>> mr. clerk please call the role. (role call) >> we have a quorum. >> mr. clerk, would you please read the consent agenda? >> items 2-4 considered routine. not planning to present. if a member objects, they can be considered separately. >> any questions or comments on the consent agenda? any public comment on the consent agenda? seeing none, can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection.

mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> for the first -- can we take a role call for the first vote? >> for the consent? >> yeah, we have to do role call for each one? >> yes. (role call). >> we have approval. >> mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> item 5, recommend approval of the tole exemption and this is current. >> good morning. >> good morning. (inaudible). >> on the treasure island mobility management program tole

policy and affordable programs. for folks watching, the background is that treasure island has a development agreement that would bring it from home to fewer than 2,000 residents today to more than 20,000 people in build-out over a period of 15 through 20 years and the challenge that we need to addres address is the growthd traffic that could mean for the bay bridge. so the traffic generated by the development is projected to double and that could mean as many as 60,000 trips on and off the bridge each day, about a quarter of the bay bridge volumes. so the development agreement approved in 2011 included a transportation plan that would address this challenge, both minimize the new traffic generated by the development, by

vehicle traffic, a as well as provide alternatives getting off the island by transit. it's a transit first plan and it would include new regional transit, ferry and bus transit and include expanded muni service and also include on-island options, getting around on-island, including a circulator shuttle. the plan also included tools to discourage driving, especially during peak periods, called for a congestion tole for driving on and off the bridge and for parking to be paid and bundled from your residential unit. the revenues from those parking fees and tole fees combined with transit fares, transit pass purchases and developer contributions would be the revenue source for the new reginole transit.

reluctanregional transit. we need to raise the revenues to pay for the new regional transit and other on-island services. the transit would be a very robust transit service level by build-out. a new bus service to and from treasure island that doesn't exist and a new ferry service in downtown san francisco. muni service would expand including a new route. it would be paid for through the city general fund, through the muni budget but new on-island circuit shuttle and east-bay bus service would be paid by treasure island revenues. fountoday we bring to you what e expecting would be a first in a series of actions to address matters of tole pol sil policy e not yet been decided. we are bringing before you to

support the current residents and we expect other remaining matters of policy to come before you over the next several months through the spring. so those include supports for current workers, low-wage workers and for future low income residents of the island who will move on to the island in the future. and we've gotten to this point based on outreach, so supporting the current residents was highest priority that we heard through outreach feedback. we did travel demand modeling of what the effect on travel patterns would have, how many trips are we talking about, financial projections, what would bwould it take to provides benefit. we found on that, it's feasible to exempt the securit current rs and we project only a modest effect on the travel demand patterns and the revenue need,

which i'll explain more in a moment. so the action we're bringing to you today to exempt the current residents from the tole and we would need to determine some implementation specifics in the future. so we will need to adopt toll system business rules and we would need to include implementation specifics of how this program is administered and enforced and these are things like the benefit will likely require the use of a fast-track transponder and we'll need to work with tita to set up a registration, eligibility and registration process for folks to receive it and things like the total number of exempt transponders, we nod need to identify that maximum number to

prevent abuse of the system. thirdly, we recommend to revisit or sunset the program at the mid-point of development and there are two points at which we know we need to take a step back and evaluate the program's performance. the first evaluation points is at the three-year mark, so the legislation calls for us to present an evaluation to the california state legislature no later than three years after the program begins. we are here, also, recommending -- doing the same at the mid-point. there is a funding need that we've identified would be required to keep the transit services whole and provide this benefit. of course, that -- the amount of the funding needs depends on what the toll level is that is ultimately adopted but if we're

looking at a range from somewhere between a total of eight a half to $20 million through build-out divided by six years, which is the most critical point in the program's financial stability. it's about 1.4 to 3.4 million per year over a period of significancsixyears, the first f the program. were could look to a number of different sources to fill that and we could look in program so the programs we have authorized, which are the parking fees, the toles that would be paid by future folks, not the current residents and transit fares and past purchases or nonprogram revenues, outside grants, city and regional partners or other sources. so the schedule going from here,

