it will be good to explore that. >> we can't do the zoning height -- >> commissioner: it would be going back and renoticing and having a whole -- it would be -- you have to tart -- start from scratch. >> commissioner: we'd have to reopen ceqa as well. >> commissioner: but it would help understand the process and would provide some -- >> and is the direction to study this notch out with a connection? >> commissioner: i think both of those options were proposed. >> thank you. >> commissioner: okay. very good. commissioners, the soonest i would recommend you continue this given your current advanced calendar is may 10, two months out would be may 24. very good commissioners.

on that motion to continue this matter to may 10 in order for the sponsor to consider alternative design solutions commissioner fong. >> aye. >> the clerk: commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> the clerk: commissioner? >> aye. >> the clerk: the motion passes 5-0. >> commissioner: we'll take a five-minute break. >> commissioner: welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing. i'll remind members of the public to please silence mobile devices. commissioners we took item 14 out of order we'll be on item 15 for 14. 2017-005992cua (j. horn:

>> it's to demolish an existing residents at 160caseli in the rh2040 district. the proposal includes demolition of existing structures and the new construction of a three-story two-unit building at the front of the property. [stand by for captioner switch] .

>> the department recommends this approval of the proposed project. this concludes staff presentation, and i'm available to answer any questions.

>> president hillis: all right. thank you. project sponsor, mr. barkley. >> members of the commission, my name is alice barkley. the project before you is recommend recommended before you for one reason, and that is because we are not legalize the illegal unit. i think this case is unusual in the fact that most illegal units are in an existing building that is built illegally, and they put an extra unit in that. but in this case, we have two buildings, both of them in the rear yard, totally in the rear yard, and the rear building, which is the illegal unit that the staff is diagnoasking to b legalized is built without any building permits. and so in consultation with the

department of building inspection, the project architect has been told that that illegal unit has to be totally demolished, and if the department or this commission want it to be rebuilt, they have to literally build a new building in the same square footage, but they will have to raise the ceiling height because there's a lot of problem, and the architect is here to answer questions about the illegality of that building and why it has to be demolished and completely redesigned. i think what's important in terms of this project is that there is -- as the staff indicated, they have no problem recommending the single-family home in front, and yet, they're

recommending denying the total project. second, i think when we look at this, i think we have true basic planning policy competing with each other. one of them is replacement of units that's going to be demolished, and the second one is a long-standing planning department policy of enhancing and preserving the rear yard, which the project will do. i think the third thing is when i'm looking at the public -- the housing policy, we're looking at what the two building -- existing building is like. it's dilapidated. the home is 1258 square foot, the studio unit is 441 square foot. the new building, the three-bedroom unit which would

occupy the owner is 225 square foot, and the second you know know -- unit is 866 square foot, so when you're looking at the ratio of the two current buildings and the proposed two buildings in proposed ratio square foot residence, they're pretty much equal, in that everything is 2:1. the studio unit is being replaced by something that's 866 square foot, and the home is 1258 -- it's going to be replaced by a unit that's 2502 square foot so that it's fairly equitiable in terms that. i'm not going to go into design. if you have questions about that, you can ask the

architect, but i think the important thing is that -- is that we're talking about a building in the back that was built without a permit that was going to be required by cdi to be totally demolished, and to be in the rear yard instead of the front part of the building, to me, if you look at the difference between enhancing the rear yard -- these are all the neighbors in green, are the neighbors who support dependenciy litigati demolition of the unit and enhance the construction of the newhouse.

this is the project site. it's getting late, so if you have any questions, i'll be happy to -- >> president hillis: all right, miss barkley. we'll take public comment, and if we have any questions -- unless -- the project sponsor submitted a card. do they want to speak? because now would be your time, during the five minutes. >> the project sponsor, and one of the other ones, karen lee, they had submitted a card, but they had been waiting until 2:00, and they had to leave, so she would like to submit something from them into the record. >> president hillis: okay. well her time to speak is now. >> commissioners, i wanted to represent norm mirowicz. i support 160 caselli project. i own a home which is two doors

from 160. whenever we walk into the back yard of 166, my wife and i joke, i wonder if the shack has fallen down yet? the shack has been a danger and an eye sore for the duration of the time we've owned our property. the new construction opens up the back yard and creates more housing. i don't understand the process of tearing down a shack, but i hope the planning commission approves, otherwise, we can end up with no project and a two bedroom house with a dangerous shack. another person, january medina who lives 4629 18th street, i waited two hours to say how much i would like this project to happen. we need open space in the rear yard. i live on a property that has a building abutting my rear yard. i saw the plans.

