BALBOA RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT

2018-01-11 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Aaron Goodman · email · 2018-01-11 · oppose · source packet

SF Planning Commission Hearing - Dec. 21, 2017 // A.Goodman comment memo
SF Planning Commissioners I would like to add one comment after reviewing the video related to the Excelsior Planning Initiative that was not touched in depth on in relation to the presentation information on the Excelsior Planning Strategy at the Dec. 21 2017 SF Planning Commission meeting. It relates to the growth and change desired, but indicates one of the critical flaws of current growth patterns in SF and th… SF Planning Commissioners I would like to add one comment after reviewing the video related to the Excelsior Planning Initiative that was not touched in depth on in relation to the presentation information on the Excelsior Planning Strategy at the Dec. 21 2017 SF Planning Commission meeting. It relates to the growth and change desired, but indicates one of the critical flaws of current growth patterns in SF and that is the systems of mass-transit in place and the need to think and show active future connectivity and changes that will benefit the areas. Transportation projects and planning efforts (short and long-term) should be shown in relation to growth and major developments (*number of units planned in the immediate vicinity even just outside the district boundaries, and an estimated co-impact # for additional projected side growth ) coupled with existing conditions of riding existing transit in the district. As a member of the BPSACAC and being involved in both SW and SE sector redevelopment issues, I am acutely aware of the amount of growth and changes proposed to D7/D11/D10 and the number of new units being created requires a more robust series and steps of solutions for transportation in the district to lessen car-auto use and improve pedestrian, bike and mass- transit solutions. The recent "Building Progress 2017 Facilities Framework" presented by the SFMTA to the Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee on Oct. 25, 2017, did not include any future proposals or more major re-visualization for the Green Facility, or maintenance facilities behind the Geneva Car-Barn. This seems to be a major omission in regards to Equity and Needs for an area experiencing exponential growth, and at a major crossing between other large scale planning in D7 and D10. D11 serves as a cross-roads, and a hub, and needs to be visualized more in concept and in function for its transit core and systems for the future to be able to support additional domino-effect density that will occur outside of the major projects like the Bridge Housing proposal, JHSF work ongoing, and the need to even think more inventively on creation of new open-space public zones along the corridor and infill housing ideas for existing properties. We had suggested the idea of land-acquisition funds up front to purchase 10 sites spread along the corridor to be ear-marked for essential housing needs, and options for public zones. This could be a quick strike and solution for some of the more troubling issues up front. This area is a hub, a very large one, that inter-connects 4 major muni lines with BART (The K-M-J-and future T lines. The need is to see this area as a 4-chamber heart working on 2- cylinders. It needs a transplant... It needs a more forward thinking solution to the Balboa BART station and an improved hub condition for the density proposed in the future with the growth of the CCSF campus, LWHS, Balboa Reservoir, and over 6 larger new infill projects in D11. This area connects and can become a real connective swing between Parkmerced, the BVHP, Brisbane, Sunnydale, India Basin, the Pier 70 and Schlage Sites, and future Brisbane and South SF developments. Connection to these future housing jobs, and developments can and should bring about larger mass-transit changes. Sites cannot be seen individually, the cumalative impacts and changes should be reviewed both within and outside the boundaries shown. Improvements to the BART and MUNI systems must be more than "cosmetic" solutions. We had suggested a larger redevelopment of the station alongside creating more job friendly buildings on CCSF's eastern edge of campus, parking solutions, and density in areas we can build for housing and growth needed. The concern is that we acquire land, and develop the types of housing projects, open-space and community areas, and transit linkage system plans early on so we do not box-ourselves out of solutions. The Geneva Harney (BRT) proposed is one such concern, bringing this project up-forward to an LRV solution that links the T-Line to Balboa Park Station and creates a better link terminus for the J-M lines directly into the BART platform area is what is required. Looking at the capacity concerns for overcrowded 44 / 14 / 49 / 52 bus lines and watching people fail to board since buses are overcrowded in our area, indicates some of the reasons for concern, when additional density is proposed, but transit solutions seem lagging or non-existant. The need to think about the topography, along Geneva, the options for bringing the trains up to the Balboa Park area, and ensuring that bi-county dollars are spent investigating the connection between multiple projects on the SW and SE sectors of the city connect and relate to major planning in the middle along the Excelsior Corridor. Its not rocket science, its as simple as connecting the dots of where major projects are and where the city needs to start re- focusing outside of the downtown area for infrastructure changes. I apologize for not making it to the meeting and presentation on the excelsior, where many speakers, and the efforts of Jorge and Rachael should be acknowledged. Gilbert Williams of ACCE spoke volumes about the need to ensure the needs are met in terms of affordability, housing generation, and the impacts on families, seniors, and low-income residents residing along and above the existing corridors, and the displacement that has already occured. The loss of key businesses and empty store-fronts, along with packed buses and crowded streets at major intersections indicate the hustle and bustle of the district. The housing inventory reports still as noted do not include major displacements that have occured throughout SF and should speak more about the number of people living in the last areas of affordability in SF. The illegal dumping, doors on garages, quick changes in housing, and community needs expressed showcase a desire to be heard, and to see visually what has occured already. Some housing developments are poor in quality, and do not represent well the ideas of "affordability" and quality spaces. Alternative ideas such as courtyard entries, green-spaces integrated in housing, and options to build vertically, while retaining open-space needs at the ground level could architecturally make interesting changes, along the corridor. ADU's and options for rental requirements (Costa-Hawkins) still being the major issue on rental housing affordability will hopefully start the discussion sooner in SF and the state level. We cannot solve all issues and concerns even as a working group (which I am a member) many issues are outside the boundaries of the district, and the ability of our groups and supportive organizations to tackle. That is why the planning commissioners will need to ensure that the necessary infrastructural changes are part of the implemented strategies for the future equity wise across the city. Too often maps of the city exclude the excelsior, and southern portions of the city. D11 is currently becoming a central area, development wise, and pressure wise, with traffic, congestion, development and needs wise. The two maps below showcase only a portion of the issues, but highlight the outline of changes that must occur, it is interesting to note the need to link the SE and SW sectors more along Geneva and north and south to Daly City and Brisbane. Perhaps its a new conversation bi-county that needs to be implemented for growth and controls strategies, and where sister cities, can help in the process of visualizing the central hub of the Excelsior, as an engine for growth in the future for the surrounding districts and a connective essential link to the discussion of how to solve for the displacement and gentrification, by providing essential transit solutions prior to or at the same time as density is implemented. We cannot miss the train, (rail-less LRV's) shorter length bus shuttle routes in districts along needed corridors for students and seniors, and linking communities to jobs that are long-term and connective with how the inter-weave communities into a greater urban fabric. Help us get the horse in front of the cart, transit wise, and keep the transportation plans equitable, the housing projects equitable, improved aesthetically since many of the stucco boxes along our corridor leave a lot architecturally to be desired, and informed to keep residents and business's here and not displaced or pushed out. Its quite a lift, but this neighborhood is one that comprehends the need to work a plan, and are not oblivious to the concerns of other SUD's and planned area changes that ignored seriously the transit aspect as a driving solution needed up-front. We cannot rely just on housing sites being developed alone to change a district, we need the variety of projects and proposals on the boards, funded and acquired to ensure that the type of change we want is what can be realized. Regards Aaron Goodman D11 resident (2010-present)show more

2018-12-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Marya Krogstad · email · 2018-12-13 · oppose · source packet

Keep our Public land Balboa Reservoir Public
Dear San Francisco Planning Commission: I do not want a private developer to profit off public land that City College has used for decades. Please it is your job to defend our City of San Francisco and defend City College! Keep our Balboa Reservoir public. Thanks very much in advance for your service and support, Marya Krogstad citizen, student, artist, nurse, voter, taxpayer

2019-06-06 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Mark Rocha · email · 2019-06-06 · support · source packet

From CCSF Chancellor: Balboa Reservoir Project - Case #2018-007883ENV
Dear Jean: Thank you for including me on your email. For the record, you have not consulted with me or any college official on your resolution. It would be helpful to do so prior to distributing a resolution that refers to our Board of Trustees and CCSF staff. As has been reported publicly several meetings of our Board of Trustees, the proposed project will provide urgently needed affordable housing for our … show more

2019-06-13 · 5 comments · 0 / 5

Madeline Mueller · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir development
Planning Commission c/o Commission Secretary Seungyen Hong Ir seems odd that the land on the agenda is called the Balboa Reservoir since it has never held water. Let's call it City College .The land has been used by CCSF since 1946, and leased since 1958 to meet necessary parking needs for 27 to 32 thousand students, most of whom already take public transportation. . Many at the college also call the are… show more

Rick Baum · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir
re: Item 8 on the Agenda : 017-016313CWP (S. HONG: [phone removed]) PUBLIC LAND FOR HOUSING AND BALBOA RESERVOIR To The Planning Commission, I urge you to favor the turning over of the PUC section of the Reservoir property to City College of San Francisco (CCSF) to be used to meet the needs of its students. For years, this land has been used as a much needed student parking lot. Preferably, students do not ar… show more

Jean Barish · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

Planning Commission Meeting, June 13 - Agenda Item #8
Dear Secretary, Please distribute the letter below to the Planning Commissioners in anticipation of today's Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed Balboa Reservoir project planned for property currently owned by the SF PUC and used by City College of San Francisco for decades. This project will permanently damage an… Dear Secretary, Please distribute the letter below to the Planning Commissioners in anticipation of today's Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed Balboa Reservoir project planned for property currently owned by the SF PUC and used by City College of San Francisco for decades. This project will permanently damage and alter both CCSF and the surrounding neighborhoods, and must not move forward as planned. The land on which this project is planned is public land which will be sold to a private developer for personal enrichment. The sale of this land, currently used by CCSF students, staff, and faculty for parking and other activities, will significantly shrink the CCSF campus and forever remove land that should be used to expand educational facilities. Even worse, it will privatize public land, the first time in the City this will occur, and begin a trend that will gobble up other parcels of public land in San Francisco. This project will also significantly impact the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods. With the addition of up to 1,500 units, and a population explosion of approximately 3,000, traffic congestion, parking shortages, and transit issues will become unbearable. The area where this project is planned is a community of small, single family homes. This development will significantly alter the character of this neighborhood, creating quality of life problems for many. And what about providing emergency services, access to the neighborhood in case of a fire or earthquake, and an increased need for infrastructure? According to the latest PUC Water Supply Analysis, for example, there will not be enough water to meet the needs of this new community. Additionally, this project will merely add even more market rate housing to the surplus of over-priced dwellings that are currently being built in the City. This project should be smaller, and 100% affordable. Creating a brand new community on a very small footprint is unwise planning. There has been no consideration for the significant impact of this project on either City College of San Francisco or the surrounding neighborhoods. While the architect<U+2019>s drawings show an idyllic, leafy community where children can play and adults can relax, this is a distorted image of this project. How will people come and go? Where will the children attend school? What about the need for additional medical services for these additional 3,000 people? And, again, I ask, why should this land be taken away from City College and sold to a private developer? Those of us opposing this project are hoping that the Planning Commission will take a close look at this development and scrutinize all of its flaws. You should ask for a plan that will not just serve the needs of a private developer, but, instead, will meet the needs of growing number of lower-income and middle-income San Franciscans who desperately need affordable housing, while at the same time will not negatively impact City College of San Francisco and the surrounding communities. Thank you for attention to these issues and countless others that will be presented by other opponents of this development. I look forward to your careful consideration of this project, and remain hopeful that you will guide this project in a more environmentally sound, positive direction that will benefit the entire City by supporting City College<U+2019>s need for land, the needs of the surrounding communities, and the needs of so many who are seeking decent, affordable housing in the City. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this issue. Jean Jean B Barish, Esq., MS [email removed] [phone removed]show more

Christine Hanson · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

tem 8 on the Agenda : 017-016313CWP
Dear Ms. Hong, Below is my 150 word public comment. Thank you for forwarding this to the Commission. Christine Hanson Dear Commissioners, The first <U+201C>outreach<U+201D> meeting for the Balboa Reservoir happened in October 2013, only 3 months after the State takeover of City College. City College was not invited to that outreach meeting<U+2014> though the parking lot being discussed was in … show more

Harry Bernstein · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

June 13 meeting, Item 8 on the Agenda: 017-016313CWP (S. HONG): PUBLIC LAND FOR
HOUSING AND BALBOA RESERVOIR Planning Commission c/o Commission Secretary Seungyen Hong San Francisco, CA Dear Commissioners In 1984 and 1985, a time of another housing shortage in San Francisco, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors approved 200-400 units of housing on the Southern basin of the Balboa Reservoir. The private developer agreed to pay the City the historic value of the property<U+2014>a me… show more

2019-09-12 · 28 comments · 6 / 21

Michael Ahrens · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Severely flawed

Kevin Kolsky · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Parking, impact to City College

Laura Fry · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

City college impacts, San Ramon Way

John Winston · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Transportation and circulation

Nicholas Nagle · spoken · 2019-09-12 · support

Housing

Marcy Rine · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Critical flaw

Dennis Hong · email · 2019-09-12 · support · source packet

9/12/2019 PC Meeting - Balboa Reservoir
Hello Poling, as promised, here are a view of my comments to this project; Please use this as my continued support for this project. I live in District 7, just on the boarder of this Project. I'm a long time resident of the city, seventy plus years. Born and raised here in SF. I attended CCSF in the early 60's. Used public transit most of the time. Hello Planning Commissioners, I'm sorry I will be unab… Hello Poling, as promised, here are a view of my comments to this project; Please use this as my continued support for this project. I live in District 7, just on the boarder of this Project. I'm a long time resident of the city, seventy plus years. Born and raised here in SF. I attended CCSF in the early 60's. Used public transit most of the time. Hello Planning Commissioners, I'm sorry I will be unable to attend your Thursday meeting to address this item on your agenda. Here are my preliminary thoughts with the project for this case: 2018-007883ENV, BALBOA RESERVOIR PROJECT <U+2013> (Assessor<U+2019>s Block 3180, Lot 190). 1. We desperately need housing. The city can not afford to do this work. The sponsors and the community have worked hard on this project. This project fits the bill as it address' our housing issues. 2. We need to address the parking for the college. 3. I'm concerned with the traffic exiting this site on to Ocean Ave. and how it may impact this retail section. 4. During the construction period, this massive project will need a lot of daily communication from the sponsor to the community . All to often this process fails. 5. I would like your comments good or bad so that the sponsor and the community can continue to work together to get this project moving with out further delays. In my opinion by working together and solving these issues before the DEIR is certified only makes sense so there aren't any road blocks before it is certified. As I see it, these road blocks all too often hold up the progress and some times we loose the project completely. 6. I'm not too sure how the current SB's and other bills will impact this wonderful project. 7. I like the open space. Since this project focus on family, I would like to see a few four bedroom units. 8. Finally, we must move quickly before we loos another project like this. I will be submitting additional comments for the RTC. If any one has any questions to my rambling email, please feel free to reach back to me. Sincerely, Dennis Hello Poling, as promised, here are a view of my comments to this project; Please use this as my support for this project. I live in District 7, just on the boarder of this Project. I'm a long time resident of the city, seventy plus years. Born and raised here in SF. I attended CCSF in the early 60's. Used public transit most of the time. Hello Planning Commissioners, I'm sorry I will be unable to attend your Thursday meeting to address this item on your agenda. Here are my preliminary thoughts with the project for this case: 2018-007883ENV, BALBOA RESERVOIR PROJECT <U+2013> (Assessor<U+2019>s Block 3180, Lot 190). 1. We desperately need this housing. This project fits the bill as it address' our housing issues. 2. We need to address the parking for the college. 3. I'm concerned with the traffic exiting this site on to Ocean Ave. and how it may impact this retail section. 4. During the construction period, this massive project will need a lot of daily communication from the sponsor to the community . All to often this process fails. 5. I would like your comments for this project so that the sponsor and the community can continue to work together to get this project moving with out further delays. By working with these groups it only makes sense so there aren't any road blocks. As I see it, these road blocks all too often hold up the progress and some times we loose the project completely. 6. I'm not too sure how the current SB's and other bills will impact this wonderful project. 7. I like the open space. Since this project has a focus on family, I would like to see a few four bedroom units. I will be submitting further Responses and comments for the RTC next week or so. Finally, I too would like your support.show more

Harry Bernstein · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Noise, air quality

Christine Hanson · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Master plan

Lisa Anderson · spoken · 2019-09-12 · support

Adequate

Gary Berringer · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Noise analysis

