Not. If you removed all of the parking from this project site and didnt replace it at all, there would be a deficit, assuming nobody switches, like everyone continues to drive. We found that temporary limited deficit would not create substantial physical, Environmental Impacts. And is it that time of year where students are asked to enroll into a class . That they physically be there . Thats my understanding. Weve received comments that faculty are also hauling materials to and from their classrooms. So if you look at the transit piece, did that cause any delay because of this project and, again, what methodology did you use to sort of measure that . Question, presiden yes, president yee, w we used three sources of delay and two deal with, basically, increases in vehicular Traffic Congestion from the project. So theres the sheer number of new vehicle trips, as well as reason industry delay, where the transit vehicle may pull to the side and try to get back into the transit lane if theyre stopped at a stop and thats too sources of delay and the third source is the increase from transit riders from the project on to the project vicinity. We found that under projects conditions, that the project would not have a Significant Impact on transit delay. Under cumulative conditions, so, again, going back to your earlier question, with the growth, we concluded the combined impacts could result in a transit delay impact and thats because we didnt have a ton of information from city college on the number of vehicle trips that would occur from their growth. So we conservatively concluded that the combined city college, this project could have a Significant Impact. And we then looked to see if this project would contribute considerably to that and we said yes. And so we worked with mta to identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts and we did identify mitigation measures that would do that. And we conservatively called this unavoidable because the Planning Commission didnt have authority to approve those measures. Severa in regards to the impact, it was stated that it was unavoidable i mean, even if you reduce it, it was stated that its still unavoidable. Whats the situation that it cannot be avoidable . Even though we came up with what we think was a plan, in particular theyre are loading zones on ocean avenue is working with whole foods to try to manage their operations more effectively, we still call this significant. The appellant is arguing under a 500unit alternative, you wouldnt need to extend lee avenue. We think that is unreasonable for two reasons. The first is that the area plan eir itself in 2008, that studied 500 units at the site assumed the extension of lee avenue into the Housing Development. So 500 units, 12 years ago assumed the extension. The second reason is per core sponcorrespondence with the Fire Department and documented in our appeal response that the fire code would likely require a secondary access point for a Development Im trying to find the exact notes but i believe its over 250 units. And so, the notion that that alternative would reduce that Significant Impact, we disagreed with. Ok, thank you. I dont see anybody else on the roster, so ill go to the next segment, which is to invite the sponsors of the project, the developers to give their presentation and we have ten minutes. Yes, can you hear me, supervisor . Yes. Supervisor, yes, im counsel for the Reservoir Community partners. Its a partnership of Bridge Housing. Im here urge the board to uphold the eir, the Development Agreement and zoning sale. Several years ago, this board determined that the balboa reservoir was available for a major Housing Development. The cac then developed the reservoir principles and parameters, including the project with mixed income and that 50 housing be affordable to low and moderateincome house holds and contain significant improvements. The city decided to implement the cacs division. The project thats analyzed in the subsequent eir involves the demolition of the earth and berms and 15 acres of asphalt parking and the installation of all new infrastructure in putting new streets, sidewalks, open space and water, waste, water and other utilities. This will be developed with 500 units of Affordable Housing and rental and market rate housing as well as Public Parking for the overflow needs. Following that horizonal work, three of the housing pads will be going back to the city, as well as new streets and sidewalks. The project includes four acres of publically accessible open space and privately financed and maintained and open to the public. The estimated cost this work is over 48 million and pursuant to the Development Agreement, the project will internally subsidize 363 of the 550 affordable units, including 100 units of educator yo housing. Mohcd will subsidize 180 units. The greatest Environmental Impacts disclosed will occur during the first stage of construction and in particular, noise impacts and quality air impacts on sensitive receptors. They contain a robust set of measures. Its important to understand that any development of the reservoir, regardless of the aus noise project. It would demolish the reservoir and undertake the same work to create viable building plans. The eir has cumulative impacts, overlapping with construction of proposed buildings on the East Reservoir, but by city college and i would note the East Reservoir was deeded to the city college bit city several years ago and the projected on the East Reservoir and not the West Reservoir where this is located. Appellants argue th stheres no. Just five