treasure island development authority infrastructure and transportation committee meeting. item number 1, call to order. director, riched ardson. >> here iny , director tsen? >> here. >> director lai? >> director dunlop? >> here. >> we do have a quorum. >> ok. thank you all for being here and i also wanted to thank those that are watching remotely. with us today we have treasure island commissioners, fei tsen who is the commission president and we have commissioner mark dunlop and i see our partners in development and staff in the audience. and mr. bob beck is also here. again good morning. thank you all for watching. >> clerk: item number 2, general

public comment. >> if there are any public comments on actions that are not on the agenda, so please come forward and share them with us. i see none. >> clerk: item number 3, concept agenda. approving the minutes of the february 19th, 2019, meeting. >> moved and seconded. all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> the ayes have it. next thing on the agenda. >> clerk: item number, subphase review update. >> so rich loretto from fran loretto, provide an update on subphase submitted in january. >> good morning. i'm happen to be here to today to report on the status of the subphase application. my name is rich loretto, bob had mentioned i'm with the prime

consultants on the project. as bob had mentioned, the subphase application was submitted to the city agencies in january. and happy to report that we did not get any major comments as part of that subphase application. i think partially because there was a lot of work that was done in advance of that subphase application, to inform the city of what the project is. and all of the elements of it. the comments that we did receive were more technical in nature, that will be addressed during the design process. but nothing that changed the overall plan and program for the subphase. so we are going through the design process now and we have met with the city agencies already to go through the comments that are design-related, to be in advance of that. when we do submit the construction drawings, they will already have seen that we are addressing their comments that they have for the subphase application. again nothing that is -- nothing

that affects the subphase application. so we're really happy to report that. >> thank you. just i'm sure the commissioners have questions. again thank you. you've done your due diligence. which are the agencies that you will be dealing with and the next steps? >> sop we've already met with fire to go over -- just to make sure that the streets are able to -- that their trucks can manage the streets. and so we've met with them to go over that. and also the street widths. we met with ssmta to go over the intersections. and primarily those are the two major ones, along with a.d.a. and we did also meet with wastewater enterprises to go over utility clearances, as the streets are fairly narrow and we needed to maintain some clearances between utilities, which we're working with them now through, as well as with

water, the water department. so we are going through the process. >> commissioners, any further questions? commissioner dunlop? miss railroad thank you very -- >> commissioner dunlop: any issues or is it going really smoothly? >> at this point it's going very smoothly. yes. when we go into the construction documents, there will be some back and forth as there usually is in that process. but we're trying to stay in front of that by adjusting comments, so that we have those all addressed at our first -- that will help hopefully reduce the comments. i think what we're learning is that with meetings in advance of, we can inform and let the city departments know we're working with them to address their concerns. i think it goes a long way. i think at this point we're in good position. >> commissioner dunlop: thank >> president tsen: commissioners , any further questions before i open that to the public? public, any questions?

no. anyway, this is very heartwarming. so we are actually -- we'll be meeting all of the milestones here. thank you, sir. >> we'll be in position to resubmit for city review this month. and hopefully be in position to submit -- or to show the final subphase application in april. >> president tsen: okay. thank you, sir. commissioner? >> i would just add that with the resubmittal, the gicd, will be seeking approve next month of the subphase. and then following that, we'll begin the street improvement permit application process and the overall objective there is to get to final approval, within nine months. so that provides for a maximum of two resubmittals. so i think the ground work that rich mentioned, that's been laid with the agencies, the

experience from prior subphases, puts us in a good position to accomplish that for the actual street improvement permits and the mapping as well. >> an issue was raised in previous design phases, as to the curb site, especially the drop-off zones. you know, the way that we've now used our streets, it's much different than in previous times. and we've often times have put parking along the carbside. i think that -- curbside. this point was raised early in the design phase, whether you'll have more zones for autonomous vehicles for drop-offs for shared rides, which is certainly a much different way that we use our streets these days.

