>> next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is tom griffin. i live at 234 ewing terrace and my backyard is the hillside that this dormitory is going to be built on. what i'd like to talk to you about is my direct experience with usf's mitigations regarding loyola village. that mountain as a campus is known for the lawn that leads up to the tower at the top of the hill and the fringe of trees that surround it, it's known all over the city, you can see it all over. and part of what the university is proposing as a mitigation is a landscape plan to make sure that those large mature trees are secure and safe. while one mitigation -- in order to be a mitigation, the trees have to exist. they have to survive the process along the way. and i'll give you the example of what went on with loyola village. we were told at an imp meeting there that the campus landscape

plan will protect those large mature trees. we didn't have to worry about them. we asked that they be marked during the construction or conditional use phase. they were. but that didn't stop the fact that my wife came home one afternoon and of the eight trees that were 50 to 70 feet tall right directly behind our property, six were already down and one of them stripped. it took her the rest of the morning to get some attention from usf and some attention from the contractor. she saved one of those eight trees. that was all that was possible. now, the university accepted that it was a mistake. they accepted that they really had some culpability here. so, what did they do? they offered to plant six fast growing tree. i'll tell you those six fast growing trees have grown very fast. they're 20 feet tall now and don't block what they were supposed to block 13 years ago. i'll be dead before they become the screen they're supposed to be. the issue is how can we prevent this from happening again?

it happened, it was a mistake, they accepted it. how can we stop it? my point is that saying that the general landscape plan is the way of dealing with it isn't enough. it's too general. it needs to include a mitigation that says a certain area where these trees are located will be avoided at all costs. it needs to include the fact those trees will be platted and marked on the site and given to the planner ahead of the design process so he he can avoid them. that was not done the first time around and i don't think it's too much to ask that we go to that next level in terms of making sure those trees survive. i really feel that these need to happen at the imp process because if we await conditional use, once the building is designed it's hard to change. and if you look at the plan in there a lot of those trees they show on the metric around the landscape -- excuse me, around the dormitory, will not be there. they'll be gone. it will be too late. so, the screening that they're proposing as a mitigation will not happen. i ask you to make them provide that before you accept the imp.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please, and let me call a few more names. tanya solomon. bob lee. ruth levy. [speaker not understood]. christin chris wall. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ruth levy. i live at 160 ewing terrace and i suffered through the construction of loyola village after an earlier imp did not address our neighborhood issues. usf says they must have this housing and these housing units to be competitive in the market for students, but they intend to consult us in the process during the conditional use permit preparation that they will design to all codes required by the city, and that they've gone out of their way to build in the mitigations and to be a good neighbor. well, that may be their intention, but our actual real-life experiences with

loyola village project were quite different and we have not for got en. ~ forgotten. it was bad judgment, broken promises, substantial construction damage and disruption, and the unexpected loss of mature trees which were expressly marked to be saved in accordance with the conditional use permit. sure, usf couldn't control the real estate market back when they were planning for loyola village, but the [speaker not understood] was based on a flawed study. it did not fail and in the end it became undergrad dorm with all the late night noise associated with that. usf promised a hotline for construction complaints, which went unanswered. yes, usf did make a financial settlement for the damage with a number of our neighbors, but only after lawsuit was filed and the latent defects are

still showing up. construction does cause disruption, we understand that. but understanding that did not help the [speaker not understood] whose parents spent their last years right adjacent to the loyola village project with incessant pile driving behind their kitchen and now the ensuing damage. it is our understanding that sections 304.5c3d requires an imp to address mitigations that will address impact on character and scale in the surrounding neighborhood. after numerous requests, letters, and several public meetings, the imp still does not propose any such mitigations. we request the commission require that the applicant include a list of such mitigations prior to as condition of acceptance prior to adjourning. thank you. and as an aside, we are san francisco's middle class, the one that's disappearing. thank you.

