ownership of the land. the proposed idea that the balboa reservoir housing communities could potentially be provided in an existing building directly adjacent to the balboa reservoir, which was recently built by one of the team members, avalon bay. we think that this is an intriguing idea to explore when we begin negotiations because it could be an opportunity to get affordable housing sooner since we wouldn't need to wait for the new buildings to be built. we would only give credit to those converted from market rate to permanently affordable. the designation of any such off-site affordable housing should not cause the number of on-site housing units to be reduced below 1,100. we're in agreement. it suggested we use a specific calculation methodology for how these units would be countered toward the housing obligation,

and we'll continue to explore that as part of the negotiations. we understand there's a requirement to come back to the board once the project has been furred defined. we would like to propose working with supervisor yee to find out the best timing for this. regardless, we would expect it to cover the topics covered in the bla report, as well as topics of interest. that would include potential financing sources for that additional 17% affordable housing. who we would anticipate owning the lands on the affordable housing parcels. confirmation that it would abide by requirements. plus any additional topics, as directed. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> okay. i think this is the bla report?

>> yes. you're absolutely right. >> the resolution before you is a finding fiscal study at the balboa reservoir is fiscally feasible and, as the department has pointed out, all that this would do is allow the project to move forward to the environmental review process. it does not commit the board to any other actions on this project. based on the analysis provided by the office of economic and development, we do recommend approval of the resolution. however, as ms. lisk also pointed out, we have raised some points about how the project development agreement would look when it comes back to the board for approval, and i would just briefly outline that ms. lisk did go over these. one is just to assure we have the board request the office of economic to ensure that the

economic rate and affordable housing is equitable. if at least a decision to allow some of the affordability requirements to be met off-site, that the number of units built on the balboa reservoir remain at 1,100 and that the total number of units off-site and on site be included when you're calculating the 45% affordability requirement. some of the other points are covered that there be an independent cash flow analysis. we understand those would be informing the land price and future financial concerns around the project, that there also be

the subsidy met and the consideration that maximizes financing and minimizes delays. we say that because we don't know if those subsidies will be provided as a grant or some other mechanism and that the affordable housing be permanent. we also do recommend that mayor's office of housing come back and talk about the 17% affordability requirement. that's really a city obligation. there needs to be an identification for the additional 17%, but also that the ownership of the land, whether this be on private land that's purchased from puc or public land, i think is an important policy consideration. like i said, we recommend approval of the resolution. >> all right. thank you for the recommendation. >> i know that in studying this

for feasibility analysis, that the number of units that were used was 1,100 as sort of a way to get to a number, but i've asked the staff here about, well, if it goes down, what impact does it have? the 1,100 we're talking about, the units in which you just alluded to in terms of not being reduced, that's not necessarily a fixed number at this point. it's something that the community and the developers need to sit down further to discuss what's practical and what's not practical. so i don't want us to come out of this meeting thinking that the 1,100 units is a fixed

number. >> in terms of clarification, i understand very much what you're saying. i think the goal of that legislation is it's really specific not sort of how overall the feasibility of the project is determined in the final gym of units is determined, but we wanted to sort of make sure that in the development negotiations that if some of the affordable housing units are moved off-site, the impact of that is not to reduce the total overall number of units that would be developed otherwise. so conceptually, we just want to make sure the maximum numbers are recognized, whether developed on-site or off-site. >> thank you for that clarification. ms. lisk? or? i don't think you mentioned, in terms of this analysis, whether

or not the final project is a different number of units in regards to the housing piece. how does it impact the study? >> so we did ask the consultant to opine on this. what it says in the report is that the relationship of revenues being greater than cost stays the same. order of magnitude, that $1.7 million may change, but it's still fiscally positive. >> supervisor yee: where would that happen? what is the timing on that? >> so i think the preference would be to sit down and talk to you about what would be most advantageous. although, if you want us to come up with that today for the committee, we can certainly huddle up and do that.