we know we have more work to finish on remaining matters, including supporting low-wage workers on the island and supporting future low-income residents who will move on in the future. we will complete that outreach and the technical analysis of ideas to do that over the next few months and expect to bring back to you the remaining undecided areas of policy in the spring and that would include the toll levels, the toll rates, the hours of operation and any programs to support the other populations that we have identified. so reminder of what the action is before you and please let me know your questions. >> great. i certainly a number of statements and questions, but

can we open it up to public comment first so that can help us to shape some of the points we might want to bring up. so anyone who wants to speak can come up. you have two minutes. >> better talk fast. good morning, supervisors. one thing i wanted to ask rachel, the slides you were just showing, can we get those? >> yes. you will see that -- i'm sorry, i'm steve stalone with treasure island wines and a member of the treasure island organizing committee. one of the reasons you will see that our contingent here today is smaller than usual is that we didn't even know about this hearing until we got an email friday night on a three-day weekend. so that left us very little time to be able to plan and get here.

wabad optics, one would hope trying to encourage democratic support and input that people would have gotten an opportunity to be here. we have a couple of things we would like to say about the issue here. well, we understand that the business issues are not going to be addressed until another couple months or few months, whatever that is. and there is talk of an employee exemption and we think that's a good idea but there's two other points we've been raising for nearly a year now that have not been addressed or even mentioned that they'll be addressed, really and those are what happens to the vendors and our

customers and bringing business to the island?

i guess i'm going to leave it at that for right now. >> if you. thank you. my name is jim morowski, owner of island wines, on the island for 12 years. just following up with some of the meetings and outreach you've had. i want to touch base on one issue which was on october 24th, we had an outreach meeting to the businesses and nonprofits on treasure island. the day before the 23rd, we were sent conscienc community wt documentation from cta. this was not allow us to make a contribution to the discussion and we appreciate the outreach. that's important but giving us 100 pages of documentation a day before a meeting is not great. i had an opportunity to look over some of the documentation.

a couple things to point out. i appreciate the effort to try to accommodate some of the exemption on the residents and employees. however, looking through the documentation that was sent by us of cta, the development build-out is now pushed out significantly. it's actually now going to be two to three thousand units from 5 to 7 years out. so we'll have a long period where there's will be a limited build-out. and that's going to directly address the whole congestion issue. how much congestion will it be? and actually it was interesting to see that in the last five years of the documentation, andd this is page 12 of model assumptions, they'll build 5,000 units in the last five years. so my point is that if this whole toll and the transportation plan is to address congestion, the congestion issue is going to be quite a bit farther out, further

than the developer's estimates without getting into too much detail, i went to the financial model and asked for a financial model so the community can ask and look at what is the revenue and benefits and that kind of stuff. i got a great document with a lot of assumptions but still no publically available financial model that we, the public can look at. finally, the challenge i had looking at the transportation plan is that it's still very heavy on a few buses and we're only on meeting 25, which has a poor performance. it's even up to 25, 27, it's ac transit bus to the east bay, heavy ride on muni bay which is paid by for city funds and it's a small ferry issue and that's only going to run up 227, it

appears in the documentation. to have a few in the morning and evening on weekdays only and there will be no ferry during weekends or off-hours. if you're putting buses on an already-congested bridge, how will this mitigate congestion? and why is everybody paying for five t to seven years for a fery system that's ill-defined. anyway, so i'll leave it at that. again, i'm willing to work with the staff and sfta and rachel, but again, that optics of fetting a lot of information getting a lot of information before a three-day holiday, optics are not great. it may go to the sunshine laws strictly, but again, we need more input on how these decisions are made and also more

disclosure about what is the financial background of this toll and is it really going to mitigate congestion? thank you. >> hi there. i'm a current resident with a few thoughts with trying to bring a different perspective. we're glad to see that people are listening to us and doing outreach attempts towards the community and so, i want to say thank you for that an, but going with the toll and revenue and things like that, just concerned about the businesses -- they do most of their business to people who don't live on the island,

but we really benefit from them, right? we have two restaurants. and we have the wineries, which we enjoy, as well. but without -- if there's tolls deterring people from coming on to the island now, before residents are really causing traffic, and impacting the freeways, can the businesses survive for eight years until a bulk of the population comes around? and another thing i wanted to throw out there is what about an ad campaign and trying to encourage the visitors, the people that are coming to spend their dollars on treasure island to use public transportation or developing some kind of shuttle or something that really

