter. I oppose the Navigation Center in our neighborhood. I urge you to grant our appeal and return to the port to ensure consistency with all landuse plans for the site. If the city import seem to disregard state and local development plans, laws and regulations, why have any landuse plans at all . The city has argued that development can be ignored because the proposed Homeless Center is temporary, but each incidence of crime, violence and nuisance perpetuated upon neighborhood residents will be permanent. They cannot be erased. Common sense dictates that Navigation Centers be located where they negatively impact the fewest residents possible, as with fifth and bryant street already in our own district. Not in any densely populated residential neighborhood with 10,000 families, children and retirees within three blocks. Not on the embarcadero, the city s busiest and most chronic boulevard, endangering thousands of pedestrians danger really daily. It defies all logic to have a shelter here. Creating a greater homeless problem in an hour neighborhood. The overwhelming majority of neighborhood residents, hardworking, lawabiding, taxpaying citizens who vote oppose the location. I urge you to respect our neighborhood safety, security, and livability and grant our appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am a 25 year resident of 38 bryant across the street from the project center. Im a thirdgeneration san franciscan. If things keep going this way, they will not be a fifth generation of san franciscans in my family. This project is much larger than anything San Francisco has attempted. All you have to do is go by the Navigation Center on bryant and it is a mess. The front steps, now that this thing is essentially entitled, go by there now there is drug use, there is a bicycle chop shop, you know, it is a mess. This is not something that the neighborhood wants. You have had hundreds of people who have participated in this process to fight this. Theres been a complete orchestrated effort by the bureaucracy of San Francisco to make sure that the neighborhood cannot stop this project or be involved in scoping it or anything else. This is completely antidemocratic. The main reason i am here, many people spoken to the issues many times, the one thing you need to keep in mind as remarks have been made about toxins. I have lived across the street, literally 150 feet from this project. Our project, and i was the first one in was stopped. You can look up in the building department, we are supposed to have another floor, another subterranean floor, and it was stopped because the lead content of the soil said the bay bridge was sandblasted of what point for 40 years. The lead content is so high you cannot dispose of the soil within the state of california. It would have to go by railcar to utah. This is no joke that theres a toxins problem. Youre talking about going down several feet to put utilities and foundation. This is a toxic site. You will be having to deal with this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is bruce. I live about three blocks, or a block and a half from the proposed site. I am one of the seniors that they talk about and i am very much opposed to the Navigation Center of the proposed site. I have been to all the meetings. I tried to talk to supervisor haney but he refused he didnt listen to anything we had to say. He has been to lots of meetings. 80 of the people at the meetings that he was at where against it. He didnt put he didnt care. The information that we get from the department of Homeless Services is not accurate. They dont give us accurate information. It is undeniably true from information that they do give us , and anecdotal information that the crime and the blight in the area will be dramatically increased, and that is just not a good thing. Im dramatically opposed to this Navigation Center. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. My name is john. I live a block and a half from the site. Since i first learned about it a few months ago, these plans, we have seen a rush onto a site that is inexpensive, but replete with inherent landuse conflicts of interest. We have seen an abbreviated review process designed not necessarily to minimize the amount of public and put, but to minimize any impact that input might have on consideration of options, of other sites. We have seen a plan for a largescale social experiments whose benefits are helping the homeless inside, and could very well be outweighed by the drawbacks and the impacts that will happen on the outside. Drug use, problems caused by the mentally ill, many complaints to the Police Department. There are mitigation measures proposed for these, but none of us have much confidence that while these mitigation measures are since it sincerely proposed, the city has that the city has the resources to fulfil them. Finally, we see a result that seems to contradict the spirit of district election of supervisors that was meant to make the voice of neighborhoods meaningful in public policymaking. In the end, this seems not wise, not prudent, and a very risky way to address the undeniably important problems caused by homelessness. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Members of the board, im the director of San Francisco open government. I would like to congratulate and thank the people who came here today to speak about this matter because at the most, what citizens of San Francisco can do is get it on the Public Record that they raise these objection so that when they come to pass, nobody can say, nobody ever said that to us. All of the things that these folks have mentioned will come to pass. You know it, they know it, i know it. Bottom line is, you dont care. This deal is a done deal. By the time it reaches this board of supervisors, you have made your backroom agreements to vote one way or another, and this is going to either pass or not pass based on what has already been decided by you in private consultations outside the view of the public. You do not respect the sentient ordinance, even though your agendas say, you are right, this is under the sunshine ordinance. I have more than three dozen orders of the termination from the task force showing the members of this body, your clerk , and i hope later today, your president dont follow the sunshine ordinance, and the bottom line is, you consider it a waste of time, and the reason you consider it a waste of time is because, as i said, you have already decided the outcome. The homeless issue, you kicked down the road, kicked down the road, pass another bill, raise more money, which sits somewhere in god knows what limbo, but nothing ever happens. These things will go to court and they will be jacked out in the people that need these shelters will not get them because it will be caught in litigation and they will be the ones who ultimately suffer, along with when it finally does succeed, if it does, the citizens of this area. Next speaker. That afternoon, supervisors, andrew brooks from port said. South beach is a very special place. This body, the board of supervisors, in the 1980s said so. It says south beach is such a special place that we will turn it over to the Redevelopment Agency to create an inclusive, multicultural, multiethnic, wonderful place to redevelop and live. And that is what has happened. In the rush for judgement, the executive branch of this city has decided to move forward with a project that does not fully qualify under the California Environmental quality act. When you created south beach, you created a special use district that is layered on top of all other layers of empowerment and entitlements that the project supports. And the categorical exemption for Environmental Review that you are Planning Department has given to you, it is not spoken to, it is not talked about, it is not identified. That is a violation under the California Environmental quality act. This categorical exemption that the Planning Department has issued to allow this project to move forward is in violation of