Another huge area of concern, of course, is parking demand. And here we find that the consultants and the city consistently point to the ineffective existing Residential PermitParking Program as a swlugs to parking demand. Solution to parking demand. One of the big problems with that program is it doesnt work which is one reason the city has been attempting to revise it the past few years. The other big problem with it is that it puts the entire burden of cost on existing residents. The coast for the permits and the time to collect signatures. The program should be borne by the Developers Just as the shuttle to operate during the city college and balboa park station should be included. Thank you. Chair peskin next speaker. Public steve park. The balboa reservoir project will bring a traffic bomb the likes of which the neighborhood has never seen before. It is crucial that this be managed correctly. The tdm reports to reviews vehicle mile trips in the balboa project site. It makes no real effort to improve the existing transportation infrastructure or provide viable transportation alternatives for the residents and future students of this project. The existing kjm and other bus lines such as the 43 and eight are inadequate to meet current demand, let alone the expected future demand and will see a decline in Service Quality due to impeded traffic flow because of the balboa reservoir project. These items have not been addressed to our communitys satisfaction. I strongly encourage that the board reject the tdm until further accurate analysis is complete. Thank you. Public my name is ace washington and im hoping i can be as serious as much as you are curious what im doing up here with green glasses on, hat and this is the most historical part of the history of San Francisco. But i wanted to be known for the record because i helped put this charter together. I dont want credit. Right now im here to tell you as a black man first let me Say Something not out of order. I support excuse me. I support whatever you are doing over there. Fine. You cant stop me. I got one minute. But im here to say directly to whoever is in room 200 because you know im not going to Say Something about somebody. I aint going to do it. Room 200 is a total different game and its a shame that i, ace washington, born and raised in the fillmore. I wasnt born and raised in the projects. Chair peskin mr. Washington public excuse me, sir. I already said i supported that. I got two minutes now. Just listen. [microphone turned off] chair peskin mr. Washington, this is about item number seven, the balboa transportation. Public i have another minute to talk, sir. Chair peskin you can speak during the general Public Comment at the end of the meeting. Ace, you can speak during general Public Comment. Public this is my moment. [bell]. Public im able to get up here and speak because you have white boy chair peskin ace, would you sit down, please. Public give me my time back, sir. Chair peskin you will have two minutes at the end of the meeting which will be a total of three and then thats enough. All right. Next speaker, please. Public down here at silly hall. I done seen it all and im going to tell it all. I will be back and im going to say what i have to say about them chair peskin ace next speaker. Public is it on . My name is michael errands. Im a member of the Westwood Park association and im appointed to the cac balboa reservoir committee. I gave my comments last night and i will just incorporate them. The main thing is that this report is not based in any fact. Its not based on any numbers. Mr. Shaw and supervisor yee, i think has acknowledged that. Mr. Shaw said to the cac early in november that this document is not a binding document. He said today that this is on the starting the discussion. So often yee says it is not based on numbers. Because of this, the very important facilities commit at city college of San Francisco has stated that they do not support at all this report. And they say they reject this report in its entirety because it is not based on any numbers. It is not based on any analysis. City college just last month in november authorized hiring somebody to do an analysis. Whats going to happen when you lose all 2,000 Parking Spaces for a college they want to increase the enrollment . Its now free. So, they said that there is no basis in fact on this report and they reject it in its entirety. But they are Going Forward to do a study and i think they are going to conclude there is no alternative other than to retain that parking space. But we submit this commission shouldnt approve this report and its already stated its preliminary and without basis in numbers. And youre going to increase 1,100 new units that this area . The traffic is going to be horrible. What we submit is look at the resolution. The Resolution Says the Transportation Authority adocuments this report. How can adopts this report. How can you adopt something without any basis in facts or numbers . We suggest that need to be paid. Thats what you should be doing here. Not putting a rubber stamp on this document that everybody says is without basis in numbers of facts. Thank you. Chair peskin thank you. Seeing no other members of the public on item number seven, we will close Public Comment. Commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen thank you. Ill speak after commissioner yee. Chair peskin commissioner yee. Supervisor yee mr. Shaw, can you come up. I have a question. So, this tdm, i guess im looking at as a framework and for city college and in particular, balboa Reservoir Development, did you mention that they are going to also do their own tdm to account for their impacts . Absolutely. Supervisor yee how long are they going to be doing that . Some of the things that i heard that were not included from the public today and thats not included, i know ive talked about it. Like even though its not mentioned, for instance, the shuttle, the