yeah. our plan includes drop-off zones, we have track loading zones as well. those are all incorporated into the street plans. >> any public comment? next, the agenda. >> clerk: family number 5, a review of flex-zoning and zoning heights. >> thank you, directors. be co-presenting this item with natalie bonwick and kevin griffith from ticd. there was some discussion at earlier board meeting of the zoning on the island and the implications for potentially utilizing, modified type 3 construction, a lot of the

island is zoned at 70 feet, 65 feet. and so we would just kind of wanted to go back to the d for d and walk through the zoning requirements that are laid out in the program. so i mentioned that the design for development document is kind of our implementation tool for the special-use district legislation, that was adopted for treasure island. and included in that is the maximum height plan that lays out the zoning across the island. and one of the unique things about treasure island is a substantial portion of the the island, including the eastern neighborhood, the bulk of the eastern neighborhood is subject to flex-zoning. so there's a base zoning, but that -- we can actually go above

that in many instances. so the flex-zoning there's one parcel, the tower parcel that's zone up to 450 feet and three parcels that are zone the up to 315 feet. and then as i mentioned, the bulk of the east side neighborhood, as well as several parcels on the west side of the site, are flex-zoned up to 240 feet. then there are also, as shown in blue on the image, a number of parcels that are zoned up for to 115 feet. so there are a number of sites where the project can seek more height. the flex-zoning on the eastern side of the neighborhood has some special provisions to it, in that that area cannot be

uniformly increased to 120 feet. but where it is increased above the base zoning, then there are offset requirements from other parcels, before they can go up. so the image at the top center shows that any individual tower, going up above the base zoning, has to have 115-foot offset from any other tower and that the north and south directions from any individual tower, that the closest tower must be offset by 500 feet. and that's both about allowing sunlight into the neighborhood and also allowing space between towers to allow for view corridors and increase the

diversity of the neighborhood. in the initial subphase, the design for development has four parcels, that are flex-zoning and ticd is planning to take advantage of those, so that includes the 450 feet tower site and one of the 315-foot tower sites. and then as we go into the second subphase, the subphase application currently indicates towers at the indicated locations here. so the lower two are both 315-foot tower sites and then the other three fall within that 240-foot flex-zone. so that starts to increase the

intensity the ticd is pursuing here. it does also include some of our sites from going up above the -- exercising the flex-zoning option. but generally speaking, in our massinger we haven't seen that's something we would pursue. but in this mass -- in this layout here, we could do it on e2.3 orb e1.2. we just wouldn't be able to do it on ic4.2 and 3, which are in the center of the page. then in terms of construction types. i just blew up the height limits generally to show that again a bulk of the island is 65-foot zone, along the city side neighborhood. there are a number of sites that are 70 or 125, allowing a little

more height. and for people who are watching, may not be familiar with the different construction types, type 1 concrete or steel construction, that can have an unlimited number of floors. and based on projects in the kurt mohcd pipeline, they're seeing construction costs per square foot of around $528. for type 3, over -- sorry, yeah, type 3 over type 1, that's up to five levels of fire- resistant wood over one to two levels of concrete, showing an average cost per square foot of $475. again based on the mohcd pipeline. ant the type five, which is up to four levels of wood over one

to two levels of concrete, very close to type 3 in the average cost per square foot of $461 per square foot. with all that, i'll hand it over to natalie to talk about -- we took a look at the -- at our parcels and how we would do massing and whether we would want to go above any of those height limits. >> good morning. so once again i'm natalie bonwick and i am here in my capacity as an affordable development housing consultant. so,s you know, a cap of 8,000 total units for the island. and with the 27.2% affordable housing obligation, that comes out to 2,173 units, which in the

d.d.a. is referred to as authority units. and those affordable units are the one that will be developed by non-profit affordable housing markets -- affordable housing developers. and of those units, that will also include the replacement units for the current one treasure island, catholic charities, community housing partnership, health rate 360. that all falls within the 2,173 cap. of the 2,173 -- excuse me, as it says on the slide, the 1,866. the difference between the 2,173 and the 1866 are the inclusionary units, that are being developed by ticd, lanar and their affiliates. what we love about working on treasure island is that land is

