tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 21, 2018 9:00am-10:01am PDT
a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community sant to order. [roll call] >>clerk: we do have a quorum. >> good morning to all of you in the audience and commissioner lai, dunlop.
this time the commission of infrastructure and transportation authority of tida committee. welcome and to all of you that are watching very early this morning. i hope you can stay with us. okay. without any further comments. >>clerk: item number two, general public comment. >> if there are any public comment on item be that are not on the agenda, this is your time to speak with us, and i don't see anyone. >>clerk: item number three, consent agenda. approving the items of the september 28, 2018 meeting. >> commissioners, have you had a chance to look at the previous notes? okay. moved. seconded by commissioner lai, and all in favor. [voting] >> thank you. >>clerk: item number four, treasure island transportation improvement plan and tolling policies. >> good morning, directors.
i realize with the open houses that we had with the residents and some of the discussions at the tima board and our board, that sometimes we take for granted some of the history of some of the discussions that we're having, and it's important to take a step back from the current topics and discussions that we're having with the public and put them in the larger context of the development of the island. for that reason, i wanted to go back to the treasure island transportation implementation plan and as a context for the tolling policy discussions that we're having right now.
so, you know, beginning with the 1996 base reuse plan, it called for tran sis and pedestrian oriented development on the island with new ferry and expanded bus service and a -- a program of transportation demand management to development implement measures to reduce oughty trips generated from the development, including land use planning and enhanced transsit service and tolls for autos to access the island. and that was carried forward through the 2003 development proposal from ticd embodied into the 2006 transportation management planau.
it's woven through the 2011 entitlement transaction documents. ab 981 authorized the board of supervisors to designate a board or agency to act as the transportation management agency for treasure island. and for that agency to recommend congestion pricing tolls to adopt parking fees, fines, and penalties and to utilize those other parking related revenues and transit pass fee structure for the island, and provided that all of these revenues would
then be utilized to help support the implementation of the transportation program as part of the development. and then, with the 2011 entitlement and transaction documents, the corner store, the focus of this strategy is the transportation implementation plan, but it also is -- woven into the e.i.r. for the program as well as throughout the development agreement and disposition development agreements with ticd and the city. the e.i.r., the base project description included expanded transit services as described in the transportation plan, new ferry service, east bay service,
and an additional muni route. and that plan also assumed the tolling revenue was necessary to help fund the -- these services. and so that is -- is the base project description on which our e.i.r. is based, is these additional services are an inherent part of what we're building on the island, not just the residential homes, but these additional services. and then, the -- one of the mitigation measures that came out of the e.i.r. was to actually increase the frequency of service for muni service and ferry service above the levels initially proposed in the 2006 transportation plan. it was found that we actually had to have a higher level of service than was originally
proposed. so we moved to the d.a. and the d.d.a. there are a number of obligations on ticd to develop new infrastructure, road ways, bike paths, to pay a local match towards the construction of the bid ramps that totalled almost $12 million. to purchase up to nine a.c. transit bus services, to purchase buses for the on-island shuttle program. to contribute 1.8 million towards the purchase of new muni buses. and over the course of development, to provide a subsidy of $30 million to the transit program during the course of development with the recognition that at full build out, this is intended to be a self-supporting program, but that over the course of
buildout, some support from the developer is required. and there's also a provision in the d.d.a. that if, upon completion of the 4,000th residential unit, we are not achieving a 50% mode share -- that is 50% all trips on and off the island being made via transit, that there's an additional $5 million subsidy that the developer is required to pay to help promote or shift behavior through either additional transit services, more frequent transit services or try and change other behaviors to meet that goal. and then, the city obligations in the d.a. and d.d.a. are to form the treasure island mobility management agency and implement the programs,