Alvin Jah · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Inadequacies

Steve Zeltzer · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Transit

Andrew Carrier · spoken · 2019-09-12 · neutral

Disruption to Riordan High School students

Christopher Peterson · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

More housing less parking

Benjamin Schneider · spoken · 2019-09-12 · support

Support

Sam Moss · spoken · 2019-09-12 · support

Support

Laura Foote · spoken · 2019-09-12 · support

Support

Jennifer Heggie · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Noise study

Anita Theoharis · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Inadequacies

Amy O'Hare · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Alternative C

Jean Barrish · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Flaws in DEIR

Theodore Randolph · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Housing

Jess Nguyen · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Transportation, parking

Monica Collins · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Transit delay

Wynd Kaufmyn · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

100% affordable housing

Sophie Saphire · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Student access

Michael Adams · spoken · 2019-09-12 · oppose

Rapid transit

2019-10-03 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Sally Magnuson · email · 2019-10-03 · oppose · source packet

Public Comment on Draft EIR Balboa Reservoir
I<U+2019>m writing to you about the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Balboa Reservoir Project. I had attended your 9/12 /19 meeting but was unable to give public comment because the time for public comment had gotten moved back and I had to get to my job. What I had wanted to say was that I<U+2019>m deeply disappointed in the Draft EIR . I feel it is tragic that it fails to consider City Colle… I<U+2019>m writing to you about the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Balboa Reservoir Project. I had attended your 9/12 /19 meeting but was unable to give public comment because the time for public comment had gotten moved back and I had to get to my job. What I had wanted to say was that I<U+2019>m deeply disappointed in the Draft EIR . I feel it is tragic that it fails to consider City College of San Francisco and its viability, health and importance to the community as a critical and important element in any plans for development of the Balboa Reservoir. CCSF is San Francisco<U+2019>s only community college and it is a precious and AMAZING place. It is a place where EVERYONE can come to learn. It<U+2019>s selection of class offerings each semester is unbelievable.. I personally have a HUGE list of classes that I<U+2019>m hoping to get to take sometime in my lifetime. It is accessible to students of all income levels and to students of all ages and cultural backgrounds. This place is one of the main treasures of our city and that is why the Balboa Reservoir must not be sold off for private development .and builder greed. The city is over run with this exploitive profiteering and it can<U+2019>t be allowed here. CCSF has had use of this public PUC land for many decades and it is necessary for the students of CCSF in order for them to be able to access this life changing education that CCSF offers. Students attending CCSF need easy comfortable access to their classes and if the Balboa Reservoir is sold off for private development it will kill CCSF as we know it. As a low income working mom I needed to use the Balboa Reservoir all the time to be able to get to my child development classes. I could not take my kids to school on the bus and then bus to CCSF and arrive on time and then get to work. It would have been an impossible. I would have had to drop out of school and not pursue the career in education that I dreamt of. Please let CCSF do the job it does best which is offering rich and valuable educations to the people of San Francisco. Let<U+2019>s take care of this precious College and not threaten it all the time with greed based land grabs just because it s happening ALL over the city. This is a place for future generations also Future generations that if they can have access to the education will be the ones able to envision and help create the changes humanity needs. Our future educators, social workers, artists musicians, political representatives, gardeners chefs, nurses, doctors, scientists , ambassadors and parents will be able to come from this place, if we keep it safe and accessible. Please don<U+2019>t let these public lands be stolen from this community college that desperately t needs it. If CCSF were a Public Hospital would we consider selling off access to the hospital ... regarding it as frivolous and inconsequential and then provide no parking and thus no easy way to even BE at the hospital? Would we instead ask patients find their own way there on an erratic and congested public transit system? CCSF offers a lifeline to at least 70,000 people per semester. It is a critical San Francisco resource and is part of the fabric of the city and it needs to be deeply considered FIRST in any type of <U+201C>land grab<U+201D> proposal that comes before you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sally Magnusonshow more

2020-04-09 · 28 comments · 17 / 10

(name not recorded) · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Comment
In view of the spread of contagious disease, high density housing for the Balboa Reservoir site should be reconsidered. We should have lower density housing. There is a limited supply of single-family homes in SF. That should be considered for this location. Most people, like Mr. Hillis, desire a Single-family home. Especially, families with children. We need to keep more families with school-age children in San Francisco. Virus-free. www.avast.com

Vicki Legion · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Oppose the "Initiation of the General Plan Amendments"
Dear Planning Commission, as well as Supervisors and Trustees, I strongly object to the possible action of the SF Planning Commission to approve the <U+201C>Initiation of the General Plan Amendments.<U+201D> Such an action would pave the way for the privatization of the largest undeveloped land parcel in San Francisco, and its use for majority market rate housing<U+2014>the last thing that San Fran… show more

Rick Baum · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Postpond Planning Commission Meeting
email sent earlier to President Melgar Dear Commission President Melgar, I am troubled by the actions of the Planning Commission to be holding a meeting at this time that could result in the approval of some major changes concerning the planned housing project on the PUC section of the Balboa Reservoir property. At this time, such a meeting should be cancelled to a time when the public can provide meaningful input. I… show more

Ausra Eileen Boken · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

OPPOSING Planning Commission Agenda Item 16b Balboa Reservoir Initiation of General
Plan Amendments (2018-007883GPA) To: Planning Commission Board of Supervisors City College Trustees I am strongly opposing the Initiation of General Plan amendments for Balboa Reservoir. Eileen Boken Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Rick Baum · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Postpond Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Commission President Melgar, I am troubled by the actions of the Planning Commission to be holding a meeting at this time that could result in the approval of some major changes concerning the planned housing project on the PUC section of the Balboa Reservoir property. At this time, such a meeting should be cancelled to a time when the public can provide meaningful input. I see your planned meeting as simi… show more

Connor Skelly · email · 2020-04-09 · support · source packet

Local homeowner in favor of housing at Balboa Reservoir
Hello, I<U+2019>m a homeowner a few blocks away from the Balboa Reservoir. I<U+2019>d like to voice my support for the housing proposal of 1,100 new units to replace the current parking lot. We desperately need more housing in San Francisco. This is a great location- right next to public transportation and City College. I<U+2019>m especially excited that 50% of the housing will be affordable. The cu… show more

Christopher Pederson · email · 2020-04-09 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project - Agenda Items 16a & 16b
Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: I urge you to approve initiation of the general plan amendments for the Balboa Reservoir project. Given both the climate crisis and the City<U+2019>s desperate shortage of housing, especially housing for lower- and middle-income households, the Balboa Reservoir project is exactly the kind of housing that the City should be approving. Because the site is adjacent to multi… show more

Alan Billingsley · email · 2020-04-09 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Housing
As a San Francisco resident and voter, I strongly urge the Commission to support the proposal for around 1,100 units of new housing on the Balboa reservoir site. This will be enormously needed housing in a strategic location near the College and close to transportation lines. We need to build more housing wherever we can, and this is a unique opportunity on the west side of the city, where little housing has been bui… show more

Kathy Emery · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Keep Balboa reservoir PUBLIC please!
Dear members of the Planning Commission, As a longtime supporter of City College, I have watched as those who wish to profit off of public lands (or wish to pursue lean and mean educational policy) have been downsizing CCSF little by little. First it was the attack on the accreditation of CCSF that the community barely fended off, with horrible loss -- steep decline in enrollment during the uncertainty of whether CC… show more

Stardust Doherty · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir General Plan Amendment Initiation
Planning Commission: SUBJECT: Balboa Reservoir General Plan Amendment Initiation You are being asked by Staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment to accommodate Reservoir Community Partners, LLC's development of the Balboa Reservoir. The proposed General Plan Amendment makes substantial changes in the City & County<U+2019>s General Plan and the associated Balboa Park Station Area Plan. The propose… Planning Commission: SUBJECT: Balboa Reservoir General Plan Amendment Initiation You are being asked by Staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment to accommodate Reservoir Community Partners, LLC's development of the Balboa Reservoir. The proposed General Plan Amendment makes substantial changes in the City & County<U+2019>s General Plan and the associated Balboa Park Station Area Plan. The proposed change in zoning contained in the GPA is a BIG DEAL. The biggest deal is the change in zoning from P-Public to a Special Use District. <U+201C>P<U+201D> zoning prohibits private ownership. The proposed Special Use District eliminates this public use requirement. Instead, the rezoning to <U+201C>Special Use District<U+201D> will pave the way for the privatization of public land. This privatization scam has been deceptively marketed as 50% affordable. " 50% affordable" is a misrepresentation. Here are the facts: Reservoir Community Partners will develop: 550 market-rate units, and 363 affordable units The 550 market-rate/ 363 affordable unit split is the reality of the Reservoir Community Partners development. Reservoir Community Partners is NOT developing 50% affordable. "50%" only comes about by Reservoir Community Partners taking undeserved credit for an additional 187 units that would be paid for with public monies, as confirmed by the BOS Budget Analyst's Fiscal Responsibility and Feasibility Report. Please vote NO on the staff's Resolution to initiate the GPA. AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING ELEMENT The Balboa Park Station Area Plan<U+2019>s Housing Element proposed 425-500 units. This number is eliminated in the GPA to allow for the proposed 1100+ units. The BPS Area Plan<U+2019>s figure of 500 units took into account the limited roadway network in the Reservoir area. Even with proposed mitigations in the EIR, the Reservoir vicinity will be unable to sustain the doubling of units from the BPS Area Plan<U+2019>s 500 units to the Reservoir Community Partners, LLC<U+2019>s 1100 units. The Reservoir Project's True Believers, with ideological blinders, just wish away the problem. Planning Dept Staff asserts in its documents that the current PUC Reservoir bulk-height zoning is 40-X and 65-A. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The adoption of the BPS Area Plan included the rezoning/upzoning of the PUC Reservoir to 40-X (NOT 65 ft. as the GPA erroneously presents--see attached Zoning Map for proof). As shown in the Zoning Map, the 65-A zoning applies solely to the CCSF Reservoir; not to PUC Reservoir. AMENDMENTS TO OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The maps contained in the General Plan and BPS Area Plan show open space taking up at least 50% and up to 90% of the 17.6 acre PUC Reservoir. The GPA shrinks it down a fraction: a 2-acre Reservoir Park (2 acre park /17.6 acre plot = 11%), but with an additional 2 acres of privately-owned publicly-accessible open space. Please refer to attached maps of General Plan, BPS Area Plan, and GPA. The BPS Area Plan<U+2019>s Policy 5.1.1 description of Open Space for the Reservoir is removed in its entirety. Privatization is not a good reason to eliminate this section in its entirety. BOTTOM-LINE: The Reservoir Community Partners development has been deceptively marketed as a "50% affordable" project. The facts tell otherwise. The essence of the General Plan Amendment is to facilitate the privatization of public land. Please do not initiate the GPA. Keep public land in public hands. VOTE NO TO STEALTH PRIVATIZATION. Sincerely, Stardust Doherty CCSF Alum San Francisco residentshow more

Brian Bills · email · 2020-04-09 · support · source packet

More housing at Balboa Reservoir - 1100 units *minimum*, and more if possible!
Hello, I live in San Francisco, and am desperate for our city to build more housing. It's sad to watch people get driven out of our city due to a lack of available housing. The current Balboa Reservoir plan is OK, but it only proposes 1,100 housing units. The original plan was for 2,500 units. I want to see San Francisco build more housing, especially near transit, especially if it replaces a parking lot, and… show more

Hunter Cutting · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

reject proposed Balboa reservoir development (April 9 Planning Commission hearing)
Dear Commissioners: Please reject the move to privatize/sell off land at the Balboa Reservoir for a majority market- rate housing development. Selling off public land to secure such a project is short-sighted in the extreme, and further diminishes the future of the City. Under this plan one the few large parcels of public land suitable for large development will be forever lost. Just like the development at 1100 Oce… show more

Mike Ahrens · spoken · 2020-04-09 · oppose

Impacts of development to Westwood Park neighborhood

Leigh Lutenski · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Project presentation

Jeremy Linden · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support, move expeditiously

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Laura Foote · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Corey Smith · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Steven Randolph · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support, prefer more homes

Kenneth Russell · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Steven Buss · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Theo Gordon · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Michael Chen · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

John Woodson · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Christopher Peterson · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support, don't delay

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2020-04-09 · support

Support

Wynd Kaufmyn · spoken · 2020-04-09 · oppose

Organized Opposition presentation Harry Bernstein – Under utilized Reservoir site described: underutilized? No! PUC often evaluated site; cancelled reservoir (1978). 1) (1945-'46) WAVES barracks 2) (1946-'54) CCSF West Campus 3) paved reservoir basins since 1958—SFPUC invited student parking, declaring: wouldn't make North Basin surplus. Balboa-Park-Station Area Plan Housing element, ~425-500 units hou… show more

Christine Hanson · spoken · 2020-04-09 · neutral

Parking, traffic

2020-04-16 · 11 comments · 4 / 7

Jodie Medeiros · email · 2020-04-16 · support · source packet

Walk SFs support of Balboa Reservoir Development
Dear Commissioner Koppel, I wanted to register Walk SFs support for the Balboa Reservoir development. Walk SF will not be available for public comment today, but wish that our support for this project be known. Thank you, ~jodie. Jodie Medeiros Executive Director 333 Hayes St, Suite 202, San Francisco, CA 94102 [phone removed] (cell) | walksf.org Follow Walk SF on social media: Instagram | Twitter | Facebook

Christine Hanson · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Restricting Public comment
Dear Commissioners, Yesterday, after struggling for an hour, and listening online to the Balboa Reservoir CAC meeting<U+2019>s small number of public commenters<U+2014>an average meeting usually receives 20-30 people speaking in person, this one had 5, and then one more was added after a variety of phone numbers were given out in response to my emails sent to CAC members<U+2014>I was not able to com… show more

Steven Brown · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Re: Planning Commission meeting today
Draft Whereas-the Voters of San Francisco defeated proposals to develop the Balboa Reservoir property 4 times: Propositions, E-1986, B-1987, L-1988 and L-1991. Whereas-many advise against transferring public lands to private hands Whereas-The 2004 Facilities Master Plan and previous bonds of 2005, 2009 and 2012, had many plans that have not been completed. Whereas the Faculty Union (AFT 2121) has contested … Draft Whereas-the Voters of San Francisco defeated proposals to develop the Balboa Reservoir property 4 times: Propositions, E-1986, B-1987, L-1988 and L-1991. Whereas-many advise against transferring public lands to private hands Whereas-The 2004 Facilities Master Plan and previous bonds of 2005, 2009 and 2012, had many plans that have not been completed. Whereas the Faculty Union (AFT 2121) has contested this action Whereas-Resolutions have been brought to the Board of Trustees of City College that have been tabled or ignored. Whereas-Chancellor Mark Rocha ignored the San Francisco Planning Department's request to incorporate Planning Department plans into the 2020 Facilities Master Plan. Where as the Board of Trustees have passed resolutions requiring the administration to look into securing the Balboa Resevoir property that have been ignored. Whereas-evidence shows that building 1100 homes on the Balboa Reservoir site will make the San Francisco housing crisis worse Whereas-The process described in the CEQA and EIR reports have many unmitigated damaging qualities that will go on for a long as a decade, cause health and safety issues for children, students and district employees and disrupt classroom effectiveness. Whereas-the neighborhoods surrounding the reservoir have issues with the planned development. *It will create a fire hazard for the entire area. *It will eliminate open space. *It will prevent completion of emergency water supplies. Whereas the Labor Council has endorsed City College's building plans and presented resolutions to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and to the City College Board of Trustees to prevent private development of the Reservoir property. Whereas-City College has rented the Reservoir for many years and is the only entity that has made any improvement to the property. Whereas-Real Estate Law and lease agreements requires the PUC to allow City College of San Francisco right of first refusal to purchase the reservoir property *The right of the first refusal lease clause or addendum legally-binding and gives City College the right to purchase the Balboa property if it goes up on the market. This means that if the PUC landlord decides to list the property for sale, they will have to accept the tenant<U+2019>s reasonable offer if the tenant decides to make one. Whereas- the voters passed Prop A that allows funding to enable long-awaited and publicly promised development and expansion of the Ocean Campus of City College of San Francisco and would allow the purchase of the reservoir property from PUC. Whereas- Any plans for privatizing the Balboa Reservoir land represents a willful contradiction and private undermining of the public interest as indicated by that support of Prop A. Whereas the Reservoir developers have never gotten any feedback from "The College" and have continued their planning and promoting as though the have. https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2018-007883GPA.pdf This document sets forth all the changes to the SF General Plan that the Planning Commission is considering, beginning with rezoning the Reservoir from Public (PC) to Residential/Balboa Reservoir Special Use District: Whereas-the Developers ensured citizens that they would provide adequate parking and transit for City College students. The CEQA process s flawed. Be it resolved- Board of Trustees authorize the purchase of the Balboa Reservoir Property from the Public Utilities Commission for City College of San Francisco Development. On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:21 PM Steven Brown [email removed]> wrote: Items 16 a and 16b -- Steven W. Brown AIFD Department Chair Environmental Horticulture/Floristry City College of San Francisco 50 Phelan Ave. San Francisco, CA 94112 [phone removed] www.ccsf.edu -- Steven W. Brown AIFD Department Chair Environmental Horticulture/Floristry City College of San Francisco 50 Phelan Ave. San Francisco, CA 94112 [phone removed] www.ccsf.edushow more