the proposed unit is almost twice the square footage as what now exists. it will be two bedrooms and make more sense for a family in our neighborhood, and we have another couple of letters that folks sent in support of our project. but i know my husband wanted to talk about our family situation and how this project would impact us. is that part of the five minutes or -- >> president hillis: a minute and 55 seconds, so yeah, now's the time. >> thank you. i'm ben wright, the owner of the property along with karen lee, my wife. we've lived in san francisco 20 years. we have two children, nine and 11 years old. we bought our home on caselli avenue two years ago. it's a home we admired for many years, and we're happy to have gotten it. but the house is not functional

for a family of four, which is why we're here today. first, the hall is small and cramped, where the upstairs bedrooms are. both my son's bedroom and our room do not have the required ceiling height, and the bathroom door frame is so low i have to duck every time i get in and out. i hit my head sometimes. the stairs are also steeper than code so that -- that it's kind of dangerous. my son actually slipped and fell down the stairs one. in addition, the front yard, which i have a picture here of -- there it is. front yard, as you can see from the photo, it's not conducive for a yard where children can play, that there's a different elevation between here and the walkway, over here, and the carport, which is here, and the walkway combined takes away from a lot of the rear yard space, so they don't have room to do, you know, play

activities and stuff like that. so this's opposed to what we're proposing here today, which would have a back yard, a lot more space for them to play. our street's not really safe where they can play, like the suburbs, and they can't go outside and play by themselves, so a back yard is essential for our son. looking long-term, the home is designed so that karen and i have the ability for our parents to live on the ground level when they need assistance in the future, instead of being in a nursing home. we would like for them to be near us during that period of time, and i'm an only child, so i'm solely responsible for my parents, so having that second unit as a resource would be very beneficial to our family. i'm thinking even longer term, that ground level unit could potentially be a place for karen and me to live when we're at that age and maybe our kids

would live above us. but in the immediate future, while our parents are still healthy, and they can live on their own, this would just be a rental unit. so that's pretty much all i had. thank you, commission members for your time and consideration on this project and supporting us on raising a family in san francisco. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on this item? >> commissioners, my name is michael buck. i live at 136 caselli, which is adjacent to the subject development site. during the 25 years that i have lived in the neighborhood, the previous owners used the illegal, the rear unit as a rental for long-term housing. there were several tenants who stayed multiple years in that building, and while that practice has not continued with the new owners, i understand that's their right not to rent, they have taken advantage of

short-te short-term rentals area which i believe would not be allowed under the existing conditions on that property. previously, i've sent you e-mails recognizing the commission's ability to either approve, deny, modify or what, and if you choose to go to approve the project, the cua, then i ask you to consider some of the modest proposals that i included for changing that. i have copies here if you don't have them. i don't need to reiterate if you've already seen them in your packet. the one thing that i noticed by sitting in the audience today is the commission's willingness to explore other options, most recently with the project on main down by beale. what i think's been overlooked in this process and its focus on the illegal unit is the resource that the cottage has, and i'm going to speak for the cottage. the cottage may not be historic in the grant scheme d scheme o

but it exists in our neighborhood. and i believe there exists to be a way to allow the affordable unit, two bedrooms, and allow for a unit at the front of the property, a single-family home. that has been done at 168 caselli under similar but not equal circumstances, and that has served its purpose quite well. this area is a of high interest to working class of caselli, and when that's gone, we lose something very special, so i'd like you to consider that suggestion that perhaps staff and the applicant can be directed to work together to come up with a solution that preserves that house and allows it to meet their needs, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> mr. president, honorable commissioners, my name is

sidney gauge. my wife and i own and occupy 4637 18th street which is directly behind the subject property, so we share a property line at the rear of this parcel. i'll just show you a picture of what that looks like. a retaining wall, and the illegal structure with a window staring right over the fence into our back yard. we support the proposal to demolish those buildings, including the illegal structure and replace them with a new structure at the street level in line with his neighbors, and we have three reasons for supporting that. one is to get rid of the illegal noncode compliant structure. second, to replace that with a back yard because all the other