>> supervisor yee: i would think we're not ready to discuss fully the term sheet, but it's something that the city will be open to working with -- i guess i will ask the developers also. that they will be open to making that happen. >> yes. we are absolutely open to coming back and reporting back whenever you think it's appropriate. >> and, generally, does that negotiation take place after the ceqa or before? >> ms. lisk: we would probably not conclude it until after ceqa was done. as long as the proposal and development program are moving

around, the terms of the negotiation would be moving around. if we came back to you at a midpoint, it would be more detailed and more certain than we are now, but when we came back for final approvals, we would expect the project to continue to evolve. >> supervisor yee: some of the community members raised a question in this study. why didn't you take into consideration what impact it has on city college. >> ms. lisk: so i think we've heard a concern that a property is owned with about 1,000

painting spaces there. they allow their community to park in those spaces when they're needed. and by building housing on this site, those parking spaces go away. that has been a topic of concern throughout the process. what we've said from the beginning, and what's included in the development parameters in the project is there needs to be a parking solution in this project. as jeremy mentioned, the proposed solution is a shared parking garage. this project would build it. and the preliminary estimate of how large it would need to be in order to ensure that everyone who needs to drive and access city college isn't impaired from doing so as a result of this project is about 500 spaces. the parking lot currently is -- occasionally it's full, but it's often not very full. so studying exactly what those

needs are is going to be an important part of environmental review and arriving at the final number of spaces will come out of that. going back to the fiscal feasibility report, i think the idea was raised that if this project doesn't provide enough parking and the college is difficult to access, and enrollment is reduced, then that could have a negative fiscal impact on the city. i think this is not really -- it's kind of a false premise because we're committed to making sure that there is enough parking, that the garage is big enough, and that it won't negatively impact city college in this way. >> supervisor yee: can you describe if there's any

discussions that have taken place between either the city or the developers for city college on this issue? >> ms. lisk: yes. we've been meeting with various committees. trustee davila sits on the section panel, along with others, and the parking and importance of providing enough parking has been part of all of those discussions every time. so recently, since chancellor roacha, he's been engaged about the parking structure but how the project can provide affordable housing for city college and how it can generally be a good neighbor.

the college has hired ms. davis, and there have been conversations around this issue and other issues. nothing has been decided. of course city college has a lot of internal stakeholders and the board of trustees to sort of run everything by the conversation, as they have with us. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor fewer has a couple of questions. >> thank you very much. i'm just getting familiar with this project. i have basic questions about the project. is all of this land being sold to the avalon, the developer, or will poc remain control of it through a ground lease, or is a

portion of it also being sold to the city and county of san francisco. >> sfpc has decided that would like to sell the land outright. sfpc is going to retain a small strip of property where there's a pipeline that needs to be protected, but other than that, they will sell the land and fee. sometimes for affordable housing buildings, the way we guarantee permanent affordability is to have them take ownership of that land. that's something we'll potentially discuss here, doing if that's necessary. >> has there been a price set? >> no. the price is going to be set determined based on what the

final program is. we're going to be negotiating with the developer using that model, which we can manipulate. that will show what the price will be as we go along, but then we're required to get an appraiser and then another appraisal review at the end of the process to determine the final land price. >> thank you. and what is a configuration of these units? are they family units? bedroom units? what are you looking at? >> so what we know now is what is required in the development principles and parameters. at least 50% of the units have at least two bedrooms. the proposal is for primarily

multi-family housing, like up to six-story apartment buildings, but there will also be some t n townhous townhouses. >> so have we done assessments if there are elementary school nearby that can accommodate the people. >> they're about to start another study regarding capacity that will take place over the course of this year. we'll get the results of that and factor it in. >> so the result is, no, you do not know. so it's correct to say you do not know if there are enough public elementary school nearby to accommodate the new students? >> that's correct. >> and i'm concerned about the

timing, that it -- that the construction may interfere with the performing arts center. would it interfere or wouldn't it? >> i can't speak to the schedule of the performing arts center. i know that it's a priority for city college and that they are in the process of hiring, or perhaps have already hired, managers to really get that under way. i believe they hope to start within the next few years. i think this project probably 2021 is when the horizontal, the grading, moving the dirt around, the infrastructure work could begin at the earliest year. there would need to be a lot of coordination to make sure if those two projects were happening at once, they wouldn't be happening with each other. >> i understand city college has hired a consultant to represent their interests. is that correct? >> as far as i know, yeah.