Rita M Evans · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Informational Presentation -- Comments
My comments regarding the inappropriateness of holding this hearing remotely and the necessity for government employees working from home to preserve all communication related to this project are below and attached. Rita Evans 226 Judson Avenue San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing April 9, 2020 2018-007883CWP BALBOA RESERVOIR PROJECT, Informational Presentation Comment from Rita Evans, 226 Judson Avenue 1) The S… My comments regarding the inappropriateness of holding this hearing remotely and the necessity for government employees working from home to preserve all communication related to this project are below and attached. Rita Evans 226 Judson Avenue San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing April 9, 2020 2018-007883CWP BALBOA RESERVOIR PROJECT, Informational Presentation Comment from Rita Evans, 226 Judson Avenue 1) The San Francisco Planning Commission has suspended its normal operating procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes holding today<U+2019>s hearing remotely rather than in person. While today<U+2019>s presentation on the Balboa Reservoir Project is for Informational purposes only, and no action will be recommended or taken, I urge the commission to postpone this presentation until such time as an in-person meeting is feasible in order to preserve the public<U+2019>s right to participate in this process. More than 130 civic, library and related organizations have signed a statement on public access and transparency during this emergency. They strongly urge government entities to recommit to their duty to include the public in policy-making processes. They warn that, <U+201C>Government bodies should not opportunistically take advantage of the public<U+2019>s inability to attend large gatherings to make critical decisions affecting the public<U+2019>s interest if those decisions can reasonably be postponed. Just as citizens are being asked to defer nonessential travel and errands, so should government agencies defer noncritical policy-making decisions until full and meaningful public involvement can be guaranteed.<U+201D> While I commend the Commission and staff for their efforts in setting up today<U+2019>s remote meeting, we know that this format will prevent some citizens from participating. Since this is not a critical matter in this time of emergency, the appropriate course of action is to postpone this hearing and any future hearings regarding this project until such time as in-person meetings can be held. 2) In a related matter, many city employees are conducting business off-premises on personal devices due to the emergency. It is critically important that all government employees strictly observe all information security and records retention requirements so that messages about key governmental functions are preserved, retrievable, and subject to review just as on- premises correspondence now is. All official business communications must take place over approved channels, channels that allow for messages to be easily archived and reviewed. All electronic communication and information sharing must be transacted through official government email accounts and use only government-issued communication devices. I look forward to assurance from the commission that these basic information security protocols are in place and enforced. -- Rita Evansshow more

Public Lands For Public Good · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Suggestions for Smoother Opposition Comments
President Koppel, Commissioners, Secretary Ionin: We are writing with regard to organized opposition comments we gave at the April 9 Planning Commission Hearing regarding Agenda Items 16 and 16B, the Balboa Reservoir Project. Pursuant to Planning Commission Hearing Rules, as organized opposition, we had been granted 10 minutes [ or equal time with the Balboa Project sponsors, according to Hearing Rules ] for yest… President Koppel, Commissioners, Secretary Ionin: We are writing with regard to organized opposition comments we gave at the April 9 Planning Commission Hearing regarding Agenda Items 16 and 16B, the Balboa Reservoir Project. Pursuant to Planning Commission Hearing Rules, as organized opposition, we had been granted 10 minutes [ or equal time with the Balboa Project sponsors, according to Hearing Rules ] for yesterday's hearing. In accordance with those Hearing Rules, CCSF supporters withheld public comment with the expectation that their views would be adequately expressed by the PowerPoint presentation that was to have been presented by Steve Brown (Defend City College Alliance), Marcos Cruz (CCSF Student Assembly), and Wynd Kaufmyn (Public Lands for Public Good). Unfortunately, because this was a first time experience for all involved, our presentation was not as smooth or effective as we had intended. We had intended to comply with the Hearing Rule of having three speakers, but were unable to do so due to the logistical problems of the new virtual hearing process. Most important, the main reason for our stunted and less than seamless presentation was that our speaker was unable to have direct control over the PowerPoint slides. Furthermore, we faced an additional obstacle of the time delay between the telephone and the visual streaming. We ask that the Commission work out a way to enable organized opposition to have direct control over PowerPoint slides as well as overcome the time delay problem. Doing so would enable organized opposition to get a fair shake in the future. Also, our understanding is that organized opposition's presentation normally follows immediately after a project sponsor's. We were not afforded this normal practice. Instead, we were placed at the tail end of public comments. We ask that in the future we be are allowed so speak immediately after the speakers representing the Project. Please assure us that these issues will be rectified before the next Commission hearing. Finally, since you were unable to see our presentation as intended, please make an effort to look at the attached PowerPoint. This is what you were supposed to have been able to see during the virtual meeting, but couldn't. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Steve Brown (Co-Chair of CCSF Facilities Committee), DCCA Marcos Cruz (CCSF student), CCSF Student Assembly Wynd Kaufmyn (CCSF Instructor), Public Land for Public Good cc: Dennis Herrera, City Attorney This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrustedshow more

R And K · email · 2020-04-16 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Development: Public Comment
Planning Commission Joel Koppel, President Kathrin Moore, Vice President Sue Diamond, Commissioner Frank S. Fung, Commissioner Theresa Imperial, Commissioner Attention: Richard Hillis, Director RE: Balboa Reservoir Design Standards and Guidelines I am writing to comment on the Balboa Reservoir Design Guidelines presented on Wednesday April 8, 2020 CAC Meeting: A. I applaud the efforts of the design team on thei… Planning Commission Joel Koppel, President Kathrin Moore, Vice President Sue Diamond, Commissioner Frank S. Fung, Commissioner Theresa Imperial, Commissioner Attention: Richard Hillis, Director RE: Balboa Reservoir Design Standards and Guidelines I am writing to comment on the Balboa Reservoir Design Guidelines presented on Wednesday April 8, 2020 CAC Meeting: A. I applaud the efforts of the design team on their presentation and their efforts to design a greenhouse neutral development. B. Bicycle and pedestrian access at San Ramon Paseo are essential: 1) To provide safe entry parallel to Ocean Avenue into the new development and the amenities specifically parks, childcare, walking trails and bike paths as well as easy access to City College and the Muni transit center on Frida Kahlo Way. 2) To allow Westwood Park residents and other neighbors direct and easy access to the same amenities that will be available in the new development. 3) To fully and seamlessly integrate this new neighborhood into the general community. C. In addition to the comments and recommendations regarding designs, building materials and colors that take into consideration our general environment which includes strong ocean winds, fog, humidity that encourages mold, I would also like to point out the grime from heavy street traffic and pigeons. D. The area along Ocean Avenue has had a history of flooding. I recommend that wherever possible permeable pavers or like materials be incorporated in the design and building materials. E. I support both concepts having accessible places and stoops where people can gather and watch kids play, get together to have conversation or just sit and read. Would a stoop with a ramp be a possibility? F. The concept that the Unity Plaza Design Committee had was that the Plaza would be a gateway and to that end joining the Plaza to this new community via the PUC access area is very important and it seems to me to be achievable. G. I also support public comment regarding peaceful areas in the newly designed park be made available as well as spaces for play for children and adults. H. Finally, I wish to thank the Balboa Reservoir Community Advisory Committee for their due diligence in making this such an effective forum. By way of reference, I am a resident of Westwood Park (42+ years) and active in the community. I am currently a member of the Ocean Avenue Association Street Life and Business Improvement Committees, the OMI Cultural Participation Project (Board Member), and other organizations supporting the Ocean Avenue/Ingleside neighborhoods, Arts and Culture District and retail corridor. I am a former member of the Westwood Park Association Board of Directors (President 2009-2016), and Balboa Reservoir Community Advisory Board (Vice Chair 2015-2016) and member of the Mercy Housing and Unity Plaza Design Committees. Sincerely, Kate Favettishow more

Kirk Palmer · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Meetings during "shelter in place"
Dear Secretary and Commission, I am writing to express my serious concerns with this group continuing its non-essential (meaning not life-saving) work during the current COVID-19 crisis. Particularly, I object to the fact that it is doing so in such a way that makes public comment and public demonstration of support or objection to plans and point significantly more difficult than it should be in our democracy. … Dear Secretary and Commission, I am writing to express my serious concerns with this group continuing its non-essential (meaning not life-saving) work during the current COVID-19 crisis. Particularly, I object to the fact that it is doing so in such a way that makes public comment and public demonstration of support or objection to plans and point significantly more difficult than it should be in our democracy. I shall also be contacting the board of supervisors, mayor<U+2019>s office, and local press to register my concerns. I am a resident of Westwood Park, very near the Balboa Reservoir Project site. There is a meeting TODAY on this topic. There is NO PHYSICAL LOCATION for members of the public to attend this meeting. Our community is gravely concern with this seemingly off-the-rails project. Note: we are not concerned that the site is being developed---the city needs housing and this is an appropriate site for such. But, many, many of us our concerned that the density recommended is more than double what was judged appropriate for the location in the environment impact study done for the master plan for the area. Also, numerous height allowances would be violated by the proposed development. My understanding is that the developer, who has designed and built a number of tawdry and unattractive projects in SF, is now attempting to fast track their plans by hiding under <U+201C>sustainable development<U+201D> provisions in state law. In a complex situation like this, public review and PUBLIC INPUT is critical to review and amendmentPRIOR TO APPROVAL. And, that input needs to include in-person speaking directly to planners. Many in our community are not tech-savvy and will not join calls or email in concerns. But, they would show up and speak. I *urge* you office to put the brakes on these non-essential activities until such time as they can be conducting properly, in full accordance with sunshine laws and basic decency. Sincerely, Kirk Palmer 1405 Plymouth Avenue San Francisco, CA 94112 [phone removed] This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.show more

Henry Kevane · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to Balboa Reservoir Development -- April 9 Agenda
Dear Mr. Hillis and members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to oppose the proposed housing project for the Balboa Reservoir. I have been a resident of adjacent Westwood Park for over 30 years. I do not object to housing on the site, but I believe that the scale and design of the project is not compatible with the surrounding area. Our corner of the City has long been neglected and de-prioritized. For t… Dear Mr. Hillis and members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to oppose the proposed housing project for the Balboa Reservoir. I have been a resident of adjacent Westwood Park for over 30 years. I do not object to housing on the site, but I believe that the scale and design of the project is not compatible with the surrounding area. Our corner of the City has long been neglected and de-prioritized. For that reason, the reservoir <U+2013> those bleak, windy and unattractive concrete pits <U+2013> has become our de facto park, our open space. The plan to develop over 1,000 housing units on that site would not only overwhelm the neighborhood<U+2019>s already stretched and congested resources but would destroy the free space that has been enjoyed by residents for decades. There is ample underused space in Golden Gate Park and Lincoln Park that could be re-purposed for housing -- we all know, however, that any such effort would be political dynamite to the elected representatives for the Richmond and Sunset. And yet, the supervisors for Districts 7 and 11 seem complacent about the serious and negative effects to the area from the reservoir project. Oddly, the very lack of historical attention paid to improving and beautifying the reservoir has become the reason for eliminating it. Thus, it seems to me, the welfare of the Ingleside and Sunnyside neighborhoods is yet again being ignored. Thank you for your consideration of my views on this subject. Henry Kevane 30 Eastwood Drive 415/297-2963 PS: I read about this hearing in the Chronicle and saw the email address to submit comments but I am unsure if this is correct so I would appreciate an acknowledgment of receipt. CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify me by telephone and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any prints thereof. NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.show more

Lara Sao Pedro · email · 2020-04-16 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Affordable Housing Development
Hello Commissioners: I am writing this letter in support of the planned development at the Balboa Reservoir. I have lived on Brighton Avenue for nearly 20 years and recall Ocean Avenue when the biggest landmark near me was the Kragen Autoparts and restaurants and shopping were few and far between. In the past 10 years with the Mercy Development, the apartments above and adjacent to Whole Foods and the other developme… show more

Michael Ahrens · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir- April 9 meeting/1PM- Agenda Items 16a & 16b
I submit this comment on tomorrow<U+2019>s meeting with respect to the proposed Balboa Reservoir development, and agenda items 16a and 16b. I am the president of Westwood Park Association, and submit this comment on behalf of Westwood Park Association. (<U+201C>WPA<U+201D>). WPA represents the interest of the residents of the Westwood Park Community that was developed more than 100 years ago and di… I submit this comment on tomorrow<U+2019>s meeting with respect to the proposed Balboa Reservoir development, and agenda items 16a and 16b. I am the president of Westwood Park Association, and submit this comment on behalf of Westwood Park Association. (<U+201C>WPA<U+201D>). WPA represents the interest of the residents of the Westwood Park Community that was developed more than 100 years ago and directly adjoins the proposed Balboa Reservoir Project. With today<U+2019>s COVID-19 situation we do not believe that the review process for the proposed Balboa Development should continue as if nothing has happened. This will be a new world due to this pandemic and the sufficiently of the proposed development cannot be determined until after we all settle into a new normality. We just cannot know now what that new world will hold for our city, our state, or the world. The situation involving our housing needs, our public transit system, the environmental impact of the proposed development, the economy, the availability of financing for the project, and other things cannot be known while we are in the midst of this pandemic. We know that the next thing that may be proposed for your review is the final EIR. We all made comments on the DSEIR in the fall of 2019 based on the world as it was in the fall of 2019. With the pandemic, social distancing, closed small businesses, hotels closing, homeless being sheltered in hotels, office buildings possibly being converted to housing, people working from home, how can we tell what the environmental impact will be when the new normality arrives. Any EIR must be done only after all of these things settle down. Therefore, Westwood Park Association respectfully submits that all meetings on the Balboa Development should be deferred until after we all settle into the new normality and we can truly assess whether this proposed development is appropriate in light of the new normality. I hope you agree with my comments and defer tomorrow<U+2019>s meeting. If the meeting is not deferred we will have comments, and we will submit them tomorrow morning and possibly supplement them after tomorrow<U+2019>s meeting. We thank you for your considerations. Michael Ahrens President, Westwood Park Association Sent from my iPadshow more

Paul Anderson · email · 2020-04-16 · support · source packet

Letter of Support for Balboa Reservoir project
To BALBOA RESERVOIR COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: I am a homeowner on the West side of San Francisco (Monterey Heights) and would like to express my enthusiastic support for the Balboa Reservoir housing project. As you know, there is a desperate housing shortage in San Francisco and the greater Bay Area. Yet the construction of new housing remains woefully inadequate. According to the 2018 San Francisco Housing Inv… show more

2020-04-23 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Harry Bernstein · email · 2020-04-23 · oppose · source packet