including congestion pricing, that are called for in the treasure island transportation impleme implementation plan. and a couple years ago, the -- three years ago now, the board of supervisors did designate that the transportation authority would serve as the treasure island mobility management agency, and they've been working and briefing us on their efforts to implement it. the titip itself i mentioned is the global vision for transportation items on the island. and some of the goals and electricity gees that are embodied -- prioriti
priorities are policies for car light living where parking is unbundled from the price of a residential unit. there's on and off-street car share programs and conjustification tolling. and then, of course, we've talked frequently about the high quality transit service, to have that a.c. transit service and additional muni line and the high frequency ferry service to make transit readily available and a desirable choice for transit and transportation. and setting forth that 50% mode share objective. and then, the final component is financial viability, that the revenue from the tolls, parking, and underpasses go into
providing support for the on-island shuttle, the transit discount passes, and other components of -- of the transportation management plan. again, the titip goals call for promoting biking and walking, high quality transit service, car-light living, and affordability. as i was just mentioning, the subsidized transit passes for car and bike share for people in affordable housing, and long-term residents. so the strategies that are again laid out in the titip, congestion parking program, mandatory policies, mandatory parking vouchers, ramp meters, and special events and emergency
access transportation planning. and the objectives as laid out in the titip for the congestion pricing program are to create a disincentive residents to use cars for their trips, increase competitiveness and effectiveness for transit by ensuring high frequency and low cost, to mitigate the peak period impact of development generated trips on the bay bridge and ramp cues, and to provide financial support for the transit operating costs. which brings us back to the work that ticd -- not tica, the tima, and rachel hyatt is here today. you've heard from her last week
has been doing. baysed based on the ridership modelling, the 50% is only if there's a toll, if there's a financial disincentive to get people out of their cars. and also more than 70% of the transportation program revenues are generated from the tolling. the balance come from fair box recoveries and parking revenues, but those fare box revenues, again, are far less that are not required for the -- the provision of those services. so there's a large subsidy from the tolling to the transit fare box. and then, parking revenues. and while the parking revenues do cover the costs of parking management and parking enforcement, the -- they're only
projected to result in about $3 million a year in revenues to the transportation -- net revenues to the transportation program at full buildout. and then, as i mentioned with the operating deficit from the fare box, it's only sustainable with the toll revenue. so our goals and operations of this program, they rely on tolling. so in conversations with residents and others, that treasure island is somehow being singled out for tolling compared to other residential neighborhoods, this development program only is viable with -- with tolling because the transportation and other
components that are essential components of the development program are only sustainable with tolling revenues. so just to kind of recap and summarize, since the beginning of the reuse planning effort. it's been recognized that the unique physical location of treasure island, to be connected to the land only via the bay bridge, our most critical road way segment in the bay, that the development approach needed to have a comprehensive transportation management plan, including a transit and pedestrian and transit oriented vision, expanded transit services, limits on parking and tolls for autos to access the
island. as i said, no other san francisco neighborhood is yet subject to automobile tolling, it is an integral and essential component of the redevelopment of treasure island. i think it's important to highlight that, as i said, no other san francisco neighborhood is yet subject to tolling, but it is under discussion with, you know, the downtown core, particularly, but there have also been past conversations with tolling the peninsula fridays, 101 and 280 as a way of limiting vehicle traffic into downtown and promote peninsula oriented transit services. so with that, i'll open it up for discussion and questions. >> thank you so much, bob, for that very, very, very