days ago, appellant submitted a subsequent briefing, even though the deadline was a week earlier. The city has researched to build up all of the site infrastructure, estimating the cost over 48 million, plus 550 units with no need for market rate use knits to bear the infrastructure cost or to internally subsidize twothirds of the high affordabl usual of. First, the objectives from the getgo was a mixed income development, maximizing the amount of housing on the site. With only 550 units, all of the subsidized, the alternative would not meet that basic objective anobjective. They would not avoid the Environmental Impacts of the project. Those impacts are primarily associated with the horizonal work on the site, including taking down the berm and installing other infrastructure. None of the impacts would be avoided by a lower density project. There would be less traffic with the lower density project, the proposed project is potential conflicts with the operations of the loading dock on lee avenue and that impact would not be reduced by a lower density project. Ththere were three other alternatives. Under sequa, the income level of households does not include the physical impacts on the environment. The construction impacts would be the same, split shift to would not affect the conclusions. For all of these reasons, the eir contained a reasonable range of alternatives, allowing you to make a reasonable decision and analysis of yet another alternative is not required by sequa. Anappellants claim that in their proposed alternative, each affordable unit would cost 400,000 to build and half is comparable to those built in the city. They also claim the 48 million in infrastructure costs could be paid by state grants. Those competitive grants wont be unlikely for 550 units. In sum, what the appellants propose, it would cost 45 million that the mocd to obtain the same number of units in the proposed projects. Yesterday, mr. Flashman clarified his proposed alternative and claiming it would eliminate any public open space, eliminate the lee avenue extension and it would be, insd redirect the traffic. The infrastructure in the area that is most congested and where this would cause transit delay. Under either version of appellants alternative, the city would lose out on 550 housing. The market rate units will finance the ongoing units for the open space, in addition to the Infrastructure Improvements and the 363 affordable units. Aas noted, the guideline section 15041 expressly forbids cities from considering alternatives to reduce the amount of housing in a project if there are other means to provide comparable lessening of any significant effects. Two minutes, mr. Biddle. Thank you. The mitigation measures imposed by the seir indiscernible this will determine a modest reduction of parking would not impact the enrollment at city college. I am available to answer questions as are other members of the project sponsor team and we thank you for your time. Are there any questions from my colleagues. Seeing none, then i am going to ask for Public Comments at this point and those comments should be focused on speakers that are in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project and if you want to speak, just press star three to be added to the queue to speak. Youll have two minutes each. So madam clerk, lets start with the first speaker. Thank you, mr. President. Speaker if we do not wild this housing, we will exacerbate the Environmental Impacts having a parking lot next to balboa park. I would like to point out that if we take a value that the land is being sold below market price, we should consider what it would take for the city of San Francisco to build the Affordable Housing. We do not have this money. I think it would be the best chance in order to gain this housing within the next few decades. So please, approve this project and reject the appeal. Thank you. Thank you to the caller. And we have 45 listeners and we have nine individuals in the queue. Operations, please send the next caller in. Welcome, caller. Speaker hello, im requesting to reject this appeal and move this project forward. This is a thoughtful project that spent the last few years to inform the plan. It was crafted by wellrespected developers in this industry and i have full confidence would it deliver a quality addition to the neighborhood. This will include 1100 new homes, which is 30 ami and, San Francisco, according to the next report, has been behind in the very low income target arena. They wouldnt meet their goals until 2030 for the low income and for the moderate until 2045. With this being a discussion, its an opportunity to meet the targets and to get ahead of that game. This project is proposed the way it is because its feasible. They want 100 of housing to be affordable, and 100 of zero is zero homes. Thank you, supervisor yee for your leadership and thank you to the board of supervisors. Thank you for your comment. Operations, next comment, plea please. Good evening, supervisors. Im christopher peterson. Ive participated in many meetings for this project dating back to 2014 and i would like to thank president yee in getting this important project to this point and i urge you to deny the appeal and approve the propose revenue housing, maximizing the housing, including Affordable Housing with the most environmentally and beneficial use of the site. The current large, but mostly unused parking lots is an ideal location for multifamily housing, multiple muni lines and the ocean avenue commercial districts and building abundant transit and oriented housing with