>> come on up, next speaker, please. my name is [speaker not understood]. i live at 356 ewing terrace. you know, we agree that usf can develop the property referenced in the imp. we just want to ensure that the development fits into the character and scale of our neighborhood. in particular, we'd like to request the usf comply with section 304.5 by including alternatives to massing and location that address the context and scale of our rh1 neighborhood. the imp is not buildingses, but rather mass and use, but nothing did take that these dormitories have to be a single site. splitting the dorms addresses the scale issue, why does president the imp include an alternative saying that? and the imp is also just about holding community meetings. it's about listening and incorporating ideas from those meetings to address the

concerns raised there. the imp they presented to us does not do that. out of the 85 meeting cited, only five have been with our neighborhood association and none of our concerns have been addressed in the final submission. we also believe the planning code requires usf to include clear mitigation options that recognize our inter dee he pendence so that those who fall into the conditional use permit submittal will understand the important issues raised therein. then there is the chance that we won't have to sue usf as my neighbors did with the loyola village project to make them acknowledge responsibility for damaging our property. now, the planning code says in section 101 b2 in the case of [speaker not understood] in the planning code, the existing housing and neighborhood character should be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural economic diversity of our neighborhoods. we he ask for your help to

assure that usf complies with this. section 304.5a2 states the purpose is to ensure input to enable the institution [speaker not understood] modificationses to its master plan in response to comments prior to its more detailed planning and prior to any request for authorization by the city proposed in the master plan. after numerous requests and letters and god knows whatever else, the imp still does not address these issues. so, we would like to ask the commission to require the applicant to include these alternatives and options and mitigations prior to and as a condition of acceptance of this imp before adjournment today. thank you. almost good evening, commissioners. my name is bob lee and my wife and i have lived on parker avenue for over 40 years.

and through 20 of those years i was president of the francisco heights civic association. i still sit on their board, dealt with usf many times. in the end, a lot of the results have been good, but they've been long adjournies, long, hard adjournies. but our board asked me to join a new group, the one mountain neighborhood coalition who you're going to hear from some of those people in just a minute because we were concerned about mainly at the beginning parking and traffic issues in the neighborhood because they have increased so much in the last ten years and created a lot of havoc. we've made a lot of progress in the meetings chaired by peter novack and liz miles. i thank them for that. but we still have the stumbling block of a parking survey that was made for usf by an individual vendor who has already spoken a little bit tonight, that really didn't address certain issues and there was no way of calculating which cars were driven by students, which cars were owned

by students, et cetera. mta did their own study and was quite a bit different from the study that was in place before. we couldn't go on criticizing just the parking and traffic issues, so, last about 10 days ago we decided why don't we go and do an informal study ourselves. so, for sick of the eight -- seven days last week and two days again this week, we did a study of parking availability ~ in our neighborhood, rrp stickers, vacant spaces and overall parking. ~ six we wanted to do that between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. because the vendor who did the study says those were were the high usage in the neighborhood. we found there were only 243 rrp stickers on the streets with over 1100 spaces within our area that we studied, which was a little different than what usf did. what we didn't know for sure and why we went out in the last

two days again now was because usf went into spring break on monday. on tuesday they were -- last week they were an average of 45 vacant spaces out of those 1100. this tuesday they were 176 and yesterday they were 190 vacant spaces in the neighborhood. so, to say that usfa the parking vendor did in their report only take up 26% of the entire impact in our neighborhood is not true. because of the differences in the previous usfimp plans that have been mentioned and the realities of usf's growth in planning going past previous studies, we would respectfully request ~ that parking and traffic be structured to be supervised in such a way by a third-party independent authority a to guarantee that the errors of the past do not become the errors of the future. in closing we have watched the quality of life in our neighborhood be threatened with

unbrideled growth. >> thank you, sir, for your time. we hope they will do the same. thank you very much. and we'll leave these [inaudible]. >> come on up. let me call up a few more name. charlie livery. annamarie pierce. and chris schaeffer. william glazer. mark batty. and eva long, please. hello. my name is [speaker not understood]. i am the coordinator of the lone mountain coalition and i have lived the past 20 years half a block from the border of the university. i thank you for hearing me today and i'd like to begin by thanking peter novack and liz miles and the rest of the usf team for their efforts in -- addressing -- effort to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. ~ in our community. the lm -- the coalition

