the only thing that we can decide tonight is what the motion is. i totally agree with that. if this operator was wanting to work with us -- and i understand that the thing about trying to give it 12 months out, but if the operators wanted to work with us, they would have said, we'll give you a heads up when we know. but this was like a shotgun approach, throw everything at us from all different angles, complain about everything. you don't take personal responsibility for what her organization or what her business does in that area. that's something that we definitely have to keep an eye on, i believe. then the other thing, which i would like to know is, we don't have -- if it's true, there are

nine entertainment operators that are operating outside, then i would like to find out why we don't have jurisdiction over them and to bring them in to -- under our umbrella so that they can work with us so that if they're the ones that are causing the nuisances out there that the neighbors think is halcyon, we need to find out about those. but that's a separate thing. >> you mean the illegal operators. >> yes. >> okay. >> i agree with you commissioner frost. i mean, what we don't have today, though, is a sound inspector to help us guide us through his readings of things and sort of some of the accusation that's were made about the meter and does it work or not and does he take it from the right places or not. so i would like to hold that and yeah. i think the main issue here is

sound actually, not just how many days a week are they open and when are they open until 6:00 a.m., but really how -- what is the limit. that's been at the core of what we've been talking about the other times we've seen these guys. so i would hope in this good faith effort that it sounds like ms. milano wants to work in partnership with us around -- she can bring her third party sound assessor and we can find where there might be sound leaks still in that venue. what other improvements. or if she has a case and that things are not -- i mean, her evidence is stronger than ours. so that's to be determined, though. so i think we can wait for another day and if you would like to ask us to bring them back in in a month or two or certain amount of time, we can do that. otherwise, i think we can sort of depend on our staff to let us

know when it's appropriate to see them again. >> if she has a challenge on the level, obviously she should have the evidence to say why, you know, and if she's under compliance and no tickets, you know, why not retest it. >> yeah. well, she wants to rely on science, but we don't have the inspector to defend the sound beside what we have seen. >> i have a personal -- skylights are a problem. i know you love them, but personally, i try to keep mine at one time and it just wouldn't work. still bothered the people in the back. so i'm just saying, i'm going by salter's report. you can keep your skylights, but in my personal opinion, it doesn't work. >> so let's just -- let's talk about the motion at hand and then we can vote on it or if you want to talk about other stuff, we can do that later. all right. let's take a vote. it doesn't look like there's any

other commissioner questions. [ roll call ] >> the motion passes. many we look forward to that calendar. again, like i said, i think there are some other sort of pending issues that we hope to find some greater resolution at. and just a word of advice, you don't have to work with this commission of, you know, 7 of us up here. that's what our staff is for. they try to deflect us from dealing with -- from things elevating to our level. so when things elevate to us, that's when things aren't working and when we have to step in and have a heavier hand. so like i said earlier, the less we hear about a venue, i think the better because to us, that means things are going well. so i hope that we can find some common ground and stop seeing

you here. [ inaudible speaker ] >> let's move on with our agenda. i think we have one other item. commissioner comments and questions. commissioners, anyone want to say anything? no? >> i wish the people from youtube headquarters to get better. that live shooting today. again, it goes to, you never know when an active shooter can happen. we all have clubs with a lot of people. i think we should all be aware of these issues. it can happen anywhere. that's all i have to say. [ inaudible speaker ] >> you can do that when we take

public comment. mr. forecast. >> a couple things. st. patrick's day parade for me went well. i'm happy it's over. a lot of work, but it was fun. then i do want to mention my uncle barney passed away. he served 40 years with the street cleaning department, 27 of them he was the actual superintendent. then he left there and went to city employees credit union where he was president for 7 years. he served with them for about 40 years. the guy lived an amazing life. he lost his wife and four kids to a house fire in '67. then got remarried. one of his kids became a firefighter here in the city. the guy served the city pretty well. i was lucky enough to go visit him friday morning. he ended up passing away while i was there. so i just wanted to make mention of that, that true public servant and just wanted to let you guys know about him. thank you.

>> condolences to his family and you. any other comments, commissioners? all right. >> take the poll i sent you today for the retreat. it's three days coming up through june. >> great. we'll do that. is there any public comment on our final comments? did you want to say something about youtube? >> i was going to say, there was a gentleman in the club on sunday who is an attorney, and they are creating a course specifically for nightclubs for active shooters. i thought that's a horrible sign of the times, but then with what happened today, i thought maybe not such a bad idea to have someone like this come and in and speak at our venues. >> yep. it was one of our main topics at our nightlife summit about a month ago. >> yeah. >> it's unfortunately the reality we live with today. >> thank you.