encourages them to use public transportation to get to the island? i know that doesn't help with your revenue, but if the revenue is only part of it and cob jerks is the real issue, maybe that would be useful. thank you. >> anyone else for public comment? public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone who came out and spoke and i want to thank the ssfca for your outreach and for listening to the residents and for bringing this forward and for listening to us, also. certainly in my time spent on the island, talking to folks out there, there is a tremendous amount of anxiety and concern about the toll, both from current responsibilities, as well aresponsibilityresidents ai

think it's clear we make a statement and commitment that current residents will not be paying the toll and that we are going to have a policy, i think, to evaluate in a number of years so they know for sure, for that amount of time, and then look at it, then, in terms of it's performing. one of the things to be looking at is the public transportation system and how effective it is and how accessible it is for people. there's a number of reasons why, i think, a toll on current residents does not make sense right now. there's not a significant issue with congestion on the island. the people who live on the island are not causing the congestion on the bridge and many of the folks on the island are low income or middle income and they have to rely on a car because of, i think, some of the gaps in access to public transportation that exists on the island right now.

and there was always an issue that i had with this and that others, where no other neighborhood in san francisco has to pay a toll in order to go to and from work, nor do they have to shoulder the responsibility of funding their own transportation system. we don't ask if you live in the tenderloin that you yourself, in addition to your bus fare, have to pay extra to be able to fund the system that serves your neighborhood. puit was, to me, a huge challen. with that said, over the long term, when there is tens of thousands of residents, when there is a situation where we have a really strong effective accessible transportation system, i think we are looking at a different situation in terms of how to manage the people's -- how people travel to and from the island. so i do think it's really important that we make this

decision today and are able to make that commitment and relieve the anxiety for at least the current residents around this decision. it was something that was very important to me and that i gave my strong direction to early on. so i appreciate that. but this is not the end effort conversation. we stilof theconversation. we need an informed conversation about what's happening with the businesses, with employees, with low-income residents in the future, including those who are moving on to the island, what -- i think my view is that there are more exemptions and more things that need to take plays e and what we're doing today is making this commitment to current residents and setting that in policy and this is not the end of the conversation. so when we do have a conversation about businesses and employees, i want too make e sure the outreach is there and

that people know when we're having the conversations at city hall and there's a tida meeting tomorrow evening and i'll be there, as well and that's another opportunity to share on this and some of the other policy changes that are coming about. so with that, i have a question, but let me first -- commissioner walton. >> thank you, chair hainey. i don't want to belabor the point and supervisor haniney said most of what i wanted to say but it's most important we don't charge people just to get home. we're not doing that in any other area of the city, particularly our low-income communities. as you know, i have major concerns about the future of low-income families that will have to move to treasure island as we build affordable housing across the city and as we determine and select who lives

where, there will be people who are going to have to move to treasure island, not even necessarily by choice. i don't think those people in the low-income community should have to pay just to get home everyday. and so, i appreciate all of the work you're doing to try to mitigate that and understanding how that is equitable and i want you to know we see the work that you're doing on that. i'm looking forward to continuing to flush this out, but appreciate everything that i see so far. i do real quick, supervisor hainey, number three, can you flush that out more in terms of when we say revisit or sunset exemption program, tell me exactly what you mean or intend to do with that recommendation? >> yes. so we would need to look at the program performance relative to its goals and we have two

specific goals from the development agreement, from the authorizing legislation, the 50% mochair goal and are we raising the revenue to fund the service? we will also want to add other metrics that aren't given to us but are important. like, are we meeting the transit service levels called for and are people getting the benefits that the development agreement calls for? >> when we talk about revisit, do we have say sunset exemption? because even if we do an analysis at the mid-point or even later, other options are available to us. so do we have to say sunset exemption as a part of that? >> you can say revisit only without the sunset. >> i like that. i just wanted to make sure that

