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 into consideration. [ bell ringing ] >> thank you. >> please do not pass but instead continue this item and charge those who have presented

it with the task of quantity phiing the damage -- quantifying the damage to city college. holding back this item is the fiscally responsible action that can be taken today. please note the report notes 500 spaces of shared parking that would net $1.9 million. this revenue includes city parking taxes levied only on students and city college staff. zero project data exists to quantify the current parking demand for the evening class period. this plan keeps going forward citing 500 shared parking spots. parking spots that would be kept available for the development residents at the very same time they would be needed for working students to attend classes. the loss of parking at city college's largest campus and the only location close to a freeway will affect enrollment. in the first year of the adread

days crisis, $20 million in stabilization funding was to counteract the drop in enrollment. that was 26 million for one year. that time period brought a loss of 483 teacher jobs. trustee davila has not been included in any of the city college meeting where is administrators are providing feedback to the developer. admin code 29 is clear that damages above 200,000 must be assessed. that process absolutely has not started in the case of impending damage to city college. are these issues only going to be addressed after the project is built? please do not give this freight train yet another green light. please. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> laura frye. i just had a few points. i wanted to point out there were concerns by different professionals at the brbac that

the estimates on the feasibility study were very low for the necessary upgrades to the infrastructure and the service support in the area that would be necessary to handle this increase in density. also, there are several articles in neighborhood papers regarding the fire system in the south and west part of the city being inadequate compared to the north and east intersections. also, we've asked for examples of successful shared parking because it seems too many of us -- it doesn't make sense how it would work and the developers or no one has given us any kind of examples of successful ongoing shared parking. i don't have it with me, but there's a parking draft in 2015 or 2017 when there was low enrollment, and the number of people that drove was way, way

more than the people that took public transit or walked. the parking issue is really, really big. the final point is just that mission lock took ten years. that also was public. it did not have the issue of city college thrown in like the previous speaker. this has been a freight train and it needs to be slowed down and more study. thank you. >> thank you. laura clark and sam moss. >> i'm ken cryzer. i got mixed up in the feud. >> i'm happy to meet with a young board of supervisors. i would like to give you a history. this has been before the voters four times. three times it has been a similar short-sighted housing project. all four of those projects have

been defeated by the city of san francisco. i would like to compliment the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. i would like to compliment them for their deceit, their arrogance, and their contempt for the people of this city. just to give you, again, a little bit of history. back when bill wite and barbara smith were running that department, there were a bunch of nasty things said in the newspaper. it sat down with barbara smith and said, is there a compromise we can reach. she said give me a piece of paper as to what you would want, meaning the college. let us build the housing. i don't care what you think of me, but i don't look that stupid. the current farmers who are running this project have exactly the same attitude. if you go back and look at the information that they sent out to various community activities, the college had no input

whatsoever. they wanted nothing to do. this project is -- we were originally told -- 500 units of housing. they have entered into an exclusive negotiation with an organization that wants to put up 1,100 units with less than a half a parking place per unit plus the 40,000 kids that are across the street at the college. this is a very poor idea. >> thank you for the history lesson. next speaker. >> hi. laura clark, mb action. i would like to give a different history lesson. 30 years of chronically underbuilding housing putting our city into the largest housing crisis that we have ever seen. so a proposal to do good things for the community and build housing doesn't sound like a bad

face effort at all to me. a couple of things have been said today. don't allocate funding to conduct this study because not all of the questions have been answered. that's the purpose of allocating the funding to do the study, to answer all the questions. so that would be one thing i would say. i've heard a lot about the impacts that this will have on the students and their parking. i've heard the city commit to doing everything they can to address the student parking needs. i think there's a strange lack of concern about students and their inability to live in this city and how the cost of housing is driving people further and further away. this is an amazing opportunity site to really maximize how many homes for families could be here, and we could grow our schools, and we can grow our transit, and we can build dense, vibrant walkable communities, where people can find opportunity in this city. the community benefit that is