properties around it benefit from inner green spaces and gardens and back yards which would just enhance the urban green space for everybody's benefit, and we would like to see a family to be able to live and raise a family like we did, so thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: so just before i say what i was going to say, i was reading the historic research on this. it said the original owner had six children in that house, and i can't imagine that. i visited this yesterday, and i raised some concerns to him. i completely understand the situation the family's in. i asked him the question before. he's been the neighborhood a long time, and he's got some

children and needs to grow. i asked him about the lack of affordable housing, because you have a built before 1979 house, you have two rent controlled unit. the other is density. 2502 square feet, and 480 square foot, i wouldn't say they're as equitiable as they'd like to consider. we've got this issues, what should we do? the project as is, demolishing rent control units, i can't support. if there's any other way the project sponsor would consider mitigating it, i'd be open to that. >> the project sponsor is willing, and i see that the

city's attorney's office is here to enter into an agreement to put the second unit in the city's central housing slot. >> vice president richards: so the new structure. >> the -- are you talking about a new structure in the back or the -- >> vice president richards: to the -- >> the second unit? >> vice president richards: yeah. the project proposes a two structure building. is it under the costa hawkins agreement? >> except that the single-family home that we're replacing has always been an owner occupied, and it will continue to be owner occupied. it is only the -- it is only the illegal unit that was rented. >> president hillis: but they -- they may both be under rent control, because if the illegal unit is under term, when it was completed, if it was pre1979, you've got a

prerent control unit that both units are subject to rent control. >> i understand, but what i'm saying is that since the single-family home that is in the back has never been a rental unit, it has always been owner occupied. >> vice president richards: no, i guess maybe the city attorney can help me here. two structures, one lot. it's almost like they're two flats, one on top of each other. it doesn't matter whether they're touching or away from each other. from what i understand, the rent stablization arbitration ordinance is, one structure's built before 1979, the other's under rent control, as well, whether you consider them single-family homes or not. there's two units on the lot. >> no, but my understanding, and i think that the city attorney can clarify, is that owner occupied units who have

never been rented out is not part of -- is not subject to rent control if they continue to be so and occupied by another owner. >> vice president richards: yeah. you're getting a demolition permit, though, so there's going to be nothing left -- >> yeah, to replace the existing -- richa existing -- >> vice president richards: if you have new construction permit, you'll have -- [ inaudible ] >> no. what's bei what's we've got is an owner occupied unit that's been replaced -- >> vice president richards: i can't support that, i'm sorry. >> president hillis: so if the project sponsor's willing to enter into a costa hawkins agreement, if that's the case -- >> okay.

let me consult the owner. >> president hillis: okay. >> the response is as long as they can live it in, they do--y don't have to rent it out. >> vice president richards: the conversation i had with the owner, he said i want to live in it. i said that's fine, but in 50 years, if you want to sell it, and somebody wants to rent it out, it's subject to the whole stablization ordinance. if you want to rent it out, you've got some restrictions on it. same with the lower unit, obviously. >> i think the only question is if they moved out and their children occupied it to take care of them, that doesn't convert that into a rental unit, does it? >> vice president richards: they're both under the. >> president hillis: you don't have to rent it. they can be occupied by the owner under the rules of rent control if you choose to rent them in the future. >> and if i may, mr. president and commission, i would

recommend that we continue this while the city attorney takes a look at it. i'm not sure whether this property would qualify for a costa hawkins agreement, and i would need to research that before i could give you an opinion on the record here rich. >> vice president richards: okay. that makes sense. >> clerk: for the record, this item would have to be continued because you don't have an approval item in front of you. >> vice president richards: okay. i move to continue. how much time do you need? >> i can confer with my costa hawkins attempts in the next couple of days. >> vice president richards: okay. two weeks? >> why don't we make it a month, just to make sure. >> vice president richards: okay. >> any other questions? >> president hillis: so what was the date on the continuance? >> clerk: theoretically, we could continue this to april 12th. >> president hillis: was there a second? >> second. >> clerk: on the motion then to continue this matter to april 12th --

[ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your discretionary review calendar as item 16 has been continued indefinitely for item 17, case number 2016-00017 -- >> president hillis: sorry. >> i just consulted with my clients. they're not going to be here on the 12th, but if they don't need to be here -- >> president hillis: they don't have to be here unless they want to be here. all right. next item. [ agenda item read ]

>> clerk: the deputy director of current planning will explain to you why it's in front of you again. >> the item before you is a public initiated discretionary review of a building permit to construct a three story horizontal rear addition to an existing single-family dwelling and incorporating new accessory dwelling unit at 43 everson street -- >> president hillis: not to interrupt you, but i think the parties have agreed to settle this matter. >> great. >> president hillis: oh, you need five minutes? >> president hillis: why don't you explain to us what you've agreed to modify, and then, we've got to take public comment and potentially take a motion. >> sure. we're agreeing to pull in the rear wall of the addition

4 feet at the first -- at the lowest level. >> president hillis: what about at the upper level? >> that stays as is. >> president hillis: thank you just show us on plan so we know what you're talking about? >> yes. >> president hillis: can we get the overhead, sfgtv?