possible shuttle that the developers may want to implement, is it on their table . I believe so. Supervisor cohen im sorry. You believe so . Yes or no . I cant speak for the developers, but theyre certainly aware of the comments from the public. And i think the recommendation in the report said recommended doing an analysis because for any sort of private form of transportation, theres a rigorous process that has to go through mta to understand the existing impact on public transportation, loading et cetera. Supervisor cohen thank you. Supervisor yee thanks. Chair peskin commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen thank you. I walked in today to support this. Im thinking im going to be voting no on this. I am uncomfortable on many fronts. I think we need more parking. I think we need to provide more infrastructure for the college. I think there needs to be more Due Diligence. I think its curious we dont have any stakeholders to talk about this from city college. I personally have experience with avalon bay, the very difficult development company. We will have problems with them. This is just like the beginning, yes. Its a study. But thats how things start. And thats how development happens in this city. It starts with a study and then we build from that point on and on, developing facts that as you heard earlier from some of our Public Comment testimony that are not solid facts. This body transitions. Supervisor yee will no longer be the supervisor. Things get lost. I want to go on the record early. I believe avalon bay will create a lot of problems for us, those of us who have relationships in labor. Many times our labor partners have come raising concerns that they havent hired union labor to do the job. Im talking something that is years down the line. But i just think that that funding that this is just not the right direction we need to go in and we need to reevaluate. Supervisor yee did a great job getting city college free. And now we have all these people that want to go there. We need to be mindful and respectful of the people who have been living around the college for generations. And weve heard from our citizens advisory commission, a policy body used to advise us. They are against it. I dont know anybody in support of this other than the Police DepartmentPlanning Department. Im going to be voting no on this and i hope you will consider joining me. Chair peskin commissioner yee, any final words as this is the result of your end tip allocation . Supervisor yee no. I appreciate commissioner cohens point of view. But as i mentioned, to me its the beginning of a discussion and i think the frameworks there. The issues of parking, the issue of improving the transportation really does need further study. One of the things ive been pretty consistent about in terms of discussing with the balboa Reservoir Development is that between them and city college and the city, we need to city down and solve future sort of parking issues. And that if it doesnt get solved, theres not going to be any development. So, i know people, whether at city college or the developers, in having informal discussions, they have taken it very seriously. Its be on the agenda with the developers pretty much up front and talking about these issues. Have they come up with solutions . Not yet. Were several years away from that development. Has city college come up with their final analysis . No. They are only beginning because their doing their Facilities Master Plan right now. So, youre correct in saying that if this were the only thing thats going to be used to solve these issues, i would say i would agree with you. But to me, its not this document does not even try to say it solves everything thats going to be in the future. Some of the things that ive talked about and this seems like, again, informally. I mentioned the shuttle. I mentioned one of the things i didnt mention i think one of the residents mentioned it. If we are going to go into residential parking permits, im going to ask, for instance, for them to pay for that because it is forcing certain areas further away from city college but still in the neighborhoods that will have students parking further away. There are many things in discussion. Can city college, for instance im not going to speak for city college. But my observation is they have also other land around city college that can be developed as a parking lot. So, thats my comment. Im going to go ahead and ask my colleagues to support this sort of framework piece so we can move on and have both the developers and city college come up with concrete solutions. Chair peskin commissioner safai, do i see your name . Supervisor safai yes. I think these are all good points brought up today. I have been listening as supervisor yee, our districts are bound by this project in this area and it is a traffic nightmare. Theres a lot of concern. I know the balboa cac and city college cac and others have reservations about this. But i think some of the reservations arent necessarily about this particular plan, but theyre more about the long term plan. And i think both supervisor yee and ive heard very strongly that theres desires for certain things that because this is going to be a development agreement, ultimately, those things can be negotiated into the final package, such as a shuttle, the amount of parking and otherwise. I think the concerns of the neighbors are very real and this will have a big impact. But i think theres a lot of opportunity and i know supervisor yee has been leading this and ive been kind of backing him up in many ways. So, i feel comfortable moving forward with this. I do have a lot of reservations that supervisor cohen brought up. But i think we can finalize that. Chair peskin commissioner yee. Supervisor yee i also want to mention that i have been asking ting this is a ta meeting, one of the things thats really long term and but im willing to push the discussion. Ive