tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 25, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
>> thank you. >> any other speakers in support >> i definitely in support. i have been at my house 28 years i have lived here in the city long before that and i really am grateful for the improvements that have been happening these last few years, to see that this program is working. i'm sitting here and observing it and hearing the support of it has definitely got me on the side of wanting to support it, and developing and blossoming to make everything a lot safer for everybody. so thank you. >> okay. >> supervisors, my name is francisco.
i support the community benefit district. i think it is a little bit different. in 1989 when we had the earthquake and i worked at the presidio, we formed a team to address those concerns in the tenderloin. you have heard many of the people who live in the tenderloin express themselves as best they can. we have a budget of 12.3 billion dollars, and i didn't know in your mind how you can do a needs assessment with all the things that the tenderloin needs and you give them a dollar. you must be ashamed of yourselves. more after hearing the concerns
of all the organizations that came here to give the tenderloin and the neighboring neighbors add-ons. supervisors, you must have empathy and you must have compassion. if you go to the tenderloin, you see practically every nation on this earth represented. so why can't we set aside $500 million to improve the tenderloin? and we have an example of some people that are giving a dollar and they spend thousand dollars and most of it is coming from their own pockets. think about it. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other speaker in support? >> hello.
i have a studio in the tenderloin that i could comfortably afford, but i chose to live inside of my car outside the tenderloin instead. this was simply because of the ongoing level of drug activity and availability in the neighborhood. he is an addict, drug fleet -- drug-free and seriously dedicated to his own recovery. i noticed in my own neighborhood that basically just purchasing seven gallic -- 7 gallons of paint for $70 to base -- to paint a lamp post eight months ago, if you were to visit the neighborhood today, you would notice attractive new trash cans , water pipes being replaced , streets being resurfaced, at&t replacing the aging overhead wiring and d.p.w. has extended the color palette to -- the public are no longer limited to various shades of
green. a long time ago, i prepared several miles along the highway abroad by moonlight, headlight and by hand held lantern. it was part of a social experiment for very practical reasons as well. it was to help facilitate doctors without borders and activity in the area. i noticed that two months after the work was complete, the country announced and embarked on a nationwide nationwide highway repair and resurfacing project. as they say, and as we heard today, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. i am neutral on this. i think the neighbors can get a lot of work done without the homeowners being taxed heavily to support this. >> any other speakers in support seeing none, then this will be closed, and now if you are in opposition and you would like to
say something, please come on up >> i am opposed to reauthorizing the business improvement district for several reasons. is that public policy first and foremost. we have four former members of the school board involved and it is all parallel with the discussion of charter schools and lodgers. i'm sure there are plenty of examples of good charter schools around the country. i'm sure there are multiple examples of good voucher programs around the country. the schools and vouchers have the intent of dismantling public education. this is a policy matter that dismantles public oversight of public lands. you are ceding control of the commons to property owners, of which hospitality house is one.
that is intrinsically bad public policy, so i'm urging you to think carefully about this, and the issue of lowering the approval threshold while also extending the period -- it is antidemocratic and nothing else. so one possible remedy and i hesitate to mention remedy because it means i am agreeing with the premise, which i absolutely do not, but you could break up the extension period, the 15 year period into five year increments, force a public hearing every five years at a minimum to make sure there is continuing public support. you could expand the number of community seats on the c.b.d., the b.i.d., and make them not subject to internal approval. now we could devise some other seating process for that. i would also say, and i'm just
thinking about the long-standing argument the late jane jacobs had with robert moses in new york about this very thing, about what constitutes community , what constitutes local control. that is what we need to concern ourselves with today. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, kelly cutler with the coalition on homelessness. i am not even here for this item , but i'm surprised we're talking about business improvement districts, and i feel like we need to do a lot more education on this. what is connected right now within the tenderloin, which is such an amazing community, and they know everyone else is jealous because the tenderloin is awesome. right now we have the healthy treats operation center that is going through and doing massive sweeps and they are brutalizing our community and it is not okay they even hit out in front of saint boniface when there was a