comprehensive presentation. and for us, commissioners, any for the audience, people that are watching, it is always great to go back to educate us and everyone, how did we get here? and lately with the tolling about hearing and the press and -- we kind of have to take the ball to the goal line. i would say that this type of presentation, subsequently, we should be getting that maybe sometimes early next year, bob, we should have this. this is very important. and again, it also has application to see everything that we do here, especially, the current exercise where you, for the last year now, we are engaging the residents, asking them about relocation, and all
of these things need for the public to have feedback, why are we doing this and it will help clarify a lot of things. i have a lot of questions, but i'm going to ask the other commissioners to lead the discussion. >> thank you. thanks for that background. it's certainly helpful for me to understand the evolution for all of this. i guess i'll start with a few questions. the $1.8 million that was cited by contribution by the master developer towards the purchase of muni buses, is that in $$2,006? >> it was one of the conditions of the 2011 d.d.a. and it did not have an escalation attached
to it, so it was a fixed subsidy. >> and when was that subsidy supposed to be provided? >> it's supposed to be provided -- i'd have to double-check the schedule of performance, but it's as muni is going through their fleet acquisitions for the new service. so right now, the -- the thought is the new service will start in fiscal year '22, the fall of 20201, and so the -- that subsidy most likely will be due the fiscal year preceding. >> okay. so 2021. that's still a ten-year lag from when we implemented the 2.1 million. i'm wondering how much of an impact that will be. do we know off the top of our heads how much a muni bus cost? >> i think the buses are running
on the order of $1 million apiece, and so this was meant to be a portion of the share to the cost. the -- the -- as opposed to obligation to purchase the a.c. transit buses where it's not tied to a dollar amount, it's simply to purchase the transit buses. >> i like that better. okay. so what is the current range for costs for the passes, the transit passes again? is it, like, 110 or something like that? >> rachel's in the audience. i'll ask her. i believe it was 125, but i'll ask her to come up and talk about that. >> good morning. rachel hyatt. so yes, there is a range right now because two of the operators don't have adopted fares yet, so the final value or actual cost of the pass will depend on the
adopted fares. but the range is with all three operators, so ferry, a.c. transit and muni would be 125 is the figure that we've been -- that we've put out, and it could be plus or minus of that, depending what the final fare right side. >> okay. so as compared to, let's say someone who chooses to travel on or off the island by single occupant vehicle, what is the condifferent ishl? because when we're trying to disnentivize somebody from driving, i just want to get an idea of the margin or percent of difference that we're trying to create here? >> yeah. sure. so the toll levels that we proposed in the meeting were 350
peak, 150 nonpeak, and $1 weekend. the a.c. transit fare is, now, like, 340, and the ferry fare would be $4 is what we've use used in -- we've used on our model. with the pass, though, you get -- you get essentially a discount if you're using transit everything on the fare. >> okay. so i think -- so if, let's say, someone travels during peak hours by driving, so the toll's 3.50, $3.50, so every day, it'so
it would be the equivalent to driving off the island 17, 18 times, that amount. so that's about half the month. is that enough of an disincentive for somebody to not drive? i don't know what the answer is. i guess i'm just posing that question, like, what is the -- what is the tipping point for driving that disincentive? >> yeah. >> another factor in that is that for the market rate households, they're purchasing this transit -- a transit pass as part of this h.o.a. fees, so it's a sunk cost at the start of the month. they've already purchased it. >> that's true. >> so for the market rate household, at least for the first individual, there's a pretty substantial incentive to take the transit. >> that's a really good point. and are transit passes going to be, i guess, like -- not tax deductible, but qualify for
pretax dollars? >> i think we can -- i think -- i'll let rachel speak to that, but i think we're looking at those -- yes. >> yeah. so we will work with employers to offer this transit pass to their employees as a commuter benefit, you know, pretax to the employee. and then, the employer gets a tax break for that, as well. so we would need to work with employers to set that program up, but it's possible to do that if they want to participate. >> okay. that would be great. and tolls would, obviously, not be -- >> no, not that i'm aware of. >> okay. that's good. i think that's a good direction. and then, you know, the 70% subsidy for public transit, versus 30%, i guess, fare box recovery, how does that split