Re: For 4/27/2020 meeting: DSG in full context of rezoning
Hello, all I appreciate aj's continuing efforts to focus on the planning procedures that have led us to the present juncture. aj is no doubt right about this less-than-transparent planning process, and the community would have recognized what was being pushed (in terms of zoning) if the planning goals for project density had been more clearly stated. Planning and OEWD might have foreseen the proclivities of the … Hello, all I appreciate aj's continuing efforts to focus on the planning procedures that have led us to the present juncture. aj is no doubt right about this less-than-transparent planning process, and the community would have recognized what was being pushed (in terms of zoning) if the planning goals for project density had been more clearly stated. Planning and OEWD might have foreseen the proclivities of the Planning Commission. At the hearing on April 9, one or two of the members went out of their way to commend the use of a General Plan Amendment to update an existing plan. In this case, since the result of the amendment is to provide more housing--an overarching objective of the current City administration--it's seen as a means to an end. The gross process was certainly pointed out by some. The estimated density from the Housing Element was explicitly mentioned at the hearing. The meticulous and lengthy process for approving the original Balboa Park Station Area Plan, lasting eight years or so, was articulately highlighted in a comment from a resident of Westwood Park. That's even longer than it has taken the Balboa Reservoir project to get from the initial public meetings of 2014 to the present, which several of the YIMBY folks contemptuously ridiculed. But you can add another two years or so to that early timeline if you go back to the Golden Shovel real estate challenge of 2012, which produced two detailed analyses of the Balboa Reservoir. (It was intended as advice for the SFPUC, which also happened to be one of the sponsors of the competition.) In 2016, aj summarized one aspect of the winning competition from UC Berkeley: > Unlike the City Team's unwillingness to acknowledge the importance of parking for CCSF and the neighborhoods, the UC students saw parking to be of obvious importance."The proposal also took advantage of the site's unique topography to provide below-grade replacement parking at close to above-grade costs. "As the largest student parking area on campus, replacement parking was a focal point of both the CCSF and the local community," says D'Orazi. ========= The developers of the project are not against more parking facilities than what they have already proposed. It's just that if CCSF wants additional parking, they'll have to provide it, at an unbelievable cost per space, and probably on their own land. (Note that in the above quote, the suggestion was made for underground parking.) When the project was at a more preliminary stage, the planning process always seemed to give it the benefit of the doubt--initial approval of a TDM (a Transportation Demand Management plan, which is required for any large housing development) or the ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement), officially recognizing and granting negotiating rights to the developer of the proposed project. The bodies that gave their initial approvals were quick to point out that this was not final approval. There would be a stage further down the line to evaluate the total impact of the project. (At that point, it would have become hard to stop, especially if it was merely about quibbles concerning the transparency of the early planning process. With the familiar adage about broken eggs in mind, the planning process seems to be most concerned with the end product; that is, it's more about erecting omelets than preserving the integrity of eggs.) This is not to say that it's misguided to continue to raise our voices and to battle inequities and improper procedures. How can such arguments be useful as the development team is beginning to see the end in sight, later this very year--when it comes before the Board of Supervisors in July. If that is a straightforward vote at a virtual meeting, efforts have to be intensified at the remaining preliminary approval procedures continue to come up. Harry B. On Monday, April 20, 2020, 01:01:47 PM PDT, aj [email removed]> wrote: BRCAC: DSG is once again on the agenda for the 4/27/2020 meeting. However the DSG topic avoids addressing the broader subject of rezoning...Rezoning that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve. Early on in the Reservoir Project's "public engagement process" in 2015-2016, people in the community had raised the issues of zoning and density. The Reservoir Team avoided addressing these (unspeakable?) issues during the Principles & Parameters period. It was only after the RFP process had concluded that it was revealed that the Project was proposing 1,100-1,550 units. The programmatic Balboa Park Station Area Plan, to which the Reservoir Project is subsidiary, talked about 425-500 units; not 1,100. It was unconscionable and dishonest for the Planning Dept/OEWD to deliberately avoid addressing the issues of zoning and density until after the RFP selection. It is only now that Planning Dept Staff is asking for the Planning Commission to make major changes in zoning via a "General Plan Amendment." The proposed General Plan Amendment makes MAJOR changes to the Balboa Park Station Area Plan's Housing Element and Open Space Element. The 1,100-unit privatized Reservoir Project is not compliant with the existing Balboa Park Station Area Plan and San Francisco General Plan. The Reservoir Project is being reverse-engineered via the proposed General Plan Amendment to make it such. The cart had been knowingly placed before the horse from the git-go. Planning Dept/OEWD's manipulation of the General Plan Amendment shows egregious lack of integrity. Why were the issues of rezoning from "Public" to "Special Use District" avoided and hidden from public view until recently? Rezoning of "Public" to private needs full airing out--not just from a stage-managed Staff presentation--but from the public in more than mere 2-minute snippets. --ajshow more

2020-05-21 · 8 comments · 0 / 8

J Sneed · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

Keep Public Lands Public and SAVE the CITY,
To The SF Planning Commission, CCSF Board of Trustees, and the People of San Francisco, The proposed plan to privatize the Balboa Reservoir in order to build housing is incredibly short sighted and wrong-headed. Did you miss the Commonwealth Club presentation by the CCSF Engineering Department Chairperson Keith Mueller on November 18, 2019, concerning the need for water in case of a devastating fire in the western pa… show more

Jean Barish · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project
Dear Commissioners, Next Thursday, May 28, the Balboa Reservoir Project will be on the Planning Commission Agenda. You will be asked to certify the Final SEIR and approve the Project, as well as vote on other issues, including General Plan Amendments, Special Use District, Design Standards Guidelines, and a Development Agreement. I am writing to request you postpone these decisions and remove all Balboa Reservoir Pro… Dear Commissioners, Next Thursday, May 28, the Balboa Reservoir Project will be on the Planning Commission Agenda. You will be asked to certify the Final SEIR and approve the Project, as well as vote on other issues, including General Plan Amendments, Special Use District, Design Standards Guidelines, and a Development Agreement. I am writing to request you postpone these decisions and remove all Balboa Reservoir Project decisions from the May 28 Agenda. For years, the City and developers have promised to cooperate with City College of San Francisco regarding the significant impacts of this project on CCSF. Land that CCSF has used for years will be sold; parking will be removed; need for public transportation will increase; traffic congestion will increase; roadways will be built through City College property, and; construction will create air and noise pollution for years, disrupting the educational experience of thousands. For years the City and developers have promised to enter into written agreements with CCSF addressing many of these issues and impacts. But this hasn't happened. In a May 1, 2018, letter from OEWD, Ken Rich stated: <U+201C>we envision memorializing [our] commitments in a memorandum of understanding this document would need to be agreed upon by the end of 2018 so that the City and developer can take them into account when negotiating the Balboa Reservoir development agreement." This letter also has a timeline that states the MOU would be completed before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would approve the Project. A copy of this letter is attached above. This MOU was never completed. Since they did not negotiate an MOU with CCSF, the City and the developer simply pushed any solution to problems down the road. Loss of parking is one of CCSF<U+2019>s biggest concerns. The key document to demonstrate this is Exhibit J to the Development Agreement entitled <U+201C>Transportation Plan<U+201D> (https://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/public- sites/balboareservoir/2018-007883_05_Development_Agreement.pdf) This document shows that after construction has commenced the developer would conduct a <U+201C>Parking Garage Analysis,<U+201D> prepare a <U+201C>Parking Report,<U+201D> and do a <U+201C>TDM Analysis.<U+201D> Then, after acquiring title to the property and commencing work on the project, they will negotiate the number of public parking spaces to be built. HOWEVER<U+2014>- The DA limits the number of parking spaces that the Developer must build. They have no obligation to build more than 450 spaces. So, during construction, they may find that the TDM is insufficient and they may realize that 1,500 parking spaces are needed. Yet, by then, they<U+2019>ll have title to the property and a firm contract to develop, but an obligation to build only 450 spaces for the <U+201C>Public.<U+201D> And nothing in the DA requires the spaces must be reserved for CCSF. Additionally, they get to charge a <U+201C>Market Rate<U+201D> parking fee. This shows that in order to assure CCSF<U+2019>s interests are protected, an MOU is needed BEFORE a DA is approved. Additionally, Leigh Lutenski, OEWD, has stated that there must be a renegotiation of an easement agreement between the City and CCSF in order for a access roads to the Project to be built. This new easement agreement has not yet been completed. And at the May 14 meeting of the CCSF Board of Trustees Facilities Committee meeting, Trustees expressed concern that one of the access roads would transect City College property, which would be problematic. Clearly, there is unfinished business that must be attended to before the Commission can give project approvals. Sadly, the collaboration between CCSF and the City/Developers, which has been promised to all CCSF stakeholders has never happened. In view of the lack of these important agreementsand other unresolved issues, please postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing. Please do not rule on a project that doesn<U+2019>t consider the needs of City College. The future of students at City College is at stake. Thank you for your consideration, Jean Jean B Barish [email removed] [phone removed]show more

Jeffrey Rigo · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

URGENT: Balboa Reservoir Approvals Must Be Delayed Until
Dear Commissioner, The City and Balboa Reservoir developers were supposed to enter into written agreements with CCSF regarding parking, transit and roadway access through City College. This hasn't happened yet! This project is supposedly a collaboration with CCSF. Yet there<U+2019>s no written agreement with this assurance. You must postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing until these imp… show more

Kathy Howard · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir - Please delay approvals of this project
Dear Commissioners, The Balboa Reservoir is one of the last large pieces of land in San Francisco that could be used for truly affordable housing. It is short-sighted to build market-rate housing on any public land and especially on land that is across the street from City College and a short street car ride from SF State. That in itself is reason enough to delay this misguided project. In addition, the City and… show more

Stardust Doherty · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

URGENT: Balboa Reservoir Approvals Must Be Delayed Until CCSF Agreement Reached
Dear Commissioner, The City and Balboa Reservoir developers were supposed to enter into written agreements with CCSF regarding parking, transit and roadway access through City College. This hasn't happened yet! This project is supposedly a collaboration with CCSF. Yet there<U+2019>s no written agreement with this assurance. You must postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing until these important… show more

Dina L Wilson · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

Do NOT turn public land over to private for-profit developer
Please do not allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 to be turned over to a private for-profit developer whose CEO makes $10M/year. The overwhelming support for Prop A ($845 M Bond for CCSF) shows SF voters desire the development and expansion of CCSF. The Balboa Reservoir is a critical element for CCSF use. The plan to privatize it contradicts and undermines the public interest. To privati… show more

Christine Hanson · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

Balboa parking and shuttle
Dear Mayor Breed, Supervisors, Commissioners, Trustees, and Staff, (Staff members, kindly distribute this email to your groups) There have been many TDM reports created around the lower Balboa Reservoir in the last five years. The plan providing the basis for the developer<U+2019>s estimate that 220 parking spaces would be sufficient to replace the existing CCSF parking was chosen from the Fehr and Peers TDM,… Dear Mayor Breed, Supervisors, Commissioners, Trustees, and Staff, (Staff members, kindly distribute this email to your groups) There have been many TDM reports created around the lower Balboa Reservoir in the last five years. The plan providing the basis for the developer<U+2019>s estimate that 220 parking spaces would be sufficient to replace the existing CCSF parking was chosen from the Fehr and Peers TDM, which was presented to the Balboa Reservoir CAC in June of 2019. A month earlier, the same report was presented to the City College Board of Trustees at a meeting at their Chinatown Campus. Though both were from the same report, the two presentations differed in content and conclusions. Both of these presentations are attached to this email. Because it considered a scenario that included City College<U+2019>s plan for construction on the upper lot, the conclusion of the report in the CCSF presentation was that 980 replacement parking spots would be needed. The graphic showing this is included below. The presentation given to the CAC and echoed by the developer arrived at 220 parking spots needed from a scenario that didn<U+2019>t consider the impact of new buildings planned by City College, this graphic is also included here. The conclusion of the CAC presentation came though its version of the TDM was a part of a larger presentation of the City College Facilities Master Plan which clearly showed the College<U+2019>s plans to construct buildings on the CCSF upper lot. One of five TDM strategies offered in the City College version of the presentation highlights a BART shuttle. That slide is included below. In the CAC presentation there was no mention of a BART shuttle, though the Community has repeatedly asked for a shuttle. This idea has also been dropped from the Developer Agreement and the project Design Standards document. A BART shuttle is a sound idea if the route runs on streets to the North of Ocean Campus<U+2014>which doesn<U+2019>t involve further travel on Ocean Avenue<U+2014>this is different than the route studied by the developer team, which picked a shuttle route up Ocean Avenue into the traffic, that would contribute more congestion. The idea of a BART shuttle must be revisited; it is a real solution to help with the bottleneck of congestion that already occurs on Ocean Avenue. It is one of the few mitigations that can help a scenario that the DEIR terms Unavoidable Adverse impacts to transportation. The estimated yearly parking revenue from the new development, according to their Berkson fiscal report, approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 3, 2018 is projected at $1.9 million dollars, this certainly could fund a shuttle. A page from that report is also included. Please, insist that a BART shuttle is cemented into the transportation plans, and please listen when the City College Community complains about issues that seem to be non-existent per information presented to you by the Balboa Reservoir Partners. There are solutions to some, though not all, of the problems posed by this development, but if the discussion is muddied by a misdirection of data everyone suffers. Sincerely, Christine Hanson Grateful City College studentshow more

Carla Crocomo · email · 2020-05-21 · oppose · source packet

Objection to Re-zoning of the Balboa Reservoir
Dear SF Planning Commission: I object to the Balboa Reservoir Project going forward with unmitigated environmental impacts. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) identified three significant environmental impacts: construction noise, air, and transportation. Governor Newson waived consideration of these impacts. I hereby demand that any development at the Balboa Reservoir must first ensure that adequate trans… show more

2020-05-28 · 52 comments · 24 / 28

Leslie Simon · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

URGENT: Balboa Reservoir Approvals Must Be Delayed Until
Dear Commissioner, The City and Balboa Reservoir developers were supposed to enter into written agreements with CCSF regarding parking, transit and roadway access through City College. This hasn't happened yet! This project is supposedly a collaboration with CCSF. Yet there<U+2019>s no written agreement with this assurance. You must postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing until these important… show more

Harry Bernstein · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

urging you to delay the consideration of the Balboa Reservoir project now scheduled for May 28
To the San Francisco Planning Commission As you know, the Balboa Reservoir project was introduced to the Board of Supervisors on April 28, just a month before a critical Planning Commission meeting on May 28. That introduction at the Board was the occasion for distributing materials that had simply been unavailable or incompletely available heretofore. Yet at recent City College meetings of the Board of Trustees co… To the San Francisco Planning Commission As you know, the Balboa Reservoir project was introduced to the Board of Supervisors on April 28, just a month before a critical Planning Commission meeting on May 28. That introduction at the Board was the occasion for distributing materials that had simply been unavailable or incompletely available heretofore. Yet at recent City College meetings of the Board of Trustees committees (especially Facilities Master Plan Committee), the Participatory Governance Council Facilities Committee and the Academic Senate, issues have arisen suggesting that approvals or binding agreements at the City level would be premature. A couple years ago, I believe Ken Rich himself addressed the necessity of having a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and City College prior to approving further development steps; for whatever reason, this MOU is incomplete and evidently almost no one at City College has seen it. (The College is currently in transition, having lost its chancellor and V-C of Facilities within the last two months.) Here is another formulation of what I just wrote--a timely reminder that some processes are as yet unfinished: (from May 1, 2018) Letter from Ken Rich of OEWD to Chancellor Rocha stating that a Memorandum Of Understanding (<U+201C>MOU<U+201D>) on parking and other matters <U+201C>would need to be agreed upon by the end of 2018 so that the City and the developer can take them into account when negotiating the Balboa Reservoir development agreement.<U+201D> The letter includes a timeline indicating that the MOU will be executed before the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors will review and approve the Project. The MOU is not likely to be completed this next week. Therefore the review of it at the Planning Commission really needs to be delayed. ================ The parking problems at the College have not been solved. The Development Agreement arrives at a faulty conclusion and underestimating the parking needs, partly by ignoring the fact that the Performing Arts Education Center (or its equivalent) is funded and steps are currently being taken to build it and funding IS available; the estimates on parking needs did not take this forthcoming structure into account when assessing parking needs. It was also revealed that the Development Agreement (DA), a lengthy document, is still in an incomplete state, with missing tables, data, and other content, even blank pages; this is certainly not ready for approval. The Board of Trustees and the Partcipatory Governance Council's Facilities Committee have been in accord that there should be no new roads added that will cut across the College campus, including the Upper Reservoir, where the MUB exists now and where the two components of the Performing Arts Education Center will be located. Yet there are numerous maps and diagrams in the DA showing that North Street/Drive is expected to cut across the College lot north of the forthcoming STEAM building. This has not been agreed to; it is not timely to approve a Development Agreement featuring such a road. Finally, the BRCAC spent well over a year (most of 16 public meetings through 2016) to craft a set of Principles and Parameters (P&P). The maximum building height of 78' is higher than what the P&P allow; a definitive means of resolving the conflict between what the P&P demand and what the developer prefers has not been established. Clearly this is just one more example of existing planning not being ready to be finalized. The May 28 hearing date may have been aspirational and leaves too many elements in an unrealized or unfinished state, or in pre-negotiated conditions. For many who would like to have a proper resolution of these programs, a temporary delay allowing these issues to be worked out should be seen as a reasonable solution. Please remove the review of Balboa Reservoir-related topics from the May 28 hearing. Urge the various responsible parties to complete their work on the written components of this project before this project is reviewed. Thank you and your colleagues for your consideration. Harry Bernsteinshow more

Tom Radulovich · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Comments on Balboa Reservoir Plan
Dear Commissioners, The Balboa Reservoir Plan is before you today. There<U+2019>s a lot to like about the project - 1100 housing units, half of it permanently affordable and some of it reserved for educators, and new and improved public open spaces. The project description before you calls for up to 450 non-accessory parking spaces in a new garage on the site. These would be in addition to the accessory r… show more