limited parking is crucial for reducing the citys Greenhouse Gas emissions. The housing, including 550 affordable units will be a step in addressing the Affordable Housing crisis. The appeal seeks to perpetuate the status quo and this serves one function, in promoting automobile commuting. And that function would persist indefinitely because of the reduced Housing Project with the proposal as an alternative has no basis in reality. Given the significant upfront costs in preparing the mutual site for any housing, the project would drain the citys limited Affordable Housing funds. The appeal ignores what would happen if the 550 market rate units are eliminated. The households that could give in those units wouldnt simply disappear. To the contrary, they would bid up the price of housing in other neighborhoods, neighborhoods that may be much more vulnerable to the displacement and gentrification than neighboring Westwood Park. If they move to neighborhoods with less transit, they will also almost certainly drive more, causing more environmental harm and therefore, please deny the appeal and approve the projects without any further delay. Thank you. Thank you. Perfect timing. Operations, please send the next caller in. Welcome, caller. Good evening, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition requesting that you reject the appeal. The subsequent eir was thorough, analyzed all potential impacts, imposed a rigorous sense of mitigation measures and complete and accurate. The seir also analyzes a range of project alternatives as required by sequa. Because the major environmentallaenvironmentalimph demolishing the current parking lot to create the streets, sidewalks and parking, any development of this site, regardless of how many units are built or what percentage are affordable would have a similar construction impact. Furthermore, the appellants claim that the 550united proposed project has less of an Environmental Impact is incorrect. The seir thoroughly analyzed potential impact from city college from a College Perspective and cumulative perspective, taking into account city colleges proposed buildings by the march 2020 bonds measure. The seir correctly concludes the balboa project and city college can coexist as neighbors. Thank you to president yee for his leadership and ask that you reject their appeal. Thank you. Thank you for your comments found operations, next caller, please. Speaker im a San Francisco resident and i strongly urge you to reject this appeal. Th indiscernible . We have 49 listeners and 43 willing to make Public Comment. Were taking Public Comment in opposition to the appeal on behalf of the proposed balboa reservoir project. Welcome, caller. Speaker im jeremy linden, im a homeowner in soma and a 15 year San Francisco resident. Weve been debating putting on housing on this site since 1983. 19131983, think about that. If we had built housing here in the 80s, the children who grew up there would be in their 30s. They would have benefited from living in a high opportunity area and many of them would probably have their other than children right now who might be San Francisco residents, too, paying property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes and contributing to our economy and communities. Unfortunately, we cant turn back the clock and reverse the bad decisions of decades past, but we dont have to keep repeating them. This city desperately Needs Housing at all income levels including and especially market rate housing. Please dont squander another generation of opportunities by considering the frivolous appeal and extending the process that has more than run its course. Please deny this appeal and approve this project. Thank you, supervisor yee. Thank you for your comments. Operations, next caller, please speaker good evening, president yee and members of the board of supervisors and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Im daniel greg and i represent approximately 4,000 carpenters in the city of San Francisco. The Carpenters Union is mere in full support and Community Partners proposed development. We agree that the city of San Francisco objective to create more housing, our members not only want to build the respiratorierequiredhouses but e consequences of low available housing. The balboa advisor reservoir ins several benefits. This is a true Housing Development, not mixed use, not office with residential units and not a focus on retail. 1100 units with 550 designated as Affordable Housing and will go a long way to meet the housing goals. I would be remiss to mention what this could do for jobs and economy. Reservoir Community Partners have made a commitment to labor for this project and it has the potential to create hundreds of jobs that will keep carpenters working and in the trade through the current recession. This is imperative to keep a solid pool of construction workers as we move out of a recession. The balboa Reservoir Development wont solve or affordable issues but its a huge step in the right direction. The commitment to labor and the community shows. In conclusion, the Carpenters Union is in full sport of the balboa development and we ask to move this project forward and thank you for your time. please stand by . Clerk thank you for your comments, sir. Operations, next caller, please. Hello. This is jonathan randolph. Please reject the e. I. R. Appeal and approve the project. Lets remember why we were here, because in 2014, mayor ed lee said we should build in cityowned land to address the housing crisis. But in the five years that ive been living in the ingleside, th