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 unfortuna