R And K · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Item Planning Commission Meeting Item 18 2018-007883 Balboa Reservoir Project
I am writing to comment on the Balboa Reservoir Project before the Planning Commission May 28, 2020. I have also included some thoughts on transportation improvements that may be beyond the scope of this review but feel they are important to be a part of the record: A. Overall Project and Density: I applaud the design of this greenhouse neutral development. I started this process in December 2014 with the opini… I am writing to comment on the Balboa Reservoir Project before the Planning Commission May 28, 2020. I have also included some thoughts on transportation improvements that may be beyond the scope of this review but feel they are important to be a part of the record: A. Overall Project and Density: I applaud the design of this greenhouse neutral development. I started this process in December 2014 with the opinion, based on previous plans presented by developers over the years, that even 500 units were too many for this space casting the dissenting vote as the Vice-Chair of the Community Advisory Committee on the Principles and Parameters in support of my neighbors and my neighborhood, Westwood Park. However, consistent with my activities in the broader neighborhood and in recognition of the changing economic and housing situations, I believe that a well-designed project with density and 50% low income housing will benefit our broader community and neighborhoods, City College and the City. Our communities desperately need many of the amenities that are a part of the development design including parks and open space, housing for teachers, students and families, community space and a gateway to City College and public transportation. This project will also bring much needed year-round foot traffic to the Ocean Avenue Retail District. B. Bicycle and pedestrian access at San Ramon Paseo are essential: 1) To provide safe entry parallel to Ocean Avenue into the new development and the amenities specifically parks, childcare, walking trails and bike paths as well as easy access to City College and the Muni transit center on Frida Kahlo Way. 2) To allow Westwood Park residents and other neighbors direct and easy access to the same amenities that will be available in the new development. 3) To fully and seamlessly integrate this new neighborhood into the general community. C. Multi-Generational Accessibility: Creating peaceful spaces where people can gather and watch kids play, get together to have a conversation or just sit and read should be incorporated into housing designed with benches, lighting, stoops with accessible ramps and community <U+201C>nooks.<U+201D> D. Community Gateway: The concept that the Unity Plaza Design Committee had was that the Plaza would be a gateway and to that end joining the Plaza to this new community via the PUC access area is very important and it seems to me to be achievable. E. Hazards: In addition to the comments and recommendations regarding designs, building materials and colors that take into consideration our general environment which includes strong ocean winds, fog, humidity that encourages mold, I would also like to point out the grime from heavy street traffic and pigeons. The area along Ocean Avenue has had a history of flooding and recommend that wherever possible permeable pavers or like materials be incorporated in the design and building materials. F. Community Advisory Committee: Finally, I wish to thank the Balboa Reservoir Community Advisory Committee for their due diligence in making this such an effective forum and support the continuation of this Committee in monitoring the project as it moves to the next steps. G. Comment on Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and other Needed Improvements: Transportation: 1) Underground the K; 2) Increase frequency (decrease headway) of bus and streetcar lines serving City College; 3) Create the K and T as independent lines with the K based at Metro and T based at Metro East; 4) Re-route the T to link to Balboa Park station from the Sunnydale terminus; and 5) creating an independent localized shuttle line. Pedestrian and Bicycle: 1) Remove berm from the Wellness Center to Frida Kahlo Way to widen the road, create a bicycle lane, wider pedestrian walkway and smooth freeway egress; 2) Create pedestrian only all way crossing times; 3) Utilize Paseo San Ramon as safe entry parallel to Ocean Avenue into the new development and the amenities specifically parks, childcare, walking trails and bike paths as well as easy access to City College and the Muni transit center on Frida Kahlo Way. By way of reference, I am a resident of Westwood Park (42+ years) and active in the community. I am currently a member of the Ocean Avenue Association Street Life and Business Improvement Committees, the OMI Cultural Participation Project, and other organizations supporting the Ocean Avenue/Ingleside neighborhoods, Arts and Culture District and retail corridor. I am a former member of the Westwood Park Association Board of Directors (President 2009-2016), and Balboa Reservoir Community Advisory Board (Vice Chair 2015-2016) and member of the Mercy Housing and Unity Plaza Design Committees. Sincerely, Kate Favettishow more

At&T Yahoo Mail · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Re: Oppose the privatization of Balboa Reservoir for unaffordable housing
sources. Vicki and All, I concur that public lands should serve the educational and housing needs of all the people, especially those who have the greatest need for both life-changing educational opportunities and affordable housing. Elected officials should always be on the side of the good people who pay their dues in so many ways and so much more often than they reap the benefits. How many of our elected offic… sources. Vicki and All, I concur that public lands should serve the educational and housing needs of all the people, especially those who have the greatest need for both life-changing educational opportunities and affordable housing. Elected officials should always be on the side of the good people who pay their dues in so many ways and so much more often than they reap the benefits. How many of our elected officials can conceive of a more rational, humane and responsible way of serving the people than by making sure that the Balboa Reservoir will continue to serve the educational needs of City College and at the same time will be the site of only100% affordable housing units? How can you oppose the simple, principled and uncompromising determination that housing built on public lands must be 100% affordable? We need access to quality education and affordable housing--not solutions by oligarchs in construction who get an "A" in public relations and an "F" in social responsibility as they enrich themselves at public expense and expect gratitude for gentrifying our city. Join us in legislative chambers, the classrooms and the streets as we chant: ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE EDUCATION AND HOUSING--NOT PUBLIC SUPPORT OF GENTRIFICATION! Sincerely and in solidarity, Rodger Scott On Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:43:04 PM PDT, Vicki Legion [email removed]> wrote: Dear Commissioners, San Francisco already has 33,000 vacant market rate housing units, along with a deep affordable housing crisis that we all know too well. The AvalonBay proposal for the Balboa Reservoir is being sold as a solution to the housing crisis under <U+201C>trickle down<U+201D> logic being pushed by developers, as though <U+201C>build build build<U+201D> would somehow bring housing prices down through the invisible hand of the market! How well has this theory worked out in the Mission or in the rest of San Francisco? The devil is always in the details. It is remarkable that the developers can say with a straight face that units for a one-person household making $129,000 a year is <U+201C>affordable<U+201D> housing. ernercenter.berkeley.edu CR_Final_2.3.19.pdf In fact, this development would only accelerate the gentrification of the south side of San Francisco by raising rent in surrounding neighborhoods, bringing us more of the gentrification we already see at Avalon<U+2019>s 1200 Ocean building near Whole Foods. Moreover, this huge development would be a body blow to enrollment at City College<U+2014>an issue of great concern across the city and the Bay Area, NOT only in District 7. Before the accreditation crisis, when City College was at full enrollment, both upper and lower parking lots would be jammed and turn over several times per day. Now that one third of young people have been laid off, we can look forward to a surge in college-going. This is not the time to make it much more difficult to access City College as a commuter school, given that no transit plan is really in place. We know that there are considerable political pressures on yourselves as individuals to bow to the interests of the real estate industry and to <U+201C>be a good team player<U+201D> in the sell-off of irreplaceable public assets. We urge you instead to act as a custodian of the public good. At a bare minimum, this process must be slowed down. The land should remain forever in public hands, to benefit education access to City College, and as the site for a modest truly affordable housing development that could be administered just like 1100 Ocean, 100% truly affordable housing administered by Mercy Housing, and in public hands forever. Thank you for taking a principled position against the private development of Balboa Reservoir.show more

Jennifer Heggie · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Corrected: Balboa Reservoir--One Page of Problems/Issues
Thank you in advance for considering the following one page of serious flaws in the Balboa Reservoir Plan and Process. Flaws in the Balboa Reservoir Development Plan: 1.The Plan places much taller buildings within a residential area, inland from the multi-story, but lower level Ocean Avenue commercial corridor. And the heights for additional non- inhabited construction on top of the buildings can exceed, without lim… Thank you in advance for considering the following one page of serious flaws in the Balboa Reservoir Plan and Process. Flaws in the Balboa Reservoir Development Plan: 1.The Plan places much taller buildings within a residential area, inland from the multi-story, but lower level Ocean Avenue commercial corridor. And the heights for additional non- inhabited construction on top of the buildings can exceed, without limit, even the tallest heights of 78 feet included in the plan. 2. The compromise that was achieved with most, but not all BRCAC members is not being met in this plan. The negotiated BRCAC maximum height of 65 feet is being disregarded. Both the 65 ft negotiated compromise and this Plan's proposal for 78 ft are significantly higher and more massive than anything that is on the actual commercial corridor nearby. The initial Avalon/Bridge proposal made in response to the RFP appeared to meet the Principles and Parameters, but that has since changed. 3. The significant adverse impacts identified in the EIR to transportation and noise cannot be mitigated. And the adverse impacts to access to opportunity at educational institutions such as City College were not studied. The process for community input has been flawed. Here are three ways: 1. The composition of the BRCAC was inadequate. The reservoir is surrounded on all sides by residential and educational institutions. Two of the institutions that will be most adversely impacted, according to the EIR, Riordan HS and Mercy Housing, had no voice on the BRCAC at all. The representative selected by former Mayor Lee from Lick Wilmerding, located blocks away, said she was not representing Riordan HS. 2. The Plan does not meet the negotiated Principles and Parameters agreed on by the majority of the Balboa Reservoir Community Advisory Committee and that was part of the Request for Proposal to developers. There was one BRCAC member who did not agree with the negotiated BRCAC principles and parameters who requested a smaller development. 3. Supervisor Norman Yee, with the support of many neighbors, requested that a third alternative plan be studied as well, one for 800 units. That's a number significantly higher than the up to 500 number of units identified for the Balboa Reservoir space in the Balboa Park Station Area Plan. The OEWD and Planning Department said that the proposal for 800 units would be a subset of the other studies and therefore be incorporated in the EIR study. Was an identification of the EIR impacts of 800 units studied? No. Does the option for 800 units appear anywhere in the EIR or in the Planning Commission packet? No Mitigations of EIR significant adverse impacts are inadequate: The EIR has indicated that even with all mitigation measures in place, loud noise over the period of construction will have significant adverse impacts, and transportation access will be significantly adversely impacted during construction as well as long afterward during operation. These impacts will be felt by residents and institutions. Transportation Demand Management measures aren't adequately funded, and there is no SFMTA plan at this time. If the additional housing option is chosen, air quality will join noise and transportation as significantly adversely impacted. If you choose to approve the Balboa Reservoir project, please choose the least harmful 800 unit option. The development would still be more massive than any other development in the area and include a large amount of affordable housing, but the serious adverse impacts to the health and transportation of neighbors and childcare businesses and educational institutions would be reduced. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Heggie Sunnysideshow more

Eve Tarquino · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Do NOT let a for-profit developer kill affordable housing, CCSF and cause gridlock
Please do NOT allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 to be turned over to a private for-profit developer whose CEO makes $10M/year. Rezoning the Balboa Reservoir is unacceptable for numerous reasons: * it allows privatization of public land; * it doubles the building height limit; * it doubles the resident density limit and causes more gridlock traffic; * it reduces the amount of public open … show more

Allan Fisher · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Oppose Balboa Reservoir gentrification project
Public lands should serve the educational and housing needs of all the people, especially those who have the greatest need for both life-changing educational opportunities and affordable housing. Elected officials should always be on the side of the good people who pay their dues in so many ways and so much more often than they reap the benefits. How many of our elected officials can conceive of a more rational, h… show more

Christine Hanson · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

URGENT Please postpone Balboa Reservoir materials
Dear Commission Secretary, Can you please confirm that the to items intended to be attached were indeed received? Dear Commissioners, I forwarded this to you yesterday along with attachments. Please forgive me if this message is redundant but it appears that the items attached to the original email we<U+2019>re somehow detached upon sending. Sincerely, Christine Hanson On Friday, May 22, 2020, Christine Ha… show more

Christine Hanson · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Item 18c Special Use District
Dear Commissioners, In item 18c., as part of the creation of a Special Use District, you are being asked to <U+201C>incorporate by reference a proposed <U+201C>Design Standards and Guidelines<U+201D> document for the Balboa Reservoir Project that provides specificity on land use, open space, streets and streetscapes, parking and loading, buildings, lighting, and signage.<U+201D> This documen… Dear Commissioners, In item 18c., as part of the creation of a Special Use District, you are being asked to <U+201C>incorporate by reference a proposed <U+201C>Design Standards and Guidelines<U+201D> document for the Balboa Reservoir Project that provides specificity on land use, open space, streets and streetscapes, parking and loading, buildings, lighting, and signage.<U+201D> This document includes 11 diagrams of changes to the North access road to the development. This North access Road would add a left turn in a heavy pedestrian area where Cloud Circle meets Frida Kahlo, and place a brand new 4 way intersection adjacent to motorcycle parking. It has problematic issues for City College parking lot circulation, and it minimizes future College building sites by moving City College projects directly adjacent to Riordan High. The developer and the SFPUC have pushed the City College Board of Trustees for a change to the North Access Road. No MOU exists between the school and the developers. Outlined in the Design Guidelines, the developer details the creation of a brand new intersection and road that was not a part of the CEQA study, which you are also being asked to approve this Thursday May 28, 2020. There is no analysis in the SEIR of a North access road change. In the SEIR the impact of the Lee Avenue extension however has been studied at length. Hopefully the City College Board of Trustees will not allow the change, and hopefully they have the authority to end this discussion, but it is not clear that the access road change has been dropped from the plans. What is clear is that it does not show up in the EIR, but it is included in the Design Standards and Guidelines submitted for the project. Below is Figure 2-12 Proposed Street Type Plan from the project SEIR showing the North access road consistent with its present configuration. Below that is one of 11 diagrams from the Design Standards and Guidelines, showing that the road has been moved South to cross the City College parking lot. Please, Commissioners, do not allow the creation of an intersection and a new road that cuts through a College parking lot at 25MPH without study under CEQA. Please clarify, within your formal CEQA process, that no new streets and intersections can be produced in relationship to the Balboa Reservoir project without proper study under CEQA. A change to the North Access Road has not been studied and should not be allowed. Sincerely, Christine Hansonshow more

Christine Hanson · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Items 17. 18c. 18d.
Balboa Reservoir Items 17 EIR certification 18c Planning code amendments 18d Special Use District Dear Commissioners, The SEIR lists the North Street extension to Frida Kahlo at Cloud Circle as Variant 4. The SEIR states analysis is not required for this option which would result in a temporary or permanent road that bisects existing City College parking on the East side of the reservoir. It compares the new loc… Balboa Reservoir Items 17 EIR certification 18c Planning code amendments 18d Special Use District Dear Commissioners, The SEIR lists the North Street extension to Frida Kahlo at Cloud Circle as Variant 4. The SEIR states analysis is not required for this option which would result in a temporary or permanent road that bisects existing City College parking on the East side of the reservoir. It compares the new location for the intersection as comparable to the present location. The Design Standards and Guidelines for the Balboa Reservoir SUD however projects this as the future plan for North Street. That new intersection would be located where numerous pedestrians come together on the East side of Frida Kahlo to cross the street in a group at the beginning and end of college classes. There are also 21 spaces of motorcycle parking on the Southeast side of the intersection which the SEIR did not consider. The Fehr and Peers TDM data indicated the motorcycle parking was near or at capacity during peak times in morning and evening. There are no pedestrian counts for this new intersection. There are pedestrian counts for the two existing intersections on Frida Kahlo in the SEIR C1 TDM Memorandum. The City College Facilities Master Plan makes reference to the point just east of where Cloud Circle meets Frida Kahlo: <U+201C>Science Drive is a minor one-way northbound roadway. Pedestrian and vehicle conflicts are present as some drivers and pedestrians do not anticipate traffic at the intersections with Cloud Circle.<U+201D> The diagram below shows this coming together of two roads in the shape of a V where they meet at Frida Kahlo and notes "issues" here. The information about the North Street is difficult to find. All but one of the diagrams in the SEIR shows the configuration of North Street as it exists now and the diagram showing the extension is not searchable in the document as North Street. The Response to Comments document shows no public comments on Variant 4 however when it a change in North Street was discussed at a CCSF Board Facilities meeting it was disturbing enough to prompt the Academic Senate to issue a resolution on the subject. Unfortunately the public comment period on the SEIR is closed but for you Commissioners it is still possible for you to prompt more analysis of this possible intersection change. Please, this is a safety issue and needs to be addressed before cars and trucks drive through a City College parking lot at speed. Sincerely, Christine Hansonshow more

Connor Skelly · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: My name is Connor Skelly and I<U+2019>m a homeowner nearby the proposed Balboa Reservoir project. I<U+2019>m a former SFUSD teacher and I now work at a nonprofit. I have been participating in the community planning process and am writing in support of the development proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2020. Given our City<U+2019>s d… show more