ceqa. It does not make the proper determinations, it does not discuss the overlying issues of zoning, a special use districts and other areas that encumber this parcel. There is a history on this parcel that goes back to the 1960s, and in the rush by the executive branch to move forward with this parcel, nobody did, and spent the time and effort to make sure this was correct. You need to correct it and send it back for further Environmental Review and create a probert document. I would put it to you that a categorical exemption of Environmental Review is not the proper documents that needs to be created. Anisa go back for a full Environmental Review. Thank you. Any other speaker in support of the appeal . Tom gill bertie. I am opposed to any Navigation Center in any district that has an open chemical policy. You cant just let people that are doing drugs find the drugs on the street, shoot the drugs on the street in any neighborhood. We need to clean that up. Safe injection shaped sites, the mayor is all for that, im 100 for that. I am also in favor of a doctor prescribing drugs, safe drugs there on sight. I know we have state and federal laws to go against, but if it is safe, it is effective, it is efficient, and it helps our community, and any Navigation Center, in any part of this city , is going to be in somebody s community. We need to fix that link up as fast as possible. We can do this. We are a city, we are a community of people. The city has problems, we all share with those problems. We need to clean and make it efficient and effective. Thank you. This is also bringing our Government Back home. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers . If there are any other speakers that are in support, please line up right now otherwise this might be the last speaker. I have three documents to show you on my flash drive but im requesting that my time be suspended. For me, the main problem of this is everyone keeps continuously playing talking about the homeless. What is happening is you dump the homeless in this Navigation Center and you forget about what is going on. You just forget about them. Dump them there, whatever. So now you also have to consider the compression rate of the Navigation Centers is, with this one, it is a high rate of disease, tuberculosis, bronchitis, it is similar to crews ships, it is similar to prisons, et cetera, et cetera. The other thing is when i am what im trying to show, is the San Francisco administrative code 106. The San Francisco ministry to code says it is illegal, by your rules, the some of you actually sat here and past, is illegal to have a Navigation Center this size. The other situation is the Third Party Contract violations. San francisco administrative code. 2400. The standards of care, i would like Jeff Kaczynski to tell this body who is monitoring the standards of care . I have pictures from facebook where they have the bed illegally placed amongst each other. Like two or 3 inches when it is supposed to be 18 inches. This image that was on the video , this is you all gave him an award. He is saying that he is he has evolved the laws and regulations of the contracts of the city and county of San Francisco. The homeless in the city and county of San Francisco, when they go into a Navigation Center , they are at free rein to reign to be this is for the proposed Navigation Centre at seawall lot 30. I will highlight why they stand by the transformatio transforma. Its a class 32 class exemption. It boils town to two main points. One, the project is consistent with the five criteria for a class 32 categorical exemption and therefore qualifies asinfill project. Our appeal response dated june 17th, 2019 covers these points in detail and i wont repeat them all today. Instead, i will highlight five of the main points. The first two relate to the projects consistency with the criteria for an exemption and the last three relate to why none of the exceptions apply. We retain nonsequa related topics and these are available for your review. The bulk of the appeal issues, in fact, relate to nonsequa 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 911 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 146space 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 works Standard Construction measures and these would be implemented for the project. The appellants 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 longterm nonmaritime 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 longterm projects, rather than shortterm 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 chiefs 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 citys 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. Its 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 its 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 Advisers Committee . We have not had the Design Review for any temporary projects. The stine review is for permanent projects. Its about the way the building interacts with the surrounding environment. So its for longterm 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. Theyre 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. Theres capital issues, et cetera, and so the burton act provided the port the aint 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 theyre not trust consistent. For those types of leases, we do not require statelands 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 commissions 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 chiefs 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 . Ill turn that over to the chief harbour engineer. We have discussed emergency access. With the applicants. So its ongoing . It is ongoing, yes. One of the things youre looking at or youre 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 ports fire marshall has reviewed plans. Ill 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. Im the director if support of homelessness for housing for thewall lot 330. As you all know, homelessness is at a crisis in San Francisco. Its 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. Were 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 traumainformed approach to services. Additionally, there will be a Good Neighbor policy implemented by the on site provider. There will be a 247 phone number to call and well 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 oneonone 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 nonrelated 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 ill 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 911 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. Weve 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 FranciscoPolice 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 FranciscoPolice 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 its 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 theres a policy and practice as well as the mayors 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 were looking at, how big is the site, how long will it be available and looking at the location, making sure its 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 its 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 ive 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 peoples 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 ports 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 wasnt 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 . Im lieutenant chicone, the lieutenant for the hsox 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 . Its part of the safety plan thats 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 thats so special, were not going to wait for that. Were deploy two officers, seven days a week, on foot, so we dont have to worry about traffic. You know, the accessibility of getting to that area. And its just not going to be just at the site, but it will be all around that area. So theyve mapped out a safety zone for that area. Thank you. And i appreciate that. Im glad the resources are there for the foot patrols. In contrast, the