>> are you working closely with the consultant to ensure that their project will not be delayed? >> we absolutely will. i believe that consultant is brand new, and we look forward to collaborating as much as we can. >> i'm concerned about the addition of 17% of affordable housing that we'll pay for as a city. you mentioned a couple of funding sources, but nothing set in stone. i'm wondering if, then, we would be prioritizing affordable housing dollars for this project. >> so it is very typical not to know what all the subsidy sources for a project are going to be at this stage, we haven't pinned that down at this stage either. i think that's right. it will be a decision for the

board of supervisors to make about what you think is appropriate for how to fund this. >> it's just that my concern is actually only 3% of affordable housing dollars have come to my neighborhood. i'm wondering about this proposal and prioritizing this project over other projects that have also been discussed. i want to ask you about the parking. we have heard a lot about the parking. i'm past city college. i'm a city college graduate myself. i know that parking lot very well. i know that reservoir very, very well. are those 1,000 spaces used on a daily basis? is that parking lot full on a daily basis? when i attended city college actually, many, many decades ago -- yeah, i know. it was a long time ago. i just turned 61. that parking lot was filled. >> i do not believe it's filled on a daily basis now.

i know jeremy shaw is familiar with two preliminary studies of its occupancy that's happened over the last few years, and then there will be a lot more evaluation of that during the environmental review process. >> yeah. i think the main point is we know city college is undergoing rapid change, and the enrollment is growing and the team has committed and started to collect data. i can't speak to that. it's not -- i haven't seen it yet, but past data has just indicated increased occupancy. we know when people have talking to professors, for most of the day, it varies, depending on the class schedule. it's been indicated that at its

peak between 10:00 and 12 in the morning, it's full. the rest of the day, it goes down 20%. that was from last school year. really, we need to continue this analysis that the developer has initiated and perform it under the environmental review process. >> thank you. and the other thing that's been addressed here that's of concern to me is the maximum number of units. supervisor yee has mentioned 1,100 units, but we should be cautious about offering to the developer to have the ability to swap some of the units to 1200 ocean avenue. i wanted to know, on 1200 ocean avenue, those are market rate units. are there vacancies at this site? or will people be displaced if

we permit the developer to do so? >> so that building is currently over 95% occupied, which basically means they're full. there are always a few units vacant has people move in and out. what we would do is as someone moved out of a market rate unit, the developer would either hold it off the market until we did the affordable housing conversion or have an affordable resident move in, so it would be kind of phased in. >> i see. i actually think, in my personal opinion, actually, that we should hold the developer to percentages at the site and not allow them to offer it off-site in that if they wanted to offer it as a benefit, a community benefit, then we should also be looking at some of the demands that city college has asked about the housing.

perhaps it's just icing on the cake. thank you for answering those questions. >> we have a few more questions for you. supervisor stefani? >> thank you, supervisor cohen. i'm a little confused about the 1,100 units. it was suggested that it was a number to study the fiscal feasibility housing analysis. i'm wondering if there's a commitment to bring online a specific number of housing units at that site. >> yes. so 1,100 units was the number that came in. they did an initial internal financial analysis, looking at the development principles, the open space requirements, height limits. that was their proposal for what the ideal amount of housing on the site would be. it was a very high-level kind of

sketch-level fit study. as they're now hearing feedback from the planning department as well as from the community. they're going to be refining that. and it will be down to, you know, each housing unit in plan and kind of understanding what the actual number of units is. >> so we can expect, then, maybe a study that would tell us, based on our housing crisis, how much is too little and how much is too much. will that be studied as well? >> i don't know if -- i don't know. i think i would probably consult with the controller's office to see if that's something that's knowable. >> okay. i realize it's a very broad question. with the parking, too, we have heard a lot about it. and city college is very important to our city.

when you're studying parking and availability, will you also be looking at the cost. i know parking is expensive to build. if you price out the students and the users of the parking, if you provide it and they can't afford it, that's another thing. >> yes. we would be looking at that. >> that brings me to my term sheet question. supervisor yee raised this. i know the port does this well with mission rock and pier 70. how do you use a term sheet to discuss all the issues you mentioned and that supervisor yee has brought up? >> yeah. so for the port projects, those term sheets have a lot of the financial structures that are very complicated. that's really been the focus of those term sheets. here in the financial structure, it's pretty simple. there's going to be a land sale, and we're going to be defining the methodology for figuring out what the sale price for that land is. based on the feedback that we've been hearing from the budget and

legislative analyst, i think it should be for the affordable housing project. we should have conversations, using the preparation of this document as a way to flush out what more of those details would be. >> just one more question. the development agreement has a limited term. it's designed to last up until the development is built. the way that we typically protect affordability is a permanent restriction on the deed or potentially having the

