tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 25, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
hurlang. >> good afternoon. any name is barbara inaba and i lived at portside condominiums as a resident since 1994. who can remember way back then? that's 25 years, a quarter century. three, we are directly across strategy from seawall lot 330. navigation have proven to be magnets for people outside of centre. there's assault, theft, drug use, violence, trash and health issues. portside is home to many families and seniors. i'm a senior. physical safety and health to be by those mentally ill, intoxicated or violent
histories. place children, families and seniors directly in the path of a large homeless population is dangerous and responsible and wrong. this is not about placing navigation centres where homeless are because the add mittanchomeless. if the port's goal is to reduce homelessness on port property, the proposed navigation centre will do the exact opposite. navigation centres should be located in areas where they will not pose a threat to safety and families. no one will consider locating a centre in the middle of seacliff or pacific heights. why blaz place this in the middf our thriving community.
the city is imposing this on the port, businesses and friends, families, joggers, cyclists, sport's fans, mayor typ maritimd everyone else. this is merely a prop box but a prop-up for four years. the city should look into permanent navigation solutions and investments. tomorrotom portland, please. >> this centre will be a magnet for homeless and there are risks to the public safety and i should not have to walk out my
door and fear for my personal safety on a daily basis. this is not what our residential nakeneighborhood wants or needs. it's time the city started caring more about residents and pay the tax and stop forcing this. nancy floyd and wallace lee. >> my name is nancy floyd and i live at the brannen and own clean technology at 555 mission street. i believe the navigation centre is a flawed proposal and will exact a huge proposal for the city at large. there are two reasons that i'll focus on. first is location.
we've heard a lot about it and this is a densely populated neighbor with lots of families and seniors. there's no navigation centre in the city that sits if a residential setting, never mind one as densely populated as this. for more schools and childcare centres in this neighborhood than in any other neighborhood in the city. everyday thousands of city residents bike, walk and navigate to get to work here in southbeach and soma. this is our immediate neighborhood but this is a larger community, tourists and sports and intern attemp. there are thousands of giant stands that make their way from public transportation and that number will increase as the chase centre is complete. i visited the navigation centre at fifth and bryant and what i observed is homeless outside of
the centre, homeless roaming the area. the data i reviewed in our district cooperates with these centres attract more homeless and there's an increase in crime, increase in open drug use and increase in trash. the chronicle this morning said today that the city has looked at more than 100 sites and eliminated many because they were too extensive. let me act ask you, what is thet of the city to place this at the thoroughfare to highlight the homeless issue for all to see. what is impact to a residential neighborhood brimming with seniors and not a hub of homelessness with these centres? thank you. [cheers and applause] >> dale mcconnell. >> my name is wallace lee and i
heard the director's comments at the beginning about a safe neighbor policy. i think rather than listen to his words, we should be looking at actions and so i want to explore the good neighbor policy from the dog pad centre. it starts by saying homelessness impacts the waterfront and they say incantments are visible. i decided to look this up and was surprised to find the encantments are five feet away from the dog park centre. i tack the opportunity to visit the places and i found out it's lais. they're on custar avenue next to the creek. these have gotten worse, not
better. the dog patch centre can clear this, what insurance do we have the new centr new center will at goal? there's removal of existing encantments and they will kept them clear. obviously that wasn't kept. seven items, at least five are broken promises. they will provide crime data for the neighbor upon request. you've spent a week asking for this data and no one knows what i'm talking about. item four, collaboration between dog patch and hih navigation centre on employment opportunities. last week i made two trips to the centre to talk to residents and they were homeless residents
of the center. they were eager but not getting training. >> dale mcconnell and james bush. >> good afternoon. my name is dale mcconnell and thank you for your time. i'm a resident of 200 grant. i'm really opposed to this. rather than repeat all of the arguments you've heard before. i'll try to three numbers in context. admittedly they'll be antidotal but i think you'll agree they're true. i'm a dog owner so i walk frequently if the neighborhood and i get a sense of where the dog likes to go. on sunday we went down bryant
