Students and Faculty Flood Board to Fight Downtown Campus Closure

The CCSF Governing Board's March 12 meeting became a referendum on the college's identity, as dozens of immigrant students, faculty and community members packed public comment to oppose the planned closure of the Downtown Center — while behind the scenes, the board confronted a proposed 27% cut to its flagship Free City tuition program and began plotting a multimillion-dollar parcel tax renewal campaign.

• Students, faculty and student government leaders deliver impassioned testimony against Downtown Campus closure; board president directs chancellor to schedule formal discussion

• Mayor's office proposes cutting Free City funding to $6.8 million — a 27% reduction — and requiring FAFSA completion, raising alarm for undocumented students in a sanctuary city

• Board begins early planning for $19 million parcel tax renewal, eyeing November 2028 ballot with two-thirds supermajority threshold

• Workforce programs report 84% job placement rate as college prepares for new federal Workforce Pell eligibility

• Emergency preparedness program revived with FEMA-based training plan extending through 2027

"Don't Close the Door": Downtown Campus Becomes a Flashpoint

Of 23 public commenters at the March 12 meeting, nearly all came to deliver the same message: keep the Downtown Center open. What emerged was not just a debate about a building, but a testament to the role CCSF's ESL programs play as a first foothold for immigrants in San Francisco — and a sharp rebuke of how the closure decision was made.

Why it matters: The Downtown Center, located in the Tenderloin/Civic Center corridor, is the primary access point for hundreds of immigrant students studying English as a Second Language. Speakers said closing it would sever educational pathways for some of the city's most underserved residents — people for whom transferring to another campus is not a realistic option.

Where things stand: Speaker after speaker described ESL classes enrolled to capacity with long wait lists — sometimes three times the number of available seats. They argued that the enrollment picture at Downtown reflects not a lack of demand, but deliberate restrictions on staffing and class hours.

"This is not an administrative decision. This is a threat to education and to futures," said Anderson Cortez, ASC vice president at the Downtown Campus, who cited $5 million in revenue the campus produces and accused the college of insufficient transparency.

Krista Lewis, ESL coordinator at the Downtown Campus, argued the closure was never placed on an open meeting agenda and that voters who approved Proposition A and Free City expected facilities to remain open.

Leslie Smith, vice chancellor emerita for governmental relations, made an economic case: non-credit ESL generates nearly $10,000 per full-time equivalent student in state funding — nearly double the $5,416 for credit enrollment. "The state is not defunding City College — this is an internal decision," she said, adding that the state chancellor's office is calling for 3% enrollment growth.

The testimony carried both policy precision and personal weight. Anna Belluvia, a Russian immigrant and Downtown Campus student, described the center as a uniquely multicultural space where English is the unifying language. She warned that closing campuses causes students to "disappear" rather than transfer. Quinn, an ASC senator who arrived in the U.S. just 18 months ago, told the board the Downtown Center was the first place in San Francisco where she felt she belonged.

Maria Carolina de Oliveira, ASC president at the Downtown Campus, reported collecting over 300 signatures from students and community members opposing the closure. She told the board that speaking before them in English was the scariest thing she had ever done.

Nikki Chi, a student and ESL beneficiary, challenged the framing of education as a business. "Enrollment was suppressed by systematic removal of courses, not lack of demand," she argued, warning that the closure could set a blueprint for shutting down every campus.

The other side: No speakers defended the closure. Faculty, students, student government leaders, a former vice chancellor and community members were unified in opposition. Several speakers accused the administration of telling students weeks earlier that there were no imminent closure plans, only to reverse course.

Decisions: No formal vote was taken. Board President Aliya Chisti responded directly: "We've heard a lot of concerns around the Downtown Center, and so I think it would be prudent for the board to discuss this in the near future." She directed Chancellor Messina to schedule a formal board discussion at an upcoming meeting.

What's next: The chancellor must place the Downtown Center question on a future board agenda for public discussion — giving students and community members the formal venue they say they were denied.

Free City Faces 27% Cut and a FAFSA Fight

The board received troubling news about San Francisco's signature free community college program: the mayor's Department of Children, Youth and Their Families has proposed slashing Free City funding to $6.8 million and requiring all recipients to complete a FAFSA application.

The basics: Free City, launched via Proposition G, covers tuition and provides cash grants for low-income students at CCSF. The program was intentionally designed as a universal benefit — not means-tested — to avoid the barriers that suppress enrollment at free college programs elsewhere. The city funds the program through a memorandum of understanding with CCSF.

Why it matters: The proposed changes strike at two pillars of Free City's design. The 27% funding cut — from approximately $9.3 million currently — would likely eliminate cash grants that help low-income students cover books, transportation and living expenses. The FAFSA requirement creates a new barrier for undocumented students, mixed-status families and students receiving city cash aid — populations the program was built to serve.

Where things stand: Elisa Messer, a member of the Free City Oversight Committee, laid out the math: "6.8 million represents a 27% cut over the program this year. That's not what DCYF says because DCYF is working off of $7.2 million, which is not what we had this year."

She warned the FAFSA mandate would be devastating: "Our students have been so clear on the ways in which if we require FAFSA at the start, we will lose so many students who aren't going to set foot through the door."