>> yeah. thank you. any other public comment? i don't see any. this meeting is a urned judge. thank you. >> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a

variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of

open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for

our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann >> all right. welcome to our land use committee meeting of april 2, 2017. i'm katy tang and to my right is supervisor jane kim. we will see if supervisor safai

will show up. our clerk is not erica major, but victor young. and from sf -- do we have any announcements >> yes. completed speaker cards and k07 -- copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the april 10th board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor tang: thank you. can we call items one and two together, please. >> clerk: yes. [reading item numbers one and

two] . >> supervisor tang: thank you. i will turn it over to the sponsor, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i have no opening comments. i'm excited we are continuing to accept more straoelt -- streets we can open up for residents and workers in the mission bay area. >> good afternoon, supervisors, department of public works. and as the clerk noted, we have two pieces of public infrastructure which we are asking to be accepted. the first is as noted, seventh

street mission bay drive and if i could have the overhead projector, that would be helpful. thank you. seventh and mission bay drive is indicated here in green. and just for reference on the second item is mariposa, which is a single block section noted in purple below. the seventh street and mission bay drive intersection public improvement project is located in mission bay south redevelopment area and part of the reconstruction plan for mission bay south. it consists of constructing infrastructure improvements in portions of seventh street, mission bay drive and barry street corrector. the plans included at grade railroad crossing. the peninsula corridor joint

powers board and california public utilities commission. they approved the redevelopment plan and infrastructure plan, which closed at at grade railroad crossing and provided the new location as a second entry to mission bay. the second project that was indicated is the mariposa street project. this project consists of constructing improves between i-280 an and off ramps. it included work on the ramps to coordinate with mission bay development projects. the work on caltrans right-of-way is not being accepted by the city. the public improvements were constructed in accordance with approved plan specifications. the director of public works in consultation with city agencies

such as puc, fire department, mta, issued a notice that the projects were for their intended use. they determined the construction and acceptance of public improvements are consistent with the general plan and of the planning code section 0.101 and this doesn't trigger any further ceqa environment review. the projects with consistent with the redevelopment plan. we are asking the land use and transportation committee approve these items and recommend acceptance by the board of supervisors. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for your presentation. anyone else or that's it? okay. we will open up items one and two to public comment. any members of the public who

wish to speak, come up. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we get a motion on items one and two. >> supervisor kim: i would like to make a motion to move forward items one and two with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: we will do that without objection. thank you. item three, please. >> clerk: item three resolution accepting of public sidewalk easement on shipley street adjacent to development project at 923 folsom street and adopting public works order concerning the easement. >> supervisor tang: i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. my office is here to present on item three. >> good morning. this resolution accepting a public sidewalk easement on shipley street at 923 folsom and adocumenting the public works order concerning the easement. the project began as a large project authorization for 923 folsom street adopted by the

planning commission on july 24, 2014. public works has determined the public sidewalk easement is necessary to create a wider sidewalk to create safe passage for members of the public on shipley street with the sidewalk is adjacent. shipley street is too narrow. convenience and necessity, the city obtain a nonexclusive easement for pedestrians to pass over. on sent 22, 2017, 923 folsom acquisition made an offer for easement over the property for pedestrian passage. on october 26, 2017, public works director and the city engineer certified all work was

completed and inspected and that the sidewalk has been constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications and all city codes. regulations and standards and that such improvements are ready for their intended use. the public works director has also recommended that the board of supervisors accept this offer from 923 folsom acquisition llc for the public sidewalk easement. we have julian marsh here for additional comment. >> supervisor tang: without anything else, we will go to public comment on item three. any members wish to speak? okay. public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: just want to thank the project sponsor, julian marsh. at this time i would like to forward item number three with positive recommend to the full board. >> supervisor tang: and we will do that again without objection.

item four, please. >> clerk: item four is ordinance business and tax regulations code to suspend temporarily application of the business registration and fee requirements for transportation network companies drivers and taxi drivers. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i think we have amanda from our treasurer office. >> good afternoon supervisors. the state passed senate bill 182 last year which prohibits treasurer from requiring drivers to register as a business if they live outside of san fran. this is in stark can tras to treatment of all -- contrast to all other independent contractors who do business in san fran regardless of where they -- san francisco regardless of where they live. it undermined our business licensing authority. the city was on record opposing this legislation and we are now challenging the validity of the law in court. in the interest of fairness as