street and went down by the stadium, over francois, to the ramp and bathe. came back. i counted nine homeless. let's suppose i was off by half and there's 20, and that means the immediate impact on this area will be ten times the amount of homeless. it's not 20, it's 50, and fine, that's four times. and number two, during the affirmative presentation, the city says there's approximately 4300 people living on the street each night. that means the city's proposal is to bring one out of every 20 of those to this neighborhood. item number three, i have never been to a commission, port commission meeting before. i have guessing that this is not a normal size audience. [ laughter ] >> in the past couple of days,
this is the amount of grass root's energy that is surrounding this topic. and unless the tide of opinion changes, it's almost 100% negative. not the right place for this project. >> thank you. >> thank you for your consideration. [cheers and applause] >> i'm his neighbour and lived in south beach 20 years. i think the homeless population increased. when the super bowl came, the city moved the homeless from justin, the fair building plaza to our neighborhood rather than
pier 70. but two areas are safety and crime and tourism. personally, i've been attacked by two homeless people in my own building. we have front door security but they still break into the building and this is in the garage. i've been harassed countless number of times, run through dog fighting and the catacombs there and just recent, recent memory, a person maimed dustin hamilton, he's a homeless mentally ill person who stole his parent's guns and threatened to shoot up our buildings. the police did nothing and wouldn't respond to reports of attacks. they responded to dustin because he responded to kill police officers and they finally acted. the magnet effect of this proposed safe navigation centre will only multiply these issues to everyone. lastly tourism, you know, the
super bowl where they had to be moved and how is it appropriate to throw this on our front doorsteps? the impact needs assessed and we need a proper process to assess the impact studies and i ask the commission to reject this site and reopen other sites such as pier 70 or fs general hospital. thank you. >> david ho horrowitz. >> i stand behind everything any neighbors have said so far. i would like to point out opportunity costs of this area. if you take a look at what new york has done with their piers, such a chelsea piers, this would be a wonderful site for the extension recreation. if we homeless services here in
the middle of this residential community with thousands of tourists and support's fans everyday, we lose that opportunity to extended the recreational facilities that are needed in the city and this is not the pre-1989 earthquake and this is the new and improved and we need to support that. thank you. >> my name is john patchner and i've lived in this city all my life, at 239 brannon street, a block and a half from the proposed site. i think everyone here is very aware that there is no pretty solution to an ugly problem. and so these homeless service
locations come with burdens. i would urge the city, i would urge you to reconsider how you spread those urbans throughout the greater geographic city. just in my small neighborhood of southbeach within whil, while is up on the screen, that there is no service centre on the waterfront, within a mile, perhaps, less, there were two centres for the hopeles homeles. one run by the city and the other by st. vincent depaul and if we expand that district, we have the navigation centre at dog patch. so again, i urge you, atonight a principle, acknowledge the burdens and spread those as
evenly as you can throughout the city. thank you. >> johanna and i can't read the last name and then linda way. >> my name is johanna -- >> louder. >> i live in portside at 38, right across from the site where new navigation center is proposed. i would like to say that an incident which happened to me when i was coming home, actually going forke toward the bus from costco. i had to walk a block and two homeless people had their camp there. as i walked through the walkway, i huge dog just from nowhere came over, came out and attacked me. luckily i didn't fall down.
i don't know what would have happen. i ran and that dog started to follow me, but the owner somehow contained it. i feel going through that incident, i feel -- i'm very concerned about my own safety when this navigation center is opened. not just me but other residents with families, with small children, and the tourists, as well, who walk there. my request is that the size of this navigation centre is going to hugely impact our community, my neighborhood. i request that it should be -- the location be reconsidered to be some other place and i think there are good locations available in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you.