pushed it with the mline in terms of potentially moving from whether its from the st. Francis circle or from west portal tunnel to go under ground. And so, with that discussion, i also was broadening the discussion that we study the city study the possibility of keeping the k under ground from the same point. And that would to me if you put the kline under ground all the way to the bart station, that to me would really reduce the Traffic Congestion around that area. Again, its only possibilities. Maybe when they study it, they will find out that my statement was totally ridiculous or not. If we dont study it, we wont know. Chair peskin all right. Is that a motion commissioner yee . Supervisor yee yes. Chair peskin is there a second for that . Seconded by commissioner kim on the item. A roll call please. Commissioner breed. Thank you. I have some questions about outreach specifically because there is information in the resolution that talks about an extensive outreach process as it relates to this particular plan with community input. And i was hoping to get more information on the follow through specifically that was highlighted in the resolution here. Specifically based on public input received after this Advisory Committee meeting. Commissioner yee requested concerns expressed by members of the public and resulting feedback was in the final report. I just want a little more information about that additional outreach and what was incorporated into the report as a result of that outreach. Mr. Shaw. Thank you commissioner breed. At commissioner yees request, we did return to the community a number of times to hear the concerns. I think part of the challenge was how do we stick with whats the written scope of a Transportation Demand management while acknowledging a lot of Community Concerns that maybe a tdm cant address. We changed a lot of the tdm recommendations or refined them to make sure the communitys concerns are addressed. For example, the data challenge thats been mentioned. There was Additional Data collected a second time and then recommendations were added to refine Data Collection in the future when city college or balboa reservoir go for their analysis. And for things that the tdm cant really address, we wanted to make sure that those concerns were included. For example, safety at transit stops at night is a significant concern. That needs to be addressed at transit stops throughout the neighborhood and beyond. And so, it was included in here. But this is not a capital plan. And so, theres limits to what the tdm framework could do. We tried to focus on strategies that could provide a foundation for and acknowledge those that it couldnt. One last comment. Response that the third or fourth edit i think we invited Many Community members to come in to the Planning Department and workshop and talk about ways to get more of Community Concerns into the document and youll see that in the most recent version. And i think part of the concern is because the plan is the plan. It talks somewhat about community input, but it just seems as if theres a plan that was put together with certain recommendations. But it appears that many of the recommendations are based on the Planning Departments recommendation of the community of what could be done and that information is actually whats put into the report. Is that accurate . I think it comes from a variety of sources of input. The recommendations were from the consultant. So, it started with best practices and their knowledge of San Francisco. There was input from city College Staff at the time. There was input from the two cacs and then that last round of edits focused on a lot more details around data and around so things beyond tdm. We acknowledge theres always more outreach that needs to be done and our intent and hope is that the process and the feedback that weve gotten about the process will inform the future planning. So, when we have an implementable plan, a real plan that the developers at city college are obligated to fulfill, that outreach will be done, reflecting all the comments we have heard over the last two years. Can you talk a little more about the outreach to city college specifically . Because i heard in the comments that there was only one presentation at their board meeting. But can you give me clarity in terms of the board meeting, the students, the staff and the people impacted most by this. Sure. So, the document was first initiated and scoped if this late 2015. So, since that point, there were ongoing coordination meetings and vetting with facilitys staff at city college. And we were happy to present at many times i think at the same time part of the challenge was city college was going through their own facilitys master plan effort. So, there were limited opportunities for the city to present. We are happy to return. Another note and opportunity is i think the facilitys master plan is going through a reboot. Theres a new chancellor. Theres a new project manager dedicated just to the reservoir and parking concerns. And we are very excited to work with them. So, i think all those changes represent an opportunity to improve on the outreach process. And i just want for clarity, this is just a guide. This is not written in stone. There could be changes as any project progresses. But this was basically used a road map to have a better understanding of what the challenges are in the area, what some recommendations can be to fix those challenges. But theres still a lengthy process associated with moving anything forward of this magnitude in general. So, i just wanted to make sure that that was clear. That is absolutely correct. If i could just add one more point. I think the framework created the space or the opportunity for really an unprecedented collaboration. I dont think theres has been to this point in my knowledge around the planning or transportation issue, the consistent coordination between staff of both city colleg