city take ownership of the land. we would write into the development agreement that those things are requirements of the project and that that would need to happen probably before a building would get certificates of occupancy and people could move in. that would be attached to the building and then the terms of the development agreement would end, but those restrictions would stay with the land. they would stay with the property even if the ownership of a building changed. >> i have a couple of questions. i think the committee has been polite and we should be providing more oversight and be a little more direct in what we want to see in reports moving forward. first and foremost, i have not heard a definitive answer as to whether or not parking will be impacted and in what way. also, a concern i haven't heard from city college, i heard a

reference to trustee davila, that's one person and by no means a representative of the full body or thought. is there any outreach that's been done to city college? have they taken an official position? >> yes. so in the summer of 2016, the city college board of trustees passed a resolution, saying what are the things they would like to see as part of this project. addressing the parking, 50% of the affordable housing, a number of considerations. they were all rolled into the development principles and parameters guiding the project and attached to the rfp. in addition to that really formal process, we consistently meet with facility folks in administration to give them

updates, collaborate, work out exactly how our two sites are going to work together. they have recently hired charmaine curtis to interface exclusively with this project. that's kind of elevating it to a new level of engagement. >> that's good to hear. i have experience in working with charmaine curtis in some of the big eastern neighborhood projects that's good to know there's a professional at the hill. i'm going to move on. it doesn't sound like you have an answer of what is the potential threat on city college enrollment. it needs to be studied. you don't know. i accept that. do we have any indication that enrollment is tied to parking? >> not that i'm aware of. >> okay. fine. will additional student housing units affect that?

>> presumably if students, faculty, staff are living right next to campus and can walk to campus, their demand for parking may be lower because they don't need to drive to go about their day. >> sure. do we have any studies at all that reflect high density on this particular site? >> in terms of going above 1,100 units? >> yeah. 5,000 units? >> we do not. >> okay. well, is there a reason for that? seems to me like when we're studying, we want to know a high end, a middle, low end. we want to know the full breadth and depth the space has the capacity for, considering we're in an affordable housing crisis. >> in the environmental review process, a wider range will be

studied. i don't know how high up that will go. i think that's probably for the planning department to determine. the way that we approached kind of the design parameters for this site were to work with the community to talk about -- not just talk about a number of units but what building heights, how much open space, what the vision was, that's what we wrote into the parameters. one of the things in the vision was a strong desire for the buildings not to exceed 65 feet. so as long as that remains in place, that would limit the unit count, but, you know, certainly higher densities are something that could be explored, if there's a desire. >> so i guess i'm look for a little bit stronger language or commitment. i definitely want to see it explored. >> okay.

>> one last thing. so we heard this item -- yes? >> just to confirm what emily said, the eir can study a range of units. one of the alternatives in there could include a higher number. >> great. let's make that happen. avalon certainly reached out. i know they have a new team in place, but the one thing i definitely want to signal to the avalon team members, this is not a project that's not going to get built without labor building this project. it's been my own personal experience -- and i'm reflecting on what i've dealt with in mission bay and also in the southeast part of the city -- there's always a resistance. i'm not going to tolerate it. i want to see early on commitment that this is a union and labor project that's built

from top to bottom, from start to finish, not just the carpenters, but i want every aspect represented in this particular project. certainly i will not be on the board to see this and go through the entitlement process, but i will come back from the dead and make it my personal commitment to make sure this commitment is honored. so what i would like to do now is we have no more comments from colleagues. thank you, ms. emily. you can sit down. i do, however, have in my hand several note cards. i would like to call people up. just as a reminder, everyone will have two minutes to speak. you will hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on your time, and if we could cue up on the far side of the chamber so that we can get through this quickly, although we do not have too many cards, but i would like to invite joan

kwanzaa and jean barrish and madeline brewer. dr. reuben smith. nguyen kaufman. all right. folks. stand up that order. we'll start with joan. >> she had to leave. >> had to leave. thank you. we'll go to jean barrish. just leave them there. i will get them. jean, are you ready? good morning. good to see you. >> good morning. i'm waiting for supervisor fewer. so maybe you can set the clock back. >> i cannot. so go. >> good morning. my name is jean barrish. i'm a former city college