delivered free, clean, fully entitled, utilities to the curb. so the red lines are the ones where the affordable housing project have always been designated. we love that because there's no opportunityies for saying that affordable housing shouldn't be there. it's what we've been working on since the d.d.a. was executed. you'll see they're integrated with the market rate. so based upon the preliminary massing studies, we can develop the 1,866 units, currently what we have is -- this is a conservative estimate. but of those 1866, we're looking at one type 1 project, seven type 3 projects, and nine type 5 projects. that's a conservative estimate. with that conservative estimate,

if you were to move every type 5 project, to a type 3, you would gain a minimum unit increase of minimally 180 units. so again the cost per square foot differential, between type 5 and the type 3 isn't that huge. and you could gain that extra unit. so there's extra capacity within the building heights. of course, type 5 is the least expensive construction type. so to explain the -- as you know, one of the parcels is currently in predevelopment, parcel c3.1. that's the project with mercy housing and catholic charities. it will include the replacement of all of the catholic charities units, and all of the remaining occupies are -- eligible for income qualifying or over income. so the reason why we're bringing

this parcel up as a case study, is to show what the analysis would be when you move from a type 3 building to a type 1. and the cost. so this parcel is interesting as a case study. it has -- i just want to show the map. so this is the location of parcel c3.1. you'll see two different height limits. the blue represents 125 feet. and then the tan color is a 40 feet height limit. and that's on the shared right away. so mercy housing, along with its partner, conducted an analysis. within that footprint, to do type 3, they were able to get 135 total units. that's four levels of type 5 on-grade, along the shared right-of-way and then five levels of type 3, over two

levels of concrete, allowing avenue c. that's about the 125 height limit is. because the height limit could go as far as 125, they analyzed 149 units. that's just one higher level. and that was on the shared right-of-way, four levels of type 1 townhomes. and then on avenue c, eight levels of type 1. so in their analysis, the hard court per square foot, from the two different types, went from 335 to 349. the cost per unit $751,000 to $761,000. total development cost went up $13 million. the gap, though, had a huge jump. the gap went from $44 million to

$50 million and that's a reflection on affordable housing financing sources. the gap per unit went from -- on a per-unit basis wasn't that different. but the gap per unit for each of the 14 additional units was $481,000 for each of the 14 units, if they had gone from type 3 to type 1. so some of these costs are at $481,000 for 14 units, there's some items that are unique to the parcel, that made it more expensive potentially. i just want to highlight them, so you know this might not be as tip as in other units. because the units are replacement units and the units on treasure island are generally larger, two, three, four bedrooms. no one bedrooms that need to be replaced, the cost per unit is higher. likewise, because type 1 construction is a heavier building type, there would have been more geo technical work

than anticipated -- than planned for, so we would have had to find the money to increase the soil conditions to accommodate more heavier -- a heavier building. and then also until all of the household replacement units are -- so all people with a relocation benefit from the pre-dda have a replacement unit, 10% of all units on authority units are reserved for over-income households and have no subsidy attached to that. so the big jump, conscious -- but the real big jump is the cost per square foot, to go from type 3 to type 1. and in this case, given the size was only going to increase the unit count by 14 units.

