Committee and on the association and im speaking for the board today. I want to address a particular aspect of the environmental report and that is alternative c. Thats opening to vehicular traffic. You want you to urge the Planning Department to support this alternative. As currently planned, there are two openings for vehicular traffic in and out of the reservoir site and a third access point would be provided. Mitigating some of the lockedin nature of the suit. When it was concluded that thisd reduce bottlenecks into the neighborhood and this would extend site traffic and can be acom datad withouaccommodated ig neighborhood. The draft states that opening this would redistribute traffic from ocean avenue and fredda calloway resulting in transit delay and this would provide emergency vehicles better access. Further, it would result project generated Traffic Volume at lee avenue which is identified in the draft report as a troublesome intersection with a lot of projected congestion. In 1917, Westwood Park laid out several stubend street laid out with several stubend street. In 1986, Westwood Park successfully blocked the opening of one on the west side of Westwood Park and so thats just a solid wall and on the other side is the El Dorado Development which happened in the 80s. The plan envisioned the stubs would be connecting up with new streets as future Residential Development happened in the surrounding neighborhoods. Connecting this to the balboa project would seem like an obvious part of the site but apparently, the barrier to do so lies far in the past. I have a conveyance real estate which was just provided to me by the assessor today which shows in 1955, Westwood Park acquired a slice of san ramon way at the end as a lot, which a a lot a ls made up out of a public street and this is a barrier, because its at the employee of the balboa reservoir project and i urge them to override this project. Thank you, maam. Your time is up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Garry barringer and i live within three blocks of this proposed area and i have lived there for over 40 years. I first found out about this project in this meeting today when i was taking my dog for a walk right where the project is to be built. I saw on these lampposts this Public Notice wrapped around. I treed to read it and i looked goofy Walking Around and around because it wasnt readable to the public. Finally, i was able to sense its from the Planning Commission. I got a name and an mau email ai wrote miss cowling and told her my problems and she directed me to the website and she was helpful and i went to the Planning Commission and picked up this woke or tome, as i call it. As i read through it, started calling this the balboa housing boondoggle project and i cannot separate the actual project from this deir. Its like they borrowed some sharpies from donald trump and through a line and ignored the reality. The neighbors of this project and students of city college will be facing this. One example. The graft as cir fails to include the City College Multiuse Building as a receptor, which i think is a euphemism for young kids. Its 150 feet from the construction site used for childhood classes where children attend classes on the site. The shortterm measurement Location Information in the seir, which is on page 3, section c9 notes that, and i quote from the deir, that College Campuses are not considered a noise sensitive receptor, end quote. The nub has childcare classes and will be use ed this way andd qualities as a noise sensitive receptor and they ignore that as they ignore the impact at city college and reardone college. I strongly urge you to go with alternative a which is do nothing and start back at the drawing board to build Affordable Housing for teachers and students. I want to thank the Planning Department. It identifies concerns that are issues that cannot be mitigated, including noise, transportation and air quality. My focus today will be on noise. Noise affects on residents and Childcare Centres have been ignored. Theyre itwo Childcare Centres e identified in the dri. Theyre close to the development than the allt3 locations and this lies in an area downwind of the construction site. The styles and freeda calloway serves the residents as well as Childcare Centre and preschool center and needs a 24hour noise study. We suggest noise study where a replacement of city Daycare Centre is planned for the future. The first mitigation measure for noise recommending truck haul routes, avoid the adjacent rardon high school along Plymouth Avenue. Theres one alternative route, the ocean to ocean avenue adjacent to a receptor, harmony family childcare. Theyre all located at or near all of the identified possible entrance and exit sites, points. The alternative is already identified in the cumulative transportation items 4 and 6b. The routes are subject and unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation and circulation even and mitigation. It would own exacerbate an unmitigatable project issue. The first mitigation of the report also recommends undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to surrounding residents and occupants, which are identified as 9 00 a. M. To 4 00 p. M. This coincides with a period with Daycare Centres and Nursery Schools are in session. It holds classes and afterschool activities and the majority of classes including Child Development classes in the multiuse building. Next speaker, please. Thank you for your time. Im Kristine Hansen and i dont know if you can