community agreement from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. not to be doing the cruel and inhumane sweeps, yet they were doing it. it is out of control, absolutely out of control. so not only shouldn't you be giving more funding to it, but it is really bad, and we can provide more info about it but it is just really going in the wrong direction, but right now they are really targeting the tl , and the tl has a great community and it will not put up with it, it is just really bad. >> next speaker. >> hello. i live south of market. i was in opposition to the commission of the community district. i want to endorse all that joey kelly said. they go very well and they won't repeat it. they are both right and i just wanted to also that, well, i
really encourage the members of the board to look at the opportunities for private profit , not necessarily on this community benefit district, but in the industry of creating community benefit districts, and that could really use some oversight. i have just done a little googling around, but it is relatively easy to find topics that could use a little oversight, and i'm not sure they are getting enough. that actually is the problem with having community benefit districts that are not fully subject to public oversight, you know, government really should not be privatized. even if it does some really good stuff sometimes. thank you. >> wr duffy, i just don't think, i get very nervous when the
tenderloin is this united, so i wanted to back joe wilson on the left, you know, if this c.b.d. starts to work too well, then all these yellow journalism articles and occurred -- chronicle but have terrible the tenderloin is, then they will start realizing it is a beautiful place with all the service agencies, and also, one other point of opposition is the expansion of the c.b.d. i would like to see possibly it expanded a little bit further because the general organizing area of the north of market goes from pearl street to van ness, that corner and if we could get more into this c.b.d., that is my opposition, and also, i don't think that sam dennison was cranky enough and i want to be crankier. [laughter]
>> are you speaking? >> yes. good afternoon. >> hold on a second. >> hold on a second. are there any other speakers in opposition, please line up right now or otherwise she will be the last speaker. thank you for your patience. go on. >> can i have one minute, please i know everybody talks about the tenderloin. i know the answer, the answer is [indiscernible] >> i guess she is done? okay. seeing no other speakers for this hearing, the hearing has been heard and is now filed. we will now adjourn from the
committee as a whole and reconvene at the board of supervisors. just to remind people, the department of elections will count the ballots cast and will return with the final tabulation later in the meeting and come back to the item. when that happens, we will come immediately back into item number 50. for now, i will ask that -- there are some speakers. supervisor haney? >> thank you. i did want to ask a question of chris porter, but i don't know, he just left. okay. so he is -- okay. so there was a point that was brought up about the voting threshold and that they had been reduced. can you clarify that in the amount of time that it would
take and whether that had been a change? i think mr. wilson had brought up the concern about the voter threshold. >> that is a great question. sorry had to go close the election. the voter threshold worked for the state of california for the petitioning and it is 40% of the wait of the assessment of the total district. her article 15 of the transportation code, using the city statuses a charter city, the state code was augmented by article 15 for san francisco's purposes, since we have a lot of mixed-use neighborhoods and it lowered the threshold to 30% of the wait of assessments to authorizing election and also allowed c.b.d. to form initially for up to 15 years. >> but that has been in place in the case since 2005?
>> 2004. >> 2004. there isn't a special situation? >> no, they have the ability to go up to 15 years, but some choose to form for ten years or less. >> great. thank you. i just want to thank everybody who came out today. everyone from the tenderloin community, it is extraordinary to see such diversity of our community and all of the leaders and organizations and different business owners and i just want to thank the staff and the board and everyone who is involved with this organization for what you have done to really bring this community together, to do it in an inclusive way, the corner captains, thank you so much for all that you do every day and i will probably see you tomorrow morning as i do every day and i hope that my colleagues will support this organization for all of the reasons that you heard today from the community.