cheer cheer. >> linda way and then kristy. >> i'm opposing the navigation centre and i want to work walking past the lot every single day and if i see three or four people gathering, i take a detour because i'm scared. let alone 200 offe 200 offered t navigation centre. so this is not about putting a checkmark, saying mission accomplished, so we can a checkmark there. this is really about exposing drugs needles, crimes, people to the elderly, people who work there and anyone who walk there
to the park. if the profi project gets the gn light, we need to set up the criteria for the navigation center to meet and if any one of the criteria is not met, increasing crime rate or car break-in rate, the navigation center should be shut town right away. the experiment is conducted with tens of thousands of people are affected and then the rest to my neighbor robert. >> i have 32 seconds and thank you. the success of the mission navigation centers of a friend
with a restaurant there, immigrant who all of his money into it, he's losing it. there's bodies everywhere. the security the county will provide the city, 24-hour security inside and outside to reduce any violence, here is the question i ask you, will you take legal responsibility for the damage that will occur hear? can you answer that? >> thank you. >> i'm a resident at 38 brant street. this is directly across from the building that has been my home for the last eight years and it is 20 yards from the bedroom of my 3-year-old son. i'm gravely concerned the impact will have on families, particularly my son who i plan to raise in the city and plan to send to san francisco school. i walk to work each day, usually
in the dash and th dark and theo public safety is what i'm most concerned about. over the last eight years i've observed this skyrocket to 200% with daycare providers in proposed centre. i visited the navigation center to wonder what it would be like for a homeless centre on our doorstep and if this is approvedisapproved. approved, i will be forced to move out of the city. we are seeking to import those behaviours into my own neighborhood. i will not risk living in an environment that exposes my child to what i saw on hyde street, unsheltered drug users camped along sidewalks, shooting up in plain site, drug dealers pedaling cocaine and heroin. can you imagine your child picking one up and harming their
life? to place children in the path of this is unethical and i urge you to reflect this proposal will have on children, forcing families to leave the city and lose *contributions people havee to san francisco. you're first goal should be to protect your own tax-paying residents. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> johanna and robert. >> my name is paul skovanna and ily at courtside. i oppose the navigation centre referred to as a megahomeless centre. i have grave health and safety concerns. the city and the port seem to be racing ahead to force the centre on our neighborhood without any sort of due process. southbeach and somo is a densely
populated area, thousands of small children and we heard 25 preschooled and daycare centres. small children are uniquely vulnerable to homeless, many with substance abuse robs, probs and unfortunately, they have experience with homeless due to the unofficial homeless camp. one of our neighbors recently was the victim of a home invasion by a homeless person. another neighbor is a toddler who was stuck by a hypodermic needle and coming up by her six-month hiv test. several good samaritans pulled the homeless person off until the police arrived 25 minutes later. so district 6 has homeless at fifth and bryant and have borne more than our fair share. if the port proceeds with the megahomeless shelter has it
should be called, it is putting the life and health of the residents of soma and southbeach at great risk. thank you. >> robert and then marcus. >> all a resident the portside at 38 bryant. what i want to talk to you today is a little bit about the aspects of this and we heard related to the side locate and . many here, as you can see are your neighbours, your children in many respects because the port made it possible to make this an actual residential community in the city. although, the city doesn't always look at it this way or treat us that way. i think what we see here is an example of the port in a difficult position. we know that that property, lot seawall 330 lot is essential for development of the pier 30, 32
falling into the bay. your last meeting, there was a great discussion about that, that the lot itself, sea lot 330 brings in $300,000 in revenue and end of bit of the revenue needs to be addressed in terms of addressing the combined issues of the crumbling piers and port property itself. so putting in terms of the port, i would like to point out, as i know, i used to work for fema, i did disaster response, earthquake response for many years and we have a seawall crumbling beneath, fixing pier 30-332, this is tied to the seawall is essential to doing a full of things, getting affordablaffordable housing andg housing on that lot for seawall 330 and not approved to this particular use and then with a maritime use which is what we want to see, i think, those of us wholy along the port
including retail and an environment that is conducive to the community that we're trying to build there. if the city is successful in doing this around the port's plans for that property, i think we will all suffer and it will this project back five to ten years. thank you. >> thank you. [cheers and applause] >> marcus and then neil patelle. >> i am a resident for ten years and experience with the shelter. my wife and i oppose the navigation center. our neighbor has problems, petty robberies, break-ins, dirty