Christopher Pederson · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project (Planning Commission agenda items 17-18f)
Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: Given the urgency of the affordable housing crisis and the climate crisis, I urge you to approve the Balboa Reservoir Project with the maximum amount of housing evaluated in the SEIR and to eliminate the proposed public parking garage. Maximize the Amount of Affordable Housing Given the site<U+2019>s location close to the Balboa Park BART station and multiple Muni routes… Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: Given the urgency of the affordable housing crisis and the climate crisis, I urge you to approve the Balboa Reservoir Project with the maximum amount of housing evaluated in the SEIR and to eliminate the proposed public parking garage. Maximize the Amount of Affordable Housing Given the site<U+2019>s location close to the Balboa Park BART station and multiple Muni routes, its adjacency to City College, and its proximity to the Ocean Avenue neighborhood commercial district, it is an ideal location for genuinely transit- and pedestrian-oriented housing. The severity of the City<U+2019>s affordable housing crisis and the magnitude of the earth<U+2019>s climate crisis mandate that the City maximize the amount of housing, especially affordable housing, on the site and minimize automobile commuting to the area. As the SEIR<U+2019>s Response to Comments acknowledges, including more housing in the project would result in lower per capita driving and greenhouse gas emissions. (RTC pg. 4.F- 22.) The Additional Housing Option evaluated in the SEIR allows the City to approve a total of 1550 residences on the site, 775 of which would be below-market rate units. The developer<U+2019>s proposal to build only 1100 units (including 550 affordable units) on the site would fail to achieve the project<U+2019>s full potential. The Planning Commission should treat the developer<U+2019>s proposal as the absolute minimum amount of housing appropriate for the site. Indeed, any significant reduction in the number of units below the developer<U+2019>s proposal is likely to render the entire project infeasible, depriving the City of sorely needed affordable housing. (See Economic Planning Systems, Memorandum: Financial Feasibility of Balboa Reservoir Project Alternative B, May 12, 2020.) Minimize Automobile Commuting by Eliminating Public Parking Garage Consistent with the Additional Housing Option, the Commission should eliminate the proposed public parking garage. Constructing a new public parking garage is irreconcilable with the City<U+2019>s Climate Action Strategy for 80% of all trips to be by sustainable modes by the year 2030. As the SEIR<U+2019>s Response to Comments admits, providing additional parking encourages more automobile commuting and undermines the effectiveness of TDM programs. (RTC pp. 4.C-62-63, 4.H.63-64.) Given that the Balboa Reservoir site currently functions merely as overflow parking for City College and is mostly empty even when college is in session, there would be little reason to build a public parking garage even if City College hadn<U+2019>t committed to undertaking an aggressive TDM program to reduce automobile commuting. The public parking garage would also be an end-run around project<U+2019>s 1:2 residential parking ratio. The public parking garage would be open to non-residents only during weekday daytime hours. The rest of the time project residents could park there. That would defeat the intent of having a reduced parking ratio for the residences. The City<U+2019>s Transit First policies and its climate change goals mandate minimizing automobile commuting. As the City<U+2019>s experience with managing parking in downtown demonstrates, the single most effective mechanism for reducing automobile commuting is to reduce parking supply. Alternatively, Shrink the Public Parking Garage and Prohibit Parking Discounts If the Commission is bound and determined to allow a public parking garage despite the Transit First mandates of the City Charter and the general plan, the Commission should dramatically reduce the size of the garage. The record before the Commission includes no justification whatsoever for a massive 450-space parking garage. According to parking surveys, the maximum parking shortfall that might occur during the midday peak is 239 spaces. That assumes that changes to parking supply and TDM measures will have absolutely no effect on automobile commuting, which would be a striking deviation from the City<U+2019>s experience elsewhere. Any public parking garage, therefore, should include substantially fewer than 239 spaces in order to avoid undercutting efforts to minimize automobile commuting. The Commission should also revise the Development Agreement (Exhibit J, Transportation Plan) to prohibit the developer from subsidizing commuter parking by offering monthly parking passes and by allowing discounted rates for City College users. Planning Code sections 155(g) and 303(t) expressly prohibits multi-day passes or discounts for new parking garages in downtown and mixed- use districts precisely because they encourage automobile commuting. The Commission should apply these prohibitions to any public parking garage at the Balboa Reservoir. All users of the parking garage should be required to pay market rates on an hourly or (at most) a daily basis. If the project ultimately includes a public parking garage, the TDM credits that the developer receives for having a low residential parking ratio (see Development Agreement, Exhibit J-1, TDM Plan, Strategy Pkg-4) should be reduced proportionately to the size of the public parking garage. Prohibit Natural Gas The Development Agreement allows the project to include natural gas service. Given the urgent need for the City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Commission should prohibit any natural gas connections to the project. For these reasons, please approve the Additional Housing Option version of the Balboa Reservoir Project as described in the SEIR. Thank you. Sincerely, Christopher Pederson District 7 residentshow more

Rick Baum · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Property Proposed Housing Project
To The SF Planning Commission: The PUC section of the Balboa Reservoir property is public property that has been used to meet the needs of City College of San Francisco students for many decades. There is an obvious housing crisis in the Bay Area. However, public property like the PUC section of the Balboa Reservoir should not be made available for the use of a private entity to enable it to make money in ways tha… To The SF Planning Commission: The PUC section of the Balboa Reservoir property is public property that has been used to meet the needs of City College of San Francisco students for many decades. There is an obvious housing crisis in the Bay Area. However, public property like the PUC section of the Balboa Reservoir should not be made available for the use of a private entity to enable it to make money in ways that do not serve the public interest. The claim, and it is only a claim, that some units of affordable housing will be built on the Balboa site comes across as a public relations stunt that insults one's intelligence. Many of the proposed units being described as affordable are only affordable for those with six figure incomes of around $120,000. Many people working in San Francisco are paid San Francisco's minimum wage of $15.59 an hour which comes to less than $33,000/year for one working full time for 52 weeks, an amount just slightly more than one-fourth of what is being characterized as an income level needed to be able to live in what is being called an affordable unit. A key question you should answer is how would CCSF and Riordan High School students benefit from the proposed Avalon housing project? I doubt that the best pr firm around could come up with any reason that does not reach the heights of absurdity. In addition, I doubt that you can provide a convincing reason of how such a transfer of public property serves the interests of the overwhelming majority of residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Those residents, and those seeking an education will have to endure the noise and dust during construction that is bound to interfere with one's education and the livability of the neighborhood. Additionally, during construction and thereafter, an area already suffering from traffic congestion will have to deal with even more congestion. The only rational decision you could make with regard to the PUC Balboa Reservoir property is to turn it over to CCSF, a public and accessible educational facility, for its continued use, and bring an end to even thinking about this proposed private housing project. Thank you. Sincerely, Rick Baumshow more

Rita M Evans · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project 2018-007883 -- Planning for Pandemics
Planning Commission, You are being asked to vote on a number of approvals related to the Balboa Reservoir project at the May 28, 2020 meeting of the commission. This is the essence of planning--taking our new conditions into account while the parameters and final outcome of a project are still up for discussion and redesign. In light of what we are experiencing during the current pandemic, we must immediately in… show more

Rita M Evans · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project 2018-007883 - Unaddressed Traffic and Transportation Issues
Planning Commission, Throughout the public input process, residents living near the proposed Balboa Reservoir development have repeatedly asked the city and developer to address the huge impact the addition of 1100 housing units will have on traffic, transit, parking for CCSF, and related transportation issues such as air quality. In response to numerous documented issues in the FEIR, our objections were summaril… Planning Commission, Throughout the public input process, residents living near the proposed Balboa Reservoir development have repeatedly asked the city and developer to address the huge impact the addition of 1100 housing units will have on traffic, transit, parking for CCSF, and related transportation issues such as air quality. In response to numerous documented issues in the FEIR, our objections were summarily dismissed. Almost no mitigation is offered to what the FEIR itself acknowledges are significant impacts. The Planning Commission should withhold approval until these issues are addressed: Traffic delay affecting transit operations and air quality -- The Response to Comments played fast and loose with data showing significant transit delay as a result of the project by simply dropping the table with the offending data from the final Report. Unfortunately, not documenting the delay doesn't make it disappear. Before this project is approved, the city must implement changes such as removing parking from Frida Kahlo to allow for transit-only lanes and better, safer bicycle lanes and committing to frequent, regular maintenance and updating of the traffic signal system on Frida Kahlo and Ocean Avenue, including transit signal coordination. Transit frequency and reliability - Success of the BR project depends on new residents using public transit, not private vehicles, whether their own or TNCs. Safe, frequent, reliable service is necessary to draw new residents. While transit is an unknown proposition in our pandemic world, we can be sure the current crowded vehicles, long wait times with groups at bus stops, and extremely slow operating speeds will repel new residents, not attract them. The Planning Commission cannot in good faith approve a huge project that depends on new residents taking public transportation as a fundamental feature of its transportation demand management in our pandemic and post-pandemic world when public transit is so unlikely to attract new riders. Rita Evans Judson Avenue -- Rita Evansshow more

Rita M Evans · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project 2018-007883--Public Record Retention; Communication Using
Official Channels and Devices Planning Commission, On the agenda for the May 28, 2020 Planning Commission meeting are several items related to the Balboa Reservoir Project. The hearing will be held remotely. I raised the following issue during the public comment period of the April meeting and have received no response. The Commission is being asked to take several actions tomorrow regarding this very valuab… show more

Stardust Doherty · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Do NOT let a for-profit developer kill CCSF
Please do not allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 to be turned over to a private for-profit developer whose CEO makes $10M/year. I object to rezoning the Balboa Reservoir, which is unacceptable for numerous reasons: * allows privatization of public land; * doubles the building height limit; * doubles the resident density limit; * reduces the amount of public open space requ… Please do not allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 to be turned over to a private for-profit developer whose CEO makes $10M/year. I object to rezoning the Balboa Reservoir, which is unacceptable for numerous reasons: * allows privatization of public land; * doubles the building height limit; * doubles the resident density limit; * reduces the amount of public open space required from 50% to 11% I object to the Balboa Reservoir Project going forward with unmitigated environmental impacts. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) identified three significant environmental impacts: construction noise, air, and transportation. I demand that any development at the Balboa Reservoir must first ensure that adequate transit and/or parking be put in place to mitigate the loss of parking. The overwhelming support for Prop A ($845 M Bond for CCSF) shows SF voters desire the development and expansion of CCSF. The Balboa Reservoir is a critical element for CCSF use. The plan to privatize it contradicts and undermines the public interest. Given that the biggest barrier to affordable housing construction is the price of land, to privatize a public parcel in San Francisco for majority market rate housing is unconscionable. Just like the development at 1100 Ocean, which was owned by the MTA and today is 100% affordable, the ONLY housing that should be built on public land must be deeply affordable to long-time residents and educators. The construction of a majority-market rate housing development on the Balboa Reservoir would be a major step backwards, toward the gentrification of some of the last affordable neighborhoods in San Francisco. We need a City government that fights for education and housing justice, not leaders and agencies that bow to real estate interests. This is not solely a District 7 issue. The negative impact on gentrification and City College is a city-wide issue. Sincerely, Stardust Doherty CCSF Alum 304 Winfield Street San Francisco, CA 94110show more

Andrew Noble · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
Hello Commission, I am a homeowner residing at 420 Miramar Avenue in the Westwood Park neighborhood. I write in support of the pending application to develop the Balboa reservoir/parking lot. The existing parking lot is an eyesore. The neighborhood will benefit from this project as it will connect open spaces with the neighborhood, and will also add additional residents to continue the progress we've seen o… show more

Christine Hanson · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Response to Comments unaddressed safety concern
Item 17, Balboa Reservoir EIR certification Dear Commissioners, On page 4.I-5 of the Response to Comments document, Garry Bieringer raised concern about the proximity of the play structure at the North end of Unity Plaza to the added through traffic estimated at 50 yards distance to fast moving traffic when Lee Avenue is extended to Ocean Avenue. Mr. Bieringer said <U+201C>there<U+2019>s no way we can h… Item 17, Balboa Reservoir EIR certification Dear Commissioners, On page 4.I-5 of the Response to Comments document, Garry Bieringer raised concern about the proximity of the play structure at the North end of Unity Plaza to the added through traffic estimated at 50 yards distance to fast moving traffic when Lee Avenue is extended to Ocean Avenue. Mr. Bieringer said <U+201C>there<U+2019>s no way we can have children climbing on that structure with all the trucks whizzing by so closely.<U+201D> The RTC response ignored Mr. Bieringer<U+2019>s concern about the vehicular speed that will be added when Lee Avenue becomes an extension to the Reservoir Development. The RTC compared the play structure<U+2019>s proximity first to busses at the existing Muni City College Loop<U+2014>whose speed limit presumably would not exceed 1 or 2 mph with a professional driver behind the wheel maneuvering in that small space. The RTC pointed out that Whole Foods delivery vehicles already use the dead end to unload. Deliver trucks, driven again by professional drivers positioning their trucks by a small loading dock would not be driving fast. What the RTC did not do was evaluation of the vehicular speed that will occur when the dead end becomes a through way and cars pass to and from Ocean Avenue on 3 lanes of traffic<U+2014>2 lanes moving North/South and a dedicated South left turn lane. Traffic trying to make the left turn at the stop light will not be traveling 1 or 2 mph. The RTC response regarding location of the play structure which it did indeed confirm is situated approximately 50 yards away from Lee Avenue was to minimize this by comparing it to the playground at Minnie and Ward Lovey Center which the RTC said was located no more than 35<U+2019> from traffic. The RTC failed to note that the fenced playground at Minnie and Ward Lovey Community Center sits at least 20 feet lower than the street closest which is Montana, not Capitol child would need to either climb a retaining wall and then crawl through a hillside of bushes to get to the street, or traverse a multi a level ADA ramp, or climb a steep staircase to reach the street. The distance to Capitol Avenue is greater and has a fenced picnic area as buffer. Here are photos of the playground at Minnie and Ward Lovey Community Center. The play structure Mr. Bieringer raised concern about is on the same level as the Lee Avenue extension. There is a walking lane, the length of the apartment building which is a straight shot to Lee Avenue. A child with a head start could easily reach Lee Avenue where drivers, after having traversed the backup on Ocean Avenue or waited their turn to make a left turn onto Ocean may indeed drive too fast. The comment made by Mr. Bieringer was unaddressed. This was an opportunity for staff to explain traffic calming strategies for the new street but apparently none exist. The hazard potential to children of speeding cars on the Lee Avenue extension is not addressed. Sincerely, Christine Hansonshow more

Wynd Kaufmyn · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Please postpone hearing on Balboa Reservoir Project
Dear Commissioners, Please postpone Balboa Reservoir Project decisions scheduled for your May 28 Agenda. For years, the City and developers have promised to cooperate with City College of San Francisco regarding the significant impacts of this project on CCSF. Land that CCSF has used for years will be sold; student access will be reduced due to removed parking; the demand for already at-capacity public transportat… Dear Commissioners, Please postpone Balboa Reservoir Project decisions scheduled for your May 28 Agenda. For years, the City and developers have promised to cooperate with City College of San Francisco regarding the significant impacts of this project on CCSF. Land that CCSF has used for years will be sold; student access will be reduced due to removed parking; the demand for already at-capacity public transportation will increase; traffic congestion will increase; roadways will be built through City College property, and; construction will create air and noise pollution for years, disrupting the educational experience of thousands of students. The City and developers have promised to enter into written agreements with CCSF addressing many of these issues and impacts. They didn't. Ken Rich from OEWD, in a May 1, 2018 correspondence, stated that commitments need to be memorialized in an MOU so that the City and developer can be sure that they make it into the development agreement. The MOU was to be completed before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the Project. This MOU has yet to be completed. The issues it was to address must be resolved before the project is to proceed. One issue of critical concern is the loss of student access to higher education. Public transit is already operating at capacity and many students regrettably rely on their cars to manage their studies, jobs and family responsibilities. Inside Higher Ed reported that the fifth biggest challenge to community college students is parking. A key conclusion of the CCSF Education Master Plan is that the main obstacles to completing education and training programs are cost, commuting, and scheduling. At CCSF ~46% of students and workers commute by car. Per the Developer Agreement, the developer has no obligation to build more than 450 spaces. However, it is likely that the TDM is insufficient and in fact, closer to 1,500 parking spaces are needed. Nothing in the DA requires the spaces be reserved for CCSF and furthermore, they will charge a <U+201C>Market Rate<U+201D> parking fee which will be out of reach to most students. In order to assure students' interests are protected, an MOU is needed BEFORE a DA is approved. Additionally, Leigh Lutenski from OEWD, has stated that there must be a renegotiation of an easement agreement between the City and CCSF in order for access roads be built into the Project. This easement agreement yet to be completed. The impact of such an agreement on City College is significant and must be in place before the project is approved. Clearly, there is unfinished collaboration between CCSF and the City/Developers. Collaboration that has been promised to CCSF stakeholders for years. Please, do not rule on a project that doesn<U+2019>t address the needs of students at City College as their futures are at stake. Please postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing. Thank you for your consideration, Wynd Kaufmyn City College of San Francisco Engineering Instructor & Faculty Adviser to WISE Vice President AFT 2121 email: [email removed] Phone: [phone removed] website: http://fog.ccsf.edu/~wkaufmynshow more