therefore, it was decided to stick with the 135 units, rather than trying to identify an additional $6.7 million gap. and to have to identify an additional $6.7 million would have delayed the project further. and with that i'll pass it to kevin griffith. >> thank you. good morning, board members. kevin griffith from ticd. let me just step back for a minute. i believe the reason that we're having the discussion and comments from board members at previous meetings, addressing code changes and the previous years after the plan was baked, that would allow five-over to construction to get to 70 feet and a primarily wood frame type-ology. so, first of all, i'd like to say ticd really appreciates the board thinking this way. and really follow acting more as a partner than just a regulating body. we really are fortunate to have an active board that's thinking

creatively about the future and making sure that our plan really works, to allow us to pull off, you know, the great goals that we have baked into the plan. so definitely want to express that appreciation. we did look at this in response. and i think our conclusion is sort of similar to the affordable housing conclusion, is that there is actually already plenty of flexibility baked in the plan. so there are areas, as we -- it's not really showing here, but on the previous version of the overall height map for the island, there are vast areas in both the east side and city side neighborhoods, that have the flexible zoning with the additional height incorporated already. so that there are many, many parcels where we can already go from the 65 to the 75-foot height limit within there. really it's the 8,000 unit together cap that's going to be the governor on the development of the island, not the 65-foot height that's shown for many of the parcels.

that flexibility really does allow us to maximize and really, you know, reach the final-unit count. but, you know, again we appreciate both the board's thinking about this issue. and also just the flexibility that was baked into the plan, you know, before many of us started working on it, to be able to develop the island. i think the flexibility is there for us to respond to, you know, the economics, the time and also things like code changes and changes in construction technology. the flexibility that's in the plan allows us to adjust and kind of build out in the best way as we go forward. so we don't think there's really call to actually make changes to the plan. we think that, you know, everything that we need is kind of already baked in at this stage. but we appreciate the question and the impetuous to look further into this. >> thank you for your presentation. i'm sure we have a -- lots of

questions to ask you here. so i just want to be, before i open this up for further discussion, we have all of these flexibilities for, you know, height, density. but, on the one hand, based on the case studies that you've presented, for the three levels, that's very interesting. it's not economically or problematically advantageous based on just what you presented. on the one hand, you know, i'm looking even though level 1, case study 1, level 1, it's more expensive, you know, because you're using steel. again i'm looking at the geology of treasure island. up front it might be expensive, but the durability and, you know, down the line we need to front those costs, you know, given the area. on the one hand, we're saving

money, if we go to the other level. however, let's be mindful and cognizant of the fact that we are cognizant of where we are in the sea level rise and all of the other stuff that we talk about. and so it becomes very interesting. we've got to mention that we would like to utilize modular as a type of a construction. and again we would like for you to explain where again, based on the current technology or technology, which of those levels would be able for use that, you know, five stories of the seven stories. bear in mind, yes. we'd like for you to explain that. >> i just wanted to say that the very first affordable housing project, with the un-- the one that's being developed in chinatown community development center, will be a modular construction. and they are presenting at the april tida board meeting. you'll hear directly from them about their project. >> and how many stories max?

>> it's still 10 stories. >> okay. >> and they actually have a different height limit than parcel c3.1. and along avenue c, it's a little bit shorter. >> lastly on the replacement, again a little clarification here. are we matching -- i mean, we are providing affordable housing, we're not necessarily matching four bedrooms before and now you're going to be getting four bedrooms. that's not -- we're matching approximately to what you can get. because, yeah, is that -- >> i mean, we have to -- per the d.d.a., there's a certain number of households that have replacement unit benefits. and those units need to be matched based on the unit sizes. but moving forward, once everybody receives their benefit, it's more typical to both the market and what's

typically seen in affordable housing. >> commissioner richardson: city wide. city policies that guarantee one for one-on-one replacement. you're going to have something. but if you were in five bedrooms before, that does not mean you're going to have five bedrooms. we need to be questioning that. this is a city policy. they guarantee you'll not be moving off the island, if choose to, pre-d.d.a. so we need to make sure we clarify that. if i have four bedrooms before and i'm expecting that, not necessarilydy might end up in two bedrooms. >> the d.d.a. has a whole section that's very explicit about what the opportunities are. but i defer to others. >> commissioner richardson: commissioner, dunlop and tsen? yeah. just using your areas and then you use.