strategies, heavy traffic, noise pollution and our neighborhood already has a large well-established, well-read shelter in a brand new navigation center home to hundreds of homeless. whale my wife and i acknowledge the homeless situation and we pitch in with money and volunteer work and we believe homelessness ought to be solved with kindness, indignitity, this propose center, the largest in the city is an unfair burden on us and there's nothing temporary about it. it will be there for a long time, far beyond four years. i walk daily in the neighborhood and i get accosted and harassed continually. i am a tall, large man, used to dealing with homeless folk. and as i go for my early to mid50s, i feel unsafe and so
does any wife who is much smaller than me. promises of safety aren't sufficient. the center will exacerbate the homeless problems of our neighborhood. the centre will not solve the homeless problem of the city. further this problem ought to bd throughout the city. my wife and i oppose this navigation centre and we ask you to reject this project. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] neil patelle and then allen dalt. >> thank you. my name is neil patelle and i'm a resident across the street from the seawall lot 330 and the founder of a nonprofit global
health humanitarian organization that has provided us services to the underserved for over 5 years. 15 years. the seawall lot 330 is largely a land lot. as somebody previously mentioned, i was the victim of a violent crime no more than 100 feet from the seawater lot 330. it took the place about 4 24 minutes to rescue me at gunpoint. the police did a phenomenal job. the issue is that we are in a land-locked situation. if you look at the police departments in northbeach, this is one of the farthest patrol areas for those areas. so the response time is extraordinarily long to ray sponresponseno those
to those areas. that's a public health situation there. the second point i wanted to make is that all of the areas in that area are basically land locked away from medical services. there are no county or city medical facilities in that area. i'm a practicing dentist and no dental operations in that area for the underserved and most of all, if you look at the pharmacies in that area, they close. they close on the weeks. weeken. i don't know how many times i try to go to the walgreens on sunday and it's not open. this is an ethical battle, as well. we can't homeless people in an area that is not served properly. >> thank you for your time. [cheers and applause]
>> allen doll and then the next card i cannot read. allen? danelace? anybody? >> according to reporting by heather knight in the san francisco chronicle, she was speaking with rachel rodriquez and asked if you could fix the mental health problem in san francisco, what would you do? the answer was, we would use 100 more beds immediately in the city and we would be able to stabilize people more fully
before they are forced to go back on the strategies. streets. she's a mental health professional at st. francis and that illustrates the wrong-headedness of the problem. frankly, i don't believe we understand what we're talking about. we have, according to the city, 750000 people that are homeless and they say that approximately 41% of the people have mental issues and 39% of the people have drug issues or vice versa. i get the numbers confused but if you add it up is 80% and 80% of 7500 is 6,000 people. we have hot teams that go out and talk to these people on a regular basis. we know where the population is. we have a pretty good idea of the problems that they're facing. but right now, we have a
difficulty in convincing those people to get help and seek help and get clean and do the mental health things they need to do. so i don't see why spending $20 million over four years is going to change that outcome. what are we going do do going to differently to address the problems to have sufficient solutions to make san francisco a good place to live in? everybody here is for solutions. so people are not against it just because they don't want it in their backyard. thank you. >> allen and then josh. >> i live at the watermark and my wife and i have been residents of the southbeach since 2008. we're mindful of the homeless problem this san francisco and consider it one of the city's most urgent challenges. we're supportive of navigation
centers but unfortunately, a 200-bed navigation center at seawall 330 we don't think is the right idea. the port here owns the property. the port is taking what they valued at last month's meeting as a $35 million property that generates over $800,000 in revenue and london breed has decided to take that away. you have the ability to say no and spend the time andest discussed at last meeting go through and rfp process and to decide how that money -- whether those properties should be split or not split and what revenue can be generated by putting an rfp out for that site. you've had that choice now taken away from you or you are getting that choice taken away. right now the navigation center
wapwants to lock you up for four years, and you have the ability to say no to london breed and to side how your own property should generate revenue and make the community and the neighborhood a much better place. thank you. >> if you. thank you. >> commissioners, i appreciate the time and i would like to scold the administration for pitting the districts against each other to solve this problem. i feel that just because 55% of the homeless are in district 6, it's no cause of the residents of district 6 that the people are there. it's a city-wide problem that this particular burden was thrusted on you and calling it a bayside problem or waterside problem is inappropriate.