Neighbors Against Flooding · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir EIR Certification Hearing (5/28/2020)
Dear Commissioners: We are writing regarding the Balboa Reservoir EIR certification hearing scheduled for May 28, 2020, and submit the following for your consideration: Ingleside Terraces is at risk for flooding during moderate storm situations due to an inadequate sewer system along Ocean Avenue. The addition of 1000+ new units at the Balboa Reservoir Project will knowingly put residents downstream at greater risk… Dear Commissioners: We are writing regarding the Balboa Reservoir EIR certification hearing scheduled for May 28, 2020, and submit the following for your consideration: Ingleside Terraces is at risk for flooding during moderate storm situations due to an inadequate sewer system along Ocean Avenue. The addition of 1000+ new units at the Balboa Reservoir Project will knowingly put residents downstream at greater risks for flooding for the sake of additional housing. The recently published Responses to Comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Balboa Reservoir Project, Comment UT-2: Stormwater and Sewer submitted in response to Public Comments to Draft EIR report states: "The proposed project could result in long-term changes in the volume of discharges to the City's combined sewer system in the sub-basin due to new residents, employees, and visitors who could increase the amount of wastewater generation (draft SEIR Appendix B, p. B-112). The draft SEIR Appendix B concludes on p. B-112 that all <U+201C>wastewater discharges to the combined sewer system would be treated at the Oceanside Treatment Plant in compliance with the Oceanside NPDES permit ... because the stormwater and wastewater discharges from the project would not result in an increase in the frequency of combined sewer discharges, the project's impacts related to changes in combined sewer discharges would be less than significant." <U+201C>Could<U+201D> is not reassuring and does not guarantee that additional flooding will not result. We are shocked that this is an acceptable response that misdirects the attention to the Oceanside Treatment Plant and fails to address what will happen along Ocean Avenue. In addition, the report goes on to state: It further states that "The ratio of stormwater to sanitary sewage from the project site is substantially greater than 8:1 during storm conditions.<U+201D> While the ratio of stormwater to sanitary sewage is 8 times greater, that 12.5% of added wastewater is still too much when excursions are known to occur. Videos and photos in the links below document just what happens during brief and moderate storm situations like that which occurred on December 7, 2019: Videos: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Y-Ic7jjk6jpP57EwUQe-U-RJGWv0okm_?usp=sharing Photos: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HyGfrTV4sgf_oMeb9xJsk1mz8A4YhxCv?usp=sharing Sidewalks, streets, homes, and businesses are being contaminated with sewage and viruses, including the Coronavirus, each time an excursion occurs. In an article from Science Daily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200506133603.htm), it states that: <U+201C>Environmental biologists at the University of Stirling has warned that the potential spread of COVID-19 via sewage "must not be neglected" in the battle to protect human health. The response to the global pandemic has focused upon preventing person-to-person transmission, however, experts now believe the virus could also be spread in wastewater. Earlier this week, it emerged that analysis of sewage in the UK could provide important data on the spread of COVID-19. However, Professor Richard Quilliam's new paper -- published May 6 -- now warns that the sewerage system itself could pose a transmission risk.<U+201D> Is placing all of San Francisco at risk of added viral exposure for the sake of fast-tracking housing worth it? We ask that you do not allow the Balboa Reservoir construction project to move forward until excursions and sewage overflows are resolved and the risks eliminated. Please require that as a condition for this development to proceed, the deficient sewer system along Ocean Avenue be replaced and additional high capacity catch basins are installed. Sincerely, Ingleside Terraces Residents Patricia Hechinger Vanessa Quesada Gina Buschiazzo Jane Huey Adrienne Sciutto Irene Crepsshow more

Stuart Rosenthal · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project 2018-007883
Dear Commission, As a 30+ year resident of the Sunnyside Neighborhood I strongly object to the proposed Balboa Reservoir Project 2018-007883 for the following reasons: The loss of more than 17 acres of publicly owned land to private hands at a "give-away" valuation of $11,000,000. The enormous impact to adjacent neighborhoods including but not limited to 1. the loss of City College student/staff par… show more

Debra Wilensky · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Do NOT turn public land over to private for-profit developer
Dear SF Planning Commission, SF Board of Supervisors, CCSF Board of Trustees, and CCSF Chancellor: Please do not allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 to be turned over to a private for-profit developer. There is a long standing understanding that City College has some rights as to what happens to Balboa Reservoir. The long anticipated PAEC (which must be built) and future needs of the colle… Dear SF Planning Commission, SF Board of Supervisors, CCSF Board of Trustees, and CCSF Chancellor: Please do not allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 to be turned over to a private for-profit developer. There is a long standing understanding that City College has some rights as to what happens to Balboa Reservoir. The long anticipated PAEC (which must be built) and future needs of the college must take precedent over plans for the city at large. I think everyone agrees that this land should not continue as only a parking lot, but new parking for the new PAEC, replacement parking for the displaced parking near the MUB, equivalent parking to that currently(pre-COVID) in use by students in the lower reservoir must be part of the plan. Furthermore, any development at the Balboa Reservoir must first ensure that adequate transit and/or parking be put in place to mitigate any loss of parking. We all agree that San Francisco needs more affordable housing, but it must be truly affordable and it must not take precedent over the needs of the college. If low cost housing is also built on the site, it must include adequate parking for residents in addition to all the parking mentioned above. People will have cars for a long while yet. Those taking transit to work will still have cars that they leave parked during the day. Those living in affordable units will still probably have multiple cars per unit- often one per adult. (My household of 7 adults has 4 cars, soon to be 5- if the DMV ever does road tests again for the 3 wannabe drivers.) It is a pipe dream to imagine that people will no longer need to house their cars. And as much as I strongly support public transit, people are expected to cling to their cars more than ever once COVID allows us to return to many of our usual activities. In any case, taking MUNI to Ocean Campus from my house has never been pleasant or convenient. As a teacher there, it was impossible to get between campuses in a timely fashion on public transit. We need a City government that fights for education and housing justice, not leaders and agencies that bow to real estate interests.The negative impact on gentrification and City College is a city-wide issue. Please prioritize the future needs of City College in any plans for the Balboa Reservoir site. Sincerely, Debra Wilensky, retired ESL Instructor (1979-2017), ESL Coordinator (Spring 2016-Spring 2017) John Adams Campus City College of San Francisco homeowner (and future lifelong learner) and parent of sometime and future CCSF students 1568 48th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122show more

Anthony Singer · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Letter from 12 residents in support of the Balboa Reservoir Project
Dear Commission President Koppel, Letter in support of the Balboa Reservoir Project Please find attached a letter in support of the Balboa Reservoir project which comes before the commission on May 28, 2020. This letter is from 12 San Francisco residents: Annie De Lancie, Jacqueline Mauro, Abby Green, Genna Yarkin, Max Barab, Xue wen Hu, Stephanie Noble, Brian Coyne, Samantha Ganser, Tommy Lam, Logan Williams and… show more

Tomasita Med<U+00E1>l · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project
Good afternoon, members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, During your meeting of May 28, 2020, at items 17 through 18f, you will be asked to approve an EIR, various planning code amendments and variances, changes to the San Francisco General Plan, Zoning Map amendments, Design Standards and Guidelines, establish a special use district, and Adoption of Findings:a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Firs… Good afternoon, members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, During your meeting of May 28, 2020, at items 17 through 18f, you will be asked to approve an EIR, various planning code amendments and variances, changes to the San Francisco General Plan, Zoning Map amendments, Design Standards and Guidelines, establish a special use district, and Adoption of Findings:a Statement of Overriding Considerations. First, this is very premature. The Development Agreement is full of pages that are completely blank, to be filled in later!!! There is no Memorandum of Understanding with City College, and most egregious of all, the Environmental Impact Report does not consider the deadly impact this project would have on City College. This is land that the college had counted on to be the college parking lot once the Performing Arts Education Center (now called Diego Rivera Theater) and the Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Technology building are built. This is land that the College has considered part of its West Campus for decades. If you fill this 17.6 acre parcel with 1,100 - 1,550 units of housing, you will completely fill the lot that the college was counting on for parking for its students. Thousands of students will be shut out of a chance to drastically better their lives by learning a profession or a trade. From experience, we can attest to the stunningly high caliber of the faculty at City College. The Development Agreement pegs the selling price at $11 million. The voters of San Francisco just awarded $845 million to City College. Sell the land to City College for its continued benefit. Do not approve the Balboa Reservoir Project. Below is a rendering of what the project would look like. Where would the 30,000 students of City College park to access their education, their ladder out of poverty? The other illustration is of what if the land is instead sold to City College, later, after construction of the Diego Rivera Theater and STEAM Building is complete, the land could be used for 2/3 solar-paneled parking lot; and 1/3 of the lot, up to 600 units of 100% affordable housing for faculty, staff, and students. Below are two renderings. One is of what is proposed today. Privatization of land that belongs to the people of San Francisco for private developers' obscene profits. Although the project is billed as 50% affordable, which means 50% luxury market- rate, in fact it is all market rate housing. When I asked at a public meeting what was their criteria for affordable housing, they said a single person making $139,000 per year. That is certainly not affordable to the thousands of people making minimum wage in San Francisco who also desperately need housing. Building market rate housing will not solve the affordable housing problem in San Francisco. Building 100% affordable housing will help to alleviate the affordable shortage. The doubling of the height limits and the doubling of the density in the project, and the downsizing of the green space required from 50% to 11%, immensely lowers the quality of life envisioned by the community when it developed the Balboa Park Station Plan in 2009. At the last minute, the developers added heights to all of their proposed housing, even along the west edge. Tricky. Sneaky. This project reminds us of the settlers who came in to California, to the paradise that was California. First the Spanish priests and soldiers, who killed, tortured, raped and made slaves of the indigenous Californians, making them eat out of troughs, starving them and not letting them leave the mission compounds. Next, after the discovery of gold, the invasion of the yankee settlers who hunted down the remaining indigenous Californians, and sold their scalps for a dollar apiece. They saw land that they wanted; they killed its inhabitants and took the land and have occupied it ever since. This is exactly what the developers are doing. One of them said to me, "We having been eyeing this large, flat parcel for decades". Their sense of entitlement to the taking is obscene. Do not participate in this betrayal of the interests of the present and future generations of San Franciscans who will need access to City College to better their lives, and with that, better the quality of life for everyone in San Francisco. Do not approve these proposals before you today. Tomasita Medl [email removed]show more

Michael Ahrens · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Extreme danger and threats

Laura Lee Frey · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project
Dear Commissioners, The Planning Commission meeting on May 28 will be addressing the Balboa Reservoir Project. Please note that many participants of the BRCAC meetings are very dissatisfied with the plan as currently proposed. One big reason is that this is public land, and the development will have a direct impact on City College - some problems are being glossed over and not solved. A major issue is replacem… Dear Commissioners, The Planning Commission meeting on May 28 will be addressing the Balboa Reservoir Project. Please note that many participants of the BRCAC meetings are very dissatisfied with the plan as currently proposed. One big reason is that this is public land, and the development will have a direct impact on City College - some problems are being glossed over and not solved. A major issue is replacement student parking. It was stated that the City Planning Department itself had said that the parking needed to have a defined solution, an MOU, before plan approval, .. and this is not the case; there is no defined solution. Also, the planners are acting as if the loss of the upper parking area to the PAC building is a new problem and that it shouldn't be their responsibility but the upper parking was always known to be planned to be reduced. The loss of parking for City College in the lower parking area will have a negative impact on the school. This problem needs to be resolved BEFORE proceeding forward. There are two other large concerns that should be resolved BEFORE proceeding. I do not feel secure that the affordable housing will be FOREVER affordable housing. If public land is being used for affordable housing, it is imperative that this (part of) the land will NEVER become private property. Secondly, the fire-fighting infrastructure is not sufficient for the proposed downtown-density housing project; the Balboa Reservoir area has a low-density compatible fire-fighting infrastructure. And lastly, please note that the plan as stated does NOT comply with the parameters hammered out in the BRCAC meetings. Since height /density) goes from highest at the east, tapering down to 30' at the west, ... by raising the height limit on the east from 65' (parameters) to 77,' the subsequent tapering creates an increase in height(/density) across the whole development. I request that you please withhold approval of the plan until these crucial problems are resolved. Sincerely, Laura Frey [email removed]show more

Mark Tang · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support, will provide much needed housing

Theo Gordon · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support

Corey Smith · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support

Laura Foote · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support

Michael Pico · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support

Jennifer Hege · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Unacceptable risk

Jean Barish · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Do not approve

Theodore Randolph · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Approve

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support

Robert Muehlbauer · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Housing
Dear Planning Commission, My name is Robert Muehlbauer. I am writing in support of the Balboa Reservoir housing proposal that you are reviewing today (No. 2018007883DVA). I am the former vice-chair of the Balboa Reservoir CAC and also served as Chair of the Balboa Park Station CAC, so I am familiar with many of the issues and opportunities at these two sites that are both part of the Balboa Park Station Area Plan. … Dear Planning Commission, My name is Robert Muehlbauer. I am writing in support of the Balboa Reservoir housing proposal that you are reviewing today (No. 2018007883DVA). I am the former vice-chair of the Balboa Reservoir CAC and also served as Chair of the Balboa Park Station CAC, so I am familiar with many of the issues and opportunities at these two sites that are both part of the Balboa Park Station Area Plan. San Francisco needs the housing. My two daughters are being squeezed out of the City for lack of reasonably priced housing. I currently have a boarder living at my home, a friend of my daughter, who is in the same boat as my own children. I see first hand what they are up against. I realize that the number of units recommended at the reservoir exceed the Area Plan's original plan. For those who say the build out of Balboa Reservoir will permanently alter their single-family home character in the neighborhood I can only say that, yes, the neighborhood will change. There is no way that 1,100 units on 17 acres will ever look and feel single-family in nature and trying to mitigate it into that is a waste of time. What can be done, and for the most part, what has been designed, is a new neighborhood. The placement of open space, massing of buildings, and inter-connectivity with adjacent streets is exceptional. It looks like a place one will want to walk through, not around it. Access to public transit, no, access to enhanced public transit, will be key to this project's long term success. It may be key to residents just leaving their car at home along with the disrupting impact of their cars on local streets. This project needs to be the catalyst for enhancing the pedestrian experience to and from Balboa Park Station. It is not at the moment. Take a look yourselves at the poor condition of the sidewalk area - heaves and drops of the sidewalk squares, overhanging landscaping that forces walkers into the street, and poor lighting - it hasn't really been touched since, really? 1965? Although the Balboa Reservoir housing has design guidelines - an abstract notion - this is so far the extent to which the public has seen the proposed buildings. Great massing is no guarantee for excellent design. It is certainly critical, but cheap materials, lack of quality pavers and paving in the infrastructure can cause defeat in the clutches of victory. I do earnestly recommend that the local community see a more thorough final design prior to commencement of construction so that what we will experience in the years to come is truly a new neighborhood that seemlessly fits into and enhances Ocean Avenue and the Ingleside. Thank you, Robert Muehlbauer Sent from Outlook Mobileshow more

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Ideal place for housing

Steve Marzo · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

We need this project

John Winston · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support

Peter Waller · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Design presentation