was state. thank you. stated. thank you. >> absolutely and thank you, commissioner walson. walton. i would prefer we use that language and not set any sort of sunset that happens automatically. a couple questions i had and one is, who is defined as a current resident? what are the definitions that we're using and is there a cult-ofcut-off date? if you are in the sort of housing that exists there now, not the new housing. if you live there now, how do you define who those folks are and there's turn-over because if somebody's roommate leaves and somebody else moves on, is it everybody who lives in the current housing? >> right. >> so not in the new buildings? >> so this is -- we do need to

define this, and i would request this is something that in the toll system business rules, we need to create the definition there. but there are options. one is to provide a date, cut-off date, such as january 1, 2020. i think the question, then, will that capture everybody who we mean to capture? or would somehow somebody who were intending to capture be not included in that and that would be unintended, so then what other provision can we add on to that to make sure that the people that we're intending to capture are included? and bob beck from tida may have a suggestion here. >> well, because it seems to me that the option is sort of to say if anybody lives there now,

you know, or you could do it by housing type, which is not the people who are coming into what's going to be a part of the new development. so how are we going to make that decision? are we making that decision now? iwhat's the way that will be decided? >> so i recommend that we decide it in the toll system business rules. and that's something that we need bring to you next year. >> obviously there are revenue consequences that we were rely on to build out some of the transportation infrastructure and can you clarify what how much exactly that is, that you expect, and how we intend to

make up that revenue, that lost revenue? it was mentioned. so the lost revenue isle total funding gap throughout the whole build-up between 8.6 and 20.4 and funding gap per year over six years is either between 1.4 and 3.4. >> yes, that's right. that's on the screen now. >> it's a fairly -- i don't know if that's decisive for the build-up. but what's the thinking around how we make up that funding? >> so we can look within the program revenues and those are revenues that we are authorized to raise and dedicate to the

program. so those include the toll revenues from the remaining folks who would be paying that from parking fees, which are also the program revenues to invest in the island, transit facebooks ofares or mandatory pd those are revenues we have. we could look at nonprogram revenues which aren't authorized to us right now. so there would be a step of working with fund programmers, fund administrators, whether it's other bridge toll revenues, other city revenues to dedicate them to the program. >> got it. and can you pee speak to the developer contribution for transportation and this is something that you brought up before, but whether there's any presidenpossibility to increasee

developer contribution. >> so the developer, in addition to the capital commitment to provide upfront infrastructure, they are required to provide a $35 billion operatin operate sud that's given in the development agreement. so i would want to ask bob beck of tida to speak to any changes to that. we are assuming and working with the development agreement amount of the 35 million for operating support. >> director beck? >> the $35 million subsidy recommends the contract we've

entered into with the developer. i don't think there are avenues to reopening that amount. although, in terms of the early -- very early years of the operation, the developer is looking at potentially directly funding a private ferry service to provide some early ferry service before the program would be in a position to fund a full weda type of ferry service. >> that would be available to anybody who paid for it? >> they're still exploring it, but i anticipate it would be available to island residents. >> got it. >> i think this is a very important and necessary step for us to take and again, i want to thank director cheng and

everybody who was involved with this. thank you, rachel. and i think that ultimately, we have a lot more to talk about and so, we want to make sure that we're fully including as a part of the conversation the different folks impacted. i see on here, obviously we're making a decision today which i would agree with the commissioner walton that should not say sunset but should say visit, revisit. and we also here have a number of other commitments of things we'll be discussing that we still have to decide on, support of affordability, worker affordability and the question of how we build out the public transportation system and fund that. and so, with that, are we going to take an action here? ok.

commissioner walton? >> thank you, chair. i just also want to caution this as we define the current resident that we are thoughtful and conscious about some of the things strategies that lead to jegentrification. one of the things is on-lease or off-lease, if an individual is off-lease. i hope we understand there are people that are not on the lease but threat are very much residents of the families, so as we define resident, we're mindful of that. someone who has lived in public housing on different occasions

in the city, never being on the lease and it's very important to understand that households are not necessarily just made up of folks that are names on the lease. so i want us to be cause anxious about that definition. >> the business rules will come back to us is we'll have more conversation. and so just so i'm clear on the exact timing of this, when we say we'll revisit it at a mid-point, when exactly is that? i mean, obviously, the timeline of the development has changed on a number of occasions, so is that a set time or is that generally, depending on what the development timeline looks like. >> i recommend defining mid-point as a number of unit ss