>> you've got to speak into the mic. >> oh, sorry. so the agreement is to leave the upper -- this is the south wall of the building. >> president hillis: correct. >> this is the rear yard. the agreement is to leave this wall right where it is, but to bring in this lower wall by 4 feet. >> president hillis: okay. and that wall's approximately how high? it's not your typical first floor height. >> correct. it's a double height. >> president hillis: all right. so it's the outermost wall, bringing in 4 feet. >> correct. >> president hillis: is there any public comment on this beyond the project sponsor and d.r. requester. >> i just want to confirm we're preserving the notch shown in the plan, so it's articulated on our side of the property, on our side of the wall.

>> president hillis: it's already set back on a sidewall? >> that's correct. that's this right here, this is a notch. >> president hillis: can you show it in planning because it's not clear. >> sheet a-1.4 shows that notch. >> president hillis: so the notch presumably goes back more than 4 feet. >> you can have the overhead. it's this area here. we'll keep it -- it's essentially the project as approved previously. >> president hillis: right, with that rear wall set back 'cause the notch is only -- >> yeah. >> president hillis: all right. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commission commission commissioner koppel? >> i make a motion to take d.c. and move the wall back.

>> is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: thank you. to take the modification as modified, bringing in the wall 4 feet and preserving the notch. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> president hillis: all right. we are -- so ordered.

>> good morning and welcome to the treasure island mobility management agency. my name is jane kim and i am joined by commissioner yee and ronen. commissioner yee is the vice chair of the committee. i want to recognize our clerk alberto alberto quintanilla. i would like to take a moment to acknowledge charles and mya hernandez at sfgov tv for broadcasting the meetings and making sure they are available to the public. mr. clerk, please call the roll call. >> commissioner kim, present. and ronen is present. commissioner yee. >> yee present. we have quorum. >> thank you. would you please call items two and three together. >> items two and three are the consent agenda and items are routine. staff is not planning to present

on the items but are prepared if desire. if a member objects, any of the items may be remoouvend considered separately. >> thank you very much. so are that there any questions our comments from colleagues? not colleagues from colleagues. seeing none, we will open for public comment on these two items. seeing no public comment, these items have closed. >> we need a motion and second. >> and motion to approve the minutes. >> do we have a motion? we have a motion and we have -- >> a second. >> can we do that objection? >> we need to do roll. >> roll call on items two and throe. >> con the consent agenda -- on the consent agenda, commissioner kim. >> aye. >> a commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> a commissioner yee? >> we have approval. >> great. so we will move forward with item two and three. can we please call item number three. >> item four? >> i'm sorry, four. >> item four, recommend amending

the developmented fiscal year 2017-18 budget. this is an action item. >> thank you. and rachel hyatt is here to present on this item. >> good morning. the overall development program had a launch date for occupancy of new homes in early 2020, january 2020. that has since shifted 18 months into mid 2021. so accordingly our work program for the year has also shifted. we're moving a number of activities that we expected to start and really get underway this year into next year, so we don't get ahead of ourselves. the work that we are doing this year which we need to advance

this year is in the planning area. there's policy areas especially on the affordability program side that we're working on and working with the bay area toll authority on reconciling policies with them. we are working on the transit path which you will see a presentation on today. but the work in the engineering part of the program so the civil design and the systems design, the software design, that's work we originally anticipated starting and really getting understoodway this year. there was some pretty heavy lifting from engineering support associated with that that we built into this year's budget. we are now proposing to shift that work, not going the launch that work until next fiscal year. so accordingly what you see in the budget amendment is moving those costs and anticipated costs and the revenues over to next year. we will not lose those revenues, though. they're shifting out to next year. so the work that we built into