see this, but the cars in this lot, i dont think youre showing the pictur. This has Little Information about the pressure that city agencies have exerted upon the creation of city colleges facilitys master plan. The meetings ongoing today began during the time of the state takeover of the school. City agencies began meeting then with the state imposed administration. The administrative records makes slim mention of those meetings. In 2017, they showed by then that at least 17 of the private meetings had occurred, mostly as f planning. It was news to trusty davula who sits on the cac, representing city college. The city colleges facility planners whose work is included answers to the question, what is the appropriate place for city agencies to address the facilitys master plan was in Public Comment . If you talk the record presented in the draft at face value, you would get the impression this, indeed, has been the behaviour of city agencies. But this is not what the collection of emails, agendas and minutes and notes show. The agendas for those meetings are similar with a top item being the city college facilitys master plan. Your planner, jeremy shaw, even attended one effort consultant job interviews on june 8, 2015, with the blessing of a former stateappointed facilitys head at city college. The facilitys master plan has been upgraded twice and rebooted once. The intrusion of city agencies into a plan that should have been focused on the scrolls education master plan and focused on the needs of students has instead been formed around a private development that has literally cost the taxpayers millions in bond money. The collection will be forwarded to you as written Public Comment. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. My name is marcy rin rbgs ane. I was not going to talk buti was so moved by what was offered, i had to underscore, theres a very critical flaw in the draft eir that it does not address city college either as a part of the overall setting or vital public service. This is a school that has been a part of the life and the city for generations. Its trained people for central job and Public Services provided to countless people through Lifelong Learning and to not consider the impact seems to be a serious flaw that should be reexamined. The second thing i wanted to address is theres a lot of talk about Affordable House ang i wantehousing. If you look at thet plan, the request is for 18 footballer housing for people making 80 of the median income, which would be 66,500 a year and an additional 17 for moderate income and thats 120 over the ami, talking 99,500,000 a year. Theres no robert t no responsio build it and i know this is about the eur anurir, but the al Affordable Housing will be gone from giving away this public land to a private developer is less than onefifth. Of course, the biggest cost in building housing is the land and if the public land were not given away it could all be affordable. Just think about that. Thank you, next speaker. Im a resident for 44 years. I live on Plymouth Avenue and i view the parking lot every morning. It is full. It is necessary. And it should remain because during at least this type time,e said he wanted to put another 100,000 people in the county of San Francisco. Now im asking you that to think about education. If you reduce about parking space, at the moment represents 4 of the student body which is not very much. In regards to the hour of this lot, i was really disenchanted at the seir to showing such a lousy picture to mislead everybody. Can you imagine if you have 1,200 units right at the entrance of 280 . Ive expressed this before, it runs right through city college and wildwood. When you need Emergency Water in case we have an earthquake to kill the fires, there is no Emergency Water supply for the westend and south area of San Francisco. Would you please get busy before you Start Building . And get that done. Im against building 1200 units. In regards to building, the shaking of the construction elements way above the liability demands of construction and my house is old and i do not want to have cracks in my stucco. Good afternoon. Im president of the Westwood ParkAssociation Homeowners association and a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee sometimes called the cac. On behalf of the board of directors, the neighbor most affected by this development, im glad to tell you i will be brief. Well put on comments on the dsir in writing. But i will say this, that the dseir is severely flawed. And we will tell you why in writing. I will outline now only a series of some of the flaws and youve heard hints from these things from other speakers. First, we will discuss the failure of the dsir to accurately address the secondary impacts caus caused by the lossf existing housing, including impacts on transit, lyft and uber drivers. Second, we will discuss the failure to take into consideration the cumulative transportation impacts of the projected increase and city college enrollment. Theres an increase as the dseir correctly notes of, i think 26 to 56 over the next few years and fails to take that into consideration. Next, the dseir fails to mention that city college has an agreement and will undertake to have 500 hu 500 units on the eat basin. In addition, the consideration of the building of the paec and steam building is going go on simultaneously and the dsir does not take into consideration the tremendous environmental problems caused by a simultaneous construction on the east basin and west basin, which