compared to the main lens transit program? currently for muni in the city, is that a similar percentile? >> i'm not certain but with our programs -- and i think this is consistent, you know, regionally and nationally, the muni service is not subsidized by the treasure island transportation program in part because muni gets a certain dedicated percentage of general fund revenues, so they're -- to the extent that treasure island development is generating general fund revenues, there is a percentage of that that flows back. so there is not a percentage of muni ease operations from the tima. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is -- operations fr
tima. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is operations from tima. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is operations from. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is operations from. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is operations from . the projected a.c. transit fare box support is ' operations fro. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is s operations fro. the projected a.c. transit fare box support is -- is small, but the bulk of the subsidy is flowing to the ferry service, and i believe that's consistent with ferry as a model elsewhere that it is a heavily subsidized operation compared to other types, like light rail or bus. >> i think it would be helpful, at least for me, to get a few of those examples, like, nationally. i'm not comparing our ferry program with, like, a privately operated or a p-3 type of transit operation like, in maybe in asia or europe, but just to kind of, like, a comparison, if we can get that percentile, that would be great. and then, you know, i think the 30% fare box recovery sounds
fine. i don't have an issue with that. the concern really is basically having to toll to get to that remaining amount. i don't know whether or not that's the appropriate amount. because again, i completely understand about congestion pricing, and that is a very effective tool to mitigate the use of that ramp. and again, you know, that system exists in many cities, including, you know, of course, london, but, you know, they have that congestion charge zone because people want to go in the downtown area or the busy part of town. my concern is the vibrancy of the island. the island does not already have that big attraction, that big draw for people to come, and i'm worried about whether we're going to have a big enough of a demand for people to want to
stay on the island and making it cost prohibit tiff. i'm not suggesting that we should make the public transit more expensive to kind of lower that subsidy for the ferry, but i am, again, encouraging us to look at other way to see recover that capital cost through other means. i don't know what that might be. i think we've discussed tima is looking at other options. i'm just really hoping you can find us some other way to reduce that -- that cost. thank you. >> and i -- we'll definitely -- i think golden gate transit is probably a good model for us to look at because they are operating bus and ferry service, and it's all subsidized by the golden gate bridge tolls, so we can see if we can identify to what extent they recover at fare box for their ferry service versus their bus service, and to
what extent their tolls help support those. >> that would be great. thanks, bob. >> thank you. commissioner dunlop? >> has there ever been a discussion about some sort of very small citywide tax, because the benefit does go to the whole city to support the viability of treasure island? obviously, it would have to go to the voters, but we wouldn't be asking a whole lot, i don't think -- i haven't done the numbers, but just something to have the whole public and the whole city supporting the treasure island development, which will be a great plus for san francisco? >> yeah. i -- i'm not aware in my time of a conversation about that. you know, as part of the -- the
development of treasure island and -- and the pledge of tax increment that has been made to reimbursing some of the public infrastructure investment that flows from the program, you know, the analyst has always been to insure that there's an -- a net positive contribution to the city from the development program, and so i think to the extent that there was a conversation of a commitment of citywide revenues to subsidize this, that it would be a -- it would need to be in the context of the -- of the net revenues from the entire development, considering tax increment pledges and other commitments that are already flowing to the project. i think there's also been -- there has been more conversation
from a regional perspective that the success of our transportation programs and -- and achieving that 50% mode share are of critical importance to the operation of the bay bridge, and so there is a regional interest, as well specifically through bridge toll revenues. that's been a more recent topic conversation but there hasn't been any specific pledge from anyone at this time. >> okay. i appreciate that. i was just taking b.a.r.t. the other day, and i'm not sure what the mile permile cost is, but b.a.r.t.'s pretty expensive from getting from point a to point b.