it's a city-wide problem. as you know from the current places that you helped to participate, there are far better places to these centers not in residential areas that have been spoken about for the past hour and a half. so i lastly feel that you have a fiduciary responsibility as the previous speaker said to think how best you can use the assets of that property and not simply use it as a storage facility for the homeless people for the next four years. i don't think you're doing your job. i think that's an easy way out. i think you should discuss this among yourselves, manning what t could be the best use of that land. >> good afternoon. thank you for having us here. i want to highlight a couple of
things, one, points all of my neighbors have made i agree with largely. i want to tell you about an antidotal story. we lived at the portside building for a period of six years and we decided to start a family and we left this neighborhood. after being out of the neighbor with a young baby, we missed this neighborhood so much, we realized that yes, this is in fact, the right place to have a family and we've been at the watermark three years. my 4-year-old learned how to ride his bike in the property you're suggesting to this unsafe navigation center. we have dogs. we walk around the neighborhood. this is our home. the density of residential population here would give rise to any reasonable person to think this is not the right venue to this center. also, there's been a lot of discussion around the economic opportunities associated with this parcel. if the port makes the decision
to bifurcate, this grows subjectly. has there been an rfp out for a bifurcated lot for 330 som 330? i don't think so because it just was discussed. i don't need to rehash the great comments by my great neighbors but i want to remind everybody about the 6:00 p.m. meeting at delancey this evening and make sure we're there in force to have our voices head there, as well. thank you so much. >> margaret and then cliff powers. >> i'm the other margaret that lives at the watermark. i'm a san francisco native and neil is my husband, so you know i have a 4-year-old. i'm also a vp at soma company, at third and brannon. we own a condo at the watermark and we've been in the
neighborhood for 2007 but for the three years we left the neighborhood. growing up, soma and south beach was a neighbor i wasn't allowed to go to. my president parents said they d ground me. gret i'vyet i've chosen to raisy family here. i've sent 30 emails to the captain and team in the area. i can't even count the number of 311 requests i've in asking to have the teams come in and clean up trash and feces and all sorts of other stuff. in the last year, i've seen drug deals, fires, bullet cases, discarded condemns, needle, garbage, dead rats, daily evidence of human excrement and have feared for my and my family's safety. to bring this with more safety risks to my blocks will only
worsen an issue already out of control. we were femal thinking about tay son's training wheels off in that parking lot. i walk my two dogs there and in the wintertame it's dark there. i notice because i walk there by myself a lot. saturday when i was walking dogs, i followed by a shady looking character and came home scared. i'm scared a lot. again, i have a 4-year-old and he takes mimi home from school. i shouldn't have to caution him not to step o step on a discardd needle. he shouldn't have to be scared because there are people in the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> bruce chris-power? >> hi, i live in district 6.
so all of the points i was going to make have been made about the size of the navigation centre being two or three times what's currently done of the current ones that are successful. contact to the city service's auditor in large part because of the small size and individualized attention that they're able to give to the residents, making it two or three times the size, you can't scale something like that that requires individual attention. you have to have little things to build up. people have talked about the high density and i have a lot of notes about that, about the mothers with strollers and young babies and stuff. i bal walk my dog there and youe heard all of that. in comparing that to the dog patches, so the navigation center and the dog patch, where there's been success, i understand, that is just so
dis-inyedisingenuous, it's tear. the neighborhoods are apples and oranges at the best. automotivyou've heard about magy having the homeless center there and it will create a bigger problem. but the one point that i wanted to make is, additional point that i wanted to make is that i just found out about this eight days ago, when one of my neighbors told me and i think most of the people found out about it eight days or less ago. and yet, we've been able to mobilize this type of response for you. you cannot have any further questions in your mind about how the neighborhood feels. it's just impossible. right? [cheers and applause] >> thank you.
i. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm sure you're tired of hearing from all of us. i want to first thank all my neighbors for their eloquence. i heard about from my husband and determined to be opened to having this center. what i learned in the ac eight s has not been encouraging from the people h who own missions fm the center. although, jeff has told us positive things, i've heard many negative things about the number of people camped out in the
street. what i would ask, that the city instead of showing the positive of what's come out of the center be very hope with us and honest in how they've dealt with the problems because all of us have heard about the problems, but we're not hearing any solutions to those. so hopefully at this evening's meeting we'll hear more. thank you all. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, can you state your name, please. >> chris. >> ok. we all heard about this last evening this hasn't been sold to us, like, as a benefit to a community. it feels like it's shoved down our throats and imposed on us. the people who are supporting this, mu none of them live in ts
neighborhood. just lin. just listen. i see areas near the navigation center and there's bars on the windows. none of our buildings have bars on the windows. all of the stores and condos to have that? they say they'll offer security. will they offer it three blocks away and four blocks away because during the day, you have 200 people with nothing better do to wander around. our response times when i call the police because i've seen a break-in, right in front of me, are terrible. i've waited a half an hour without seeing anybody. and they say it's four years. what guarantee is that? they're going to spend $20 million on this and then they're just going to re-up, they'll want another four years and another four areas. i just don't believe them. i just had a daughter, my
complex probably has 15, 20 kids under the arc age of two. i don't want to live here if there's a homeless center around me. i'm going to move. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident, native of the city, lived here my entire life and practiced structural engineer. i think i'm the only engineer in here. i've written just about everything in the building code in san francisco and to build a structure this size on liquifiable soil with no foundation, 40 years as a career, i've never heard of something so irresponsible. we will have an earthquake. we're not kilometers from this site to the hayward fall and
every 140 years plus or minus ten, it was 1868. we are due. what the site was, was a railstock stockyard. this will probably collapse because the soil fails, no foundation. it'sic rresponsible to people there without a proper structure. a temporary structure on a lick liquifiable site a crazily dangerous. >> michael ludwig and kevin and terry chen. >> thank you, commissioner. i'm a resident of one south park. south park is the halfway point between the center of south vincent and the seawall that we are talking about. i host a lot of the supportive
infrastructures of this environment. there are three our four housing structures on south park and mental health on hireso harrisoa lot of facilities we host and i think this would be too much. there's to plan b for most of us. most of us don't have a house in napa or structure in tahoe to go to. for us this is the recreational space and i think we absolutely must preserve that for our neighborhood use. thank you. >> thank you. >> kevin and kerry chen and andre park. >> hello. my name is kevin chen. i'm a resident of the watermark. i am fulling in for my wife who
picked up our 5-year-old daughter at preschool we have a 5-year-old daughter and preschool triplets and i want to say, this is the wrongization. wrong decision. there are families who have spoken to you. this is not the right place to a navigation center. i'm a proud father. i work really hard. my wife is a stay-at-home mom and she will not be able to leave our building if this is built. she will not feel safe. she's cried multiple nights since the news broke and i can't tell you enough that i cannot in good conscience have this center built and let my little daughters run around the block. that's all i want to say and thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> andre clark and then
elizabeth catalla. >> thanks, commissioners and neighbors. you know, there's so many good points made so i'll try to cover some things that haven't. i've been to many meetings at the port and many neighborhood meetings and i tell you some ins are controversial but this issue, i have never seen so much unified support that this is just the wrong way to go. i know we're at early stages right now but i would hope after tonight, the port talks within the coming days and stayeds this is the wrong way to go. no one wants a long drawn-out battle that wastes everyone's time and money. let's just stop, pause and reconsider. thank you. >> elizabeth.
>> hi. i was born and raised in san francisco. i lived in the south beach area for the last 18 years. i do not believe this is the right answer and i do, being a very analytical person would like to know from the department actually what is the entire logic process that you got to get to this point? you toe, there's one thing to say, it maybes sense because it's close to mark zero but the homelessness issue has a lot to to with opportunity and people being able to make money and deal with tourists. that won't change with a navigation centre. but i would like to know if you take all the properties in san francisco owned by san francisco that are empty or not vacated or not being used, how did you come up with this? how did you come up with, there are buildings that are not used by the city.
there's an entire facility in lahanda that you can give permanent residence to people because it was a juvenile center and it's not used my more. there are so many other properties that have facilities in it, but you have not season n any of the information that this is the rout right spot. you say you'll add another 1,000 plans but you haven't shown us the master plan. you showed us a clip that maybes it look like a real principal d make more sense if you wanted the community behind you. just a 2-year-old tou daughter. i would love to stay in the city and raise her but doing things like this is not how it works because this is how you lose people and they go everywhere else because they don't want to stay in the city because of things like this. i don't think that's the message you want san francisco to be.