>> commissioner tsen: thank you very much for that presentation. and you're right. my issue is only to look at the design for development and zoning, to provide more flexibility, if needed, for the developers. both ticd, as well as non-profit developers. and we have such a need for housing in the city. so if there's a way to on the same site build more units, then i think that would be worth looking into. what the case study shows is only a change between what the cost would be for type 3, versus type 1, type 1 being a steel construction. you can go more vertical. obviously it's more costly. but i would like to look at if we are able to do type 3, which

is the prevalent type of construction for more affordable housing, and if we're able to do it within the current height limits that we have, you pointed out a case study, which has a 125-foot height limit on up with side of the side. but, in fact, there's several blocks and especially on the southern side of the blocks and the one, for instance, which -- so it's a plow share and ccbc are building on. that height limit is i think 65 feet. is that correct, mr. beck? >> the height limit on the western side of the -- the height is 40 feet. along the shared public way. >> commissioner tsen: then it steps up to 65 feet. >> 75 on that one. 70. >> commissioner tsen: 70.

okay. so my -- and it may be too late for that particular project, because it's already been designed. but we have a master plan, which has angular streets and there is a reason for that. it was the thought of the master plan to help with blocking the wind. so not only do we have a difficult angle that has to be dealt with and results in some triangular shapes on the corners, which actually does, in fact, make it more expensive to build. and if we were to use modular technology, in fact, there have been sudden changes in the building codes, which allow within the type 3 structures, to do three stories of podiums and five stories of wood frame on top. the modular units actually require more height.

because you're stacking units and usually the height of the modules can be higher, which is actually a nicer type of arrangement for people who live there. you can get, you know, 9 1/2 feet, 10 feet. and when you stack them, it, in fact, provides more sound insulation. but it requires at least 10 feet per unit. and sometimes more, because there's spaces in between. so if you're going to use that type of technology, which is allowable, and you're using modular, in fact, if it's a three-story podium, with five stories of modulars on top, you are now getting to beyond 80 feet. now from the ground level, there's not much difference to the person passing by, a pedestrian, as to what that perception of height is, whether

it's 70 feet or 80 feet. it's not going to be noticeable from the ground level, which is very important. you know, what is the experience of pedestrians. but if we can actually add another level of development, within not switching to the type 1 type of construction, but keeping within what the affordable housing developers want to use, which is using a type 5 or a type 3. so then, given the new changes in technology, you would want to have a height of more than the current 70 feet or the current 65 feet in some cases. and even just a 10-foot height, which allows that type of technology to be used, but yet get more units on the precious land that we have.

so it was more just to look at that issue, as to whether or not -- because, you know, the master plan was set in place before these new technologies have come, and changes in the building codes. and actually even now there is, you know, new products on the market, which you can build out of wood. the wood laminate, which then you can get more height. and it is just to make sure that we have flexibility in the design for development plan, to allow for us to be absolutely the most efficient, in the way that we use our precious land. and if the maximum heights are precluding us from looking at those new technologies, which i think it did in the first, you know, project -- ccdc project. they had to actually look at different design modules, in

order to fit on that site. because not only is it not of same height level for all of the sites, it's step you -- up. it's 40 feet and it goes up to 65 feet. and with modulars you want to be able to take the space most efficiently. so those are basically my thoughts on the filming. and i'm glad to see flex-zoning is working for ticd, on your site, certainly vertical is the way to go for the type of housing that you're looking at. and we want to make sure that the best for the island, does, in fact, support your ability to be able to build on the island. but my thinking on the zoning was really based on that shared right-of-way, the height limits along that shared right-of-way

and then the maximum and what we can do in terms of the new technology that's coming along, to make sure that we're flexible enough to allow that to occur. >> commissioner richardson: thank you very much, commissioner tsen. commissioner dunlop? >> commissioner dunlop: i'm glad you brought up the issues. first thing, sort of a general question. i know there was sort of a fight about height limit, not necessarily these lower ones, but on the towers. and did that get resolved? i thought we had to bring down our planning for the towers? >> no. there was some discussion. i forget what the original proposed height for the main tower site was. that was all resolved in 2011,