The proposed MOU includes a three-year term with annual budget review cycles and expands what the funding can cover, including eliminating payback requirements for students who drop classes. Chancellor Messina said she found some relief in one aspect: "I was most relieved that there was not an intent to differentiate between types of students or types of programs or types of courses."

The other side: Board members across the table voiced alarm. Student Trustee Campos called the cuts "really scary," adding: "It's inching us closer to means-based testing when I believe everyone deserves free education in San Francisco."

Trustee Anita Martinez made the sharpest critique, targeting the contradiction between the FAFSA requirement and the city's sanctuary policies: "What makes this very hypocritical of the city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco declares itself a sanctuary city and yet it's unwilling to provide the funding without having that barrier to those who are in those kinds of situations."

Multiple board members noted that FAFSA completion rates dropped dramatically when Free City launched precisely because students no longer needed it — reimposing the requirement would reverse that accessibility gain.

What's next: The Free City Oversight Committee was scheduled to receive the formal DCYF proposal the following day. The board took no formal action but signaled deep concern. How the MOU negotiations unfold will determine whether Free City remains a universal program or shifts toward a means-tested model.

Board Eyes 2028 Ballot for $19M Parcel Tax Renewal

BMWL consultants briefed the board on strategy for renewing Measure B, a $99-per-parcel tax that generates $19 million annually and funds core classes, workforce training, counseling and libraries. The measure expires June 30, 2032, but the two-thirds supermajority required to pass it means the campaign clock is already ticking.

Why it matters: Failure to renew would open a $19 million annual hole in CCSF's budget. California's two-thirds threshold for parcel taxes is the highest bar for any local revenue measure in the state — and requires years of planning, polling and coalition-building to clear.

Where things stand: Jill, the BMWL consultant, outlined four possible election windows: March 2028, November 2028, May 2030, and November 2030. November 2028 offers the highest voter turnout but also the most ballot competition. BMWL recommended a "blend and extend" approach — replacing the existing measure while calling it a renewal, which could allow an increase in the per-parcel amount.

"You have to make this easy for voters, make it easy for them to understand what they're voting for and don't overcomplicate it. And complicated measures lose," she cautioned.

She recommended formal research and polling begin in January 2027, after the 2026 election cycle. A citywide poll would cost $35,000–$45,000, with BMWL consulting fees of roughly $7,500 per month over six months.

Board President Aliya Chisti asked whether CCSF could partner with SFUSD on a joint measure: "Would it be unheard of if SFUSD and City College partnered in some way around this parcel tax? Because we both need the money." She was advised against it — joint measures add complexity, and complexity kills ballot measures.

Trustee Vick Van Chung raised a pointed concern about the political environment, noting: "We've also heard about the disappointment in the closure of locations and centers and access. And the layoff of educators." The implicit question: will voters trust the college enough to renew a $19 million tax if they see campuses closing?

Vice Chair Luis Zamora expressed interest in also exploring a bond measure.

What's next: The board expressed consensus support for early and aggressive planning. Formal research would begin in January 2027, with the November 2028 general election as the most likely target date.

Workforce Programs Show Strong Returns, Eye Federal Expansion

Associate Dean John Halpin presented workforce development outcomes that offered a bright spot in an otherwise tense meeting: 17,451 unduplicated career education students in 2023–24 (a 4% year-over-year increase), 84% of full-time working alumni employed in their field of study, and a mean hourly wage of $38 for graduates.

Why it matters: With the federal Workforce Pell program launching July 1, CCSF could dramatically expand financial aid access for students in short-term workforce training — creating new enrollment and revenue pathways at a time when the college needs both.

Where things stand: The college operates approximately 150 certificate programs with 504 students currently in apprenticeship programs. Partnerships with City Build, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and local unions support pathways into construction, cybersecurity and entrepreneurship. Halpin highlighted success stories including a cybersecurity student placed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and an entrepreneurship graduate who launched a floral business.

Strategic priorities include preparing for Workforce Pell, building stackable credentials, expanding work-based learning, and better integrating career exploration into counseling. Trustee Chung pressed for that last point, noting that many community college students interact mainly with their instructors and lack career guidance.

Vice Chair Zamora shared a funding win: he helped connect OEWD to $850,000 in federal funds through Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office to expand apprenticeship programs. "For a phone call, like 10 minutes worth of work, $850,000 is not bad," he said.

Minor Items

• Emergency preparedness program revived: Chief Mario Vasquez presented a multi-year plan including FEMA-based NIMS/SIMS training, building evacuation teams, active shooter Run-Hide-Fight protocols, Narcan deployment across all centers, and Stryker evacuation chairs. Board trustees will receive a mandatory two-hour executive emergency management course. Training contract with West Coast Consulting Group planned for spring 2026.

• SEIU 1021 contract bargaining: Sunshine notice completed its second reading with no discussion or public comment.

• Meeting minutes: Jan. 22 minutes approved 7-0 (Trustee McCarty absent). Feb. 12 minutes approved 6-2 as amended with three additional public comment attachments; Trustees Chung and Martinez voted no, citing ongoing Diligent board management software formatting issues in the official record.

• Consent agenda approved unanimously: Included construction contract time extensions for the Student Success Center and STEAM Building projects.

• Closed session: Board returned with no reportable actions.