will result in no parking remaining. Next, theres an extreme error in discussing reduce the dens densetive alternative b. And we will show why i false. Next, theres the improper inclusion of alternative on ramon way and that should be rejecrejected and we will show. Last, the rejection bit Planning Department of the use of the side for city college as an alternative was not appropriate. Public land should not be used. For anything but public good. Parties in the scoping process requested that this alternative of using project land for city college should be an alternative. The Planning Department rejected that and that was inappropriate under the law. I only had two minutes and ive tried to be brief. Thank you very much and we will put the rest of our comments in writing. Or no, we will put those comments in writing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im with Westwood Park association. Youly on Plymouth Avenue with my wife of 18 years. I can attest to the situation of the violence level due to the parking and driving situation. Westwood park was built for model ts and modellasms. Model. The violence level goes on all of the time, day and night. People are going 40 Miles Per Hour and bypassing the stop signs and running the red light at ocean avenue and Plymouth Avenue. I do not believe that the eir takes into account the death that will happen to city college. City College Needs different types of things. Some of it may be building, some parking, some may be an onramp to the freeway and it knees different things. Do not leave city college out of this and thirdly, the Environmental Impact to the neighborhood will be overwhelming. When they rebuilt ocean avenue, they used right behind you our house, that abuts as a donald dg ground for asphalt and there were over 70 filed complaints for damages to homes, shoe sewer lines, et cetera, et cetera. Please reject this dir. If you want one in reality, then have all of stakeholders pratt participate in creating one. Next speak speaker, please. Im laura fry. Thank you for your patience. I dont think the impact on city college has been really addressed in this and i want to remind the Planning Department that the timing of the development the process began at the same time the acquisition crisis began. So city college was out of the loop and its never really caught up. My second issue is density. This is a downtownstyle project without the downtown style streets. And as mentioned, the firefighting infrastructure, water pipes that accommodate the dense housing in the other parts of the city that have dense housing, their water structure is totally different than what we have in this area and that lack of firefighting infrastructure wont be a hazard to the residents of the development itself, but it would be a hazard to all of the surrounding neighborhoods. Ive gone to all of the barcic meetings and the department kept assuring us that the parameters would have a strong bearing on the final plan. The density of this project far exceeds the density built if the parameters had been followed. In the urban design parameters, it stated the height would be 2n gradually go to 65 on the east. Now it starts out, i think its 30, 35, and then it jumps real quick and goes high to 78 or 88 feet. And then my other concern is sam ramon way. In the der, it is downplayed and on plymouth, its basically one lane, 1200 block of plymouth where i live, theres always parking cars on both streets. So its a single lane. You have go into the driveways and let people pass and this happens all day. The driveways are small and if a car is big or the driver isnt such a good driver, it can take a long time for people to move down the street. Sometimes people get really upset. Sometimes they get nasty and sometimes they scream and sometimes they just sit and the eir just sort of really downplayed this that it would slow traffic. As the previous speaker said, sometimes people still go fast on plymouth and people there regard this as a negative, not a positive. And then just, you think the predictions of the traffic through sam ramon is inaccurate leadershienactinaccuratelylow. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im with the Westwood ParkAssociation Board member. I know that comments should be narrowly focused on technical issues, but i do have one nontechnical operation that has relevance to one of the technical objections to the sufficiency of the draft. Our goal is to support a Housing Project on the reservoir for people of modest means. Its a project that creates a new neighborhood with sufficient open space and a welcoming environment for everyone, a project with a number of units to be supported by the existing and planned infrastructure. And one that does not damage a crown jewel of the city, city college, where the students who attend in a better life for themselves and their families. It doesnt accomplish these goals. However, there was a proposal, submitted by related of california developer during the rfp process, a process that Westwood Park was frozen out of by the balboa Citizens Advisory Committee and a project that we could support. It brings me to a relevant objection, the reduced option of 800 units of 1b is unknown. Thats corrected. It a 680 unit project with parking to accommodate city college and they said they could reduce the number of units further and still make a profit. Yet this document ignores that realworld fact and concludes that the financial feasibility option of 800 units is unknown, even though though a wellknown said i