so that if the actual year changes, where we are is a number of units, the transit levels that we need to meet corresponds with number of units. >> and what year is it now? what is the mid-point now? >> so that would be 2029 in the financial modeling work that we've done. but there are different scenarios, right, how that build-out looks. >> some reason people have been throwing around the six years which is a little confusing because it's actually ten years from now. so in terms of how people on the island understand this, because the six years, but ten years from now, this will be revisited and that's important in terms of how this is communicated to residents. >> yes. i would recommend 4,000 units,

tying it to units rather than number of years. >> sure. but currently, that's 2029. so if i can have a motion to approve the recommended action, exempt implementation, details and toll business rules and revisit exempt program at project midway point. do we need a role call? >> you can take it. >> that has passed. thank you all. thank you. can you read the next item? >> item 6, treasure island business and employee outreach update, business information item.

>> good morning. eric young, directions communicator to present this item. i'll discuss our most recent outreach with treasure island and talk about next steps and then i'm happy to answer question. answer questions. as part of our ongoing engagement on treasure island, in october, we held an outreach round aimed specifically at nonprofit employees and business owners. we designed this outreach for them because we know they have unique concerns regarding transportation on treasure island. for nonprofit employees, we partnered with one treasure island who helped us to convene employees from a range of nonprofits. and for business owners, we invited several ti businesses that have been deeply engaged in past outreach. we held two meetings and engaged two groups in the same

co-creation process. the co-creation involved a series of exercises in which attendees indicated what concerns or questions they had that were most important to them and then offered ideas on how to address those. what resulted were several proposals on how to design toll policies to address their needs. the two sessions generated a range of ideas from employees and business owners and what you see on the slide is a sampling of what we heard, which includes no toll for ti employees, capping the number of times a day an employee might be subject to the toll, creating a system where employees can earn toll credits for taking transit and an employer-provided van pool and businesses qualifying for a discount on tolls if they hire from treasure island residents. that discount could be passed on to employees, suppliers or

customers. we're recording all the feedback we got from our outreach during those sessions and we will combine that with technical analysis to determine what ideas are feasible and we plan to hold for outreach for businesses and employees in 2020 to gather further feedback on toll policies before bringing the proposals back to the board for decisions. that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to take questions. >> any public comment on this item? >> i was at the meeting scheduled on the 24th, and again, i want to emphasize that about a week or two weeks prior, i did ask sfcta and tida for an

agenda, some background material about what was proposed, the new plan, because we had been -- well, we had been waiting. we had a meeting in city hall almost a year ago and we were expecting some information from that period of time and we got a document dump on october 23rd, the day before. so i want to say it was a little hard for us and i think a lot of the other businesses expressed frustration about that, as well. eric, a few things that were not on that list and one was, i noticed -- previously it had been proposed by sftc that there would be no toll on off-peak hours or weekends or some derivative and that's now in a new plan i got from sfcta and now gone up again. we have an off-peak toll and there is tolls on the weekends, again, as well. so again, there was quite a few spirited conversations at the meeting. and again, i think a lot of the businesses were, again,

frustrated by the fact that we were, again, given a document dump the day before the meeting and we wanted to participate but couldn't actually go through the documents overnight. so thank you. >> again, steve stalone, treasure island wines. i want to emphasize how important the issues for businesses are, that to keep viable requires that we bring vendors and customers from off the island. i want to point out that a number of our businesses are restaurants and not just treasure island wines, but places like arcelli and merci

have become gathering points for the community and are important parts of the community that's there now. and we need to deal with their issues. that's all for now. >> thank you and thank you for this outreach. i think we obviously have a ways to go in terms of developing the policy and working with businesses and addressing some of the concerns. i agree that we want people to go out to treasure island. we want them to go to the businesses. it's something we should be incentivizing more and encouraging more and promoting and i am also concerned about the way that a toll could create barriers for that and create charles for them. you know, i'm generally -- and i don't want to speak for anybody else, but generally supportive of congestion pricing and policies that sort of allow us