submitted a letter dated february 19th to the commission via mary [speaker not understood] which i believe you have. if not i have hard copies here. thank you. and i'd like to give a brief summary of that letter. the chief reason for the coalition's presence at today's hearing is to object to the imp's underlying conclusion that there is enough parking currently available to support the needs of both the existing population and the planned population growth. this conclusion is completely out of step with the real world experience of the coalition, most of whom have lived in the usf community for 20 years or more. the coalition's experience is quite the opposite. our streets are clogged with traffic. we find it unsafe to cross our streets, and it's extremely difficult to park our cars. we have grave concerns about the school's plans to expand given our community has already maxed out its ability to absorb the current population. our letter details the many steps we urge the school to take, but the most critical we believe is that the school must begin to keep a current

registry of all student, faculty and staff cars in order to accurately understand their affiliate impact and most importantly to enforce the existing policy that prevents dorm students and freshmen from bringing cars to campus. this policy is currently completely voluntary and unenforced. and we believe this population contributes significantly to the parking and traffic problem ~. although we understand that keeping a registry isn't easy, many other schools with tdm programs such as stanford, loyola, mira mottctionverctiontion, university of portland and georgetown university keep such a registry so he we know it's possible. ~ our letter describes five additional measures detailed on pages 2 and 3 of our letter which we believe our feasible and reasonable to undertake. the imp outlines imminent plans to build a new dormitory which is supposed to alleviate the parking and traffic by providing on campus residency to students currently living on campus and who may use cars to commute to school.

until the school starts tracking their affiliate's cars and enforcing their no car policy, we have zero confidence that the dorm will decrease the cars being brought to school. we urge that the planning commission to direct usf to create an additional supplement to the imp that will incorporate the suggested measures in the february 19 letter as conditionses of acceptance. without in action, we fear that our efforts will be in vein and the difficult quality of life issues we currently experience will continue to plague our community. thank you. hi, i'd liked to thank the member of the planning commission for the opportunity to speak. my name is christin [speaker not understood]. i'm a four-year resident and i have lived for eight years at my current residence a single-family home directly above the usf campus, specifically the sock ar field known as [speaker not understood] field. i purchased the home for the green space, views of the ocean and golden gate bridge and i have the intent to live there till the end of my life.

my wife and i are committed to raising our children in the city of san francisco. it has generally been a good neighbor and my family appreciates what they bring to the city as well as culture and excitement which come with living in an academic institution. i appreciate some of the stated goals of the revised imp, in particular, the strategy to expand away from the hilltop campus, remain financially viable and manage its impact on the surrounding neighborhood, targeting less than 1% growth in hilltop enrollment. my comments will be a variety of personal impacts, impact to historic neighborhood which started to grow in the 1890s and the rampant contradictions and seemingly inaccurate conclusions within the imp itself, which lead me and i hope you as well to question the validity of the conclusions reached about this and perhaps other aspects of the plan. finally i want to point out the primary point of my concern consists of objectives and policies of the better streets plan and the san francisco general plan. plans which usf itself indicates on page 108 that the

imp supports. i don't think this is a fine document, as someone else summarized. the contradictions begin immediately. on pages 2 and 3 of the executive summary, you consider a headline recommendation to add a dormitory with 635 beds to the hilltop campus. that's growth of 30%, far different than the highly promoted plan for 1% annual growth on the hilltop campus. my major concerns relate to one item in specific, the proposal for parking in the field directly in my backyard as defined on page 68. this parking structure would raise the field to approximately the street level along parker avenue. that's 15 to 20 feet higher behind people's yards, 11 homes of people, some of whom are in this room. the facts that are supported in the document don't support the need for what is presumably a ludicrously expensive effort. this also conflicts with something listed as a primary concern for the hilltop neighborhood impact, quality of the physical environment