instructor in the department of biology. i'm also an advocate for the students and i'm a member of the save csf coalition. i've only recently gotten involved with this issue. it's of great concern to me for a number of reasons. listening to the discussion today, i'm both saddened, shocked, and somewhat heartened. saddened and shocked because it feels like the horse is out of the barn. all the decision-makers are on one side of the equation. there's been very little heard from the city college faculty, the students impacted, and the community members. i'm heartened by what the supervisors have asked for at this hearing. i'm going to toss away most of my notes. i want to say, indicate, repeat, without good answers to the questions you've asked and others that many of us have, i

don't think you're in a position to make a decision on whether this project is fiscally feasible and responsible. you asked questions. you didn't get clearances. i'm very concerned that until you get those clearances, you should not make a decision. there's no clearance to the impact of this project on the other side of the balance sheet regarding fiscal responsibility. you heard about good numbers that would help the city, but the fact that parking would be lost. there's very little doubt about that. that would conceivably lower the enrollment for city college. there's a report from the budgetary analysis that this could have a significant impact on city college. if you're looking at fiscal feasibility, you need to look at both side of the balance sheet. until you have those answers to your satisfaction, please do not

make a decision. >> this is not a plan approval, this is not an entitlement. there's still a lot of time and opportunity to say the affects of the parking plan and the eir. ma madeline fewer? we'll hear from the public. good morning, ms. mueller. >> good morning. i'm chair of the music department in 1965 at city college. a long time ago. yes, the parking lot is always full when it needs to be. the whole idea -- and this is what i would like to point out -- the motto of the school is the truth shall set you free. you need to get to the truth. you're getting half truths and

often lies and misrepresentations. you need figure it out. we need time, all of us. this institution, city college, is not just an institution for the entire city. it's not just a district issue. we're talk about the flagship for the whole community college system. we're the largest of the 114 colleges in the community college system. we were under attack, as you know, in 2014, when this all started. we didn't even have a board. these turned out to be illegal procedures against us. why would city college point out to be under attack? i think because we're san francisco. we have a target on our back. we have the koch brothers, we have alumna. we have people who would like city college to go down. i'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this is what happened in 2014 when this all started.

the utilization issue is paramount. the property was underutilized, and that's not true. we have a west campus. we've had that since 1946. we've had leases for parking since 1958. yes, we have a current lease that started in the '90s. this is an issue for the college, not for housing. >> thank you very much. next speaker. mr. tang? >> hi. good morning, supervisors. my name is mark tang. i'm a member of the c.a.c. i live in the project neighborhood. so we all know we really need a lot more housing in the city. the balboa reservoir is a great opportunity to address this housing crisis and build more housing in the neighborhood. as staff mentioned, the study

shows positive benefits to the city. the project should move forward to the environmental review process phrase where parking impacts can be addressed. i do encourage the subcommittee and the bull board of supervisors to adopt in resolution before you today. i do want to thank the staff and community for working together on this project. i know it gets tough. thank you for the work. >> thank you. ms. hey gee? >> i'm a sunnyside neighbor. it's the northeast of the balboa reservoir. we have many concerns about the feasibility document, primarily what it leaves out rather than what is written. the document does not provide us assurances that there has been any conversation of the additional funding that is required for the transportation improvements needed to make this a successful development.

the addition of such exponential needs to be mitigated with transportation corridors and public transit. for years, we've discussed the need for a better, safer walkway to the balboa reservoir bart station in order to encourage the use of transit. they have not been funded. there's congestion at certain times of the day. they worsen as the only identified current access points to and from the new reservoir development will be onto the same congested feeland and ocean avenues. a shuttle that could be used by balboa reservoir residents and city college to transport students, to encourage residents to leave their car and car rides

behind. in addition to the shuttle would be 43 short loop buses running a much shortened route, only when most needed. all these proposals would make the residents more accessible would require additional funds that have not been included in the analysis. another comment i want to make is i was absolutely shocked that the analysis gives a minimum number of units, states an actual unit of 1,100. this is a community process and this is a runaround that process. >> thank you, very much. ms. goodwin, you're next. >> good morning, committee members and board of supervisors. i'm a long-term resident of the alumni and a student, thanks to the special programs at ccsf.