this budget was going to be funded by a federal grant. the advanced transportation -- technology for congestion management deployment grant. and that's matched by local tida funds one for one. so that's the source of funding. we still have it and four years to make use of that and we will. but not starting until next fiscal year. also on the funding side, i wanted to note it was great we worked with shari at one treasure island, formerly the treasure island homeless development initiative to submit a letter to the bay area management pilot trip reduction program for the on-off island shared van pool to operate. we will hear about that in may. so i described some of the work that we're continuing to do this year. we're working in these areas and that work still remains in the budget and will continue even into next fiscal year. so that's context for the budget

amendment. and in your memo, you can read the specifics about this starting on page 13. it is a decrease in expenditures mostly on the technical and professional services side, the engineering services side of $2 million. and that will be moved to next year and will be funded by the federal grant matched by local tida funds. >> question. >> commissioner yee? >> kind of get the decrease in the expenditures for the technical and professional services. can you explain a little bit more about the personnel? seems like you are either not fully staffed or i don't get that piece. >> right. that is right. so the the sfcta board adopted new organization, i think it was in december of 2017, and that included two positions associated with the timma work. the imthe tim program manager

and a system manager. and we did expect that starting this fiscal year as that major engineering work started that we would fill that position. we now don't expect to need to fill that position until next fiscal year. >> got it. >> what's the reason for the delay? >> on the development front, sure. bob, would you like to speak to that? bob beck with treasure island development authority. >> thank you. as rachel said, bob beck with the treasure island mobility management agency development authority. we had some delays in getting the final permit approvals and final maps for the initial sub phases of the development. i am pleased to report, though, that the developer treasure island community development has wrapped up that for ybi and on april 10, we expect the final subdivision map for w.b.i. to be at the board of supervisors.

that releases the street improvement permit and over the next year, there will be a lot of work on the horizontal infrastructure on the island so that the vertical development can start roughly a year from now. >> could you tell us a little bit more about the horizontal development and permits that are necessary before the vertical development begins? >> yeah. on the island, we will be constructing new water storage reservoirs to supply both treasure island and we will also be reconstructing mcculla road which is a main artery. we need to widen it and shift the alignment of it. and then there's also some other minor roads that will be constructed. as part of the development of both islands, we are building out entirely new utility

infrastructure and many of the roadways are either being replaced or significantly reb l rehabilita rehabilitated. >> are these permits that you seek proi marly through public -- proi marly through public works and the sfpct? >> and also involvement with the planning department, mayor's office of disability, and the fire department. >> do we have to do any work with the state on these permits? >> not on these permits, no. >> how is that process going? i always hear mixed reports from developers on working with our city departments, post entitlement. >> it has been challenging, but we -- there is a city wide effort to improve this process, and with issues the permits on the first y.b.i. and subphase on treasure island, the developer is shifting to start preparing the next subphase application which we expect to come in next

fall, and hopefully we'll have learned a lot from these first few maps as well as the process improvement that we won't see the same types of delays on the next sub space. >> how is the financing going for the infrastructure development? >> the ticd, the treasure island community development is self-financing the development and they have all the funds in place for this initial subphase of development. then as they start preparing parcels for development, some of those will be sold to continue to finance the subsequent phases of infrastructure. >> okay. thank you. >> sure, thank you. >> thank you. all right. so i think at this time we'll open up for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion on this item?

>> sure. i'll make a motion to approve the adopted fiscal year budget for 2017-18. >> thank you. >> can we take that motion -- and that motion is seconded. can we take this without objection? and the motion passes. mr. clerk, please call item five. >> item five, update on the transit pass design, this is an information item. >> a hello, commissioners.

i will be presenting the transit pass study. today i will go through primarily on initial alternative recommendation and some other findings and next steps. and the first two i have already covered on the last committee meeting. so this is a map of the three modes that will be contributing treasure island to east bay and san francisco. here are the use cases that we studied for this transit pass. our five goals and objectives for this transit pass. and here is our top three alternative for transit pass with 10 alternatives and these are the top performing. first is treasure island access pass which will provide an access to all muni and a.c. transit and the ferry connect g ing treasure island to san francisco. and then there is transit cash which is a certain amount of value uploaded on to the clipper

card an use it in any transit agency in the bay area. the last one we just added, treasure island flex cash where a pass holder can buy any products such as a.c. retail transit pass and we added this at the request of one of the stakeholders who wanted to see how would this pass perform given our goals and objectives if we have s.f. muni and s.f. ferry pass. so we had an assumption in the future there would be a pass where it has all s.f.muni and ferry included in it. along with this, our goals and objective, we also conducted outreach in winter 2018. at this outreach, we had four focus groups. two with residents in this -- residents focus group had spanish and chinese translators. also the residents focus group