when the -- when the design for the development and special-use district regulations were finalized. >> commissioner dunlop: great. as far as the cost gap, does the modular help that considerably? >> yes. yes. >> commissioner dunlop: like -- >> yeah. >> i think it can. yeah. right now the comps are showing general compatibility in terms of the costs. but there's also savings. and also there's still in pre-development. so they're vetting all of their different proposals. but i think the whole glory of modulars will be to look for a true cost savings. >> and we'll be able to see a comparison or whatever. >> we can certainly ask. but i don't know if -- we can see what they are able to present in april. i'm happy to ask if they are able to.

>> commissioner tsen: we look forward to the presentation in april. generally the modular projects are about 15% lower in cost. but the modular industry is certainlier in the infancy right now. and i think what we want to do is to certainly make sure that the savings, that would come from modular, would be reelect fleck -- reflected. the cost of construction is sky-high right now. we need to find all of the ways that we can to reduce the cost of housing. >> the master. it is faster. >> commissioner dunlop: that's great. then this just sort of a -- gosh, i don't know, maybe a little from the public meeting a while back. but do we have some sort of topography map of the bedrock, where the bedrock is around

there? it seems like we would. >> we have some -- the bedrock drops very rapidly, as you go north of yerba buena island, so that the -- by the time you get north of california, where the tallest tower will be, bedrock is between 250 and 300 feet below grade or below sea level. below grade. and so that -- but that tower will have piles to bedrock. but it drops very steeply on the north side of yerba buena island. so, yeah. >> commissioner dunlop: okay. thanks. just one more question. as, you know, i'm not all that aware about costs from type 1 to type 3 and quality. is there a change in quality that will be asking tenants to

accept or not? >> type 1 versus type 3 construction is really internal studs, the framing that's within the walls. and so it would be -- it would not be a differential to the tenants. so that wouldn't change the interior finishes in any way. >> commissioner dunlop: okay. thank you very much. >> commissioner richardson: just quickly here, natalie, the parcel seeks -- case study. so for housing in the presentation to tida, a couple of months ago, the average cost of one unit is over $750,000. and this is based on land, parcel that are owned by the city, like us, we own treasure island outright. so we're looking. so with modular again $750,000

and beginning here i think at this point, beginning to really see what costs are we talking about, based on the limited amount of funding that we have. so if the going rate is 758k, we're escalating construction project. what are we looking at? is it possible for us to say at least 125k and maybe commissioner tsen here, given everything we are trying to do here, you know, making sure that we decrease entitlement and the policies, are we ever going to again be able to say 175k per unit, because at the growing rate of 750, it's still extremely very costly to produce. commissioner tsen? >> commissioner tsen: extremely costly. there's no such thing as low-cost housing, affordable housing. you can have low-income housing that is directed for those who

cannot afford. but there's no such thing as low-cost housing. and that's why because we own the land at treasure island, it is basically given to the project, so that we can meet the affordable requirements, for those affordable housing projects that are built on treasure island, which is not the case on other parcels in the city, where they have to acquire the sites. acquire the sites for whatever the land cost is, and then build the affordable housing. and so there's a great i think reason to build on treasure island first, because we certainly have the land, let's take advantage of it and then with looking at the zoning, be able to make sure that we can get the most maximum number of units from that precious land that we have. >> commissioner richardson: this is very interesting. so reality check for the city

now to pursue aggressively city-owned land and definitely will be talking to the mayor and the supervisor to realize their house, you know, rather than purchasing parcels in, you know, looking at over $1 million per unit. it's crazy. okay. thank you, commissioner. any other comments from the commissioners, please, before i -- okay. public comments on this item? seeing none. thank you. thank you, natalie and kevin. and you, sir, thank you. >> clerk: item number 6, e2 update. >> so directors, i just wanted to give you an update. caltran has been moving forward with the pier e# it, the last pier on the eastern side of the