i strongly oppose this so-called feasibility study. it is an insult to the 22,000 plus students, instructors, neighborhoods of san francisco. this land has long been promised, voted, and received approval bypasses of two propositions for building state-of-the-arts performance building at that site. this would greatly impact parking. it's indeed a very important issue. it's a major problem. the prior wishes of the major college and neighborhoods should be respected and not be once again undermined by unscrupulous developers working behind the scenes. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is reuben smith. i'm the vice chancellor for city college of san francisco. city college is not party to this development. we do not own the reservoir land that the city is proposing development. however, giving the proximity to the ocean campus, the college community has taken a key interest in this project. over the course of the last year and a half, we have participated in the citizens advisory committee as well as in the development process. we have invited the city and developer to invite trustees for development on the project, which they have done in the recent past. as ms. lisk alluded to, july 28th of 2016, a resolution was passed outlining a number of priorities for continued discussion with the city and the developer. among the most critical were

three key goals. number one, given the development of the lower reservoir, we'll remove parking spaces considered by the college. there must be a viable transportation plan and provisions for the performing arts center. the board stated its belief that 50% of the residents in the lower reservoir should be affordable for dedicated faculty and staff housing. our consultant, charmaine curtis, and myself, have been beating with the development team. the chancellor has laid out a future vision. the primary focus for the lower reservoir will be to ensure thatwell enhance our ability for

admission, which is to provide an accessible, affordable, and hi highly -- >> thank you. dr. smith. nguyen kaufman, and i would like to bring a series of other names. >> hi. i'm nguyen kauffman. i've been a faculty member at city college since 1993. the balboa reservoir project is not financially feasible or responsible. the origins of this project are disturbing. the process has been anything but transparent and, actually, it has not considered public and community inputs. there were meetings that happened that ms. davila did not even know about between the city and the agencies. this will be far reaching and devastating. i think you should realize that this project began after the attack by city college's

accredit tors when there was a state take over and our elected board of trustees was removed and replaced with a special trustee with extraordinary powers. one of the first moves was to halt the performing arts education center, which was shovel ready and had been bond approved twice by the san francisco voters. the collaboration with city voters has been temporary and interim. we have had a revolving door in the last six years. i really appreciate supervisor cohen's question about how does city college feel about it. virtually every constituent zig has stated keeping public land in public hands. it should not go to line private develope

developers' pockets. the department of chair council, the faculty union, and the facilities committee have all come out with resolutions in strong language. hopefully i have time to read one. the facilities committee asks the board of trustees to reexamine the entire concept of the balboa reservoir because of its public significance and grave and permanent damage -- >> thank you. all right. ms. harris? >> good afternoon. ms. harris, president of westford park association. i had the privilege of serving the city as planning commissioner for five years. i know the importance of reports from the analysts to ensure a sound decision is made.

my letter of february 2018 indicates that the board of supervisors cannot continue without a full discussion of the financial impact to one of the city's most treasured assets, city college. the fiscal feasibility analysis does not deal with this crucial issue. it concludes there will be a positive fiscal impact of $2.7 million per year, but the report fails to include any discussion of the financial impacts to city college, specifically a report does not provide an analysis of the impact it will have, the loss of 2,000 spaces that have been continuously utilized for over 40 years by a commuter school. that loss of parking will likely lead to reduced enrollment. the policy analysis prepared by

your own analysis concluded that the benefits to ccf exceeded $311 million. that means any negative impact on ccf should dwarf the $2.7 million per year set forth in this report. this matter needs to be continued until the analysis of fiscal feasibility includes a thoughtful analysis of the potential loss of financial benefits of city college. we feel the law does not permit the board of supervisors to approve this project until a proper analysis is completed. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is francine lafono. i'm a city college graduate. i would like to make a comment regarding the balboa reservoir

development. the ccf enrollment was up 11%. enrollment is forecasted to increase. therefore parking is needed. however, the balboa reservoir development combined with the ccf performing arts center will result in the loss of more than 1,500 parking spaces. the loss of parking, ccf enrollment will be seriously threatened. to better understand this threat, the ccf commission recently did a study to impact -- did a study to determine the impact of the loss of parking. until then, any decision will be woefully lacking in basis and obviously premature. finally, please consider the two

important advisory committees to ccf board of trustees, which are the facilities commission and the academic senate found the impact of this development detrimental enough to unanimously pass resolutions, asking the board of supervisors to reconsider citing the grave damage that would be done, and we all know the damage to the city college means financial damage and major financial damage to the city. i have a question. how can you do an environmental impact review without knowing the size of the development? how can you determine the size of the shared parking garage without knowing the number of units? thank you. >> thank you. next speaker? jane? >> hi. my name is jane mineheart. i'm a 35-year resident. i'm a retired architect.