represented treasure island demographic. we had businesses focus group and san francisco tourism to understand the need of visitors and with developers to understand the need of future residents. we also presented at the tidal board and food pantry. during this focus group, we tries to understand what were the needs assessment as we are designing the affordability program. we ls a did a dot exercise where we -- we also did a dot exercise where we asked the participants which path would you prefer better. transit cash or access pas pass. i will show a result in a minute. so with our goals and objectives and our outreach, here is the complete list of the alternative analysis process. access pass has the most users included. it also has the most trip coverage compared to the other two during our fall outreach dot exercise about 90% of the

participants preferred access pass due to simplify transfer policy and people didn't have to think about which mode to choose since it is unlimeited. also, the benefit for access pass is unlimited product to choose whichever direction they want to go to. the drawback is an agency restriction. this pant is only for s.f. muni and the ferry line to and from san francisco. some of the benefits for the transit pass is the flexibility that you can use this anywhere in bay area, any transit agencies, but the drawback is there is a limited amount, so it is not unlimited travel. the benefit for flex cash is people can buy a retail product as they choose.

and the drawback is it is not bidirectional since there is no retail product that includes east bay and san francisco, so a user has to make a decision whether they want to travel most ly in san francisco or east bay. here is the initial recommendation. access pass for residents and worker, and transit pass for visitors in year 2025. now, i'll go a little bit more in detail of each of these two transit pass is unlimited travel on s.f. muni in year 2021, opening year, and at full build out will include the s.f. to treasure island water island service. the user group for it is one pass per household for market rate residents. that is mandatory. and for all the workers this

will be an opt-in option so they can choose to either buy this pass or not. it is not mandatory. >> when you say mandatory, with is it part of the rent fee or h.o.a. fee? >> yes. >> but what if they were a renter? >> it would probably be part of the rent free is included. >> how much is this group going to be. >> that is a large group of folks. >> for past cause, the interim value we are estimating and proposing between $95 to $115 which will be determined by a.c. transit fair which is not determined yet and for full buildout, it is not decided yet because there is fares to be made in 2025 and we'll come back again for a proposed fare price.

the fare was estimated based on customer value. we looked at other retail products and what modes are included in other retail products. one of the retail products is muni a-pass with bart and muni on it priced at $94, so ours will have a.c. transit and s.f.muni on it and that is why we proposed this. we did an and we did a financial sustainability to recover the fare rates, and with this range, it is possible to achieve that recovery. >> an i'm sorry, just to clarify, so the access pass, which could be on a clipper card or something like that, will access ferry, transit, and s.f. sms muni, but cash is only

available on a.c. transit or muni? >> if it is cash, it is anywhere. it is a clip we are certain value. you can use it for bart, s. s.f. muni or a.c. transit. >> what is not an option with just the unithe flex cash option which is retail product that people can buy. so either they have to buy it an muni product which is muni and pass or a-pass or her to into a.c. transit, so if it's a cash l va, why can't they use it on either? >> in that scenario, we are assuming it would be a retail product such as a pass. so would that option even be

allowed? >> the idea for it was to see how would an alternative perform with s.f. muni and the ferry service. >> wouldn't the clipper card be -- >> it is in clipper card. >> and muni, ferry, and a.c. transit. >> your questions is about the flex cash option. >> why would you include it if there is a cash option used on all the transit lines? >> so we did this in response to weida's request. they wanted something very specific, to see us look at something that would involve a retail pass that doesn't exist tod today, a retail pass that is a

muni plus local ferry. the same thing as a muni plus bart bart, the a-pass, except a ferry version of that. it would involve treasure island ferry, ferry to and from mission bay t local pier 41 ferry. and -- >> do you get a better price point? >> not necessarily. you just use a clipper card with cash on it to use on any operator. >> they are thinking about the benefit of this is that many people would take the ferry coming from their perspective, they thought this type of pass would draw more people to ferry. >> why? >> to bundle unlimited ferry with the muni pass. >> the flex cash is not really a cash system. it is a pass. >> what the way it would face the customer is the mandatory customers would be required to

purchase something or either cash or retail product. in their theorizing, they would choose the ferry -- >> doesn't the all access pass, isn't that unlimited? >> yes. >> we recommend it. it is simpler, it's including all the benefits. >> i would just take that option out. you're not recommending. sorry. skipping ahead to the end. >> just very confused why we event brought it up. okay. >> it is very confusing because when you say cash, it sounds like a per ride fee, which is what i do. i put cash on the clipper card because i don't ride it enough so it is a per ride fee. >> can i ask a background question as well? i never heard of a mandatory transit responsibility for renters or owner.

