We are serving a population where it wasnt 80 80 are either employed or looking for paid jobs. They are parttime students. Really they are just taking a full close look course load and working parttime. We know theres 26 who to work 26 plus hours. That was a survey that was done in 2019. Having disabilities, being of color, being trans, they are probably the ones working these jobs. If you are giving away access, multiple access to education, they would have to transport themselves to the college and we probably will not have any enrolment. Students will not have access to educations. Is that something we are ready to take away from people . From a population that is already marginalized . I am all for Affordable Housing i grew up living there. This is not aggressive enough. Im sorry, it is public land pick 100 of it should go to Affordable Housing. We know that the cost of land in San Francisco is incredibly high. Why would we privatize it . We should be asking for a more aggressive p
Committee and on the association and im speaking for the board today. I want to address a particular aspect of the environmental report and that is alternative c. Thats opening to vehicular traffic. You want you to urge the Planning Department to support this alternative. As currently planned, there are two openings for vehicular traffic in and out of the reservoir site and a third access point would be provided. Mitigating some of the lockedin nature of the suit. When it was concluded that thisd reduce bottlenecks into the neighborhood and this would extend site traffic and can be acom datad withouaccommodated ig neighborhood. The draft states that opening this would redistribute traffic from ocean avenue and fredda calloway resulting in transit delay and this would provide emergency vehicles better access. Further, it would result project generated Traffic Volume at lee avenue which is identified in the draft report as a troublesome intersection with a lot of projected congestion. In
I want to put this picture here because you see so many pictures of this parking lot completely empty. We need to have a counterbalance. Of course, its not always this fall but more towards this end of the spectrum than the empty lots you see in the developers promotional materials. Lastly, in the january 9t january 9th meeting melina cohen says this, quote, i believe avalon bay will create a lot of problems for this. Thank you, maam i apologize those that are relationships in labor and many times they have come here, our labor parters have come here and havent hired labor union do the job. It should be mandated to use local union labor. S thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Monica collins. This is prepared. The scir states transit delay introduced by the project will be i insignificant and this is based on delay on part of the consultants. The performance standards allow for a fourminute delay for an entire route but the travel from the reservoir along fredda spawc llowafredda callowa
The realignment of the southbound offramp and the closure of the northbound i280 onramp as well as from the funding for the inner Agency Staffing and i want to note that the Transportation Authority staff received the supportive action from the balboa park on this item. These are included in the plan to increase the safety. And this is the subject of this specific request and implementation and for a total of 4 intersections by the community and intersections in priority order, and arlington and wilder and the funds that will be used for the construction, and repaving and lecturn pockets and upgrading signals and Street Lighting and restriping and landscaping and does eliminate the five parking spaces. And the prop k, request it here is lefage as a 1. 2 Million Dollar federal ear mark. And the next project shown is the comments and i think that the cac questions the plan and larkin raised is what improvement to viking and to the Pedestrian Safety and it sounds like those and that inter
Units portfolio as it relates to construction, but im just not convinced that were there yet. Imposing a ratio on construction solely on new construction of market rate and Affordable Housing means we will be ignoring the needs of already built Affordable Housing. In order to meet the ratio, all of the available funding in the voter approved Housing Trust fund will have to go towards new construction with nothing left for the preservation of existing Affordable Housing development and Public Housing developments. The Housing Authority and other hud Housing Developments will remain as neglected as they have for years, with no hope in sight for thousands of people who may lose their homes if the conditions persist. It is worth pointing out that 30 ratio in question is not even accurate now that the state has dissolved the San Francisco redevelopment agency, meaning these consequences could be even worse especially in district 5 where the need is great for rehabilitation of existing Affor