>> supervisor peskin? >> thank you. actually, mr. quercus said a little bit of what i was going to say which i was the author of the enabling legislation in 2004 the state law was really created for cities that are not like san francisco, they were created for places that that had solidly business districts, and we had, in those days, in 2004, one bit -- one business improvement district, and no community benefit districts because we don't look like other cities because we have housing up above , ground-floor retail, but when we constructed this, we constructed it in no way, and i say this to the chair of the government audit and oversight committee, and to every member of the board of supervisors, we constructed it in a way that the board of supervisors can disband
any community benefit district, pretty much at its will, and we get an annual report, so to my friend, mr. wilson, to kelly, to auto, i concur with my colleague from district six that it is extraordinary to see a community come together like this, and i also believe that this has not been, but could become a gentrifying force for a remarkable neighborhood, the tenderloin a national forest, a some people call it, and when that happens, and when simon is not doing right, you have an opportunity to petition with the body, which can disband that c.b.d. at any time. that has not happened yet. we have had a couple that died natural deaths, mostly because they were too small, but
hopefully, this will be an agent for good that takes care of the people who need to taking care of and if that is not the case, i will be the first person to team up with supervisor haney to make sure that that is the case, and i just wanted to say that for the record. >> okay. so now we will reconvene as the board of supervisors. before we move on to the next thing, i would like -- supervisor brown? would you like to make a motion to rescind number 41 so you may cast your vote? >> this like the third time we are voting on this. >> is a motion to rescind item 41. is there a second? supervisor peskin. no objection, this is rescinded. roll call again on item number 41. >> on item 41... [roll call]
>> there are ten aye. >> okay. imacs. >> okay. it passes. okay. we will now continue with the remainder of the agenda. madame clerk. please call the 3:00 p.m. special order for item 45 through 48. >> forty-five through 48, comprise a hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued as a categorical exemption by
the planning department on april 19th, 2019 for the proposed project at sewall lot 330 which includes installation of the 200 % safe navigation center, removal of a proximally 155 surface parking spaces, installation of two portable structures and additional demands of the structures of approximately 6,000 square feet which includes community, dining and bathroom space, placed in 12 shipping containers on-site for client storage needs and an outdoor gathering space. item 46 is the motion to affirm that the proposed project at sewall what 330 is categorically exempt from further review. item 47 is a motion to conditionally reverse the department's determination, and item 40 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. >> okay. , colleagues, we have before us the determination of exemption from environmental review for the proposed project at lot 330.
a safe navigation center project for this hearing, we will be considering the adequacy, accuracy, sufficiency, and completeness of the planning department's environmental review determinations for the project at sewall lot 330. there are two appellants for this hearing, but they have conveyed their desire to present through one representative while objection, we will proceed as follows. the appellant's representative will have up to ten minutes for presentation, up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal, up to ten minutes for presentation from the planning department, up to ten minutes from the project sponsor, which will be represented by the
department meant -- department of homelessness and supportive housing, then two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. and finally, a total of four minutes for the appellant or appellant's representative to provide a rebuttal. colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding in this way? seeing no objection, the public hearing is now open. supervisor haney, would you like to make any remarks? >> i will say my remarks -- save my remarks and questions for after the presentation. i won't think the -- i want to thank the appellant, i want to thank all the departments were here. i had the opportunity to meet with the appellant and they want to advance thanks all the residents were here and participating in this, and i will look forward to hearing the presentations and asking my
questions and making comments, and i also want to thank my colleagues for participating in this district six double feature here today. i appreciate you all being involved in taking these issues seriously. with that, you may begin. >> thank you, supervisor haney. i will now ask the appellant or their representative to come forward and present their case. you have a total of ten minutes. you may start. >> thank you thank you. i am the managing partner of the san francisco law firm -- of a san francisco law firm. i'm here representing the nonprofit community organization safe e-marketing for all.
-- save embarcadero for all. i would like to thank the board for hearing our appeal to support this decision here today i would like to be sure that i incorporate all of the comments that have been made to date on this matter, and those who will -- that will be made at this hearing in our appeal. i would also like to thank the other appellant for seating its time to me and to my client today. we recognize the seriousness of the homelessness problem in san francisco, and the good faith of all of those who are looking for solutions, we strongly oppose the placement of the navigation center on the waterfront. it is the gateway to the city, it's front yard. more than 10,000 people, many of them retirees and young families with children that live within
three blocks of the proposed project. there are undeniable negative impacts of more homeless shelters on this neighborhood including public alcohol and drug consumption, police interventions, property crime, personal assaults, public urination and defecation and attracting additional homeless encampments. this neighborhood has given generously and supported homeless facilities in the neighborhood. we are proud to have and are proud to support the street foundation, which is considered the country's leading residential self-help organization. we note that the president of delancey street has also voiced deep concerns over the mayor's controversial navigation center here. we are concerned that the organization's attempts to get people off drugs and alcohol will be negatively impacted should this navigation center be built.