Robert Feinbaum · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project
SaveMUNI Re: Balboa Reservoir Project San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2019-007883ENV I am writing on behalf of SaveMUNI, a grassroots transportation advocacy organization, regarding the Balboa Reservoir Project. This Project will add up to 1,500 units of housing on the Balboa Reservoir, across the street from City College of San Francisco, and will significantly impact CCSF and the surrounding neighborhood… SaveMUNI Re: Balboa Reservoir Project San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2019-007883ENV I am writing on behalf of SaveMUNI, a grassroots transportation advocacy organization, regarding the Balboa Reservoir Project. This Project will add up to 1,500 units of housing on the Balboa Reservoir, across the street from City College of San Francisco, and will significantly impact CCSF and the surrounding neighborhoods. For the reasons set forth below, SaveMUNI urges the Planning Commission to defer consideration of this project until parking and transportation issues are resolved. There will not be adequate public transit to meet the increased demand resulting from the influx of new residents and the removal of parking. At this time, SF MTA has no specific plans to accommodate this increased demand. They have recently described transit improvements as <U+201C>aspirational,<U+201D> and <U+201C>sketchy.<U+201D> However, the Final Environmental Impact Report has found that public transit delays in the area would have <U+201C>significant unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.<U+201D> Thousands of students who drive to CCSF from throughout the City and surrounding towns rely on the parking lot on the lower reservoir. This Project will remove most of this parking, making it very difficult for students to attend classes and for faculty and staff to get to work. The EIR does not adequately address income and transportation equity. Otherwise, the EIR would have evaluated the historical reasons for thousands of students, faculty, and staff who have driven to CCSF for decades. This is especially critical for so many who live in transit deserts in low-income neighborhoods where transit is slow and unreliable, and who are also working and caring for their families. An increase in population and a decrease in public parking will also significantly impact traffic congestion in the area. The Final Environmental Impact Report found that passenger and freight loading zones adjoining the project could create <U+201C>potentially hazardous conditions.<U+201D> The EIR concluded that this is another <U+201C>significant unavoidable environmental impact<U+201D> that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.<U+201D> To meet the need for improved public transit, there have been numerous requests for a shuttle between the Balboa Park BART Station, City College and the surrounding neighborhood. This could encourage the use of transit, reduce traffic congestion and decrease parking demand. Plans for a shuttle, however, have been eliminated, further exacerbating traffic and congestion problems. SaveMUNI hopes you will defer project approval until there are adequate mitigations for these transit, transportation and parking problems Sincerely, Robert Feinbaum President, SaveMUNI Submitted: May 26, 2020show more

Nicky T. · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

A Resolution to Acquire the Balboa Reservoir Property for City College of San Francisco Presented by the Defend City College Alliance (DCCA)*
Greetings! I am writing in support of the Resolution to Acquire the Balboa Reservoir Property for City College of San Francisco Presented by the Defend City College Alliance. CCSF, especially in the time of a pandemic that is not going away, ought to be seeking innovative ways to expand classes and students support, in transfer, Voc Ed, ESL, enrichment courses and more. This crisis only amplifies the need for the re… Greetings! I am writing in support of the Resolution to Acquire the Balboa Reservoir Property for City College of San Francisco Presented by the Defend City College Alliance. CCSF, especially in the time of a pandemic that is not going away, ought to be seeking innovative ways to expand classes and students support, in transfer, Voc Ed, ESL, enrichment courses and more. This crisis only amplifies the need for the resources and richness offered in this unique place we call CCSF. To allow the Reservoir to be transferred to a private corporation and allow the sacrifice of what the voters approved in two elections is wrong on some many levels. It will be a great loss to the community if City College and the community members it serves cannot determine the use of this land. I speak as a Native San Franciscan with many family members who embarked on the higher ed track through City College. I speak as a former CCSF faculty member who taught hundreds of students the legendary LRN 50 study skills class that embedded in them skills and confidence not achieved in their earlier education. I speak as a retired CSU academic advisor who knows the time and money saved by thousands of low-income students that freed them from acquiring the burden of unnecessary student debt I speak as scholarship reader who knows the emotional toll students tolerate when higher education feels unattainable even for the high achievers. I speak to you as an advocate for Dreamers who feel threatened as more and more of the classes and services offered continue to dwindle. And I also speak to you as an essential worker and advocate for San Francisco's senior population who thrive in the CCSF courses they depend on for lifelong learning and social connecting. And we cannot neglect the Prop A measure (twice) to uphold the amazing Performing Arts Center that will display our Diego Rivera mural and Olmec sculptured head. Please do interfere with those developments. Thank you for your hard work and continue your amazing work on behalf of the residents of San Francisco who consider City College of San Francisco the real Golden Gate to education, advancement, and autonomy. Sincerely, Nicky Trasvina Retired SFSU Academic Advisorshow more

Christopher Peterson · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Support, ideal location

Mike Kopicko · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
To: City of San Francisco Planning Commission Re: Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: My name is Mike Kopicko and I live in the Mount Davidson Manor neighborhood, located just down Ocean Avenue from the Balboa Reservoir project. I have been participating in the community planning process for the Balboa Reservoir and am writing in support of the developm… To: City of San Francisco Planning Commission Re: Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: My name is Mike Kopicko and I live in the Mount Davidson Manor neighborhood, located just down Ocean Avenue from the Balboa Reservoir project. I have been participating in the community planning process for the Balboa Reservoir and am writing in support of the development proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2020. I enthusiastically chose this neighborhood to buy a condo with my husband in September 2017 because of the diversity, relative affordability, plethora of neighborhood businesses, proximity to public transit and potential that the neighborhood has. We have enjoyed these neighborhood features since we moved here and know that these will only improve further by opening the neighborhood to further density through housing development. I am very pleased that the development team has listened to neighbors and modified plans to meet the needs of the neighborhood. I am certain you will hear from neighbors who will say that the neighborhood is too full already, that we can<U+2019>t accommodate more people / cars, that businesses would be overwhelmed, that they don<U+2019>t want this (or any) development in their back yards. Others may say that it should only move forward if it includes 100% affordable housing. While I<U+2019>m sure you hear these arguments for every development that comes before you, as a neighbor to this project, I<U+2019>m very excited to support the evolved plans that are being considered today. I<U+2019>m so excited that 50% 9f these proposed homes have been earmarked as affordable homes for people earning between 30% and 120% area median income (AMI), which will help maintain the character and diversity that makes this neighborhood so wonderful. I<U+2019>m also eagerly awaiting a new 2 acre community park which this neighborhood currently lacks. I mentioned this neighborhood<U+2019>s proximity to transit, which, with easy access to BART and the Muni Metro, makes it super easy for people to get anywhere they need to go very easily without a car. The contribution to Transportation Sustainability Fees will improve Ocean Avenue for this development and the entire neighborhood to improve reliability and reduce delays among the transit lines. Finally, I<U+2019>m most excited for the businesses (and new businesses these new residents would attract) along Ocean Avenue. This neighborhood<U+2019>s businesses will truly benefit from more density and the neighborhood will benefit from businesses who can fill in existing empty storefronts along Ocean Avenue with services that are sorely needed but missing from the neighborhood today. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views and my enthusiastic support of this project. Sincerely, Mike Kopicko 8 Keystone Way Apt 2A San Francisco, CA 94127show more

Daniel Horn · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Re: Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
To: City of San Francisco Planning Commission Re: Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: My name is Daniel Horn and I live in the Balboa Park neighborhood. I have been participating in the community planning process for the Balboa Reservoir and am writing in support of the development proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2020. I think tha… show more

Sharon Wilensky · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project: Do not let a for-profit developer kill CCSF
Dear San Francisco Planning Commission: Please do not allow public land that has been used by City College since 1946 be turned over to a private for-profit developer whose CEO makes $10 Million a year. San Francisco voters overwhelmingly support City College, as their vote for the Prop A Bond ($845 million for development and expansion) shows. The Balboa Reservoir is a critical element for CCSF use. While we all kno… show more

Kate Frei · email · 2020-05-28 · oppose · source packet

Please DELAY Balboa Reservoir Approvals!
Dear Commissioner, The Balboa Reservoir Project SHOULD BE a collaboration with City College. Unfortunately, that has NOT been the case! The May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing MUST BE postponed until City College, the City, and the developers have come to the necessary agreements! Please do not railroad through a project--especially during this time of crisis--that does not consider the needs of City College. As … show more

George Wooding · spoken · 2020-05-28 · oppose

Public land should remain public

Leigh Lutenski · spoken · 2020-05-28 · support

Project presentation

Benjamin Schneider · email · 2020-05-28 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
Dear President Koppel and Commissioners, I was born and raised in Ingleside Terraces, less than a mile from the Balboa Reservoir. For the past two years, since graduating college, I've been living with my parents due to a lack of affordable housing in our neighborhood or anywhere else in San Francisco. I've been eagerly following the Balboa Reservoir planning process and am glad that it is getting close t… show more

2020-06-04 · 4 comments · 2 / 2

Marcus Ismael · email · 2020-06-04 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Public Comment - 5/28
Hello, Attached is my public comment support letter in favor of the Balboa Reservoir development project for the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 28, 2020. I ask that it please be entered into the record for the meeting in lieu of an in-person appearance in accordance with our local shelter in place ordinance. Many thanks, Marcus A. Ismael Mobile phone: 1. [phone removed] |LinkedIn

Adrienne Go · email · 2020-06-04 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
I understand this project will be considered by the Planning Commission today. I oppose the large- scale massing along the western edge of the project. I am a resident of Westwood Park, with my 100 year old home on the western edge of the proposed massive housing project. This neighborhood is filled with historic architecturally-protected houses and working class families. We have invested here, living with hei… show more

Yonathan Randolph · email · 2020-06-04 · support · source packet

Please approve the Balboa Reservoir EIR and Design Standards
To San Francisco Planning Commission: Please certify the EIR, adopt the Design Standards and Guidelines, and forward your approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Planning Code amendments, Zoning Map amendments, and Development Agreement of the Balboa Reservoir housing development. I have been attending the CAC meetings since 2015. Mayor Ed Lee identified the Balboa Reservoir for housing when he launched the P… To San Francisco Planning Commission: Please certify the EIR, adopt the Design Standards and Guidelines, and forward your approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Planning Code amendments, Zoning Map amendments, and Development Agreement of the Balboa Reservoir housing development. I have been attending the CAC meetings since 2015. Mayor Ed Lee identified the Balboa Reservoir for housing when he launched the Public Land for Housing program in response to the housing affordability crisis in 2014. Supervisor Norman Yee established the CAC in 2015. I have been attending ever since because I think that more housing is desperately needed in order to make San Francisco more affordable and accessible to live in. The EIR is satisfactory As far as the natural environment is concerned, the Balboa Reservoir is probably one of the least impactful places to put housing. there<U+2019>s no nature there now that would be displaced, there<U+2019>s no hazardous soil, and there are no parks that would be shadowed. The only significant environmental impacts are increased traffic and transit delays (assuming that Muni does not increase service in response to increased demand). I don<U+2019>t think neighbors are 100% satisfied with the EIR, but I think it dots all the legal Ts. Please adopt the Design Standards The design standards call for superior design and materials, as neighbors expect. I wish the allowed heights were higher. Ironically, if you look in the example townhouses in the Design Standards document, every single photo of a townhouse is 3 stories tall, yet the design standards limit the townhouses on the west side to only 2 stories tall (25 ft height limit, which is lower than the 28 ft limit of Westwood Park). And on the rest of the project, heights should be limited by financial feasibility rather than capped based on purely aesthetic reasons. Please forward the Development Agreement and Planning Code Amendments with a positive recommendation Please move the Development Agreement forward. The residents of the city need as much housing as possible, as quickly as possible. Here<U+2019>s what I don<U+2019>t like about the DA: Exhibit J: I wish that some of the parking spots were set aside for CCSF students and staff based on need rather than simply <U+201C>market-rate<U+201D> I wish that the ~$11.2 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) (Recital H) were a 30 to 60-year lease instead. As long as Proposition 13 exists, I don<U+2019>t think it<U+2019>s responsible for the city to divest of urban land. The last decade has shown that low property taxes and low interest rates magnify purchase prices, so that changes in rent result in huge private windfalls when rents increase (or huge private losses when rents fall). Besides, a land lease may be beneficial to the development by reducing developer risk and reducing the amount of debt that the developer must issue. I<U+2019>m disappointed that the Development Agreement includes city subsidies for 33.3% of the low and moderate income units (or equivalent to subsidizing almost all the low income units), or up to $43.8 million of city affordable housing funds. This contradicts MOHCD<U+2019>s original position from before the RFP, which was that the project would be entirely funded by the market-rate units in the project. I think there are a few ways that the SFPUC<U+2019>s <U+201C>fair market value compensation<U+201D> policy (PUC Resolution 12-0042) could be satisfied while avoiding such large city subsidies. For example, the deal could be structured as a density bonus, where the SFPUC gets fair market value for the land based on a baseline of market-rate units, and then the project builds more low-income units on top of that. I think the large subsidy that is needed for income-restricted housing is due to the significant non- housing amenities that we demanded as construction costs that have been rising continuously for the duration of the process. Had we started construction sooner, we likely would not have needed subsidy from MOHCD. Correction: Exhibit D: The definition of <U+201C>Low-Income Units<U+201D> is sloppy and incorrect. It says, <U+201C>will have rents set between 30% to 80% of AMI, with an average rental rate per building of no more than 60% of AMI, or an average purchase price of no more than 80% of AMI.<U+201D> It should instead be 1) restricted to occupancy by low-income households of a certain income range, 2) priced/rented at an amount that a person in that income range can afford.. This definition sets the <U+201C>rental rate<U+201D> at $6404/month (MOHCD<U+2019>s 2020 4-person AMI), when it should be setting the income limit at $6404/month. Despite these flaws, the project is a net project to the city so please approve of it. Conclusion Please move this project forward. It<U+2019>s been 5 years, the handful of neighbors have rehashed all the arguments as much as we could, and the city still needs the housing. It<U+2019>s better late than never. Yonathanshow more

William Hoskins · email · 2020-06-04 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project Case No. 2018-007883DVA
I am very concerned that Westwood park will be ruined by a massive structure planned for the Balboa Reservoir. For over 100 years Westwood Park has kept it's promise to be an oasis in the City with homes separated, nothing above 24 feet, and ample parking. The massively high development has none of these characteristics and will overwhelm our neighborhood. It will loom over Plymouth Ave and be the only thing re… show more

2020-06-18 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Delia Fitzpatrick · email · 2020-06-18 · support · source packet

Balboa Reservoir Project
Greetings, Attached is my support letter for the Balboa Reservoir Project on behalf of Our Kids First. Thanks. Delia -- Delia Fitzpatrick

2020-06-25 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Zoe Eichen · email · 2020-06-25 · oppose · source packet

Balboa Reservoir
Plans for privatizing the Balboa Reservoir land represents a willful contradiction and private undermining of the public interest as indicated by the support of Prop A, and evidence shows that building 1100 mostly market-rate homes on the Balboa Reservoir site will make the San Francisco affordable housing crisis worse, and building it without making sure the pollution is contained. Land, water, air pollution will en… show more

2022-09-29 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Glenn Rogers · email · 2022-09-29 · oppose · source packet

Agenda item 19 and 20 for BOS meeting September 20, 2022
7 Hello, We ask the following PmAC Resolution enclosed be part of the public record, please. Glenn Rogers, RLA Landscape Architect License 3223 email: [email removed] Parkmerced Action Coalition RESOLUTION TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARCELS A, B. C AND D AT PARKMERCED Whereas, San Francisco has more people leaving the City than any other place in the nation, 1 Whereas, Parkmerced presently has a vac… 7 Hello, We ask the following PmAC Resolution enclosed be part of the public record, please. Glenn Rogers, RLA Landscape Architect License 3223 email: [email removed] Parkmerced Action Coalition RESOLUTION TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARCELS A, B. C AND D AT PARKMERCED Whereas, San Francisco has more people leaving the City than any other place in the nation, 1 Whereas, Parkmerced presently has a vacancy rate of 30%, Whereas, recently it has been reported that 40,000 homes or condominiums are vacant, 2 Whereas, taking a loan today for construction will be more expensive because of the rise in interest making new construction more expensive than any time in recent history, 3 Whereas, expensive new construction is likely to have even fewer tenants than the existing housing stock in Parkmerced, Whereas, working remotely in San Francisco has made the need to live in San Francisco unnecessary, 4 Whereas, building unnecessary construction that lies vacant for months or years can cause a recession, Whereas, Parkmerced should be considered a historical monument, 5 We Resolve, that the construction of housing in the development of Parkmerced is no longer feasible after the COVID-19 pandemic, We Further Resolve, any future construction in Parkmerced, Balboa Reservoir, Treasure Island or Hunters Point should occur only when the vacancy rates are no longer as high as they are today, We Further Resolve, that the City should petition the State to relieve us from the unrealistic burden of providing 800 units of housing a year or 8,000 units of housing every 10 years. PO BOX 320445, San Francisco, CA 94132 FOOT NOTES: 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/california-exodus- continues-l-a-san-francisco-lead-the-way 2. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there- in-San-Francisco-16822916.php 3. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/construction-costs-hit-highest-spike- in-50-years/2891677/ 4. https://nypost.com/2022/07/18/san-francisco-mayor-worried-residents- leaving-working-from-home/ 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkmerced,_San_Franciscoshow more

BALBOA RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT

Hearings

Comments by hearing (144)