particularly of the university's neighborhood edge. raising a field nearly 15 to 20 feet and subjecting immediate neighbors to look at the view of a concrete wall instead of open green space, open the ocean and the golden gate bridge does not increase the quality of the neighborhood's physical environment. if the primary intent of the imp is to reduce dependency on the hilltop campus why is there a need to increase parking spaces by 13%? several facts state that the parking spaces today on campus are less than 95% occupancy. i think we all agree on one thing. the facts within the document [speaker not understood]. >> sir, your time is up. thanks. i urge the panel to he reconsider the imp and usf to reconsider that plan. president wu, planning commissioner and staff, my name is jo anna [speaker not understood], i live at 2

19stanyan street. thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today ~ as my colleague [speaker not understood] just said, impart of the lmnc coalition and i urge you to take another look at the february 19th letter that we sent in and want to just emphasize to you a couple of the subpoints that lead to conclude the methodology used for the surveys and to support the idea of existing capacity in the usf area could be improved upon. we have been meeting with usf to address the university's impacts and we especially appreciate the fact that usf made their traffic consultant [speaker not understood] available to us to explain their analysis more fully over the past few weeks. as a result of that, we did gain some new insight into the traffic analysis and we wanted to is that share that with you. our february letter requests several steps usf could take to improve on the survey and subsequent analysis. we would ask that you consider one of them here so that the future surveys will be more

comprehensive. there are two examples i wanted to just go over briefly and i'm going to call your attention -- can that go up so you can see it, please? i have additional copies which i can handout so you can look at them. this is just page 43 of the imp and what you might want to look at very quickly is the yellow line at the bottom where usf is zeroing out at the beginning and the end. it turns out that the reason for that conclusion is that dorm students were classified in this analysis as residents, just like all the people in this room today or not most of them. and that usf's gym users were classified as others. interestingly, in the imp, both residents and others are defined as non-usf related, whereas users related to usf such as students who are commuting from afar and faculty are termed usf affiliates. now, we believe that since the dorms and [speaker not

understood] are both on the usf campus, these users should be classified as usf affiliates. that would cause the curve of the yellow that you're seeing on the graph here to be quite a bit higher because if you notice in the very dark booth and green shades, those are others and residents. it's very important to us that we get to the bottom of what is actually happening on the streets in our neighborhood. as you've heard from many people, we've been quite impacted. secondly, the survey that has been done relies for the most part on online surveys that are voluntarily filled out by students and faculty. we are concerned there is no on-street data to verify this online information. and as was previously mentioned, the data collected by sfmta and their license plate survey in may of 2013 suggest a much higher u.s. affiliate rate than the survey. thanks very much and i would like to add we would love to see this information added into

a sum supplement of the imp. thank you again. ~ good afternoon, commissioners. my name is annamarie pierce. i live at 536 parker avenue. this statement is made on behalf of the entire university terrace association, ten-member board, which have presided over for the past two years. it has been chaired with all the uta neighbors. i participated in all the imp meetings and hearings open to neighbors. this was in addition to meetings of the traffic calming committee, the progress and current issue committee, and others with various consultants adding up to over 10 -- i'm sorry, over 70 meetings, and now i am a member of the lone mountain neighborhood coalition on parking.

throughout this long process, i found the usf representatives and their consultants to be open to suggestions, transparent, and collaborative. after entering into a comprehensive settlement agreement with our neighborhood, usf has demonstrated its good will by creating several new positions to address our neighborhood problems and to [speaker not understood] with uta and other nearby neighborhoods. among those who were hired were liz miles, master plan manager, mark batty, office of student conduct, patrick custard, project traffic coordinator. all have been responsive to inquiries and complaints and all have kept us apprised of relevant community events. usf has instituted new programs to respond to neighborhood concerns. [speaker not understood],