has this been done anywhere else? i am courses you about it. >> i believe that there will be a version of this with hunter's point to choose a cash value or a muni fast pass and is like a mandatory between the two options. >> this is included in the housing deed? in the development agreement. that is interesting. >> so that is exactly right, and bob can say a little bit more about the requirement in the development agreement, but the analogies elsewhere in the city and this is something that the city is really including as a development in the mayor and started with the hunter's point and is continuing in the major peer developments on the east side. >>ened a for the development of treasure island in particular, the transportation and transit

challenges of being connected to the bay bridge were significant hurdle to any development. and the mandatory transit pass was put into the development agreement. and will incorporate that into their homeowners association dues or rent as the case may be. >> thank you. we view it as a benefit for people because it's going to be a monthly pass that you have automatically and we help you get it and a unique benefit that provides access to all the modes that will be serving the area. we consider it as a benefit for

folks. >> you should be able to get a benefit from packaging it. one of the advantages is everybody pays into it so it's cheaper for everybody because they realize not everybody is going to use it, and i would assume that same concept will apply to this. >> that is definitely part of the anl si we found that -- analysis and we found there will be unused passes, but there is another, and there are two groups. it is optional. so they will be able to get to choose whether they want to buy it or not. the next part of it is we will also have an affordable version

of this pass which all below market rate resident households will be eligible for this pass if they want to buy it. the pass cost will be 50% less than market rate. if the market rate is $95, below market rate would be $48. for the distribution of the pass, timma will mirror the same process as they do with market rate resident. also to note here that m.t.b. completed the means-based fare study that recommended 50% off any retail pass product or one-way fare. it is up to each transit agency to implement this recommendation. it is very close to what we are recommending for timma, too. it is 50% off. if the below market residents qualify for a means-based fare product, they can choose between the timma or that product. both of the options would be available to them.

going through the implementation process of the pass, and starting in 2021 and the transit policy fair adoption in fy-2019. and the clipper implementation of this pass will take between 2019-2020. and timma's transit pass management of distributing the pass and the travel usage will take between fy-2020 and 2021. for ak desz pass in 2025, the to-do list is to make sure that a placeholder is in place to get updated as phase two is updated so our pass is easily implementable in year 2025.

it will be in the clipper pass. the transit cash visitor pass is another recommendation and is a mandatory product where per hotel room will receive a transit pass. the visitor pass will be launched with when the treasure island hotel is developed and that is expected to be year 2025. so the visitor will receive a daily cash value into their clipper card or any other mode and they will be able to use it anywhere in the bay area including from sfo to treasure island. the visitor pass pass is to be determined starting in 2025 and when the fares get set, we will get closer to the cash price. as we are going through the study, one alternative stood out and i wanted to inform the committee about this. it is monthly accumulator. accumulator is pay as you go

structure until the user hits a certain and cost level or number of trips. for example, if one had an accumulator and they will pay one-way fare up until 36 trips and then rest of the monthly trip will be included in that pass. the benefit of this pass is there is no up front payment. you can pay as you go and the portion of it if you are five trips away from earning the pass, you are more encouraged to take transit, but currently it is not possible in the clipper system because clipper card can only hold up until 10 trips, not 36 or higher amount. this is the capability that will be designed with clipper 2.0, but some of the other issues would be different transfer policies and one-way fare differences. we recommend that clipper executive board and clipper staff consider an accumulator structure when designing or updating the clipper program.

some of the other features would be beneficial to timma as clipper 2 is implemented and one is account base which will help us to do accumulator if we want it for timma. a smart foen application or -- a smartphone application or web portal to manage to see how people are traveling and using this pass. and if we are really meeting the needs of the pass holder. also be able to integrate with third party such as bike share, car pool, so people can have one seamless transit experience. and open payment will help with the fare integration so you can pay your payment or fare at one platform, not in different pieces. again, a kind of seamless experience of using transit modes. next step is we are