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 reporti

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 pr

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 colleg