proactive efforts when events may result in more litter, noise, or parking congestion. regular communication including invitation to special events. i would like to say everything has been resolved. it has not. however, the number of individual neighbor complaints has been greatly reduced. the updated public address system and lighting at the soccer field have eliminated the negative impacts to the neighborhood. the soundproofing of the batting cage at the baseball [speaker not understood] ha reduced noise. all this is much appreciated. usf has provided earlier opportunity to provide input regarding new projects including the proposed residential project. a meeting what called for uta to expect concern as soon as an architect was selected and before any design was started. i will now pass the microphone

to chris schaeffer, uta's president. hello, good evening. i'm chris schaeffer. i'm the vice president of the university terrace association. and as everybody has addressed, their history with regard to both the neighborhood and their involvement, i'm a person whos was actually there working with usf under settlement agreement which university terrace association worked out over six issues including the construction of the csi that ann marie pierce has already mentioned. student behavior, student conduct, et cetera. so, one of the thing that we can report is that the construction process for the recently completed center for science and innovation was actually very well managed. and an effort for which the university tourist association has been grateful. i mean, we trust that all of the strategies which delivered such a positive result will now

be put into effect for any future construction projects. there are concerns do not reside as much with the construction itself as it is with campus density, and our reservation to support any future construction is concerned with translating it into added student staff population or undesirable visual impact. neighborhood problems remain. most aggravating problem currently being the parking saturation in the neighborhood. usf has created a special task force chaired by peter novack, vice provost, to work with the lone mountain coalition of neighborhoods to [speaker not understood] the solution and improve the current untenable parking situation, and we remain hopeful that such improvements can be made. with regard to enrollment projections proposed in the imp, the 8% over the next 10 years is probably the outer

limit of growth and maybe unsustainable since we are already at saturation. if all the proposed construction sites in the imp were to be implemented and we do understand the campus and city would alter the neighborhood character disastrously. however, we understand that the exhaustive list of potential projects reflect options rather than reality. at this juncture, uta is primarily concerned with traffic calming, parking issues, and looks forward to the implementation of the most promising solutions outlined in our imp's traffic demand management or solutions related to the related entities. so, uta initiated something we call the progress and current issues committee, and it monitors the settlement agreement that was made and imp implementation. in this context, uta expects a yearly annual assessment report in mid october from usf which will document student

enrollment and other item that have been promised in the imp. we appreciate your willingness to work with us collaboratively and we plan to continue to work with you on that in this matter and the future. thank you. >> thank you. come on up, next speaker. nick wu. wardell mary from mary wardell. [speaker not understood] fong. david hune. and barbara bosky. hello, thank you for allowing me to speak here. my name is william glazer, i'm a biology student at the university of san francisco. i'm originally from des moines, iowa. from there i enlisted in the army as a combat medic [speaker not understood] in savannah, georgia. [speaker not understood] i decided to move to san francisco to be near family and study at usf.

i enjoy being a medic in the army and my goal is to stay within the medical community as a civilian as well. it is becoming more and more clear to me that usf was a good choice. i get the feeling that a lot of veterans feel isolated when they leave military service. hindsight, being 2020, and understanding my intro verted nature, i know that i would have taken the fly on the wall approach to college. the people at university of san francisco had different plans for me. prior to my first day, the vice provost recognized that i had medical experience and certification as an emt. he encouraged me to be a founding member of the new emt program that was started on campus and since then i've been actively involved with the creation of usf emergency medical response services. emrs. i and my team of about 12 other students are proudly trained by the san francisco paramedics association and emrs is now sending emts to respond to emergencies on campus every weekend throughout the school year.

this service decreases response time and also reduces the impact our campus has on the existing 911 system. as you know, our city has a finite amount of ambulances. we are very fortunate to have the gi bill which not only helps me with tuition, but also with housing and other expenses. back in 2012 it was pretty tough getting here from georgia and finding housing in the city. i am here because usf has been a great place for me and i think the addition of more on campus housing will have a significant impact on future student veterans like myself who will be proud and thankful to have usf to come to after service. thank you. hi, thank you for having me here today. my name is eva long and i am a junior attending the university of san francisco majoring in politics and minoring in public service. i am