recently, through public records requests, save embarcadero for all has received undisclosed documents from the city that call into question the claims that the mayor and the city staff have been making to our organization, to our neighbors, to this board, board, and to the news media. back in march, city officials were tripping over each other to tell us what an asset the navigation centers would be for the surrounding neighborhoods, but newly disclosed internal city e-mails show that the director was, at the very same time, in his own words, getting a great deal of complaints about tents cropping up around the navigation center and admitting that the city needs to do a better job of complying with our good neighbor policy. the city has not shown itself to be a good neighbor before.
why should you believe that it will be a good neighbor now with this new mega shelter, which the city has never tried before and now wants to experiment on the neighborhood? the city has also disclosed that it has received hundreds of critical incident reports in the last six months arising from the existing navigation centers. these reports report deaths, overdoses, and other daily calls for emergency services. at the bryant navigation center, 84 beds, 17 calls for police or paramedics in april alone. in the same month, the division circle navigation center, 126 beds, 23 calls. at these rates, the proposed 200 bed meghan navigation center can
be expected to generate up to 40 calls a month, more than one a day. how would this affect traffic? how would it affect the already stretched first responders in the neighborhood? how would it impact the children , the seniors, parents, residents in the neighborhood? this property is known to the city to be contaminated. this project will disturb that contamination, digging up parts of the site, putting people at risk by having them sleep on top of it. the city has recently performed soil testing but has not released the results of the proposed cleanup. why not? if the city were pursuing any other development project on this property, it would be
insisting that this property would be cleaned up before anything could be proceeding, but it is not. there are other developers interested in this property who put in documents in the record. the port is putting in a request for proposal development on this property. the city's proposal here puts off cleanup of this contaminated property and wants people to sleep on top of this contaminated site. under the city's watch, under the city's responsibility. i want to focus on two additional points, both of which have to do with the public trust there is the law of the public trust. this isn't like an lot of other city properties. this used to be san francisco bay.
san francisco got this property in trust from the state in 1969, it is a very special piece of state property. why are you putting this mega center here now and not somewhere else? the public trust doctrine holds that certain important resources like the waterfront property are preserved in perpetuity for public use and enjoyment just as private trustees are judicially accountable to the beneficiaries so two -- so too is a city otranto san francisco a trustee for the state to manage this public trust property. if you want to make a nonpublic trust use like this a public trust property, the burton act
requires the safety to make a very specific findings, which has -- it has not made here, and more recent legislation, which the port of san francisco drafted ads the additional condition that the state land commission was -- must also give its approval, what you haven't gotten, unlikely can't get if we have to take this matter to court. we expect to win another how long it takes. there is another equally important issue of public trust to take care of. the public trust in the city government of san francisco. this public trust is based upon the belief that government and its representatives will follow the rules, comply with regulations, and be beholden to the same rules are subject to.
no one else could tell this board with a straight face that have an acre -- or putting housing along waterfront is basically exempt from all the laws you would hold any other person to. the port commission's decision violates the public trust and you will be violating that trust today if you uphold the port's decision. we ask you to uphold the public trust by rejecting the port's unlawful position. thank you for your consideration of our appeal. >> thank you. now, i don't see anybody on the roster for questions. why don't 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. you've 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 don't 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 doesn't 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 don't 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 haven't 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 on-ramp 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, i'm 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 don't know what is. at the record. >> vice chair tang: with which this project is moving means that these issues haven't 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 didn't 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 don't think it is right that they should allow drugs to be used in that area, especially if law-abiding citizens aren't 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 so-called 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 mayor's 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 ill-conceived 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. i'm 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 land-use plans for the site. if the city import seem to disregard state and local development plans, laws and regulations, why have any land-use 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, hard-working, law-abiding, 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. i'm a third-generation 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. there's 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 there's a toxins problem. you're 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
didn't 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 didn't put -- he didn't care. the information that we get from the department of homeless services is not accurate. they don't 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. i'm 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 land-use 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 large-scale 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, i'm 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 don't 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 don't 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 can't 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, i'm 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.
>> 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 i'm 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