i'm here to deliver comments of mike aarons, who is my neighbor and is currently out of town. he's a member of the committee and the westwood park board of directors. the following are his comments. >> it's been made clear that the supervisors do not have adequate supporting documentation for the finding of fiscal feasibility. everybody has submitted the report which points to certain benefits but does not review the results to the city college. it exceeds 311 million a year. every has not analyzed the fiscal damage of the project to city college and to the city. the damage can only be determined when everyone at city

college reaches an agreement on tentative parking to cover the loss of 1,500 sparking spaces. until that agreement is reached, the damage to the city cannot be calculated and fiscal feasibility cannot be determined. chapter 29 of the administrative code require an analysis of fiscal feasibility and responsibility in provide -- and provides clearly when there's insupport evidence -- insufficient evidence, it must be considered so the board can consider the proposal. in conclusion, we submit that under section 29.4c, the budget committee should continue the hearings until a later time. [ bell ringing ] >> thank you. next set of speakers.

sonya trauss? >> hi. names is sonya trauss. i live in soma. i'm president of the renters federation. i'm running for district six. i'm here today because this is the stuff right before the eir. i am here to support supervisor cohen's request that a high density 5,000 unit version of this project be studied in the eir. as some of the other commenters mentioned, this is a city-wide issue. what happens at the balboa reservoir affects everybody. in particular, i want to talk about the relationship between the housing at the reservoir and the central soma plan. the central soma plan has many more jobs planned than housing units. two years ago, one of the

founding members asked planning to study a version of central soma plan that had a one-to-one jobs to housing balance or something closer to that. they didn't. now now here we are two years later, and supervisors, i think, probably feel like they wish they could approve a more balanced version of that plan, but they can't because it wasn't studied two years ago. so when we're planning ahead, we should really plan ahead. so i'm really, really excited that a high-density version will be studied, especially because in two years, the jobs-housing balance caused by the central soma plan, the imbalance, will start to become more and more obvious. even though we already have a backlog, a need for housing, that will seem all the more urgent. thank you. >> thank you. steve? >> my name is steve zelcher.

this project is a scandal. this land should be turned over to city college. this has been passed by afd2121 and unanimously by the san francisco labor council. we need an art education project built now. i think if you want to investigate something, find out why the citizen have passed bonds for this project, but they're still not being put into use to build the arts project. that's a priority for the people of san francisco. this is a waste of money by the city. millions of dollars have been spent on the development of this project, and the chancellor is talking about when to start. i say start now. start the shovel. start building this project. 1,300 condos would create a gridlock. it's an outrage right now, the gridlock in san francisco. by going forward with this, you would encourage more gridlock and more madden. this is driven by the

specklators and those driving for more profits. it's financially irresponsible and a waste of city funds, which you should be responsible for. we do not want money spent for developers for a project that will create more gridlock in san francisco. we ask you to reject this. we do not want to waste more city funds on a project that's against the interest of the people of san francisco. >> i have thomasita speaks, we'll hear from christine hanson, laura frey, laura clark, sam moss, will menes and al kill borough and john and fred. >> thomasita.

>> good morning and good afternoon. it's 12:00 noon. in 2001 and 2005, the voters of san francisco voted to fund and to approve a state-of-the-art performing arts education center. my question to you is why hasn't it been built? it should have been built long by now. it should be built immediately. we shouldn't even be considering construction nearby until the mandate of the voters has been fulfilled, number one. number two, this is public land that should stay for the public benefit. it is ludicrous to think that this is under consideration of giving to a developer corporation that that has a very bad reputation with the unions in this city. that's being considered by the

city to give them this precious land. avalon can find other land to buy all around the city, but the little patch of land, the little precious 17 acres that has been used by city college for the last decades should stay for the public benefit. there's different little neighborhood classes and people ride their bicycles there. it should stay for community good. there's 65,000 units right now in the pipeline that have already been approved for housing elsewhere in the city. so the urgency for housing has not been met -- i'm sorry. is already being met by all of these other housing projects in the pipeline. i beg you to not approve this until -- first of all, the pac should be built and the negative impact on this should be taken