the lawsuit proceeds, we wanted to avoid a situation where a small group of businesses, tnc drivers who live in san francisco and taxi drivers continue to play. this ordinance is crafted as a tempora temporary resolution of the business license. thanks. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. i wanted to know what the anticipated impact on our revenues would be as a result of this? i'm not questioning the impetous. i think it is really great you brought this forward to us. i wanted to know what we are expecting in terms of the impacts on revenues. >> we estimate it is less than $200,000. in reality most tnc drivers even if they live in san francisco probably wouldn't come forward and register which is why we

oppose the legislation. it is covering taxi drivers left in that category. >> supervisor tang: thank you. that sounds very minimal. okay. colleagues do we have any other further questions or comments about this one? >> supervisor kim: no questions, but i just want to completely agree with the direction. it is really unfortunate that the state passed a bill prevents localities from requiring worker who is do business in san francisco for applying and paying for a business license. out of fairness for the drivers, i think this makes sense. it is unfortunate this is before us. thank you for your work with supervisor peskin and our treasurer. >> supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you. how long do you anticipate this suspension to take? >> it is drafted in its current form for two years. rescinds automatically after two years without any action from the board. >> supervisor safai: that would be $200,000 annually?

>> yes. less. >> supervisor safai: what's the anticipation of the time on the lawsuit? >> i would defer to the city attorney on that. but they crafted it to align. >> supervisor tang: deputy city attorney. >> sorry about that. deputy city attorney andrew shin. i don't know the answer off the top of my head but i could have my office reach out to your office and provide an update. >> supervisor safai: that would be good. i agree with what supervisor kim said as well as chair tang. this is the right thing to do to level the situation. but i just always kind of think of it from the fiscal perspective. if it is around $200,000 or a little less for over two years, how do you all plan to back fill that? that's a loss of revenue for

your office, correct? >> no. it goes into the general fund. >> supervisor safai: right. that's a loss to the general fund. okay. just wanted to be clear on that. otherwise, i agree. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you all. so, at this time we will open up item four to public comment if there are no further questions. any members of the public comment on item four. >> public: thank you supervisors. taxi workers alliance, mark rueberg. i want to thanks supervisor peskin for bringing this forward. sb-182 was really just piling it on to a whole bunch of other laws and rules that treat cab drivers unfairly visa vi transportation network company drivers.

and actually treats everybody who pays a business license fee in san francisco unfairly as opposed to tnc drivers because they are the only ones who are exempted under state law to my knowledge. so, this will inject a little bit more fairness into it and owing to the fact that cab drivers would always be exempted at least during the period that this lawsuit goes forward. and we hope and pray for its success. as you are keenly aware, i'm sure, cab drivers have been suffering mightily over the past few years owing to the discrepancies in regulations between the two forms of service, which are really identical or so close to it that you can't make that distinction

[bell]. >> public: and i just urge you to pass this. it will be of some help to cab drivers and if you see your way clear to make this a permanent exemption for cab drivers that can been appreciated. >> supervisor tang: thank you. public comment is closed. colleagues, motion on item four. >> supervisor safai: make a motion to end it to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: all right. we will do that without objection. mr. clerk, any other items before us today? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned].

>> 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 preparing to share some of the findings in spring and summer outreach and starting a multimodal integration concept as part of this study to look at some benefits for timma to integrate with a third integration and what it means to have the seamless experience. and we will release the report in summer or fall of 2018. thank you so much. questions? >> i actually have a question that is not directly related to your presentation. but it is sort of related. what is the projected maximum

population that's going to be residing in on treasure island eventually? we are expected to have 8,000 unit uni units with the resident population. >> and with the bart and potential second tube, but what the second tube, is there any consideration to maybe have a stop at treasure island? >> we appreciate the question. it is really early to say yes or no or preclude any option, but so far no one has suggested or highlighted that level of detail in the planning. it is very early, but i would say it is possible, but nobody is focused up that level. >> i guess my argument is if you want to have 20,000 people

there, that is probably more people than some of the stops that we already have for part. >> fair point, thanks. >> all right. any other questions or comments? we will open for public comment. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. i have been getting a ton of feedback on the mobility management program and the access pass program and there continues to be a lot of concerns for existing residents in particular the low income and are considered market rate and frankly don't make market rate wages. because this program is to many years away from the current date, i imagine that is why the public is not really coming out yet. but just as we continue to move

forward, i think that we should really have some income or means programming with the market rate residents as well because market rate covers such a huge range of salaries. we'll see where we are as a city in a number of years, but i think that residents continue to question and bring concerns to our office about what the future of the program is. but we have a lot of time. that being said, i think it's a very interesting program that we are putting together and really looking at innovating on how we pair transit and housing development together. and a little bit of news work to do to not overburden working class families as well. thank you very much for that. at this time, mr.