to manage congestion through some tolling. but that's not the situation we have with regards to treasure island right now. weigh don'we don't have a huge f folks driving and creating congestion with strong transportation options for other folks to get out there. this isn't downtown san francisco. this is a very different situation right now and i understand that in 10 to 15 years, treasure island will look like a very different place is could have those types of issues. but right now, there's a lot of equity questions is there's a lot of questions about how we make sure that we support businesses to thrive on the island. we want them there. they're critical parts of the community and i think they have a lot of challenges right now to get people to come out there in light of the fact of public transportation infrastructure. with that, more to come on the business front, i'm sure, and lots of questions, but i appreciate all of the outreach in trying to be thoughtful and creative and informed in how we

make that decision, as well. and any questions or comments from board members? i'll close public comment on that. mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> item 7 is introduction new items some. >> any new items? >> call the next item? >> item 8 general public comment? >> any general public comment? >> good morning. i'm dennis hayes at treasure island wines. out--the-box thinking, but is there any thought to petitioning bart to build out a treasure island station as part of their

second tube project? and that's it. >> thank you for that. i would love to see that. any more public comment? >> again, i'm a resident and i just really wanted to encourage the group when you're making the decision on how you define current resident to not use date and time approach. there was recently a lot back and forth around the dda because there was a date established in 2011, i'm not trying to revisit that, but just bring up that. if these residents are not goint aren't going to be able to stay, if they're going to be on island

for several years, you know, some of these people might have people come off the lease, roommates come on and sign on to the existing lease, things like that and then i know there are people in non-english speaking communities that have several people not on leases, long-time residents, things of that nature. i'm surand i'm sure in the english-speaking community, too. and i think that the definition is important, if equity is the goal and not setting it on a certain date, but more as hainey was suggesting, using the existing housing stock if you're in in location and not in the new development buildings, and that would probably be the most

fair way to do it. especially when you think about the programs like health riot and things like that that have cob constanconstant turn-over ae graduate and come in. new housing stock versus old housing stock is probably the simplest way to move forward with the toll component. thank you. >> thank you. >> more public comment? ok, public comment is closed. next item. >> item 9 is adjournment. >> ok, meeting is adjourned, thank you.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. in our seven mile by seven mile city, we have over 210,000 properties and close to 90% of their are residential like the homes you and i live in, so you might ask, how can we possibly value all these properties? well, to better understand our work, we need to explain the state's proposition 13 law. in 1978, california voters passed proposition 13. under prop 13, we value your property at market value when you first buy it. every year after, that value goes up by the c.p.i. or the california consumer price index. but if the c.p.i. is more than

2%, prop 13 caps the increase at 2%. we'll walk-through the maximum increases prop 13 would allow. let's take a home with initial value of $400,000. in the second year your assessed value grows by a maximum of 2%, growing from $400,000 to $408,000. in year three, that $408,000 is increased by 2% to roughly $416,000. every year, the value grows by the maximum rate of 2%, and that is called your prop 13 value. keep in mind as time goes by your prop 13 value may not be the same as market rate. what do we mean by that? let's say over the last ten years, home prices in san francisco have gone every roughly 10% every year. despite that, your prop 13 value is capped at 2% growth

creating a difference between your market value and prop 13 value. know that the value recessed when there's a change in ownership. a change in ownership means that the property has a new zoner. maybe through a -- new owner. maybe through a sale, a gift or adding or dropping names through title. at that time the home will be assessed a new market rate. that value becomes a new starting point for the property. just like before, the growth continues to be limited at 2% until the next transfer happens. remember, the new owners are responsible for paying taxes at the new level from the first day that they own it. value might also be added when construction happens on your property. that would be another instance when growth in your value might exceed 2%. here, we would add the value of construction on top of your existing prop 13 value. every july, we'll let you know what your assessed value is by sending you a letter called a notice of assessed value.

you can use that information to estimate your property taxes early. please note that a separate office called the treasurer tax collector's office will send you a letter in october and they're responsible 230r collections. for more information, visit our >> good morning. this is the wednesday i novembee budget and finance committee. i am chair sandraly fewer. i am joined by the clerk