former bay bridge. and they were wanting to enter into a maintenance agreement with tida to maintain those improvements after they're constructed and bada is proposing to fund our maintenance efforts. but because we will be coming in next month or two with a maintenance contract to the board, i just wanted to give you an update on the status of the project. so pier et as i mentioned, it's the last pier, just east of treasure island. yerba buena island of the former bay bridge alignment. and the proposal there is rather than demolishing the pier all the way down to the mud line of the bay, as was in their original bcdc permit, caltrans has proposed and bckc has approved removing the upper

portion of the pier and then constructing access from the shoreline out to the pier, as a public access improvement to bring people out on to the bay and give them a different experience along the shoreline. so this is where pier e2 is relative to the east end of the island and the new bay bridge. and this is some shots of the construction in progress. you can see they've already taken the pier down to the intended level and back to the shoreline they've cruxed it. -- constructed it. and planned view of how that will tie in with the proximity to the torpedo building and access back to north gate road. because caltrans needs to do

some environmental work in the vicinity of area where the parking and bike racks are indicated, there will be a phased improvement to the site, with some initial improvements and then caltrans needs to complete the circle, a process to come up with a proposed plan to address the remediation that needs to occur, just south of that parking and bike area. so the outer portion there will be concrete access path out to the pier, with a crushed rock area adjacent to it, that's the area in tan. and bringing in -- and then the lower portion there's also existing pump station there that's providing access, too. and just shows bed access from

mccollum road down staircases being constructed by the caltran project, through the great whites and the future stormwater improvements being constructed by tcdc to the site. and closer-up view of the plan. and proximity again to the torpedo buildings, potential to be a great asset to the activation of the torpedo building, when we're in a position to do so. i mentioned there will be a phased completion in commissioning of the facilities. the first phase is under construction right now. the second phase may be two to three years away, depending upon the proposed remedy that caltran adopts for the cleanup circle process.

but again caltran is looking to tida to operate and maintain the facility and bata has agreed to reimbursing us for the costs. initially during phase one, we're preparing an interim o&m plan that's a year tenderloin year agreement. and we would adapt that as we go forward and then moving to a longer-term agreement once we have some experience with the site. and the final improvements are in place. so as i said, the next month or two, we expect to bring to you the proposed maintenance agreement, and so it will be a pair of agreements. one, an agreement between tida and caltran, an agreement to maintain the facilities. and then a parallel agreements between bata and tida, whereby bata agrees to reimburse us for those costs.

>> commissioner richardson: thank you very much. commissioners, questions? i know you have a lot of questions. >> i think any time that we can open up the access to the water's edge and to the bay, and have that publicly accessible, it's wonderful. i think this is a great project for us. again it's something that treasure island, particularly in its spectacular location, can use. and i'm glad to see this. i have a question, mr. beck, which is there another working pier which can be used during the construction project, where materials can be loaded and unloaded? i'm thinking in terms of all of the housing housing that will b, all of the road work that will be done. actually for the modular units, for instance.

it's something that possibly could be brought in by boat and to use that form of transit, water transit rather than to bring itn i by truck, which would have some impact congestion on the congestion on the bay bridge. so do we have a working pier, where it could be utilized during the construction process? it's 8,000 units that we will be building on the island. >> yeah. pier one, which is at the southeastern corner of treasure island, is a working pier. and it's in good condition. it was upgraded by the navy in the 1980s. so it's still in good condition. and ticd's vertical team is actively looking at the possibility of bringing in construction materials, aggregate for concrete, perhaps having a batch plant on the island. and utilizing pier one for

access. as it would happen, monday miriam and i had a meeting with the labor -- i'm sorry, the carpenters' union and we're discussing the modular facility on the island. and one of the things that they have there is the ability to ship modular units by water. so that is something that also we would need to study for any particular modular project working with that partner. the relative costs and benefits of shipping via barge, versus by truck. >> commissioner richardson: thank you. commissioner dunlop. >> commissioner dunlop: yes. pier one, isn't that navy opened? >> pier one has transferred to tida. so we own it. we have a commercial lease with bay ship and yacht.