thank you. [cheers and applause] >> my name is robert rossi and i have lived in the area the last 23 years. p i wantei wanted to say i stand completely with all my neighbors and more importantly, i would like to direct this to director gazinski. my family has been involved in ownership and development in san francisco for the last 135 years. and i've been involved with my family's business for the last 40 years, semiretired but i'm
more than willing to work with the director in minding an alternative in more suitable location for this proposal. cheeadvocates as my family has o keep in mind, a altruism and god samaritanship. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is mark dragon and i live a block away from the seawall lot 330. i've been a resident for about 13 years and i sit on the neighborhood committee for the port. first i want to say i support all of my prior neighbor comments. this is a huge social experiment for the city, never with a site this large or close to a high
residential district and the sis are not good with those two uses. what i want to focus is on is what the port can do with sea lot 330. i've heard a number of presentations on heard one, the city needs funds and two, by tying the seawall lot 330 to piers, this maybes the lot unavailable. i encourage the commission to separate piers 30 and 32 from the development of seawall lot 330 and once done, this is an immediately developable site and i encourage you to have rfps for mixed use development associated for that. it would be the office, residential, retail and all of those thinks things would be sud by the neighborhood in a way that you previously might not have had. so i think now is the time for the port to actively consider
splitting off seawall lot 330, and that would provide 30 to $40 million to the port, there is desperately in need of the funds and enhance the neighborhood. so that's what i encourage, at least in my comments, to focus on for the port and we'll go from there. >> michael and then john cornwell? michael? john? >> thank you for your attention, commissioner. i'm a 25-year resident of the portside which is directly across the side from seawall 330. i've heard a lot of antidotes about homeless interaction ans d i can share a few.
i have a 5-year-old and 8-year-old. last year we parked maybe 100 years away from seawall lot 330. i'm putting my kid into the car, buckling him into the car seat and a homeless guy runs up and grabs the stroller and runs off with it. kids picked up needles, kids ha have to be tested for hiv. as stewards of the property, you know the whole waterfront has become a homeless issue, right? you know that people won't let their kids play in the bushes because there's needles there. so now you're going to relocate a total homeless ecosystem that far goes beyond the 200 people in the center. they're still going to be doing drugs. it's not a dry facility. they'll be out having to do buys in the area. they'll be on your port property. i mean, you're creating a huge, huge problem for yourself. unitly, i caincidentally, theres
reference made to the soil and hazmat, our soil was supposed to have a su sub terrainan garage, they had to stop the project and cap it. it would are to go to utah in a railcar. you can bet 10 100 feet away you have hydro-metals and hydrocarbons. this makes noence is. no sense. >> my firm manages the south beach apartment and 88 king street within two blocks of the navigation center. i was the chair of the south peach cac for over a decade
while the giant's ballpark came in. i was involved in the original development proposals to the craw'crew's terminal 30, 32. so i've been in the area and i have seen a lot over the last 28 years. i can't -- i agree fully with what the current neighbo neighbs saying in that this is not a good use of a very valuable piece of land. cities hundreds of millions of dollars into this. since i've been involved in the neighborhood, several million dollars has been developed to provide a dense, highly populated residential area. one of the last peaces that is left in this area is seawall lot 330. it's been tied to pier 3 30, 32
for dwigh quite some time. this is an unfeasible financial anchor that has been on to it and you need to separate it and do something with the seawall lot. if in the meantime, you'll have the mayor push for a short-termlesshort-termlease wao far from the city has been good neighbor policies that are broad bullet points. we need, if you do any short-term lease, but if you do, we need mitigations in that lease that can terminate the lease. we need them very inspection and i'm more than happy as i'm sure many neighbors are, to participate in that process. >> thank you. >> valerie and samantha. >> valerie had to leave. she's in support of the project.
i'm just going to take her place because this guy is losing it. i also am in support of the navigation center. i'm a mom and think of the children. my baby deserves to grow up in a place with a social safetynet. i live within two blocks of two homeless shelters. it's completely fine. there are a lot of people here who say if you build the navigation center, the neighborhood will become terrible. that is not my experience. it took me a long time to figure out even that the homeless shelters i live nearby were homeless shelters. sheer very good neighbors. so homelessness is a huge problem in san francisco. our mayor ran on solving it. the own path to solving it is through building a lot more shelter beds and permanent housing. so i know a lot of people talk about being