most important is the affordable housing. we are talking about maximizing the number of units that we can get. please study 5,000 units. we can really see what we can get. i want you guys to fully understand at a later date the full choice that we can make about how many homes we can build, how many subsidized affordable homes we can get when we add in a market rate developer. more families will get the opportunity to not sit on that ten-year long wait list. >> thank you. i've got another stack i'm going to read. >> hi, supervisors. thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak this morning. so my name is sam moss. i'm the executive director of

mission house corporation. obviously, i work for the development where one of the developers on the project. this thing that's made me the most sad, when anyone, even the supervisors, talk about the developer of the project, it seems to only point out avalon. avalon is an awesome developer as well, but let me just, for the record say, that at least two of the developers are 47--year-old non-profit affordable housing developers that were started in and still focus on low-income housing in san francisco. when you say this unscrupulous developers that we're giving land up to these unscrupulous developers. you're talking about two non-profits who have dedicated their entire existence to building, owning, maintaining high-quality affordable housing for san franciscoens. i just truly hope that that

makes the public record and that when everyone describes, you know, the developer, that you keep in mind that two of the three main developers are non-profit affordable housing developers. thank you. >> my name is will menus. san francisco's 22-foot high by 74-foot long world treasure was created by the renown mexican artist at the golden gate expedition on treasure island that celebrated the completion of the two bridges. the murals godfather, a life-long mission district resident architect timothy fluger. he was a visionary. he constructed 140 new montgomery. the look and feel of the bay bridge, the castro theater, the

paramount theater. as he started building city college for which he planned a major theater, he covered a science building to protect it from the corow save -- corrosive salt air. the cost was ballked at. he was proven right. we need visionaries now. it is short-sighted to box the college in so we're prohibited from utilizing the adjacent land. a theme resonates in our city. the mural will be featured work at sf moma. it's a collaboration between two great san francisco institutions both founded in 1935. upon return from this multi-year loan, we plan to restore the masterpiece in the center at city college. it is imperative that the center design is uncompromised by lack

of parking space so this mural, which could last hundreds of years has a permanent home to showcase for san franciscoens. i invite the board members to visit the treasure to see what the stakes are. thank you. >> uh-thank you. next speaker, please. anne, that you? okay. mitsy, john, fred. >> i returned to san francisco in 1971. i got my first job at city college teaching vocational nursing. i started teaching full time in '85. i have luckily been able to retire. in all these years, i drove a car because of the need to have my students in numbers of

locations. i also took public transit. over these years, the transit has been totally inadequate for the ocean campus. i wouldn't speak to any of the others. the parking situation has only gotten worse. reardon high school is boxed in. people are now wanting to take public land, which has been used for parking, not use it for the college, not use it for the performance center for which, as you've heard so many times, the voters have voted the money to do it, but we've faced a major crisis. not only are we facing crisis for education across the country but especially in san francisco again and again and again and again. when we say that the board of trustees in 2016 at city college was authorizing and involved with this kind of development,

we're still talking about the city college being under the rule of a special trustee and the fact that the accreditation was still in jeopardy. it's only been since the summer of 2017 that city college is fully up and running with its own board of trustees, its own chancellor, and its full accreditation. i think some of these other statements -- [ bell ringing ] >> thank you. your time is up. mitsy, thank you. you're next. >> hi. my name is mitsy. i'm a current city college student. i'm here to testify that the parking lot is of great necessity to students. i have trouble, myself, looking for parking, even now. not many of us can take public transportation because city college, there's many low-income

working students. if you have to go to work right after class, you don't have the time nor can take on another stressor to be looking for parking. so i am here to say that the current city college student condition should be considered prior to making the decision. we should be advocating for city college students' success. we already have a lot of lack of resources and problems to deal with. we don't need any more inconveniences, such as the lack of parking. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. john winston. i'm on seat nine of the c.a.c. representing the entire city, i lived in sunnyside, but i would recommend for the sake of the city where the housing situation as the city as a whole is dire at the moment, that we move this