and they do -- so they're doing some vessel maintenance, with third parties out there. but that is -- has been transferred to tida and it's under our management. >> commissioner dunlop: great. and back to the project on hand, i mean, boy, that does sound wonderful. and we can get more -- just more public space and something so beautiful, giving a very expansive view of the bay. is there any potential costs to us on that? or is it pretty much -- >> at this time caltran is retaining ownership, so they have the long-term responsibility. for the facility and bata is agreeing to reimburse us for the maintenance costs. so right now there's no cost exposure under the proposed agreements. >> commissioner dunlop:. >> commissioner richardson:

quick question, mr. beck, with regards to the pedestrian access and some of these are really very steep areas, you know, around mccollum road and you're going to be having vehicular access. have a special treatment to the a.d.a., how are we implementing that in into all of these plans. we had asked before, we would like to see some of those areas treated. and so i -- maybe that cannot be answered here. but again it is still of great interest to this commission. yes, very steep roads. on one hand we have bicycles, we'll have the vehiculars and then pedestrians. so in the next plan, let's try to make a notation as to how we are embarking on going to this, please. >> and caltran is providing a

limited amount of parking down by the pier, as well as -- including a concrete apron with an a.d.a. parking space. an then the other thing that's under discussion is part of the operations is -- on the weekends, we've been operating a shuttle from the vista point down to mercier, the great lawn for bicyclists or pedestrians coming across the path on the bay bridge. [ please stand by ]

>> no further comment, commissioners, before i open it to the comment? and a public comment on these presentations? seeing none, thank you. >> item number 7, early in blue update. -- early in the loop update. >> just a brief update today because we are planning on

starting the payments to the previous residence next month, as mentioned previously, the transitional housing rules and regulations for the market right residents of the villages that were here in 2011 do provide -- did incorporate the early opportunity for an early payment not triggered by a notice to move in the expectation that it may take quite a number of roles before they are offered a replacement unit, and that there should be an opportunity for them to exercise an opportunity to leave the island if they so choose, rather than waiting for the offer of a replacement unit.

the early in the loop would the same provisions as the payment offered in the time of move, which is the same method of calculation for the payment and the same effect of the election, which is they would be required to vacate their existing unit and would not receive moving assistance that would be part of the payment. accepting the early in lieu would mean they would no longer be resident on the island and eligible for a transition unit or unit purchase assistance options. although they maybe placed on the premarketing list for the units for sale. that's just one of the things i really wanted to emphasize is that they establish a series of benefit options that are

required to move which is the opportunity to move into a newly constructed unit where the down payment assistance towards a new market right unit, or purchase of a new unit. or in lieu payment household, the replacement elects to move off of the island. it is a single choice of these three options for the household as a unit. this early in lieu option is like that, a household benefit. if part of the household is electing to leave and the other portion of the household is electing to stay on the island, that household would be -- would not be eligible for the in lieu benefits because unless the entire household is taking the benefit of the portion of the house -- and the portion of the household wanted to stay on the island and pursue a replacement unit in the new development,

then the only household unit that would be leaving the unit just like any other people who had been moving off the island in the past would be treated the same. the payment calculations, we have discussed different household size and composition, and only considers eligible pre d.d.a. persons in the household, although spouses, children, and eligible caregivers for household members are also factored in. the values using the calculation come from the san francisco rent board schedule for relocation payments for no-fault evictions and those were just updated at the end of february, and that fed into our timing for offering

the early and new now after the figures were just updated a couple weeks ago. so we are in the process right now of updating our outreach materials based on the newly adopted figures and we will be issuing letters to pred.d.a. households in early april and we will have an informational table set up at the april on island board meeting, and tentatively planning to have a drop in session later in april where people can come in and ask questions as well on a saturday, and then the option would be available to households beginning may 1st and ending february of next year. if we've made an election at the end of february based on continued interest