forward. regarding parking, i would like to give you another history lesson. the last couple of generations, that parking lot has been -- it has plentiful parking, and it's been low-priced. it's been limited to $50 per semester by law. so what we have done is we've trained people to drive to school, and we've clogged the streets with traffic as a result, and we've made it the cheapest way to get to class. my thinking is we do need to provide parking for those who need to drive. some come from outside the city. some do have jobs and have children to shuttle around, but a good many of those people who now use the parking lot could be serviced by better muni, by bike share, car share, a shuttle, perhaps. all different kinds of ways of managing the demand of the commuters to the school every day. i think we still have to figure out what the size of the parking

lot is going to be, but i definitely think we can get everybody to school if we manage it properly and not affect city college's enrollment and a number of people could get to class every day. i would recommend you move this project forward. it's very important for the city as a whole. we really need housing in this town. we need all kinds of housing for all different kinds of people. appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm freed moheim. i've been a resident for 40 years. city college has been a wonderful asset for me. it's retrained me twice. it's a property owner, a taxpayer. my tax bill says we've just paid $99 to the san francisco community college district. i was expecting to see a performing arts center built a long time ago. it has not happened. if you take parking away, where

do people who are coming to these much larger auditoriums at night, where are they going to be parking? i don't want to see the college set up for failure. the college provides training for extremely important jobs for the city. i've recently heard that 75% of the radiology technologists in our hospitals are trained at city college. that's huge. our hospitality industry comes from city college. viability would be seriously at risk if it doesn't have city college. i'm not convinced that this project in its current format is a good deal long term for the citizens of san francisco. i don't think it should go forward until we know more about the impacts on city college. thank you for the time. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, i have no more speaker cards, but if

there's anyone who would like to speak on this item that has not had the opportunity to speak, i would invite you to come up. this is your last chance. public comment is closed at this time. supervisor yee, are there any last-minute comments? >> supervisor yee: yes. so my understanding of this feasibility study is to just say that we could move forward to look at the deeper dive at some of these issues. as has been said over and over again. i've personally said over and over again, i was a former student at city college. i had to work my way through college and had to go back and forth and either load trucks at ups or whatever it was at night time. i know the importance of parking for a many students, if not a good majority. it is a place where students,

many of them do not come from privileged families where they don't have to work. many of them, if you look at the age bracket, they're not 18 and 19. many of them are actually parents and so forth. so one of the things i've said over and over is we cannot have a project here unless we solve the parking problem. the city staff has heard that loud and clear. they know that they have to be committed. the developers in this case have said in public that they understand this is a major, major issue. if we don't have a solution, we're not going to be able to move forward with this project. the question i have for the staff is that where does this

study of the parking solution enter into that discussion? again, i know that we're a long ways from any final designs and so forth, but i want to make sure that we say in public that the opportunity to look at that parking issue more carefully as some people described is this a freight train moving forward? i don't think so. it's a train, but where is the stop for the discussion of this public parking? >> thanks, supervisor ken rich with oewd. before answering your question, i specifically want to reiterate from the beginning of this project, we recognize we have to partner with city college. we have to make sure there's a solution for parking. can we keep 1,000 surface

parking spaces? no, but we have to make sure we have a solution to this. i want to recommit in every way possible that is the primary issue on this project that needs to be solved. let me come back with you, as we talked about earlier. it will be number one on the agenda. i will report back to you. getting back to the ceqa process, if we receive permission to start, it's about a 12-to 18-month process. it allows us to get engaged with brand new traffic counts, parking counts and get into the heart of the matter with actual data. in the next not-so-many months, we can make progress and go out to the community first and back to you with solid ideas about how we can do this. i want to make that commitment right now that in the next