in some point, our fees don't seem very high. for those people who take b.a.r.t. on a daily basis, it does get pricey. i never -- i guess we talked about this before about buying buses, but what is a.c.'s participation in purchasing buses? >> in -- in this -- in this case, it -- there's a pledge from the program to buy the buses to support the a.c. transit service, so they'll ultimately make the acquisition, but the -- as with the ferries, the program is purchasing the ferries as part of the operating cost of operating the ferry. >> so if we buy the buses, they will be designated only for t.i.? >> i don't think they'll be designated only for t.i., but they'll go into the larger pool,
but it'll be the number of buses required to support t.i. so if they're operating -- if they're only operating -- i said up to nine buses. so if they're only using initially five buses to support operations at treasure island, then, the developer will only buy five at that time. but they go into the pool, so that if one of the five that we purchase breaks down, a.c. is required to pull of one of theirs to our service. they won't necessarily be dedicated to t.i., but they'll be pulled to the pool. and so a.c. transit as a commitment. >> so a.c. transit won't participate in the purchase. they will in the maintenance? >> yeah. they'll be responsible for the maintenance and so forth, but the developer will be purchasing the bus to provide the current level of service. and it's an initial purchase of vehicles, so that as we go
forward into the future, and those vehicles need to be replaced, then a.c. transit is funding the replacements. >> and i don't know if this has been -- i'm sure it's been looked at or yet you can know what effect it might have, but the driverless cars and lyft and all of those other newer ways of transportation, are they add next door this mix yet? >> well, the driver -- are they added into this mix yet? >> well, the driverless are added into tima because when you have a driverless vehicle, all of a sudden, you can look at what does it mean to have four 16-passenger shuttles versus 16 four-passenger shuttles.
whereas if each of those shuttles has a driver, those are not equal operating costs. so the evaluation of autonomous vehicles are definitely being looked at in the terms of the concept of the on-island shuttle. in terms of uber and lyft, the prevalence of those programs is something we are having to consider both in terms of street design, just providing passenger pick up and drop-off locations. but also, it is a potential force that tends to act against our objective of getting people onto public transit to the extent that people see those, you know, taking a lyft from city hall to the financial district as an option versus taking the muni underground.
to the extent those are fungible, those vehicles, as they come and go from the island, are subject to the toll as any other vehicle would be, so that would be added to the cost of taking an uber or lyft from the island into the city. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me -- listening to my fellow commissioners, i have a lot of questions. let me retract a little bit. given the unique location of treasure island for people that are, you know, watching, you know, remotely, we are embarked on these comprehensive transportation plan unlike anywhere, that even in the entire bay area has ever embarked on. i think that is the number one take away that we need to establish here, the uniqueness of treasure island calls for this.
and the approach is we're embarking on here. it's also unprecedented. we have these modes of transportation where we have, first and foremost, a ferry service, water transportation. and then, we also have these:00 -- muni and a.c. transit, and then, we have private shuttle. and now, we're talking about car ride share like uber or lyft. and then, within treasure island, we have provisions for bicycle, we have an extensive network. anyone that is watching, you know, we have this. why are we doing this? it is for the transit, number one. and i've said it all along, now is the time for us to be looking
at regional transportation. when you have water transportation sitting at the table, you have ferry services, you have muni, you have a.c. transit, you have all the players at hand. so what we are doing here, i perceive, is the beginning, then, of the regional transportation that everybody's talked about, but they have not had leadership. treasure island being a one of its kind development now can provide leadership to the region because the technology is there. what we're talking about now is how do we even enact the tolling requirement that is going to be here? how do we negotiate the rules of engagement, you know, between all the transit agencies? that's regional planning right there. that's where the san francisco county transportation authority's helping us trying to decide, and i want to make sure
we elevate the discussion even from here into the region now. if we can do that, there is no excuse for getting everybody together now to really do that. so one of the things for the 50% for the mode share provision, that, to me, again, is going to be the key in how we translate all of these, you know, together. what i'm interested in with the emphasis -- we know that the bay bridge as it stands is no longer feasible it is unless we build another bridge, and i don't know how feasible that is. i think we need to focus on the water transportation. how can we maximize the water transportation now, and by means of that, not just even stopping at treasure island, what kind of impact can we have when water
transportation comes to the island? can we go to oakland, can we go to alameda? why not. at that time, think, more people will be unloading, they will be taking b.a.r.t., and if more people are taking transportation to treasure island, somebody can take them from san francisco to treasure island and drop them off in alameda. the disposition development agreement, d.d.a. for everyone watching, stipulated that ability. whatever we're doing here, we need to think about the affordability for the residents and for me, and most of course here, we've said it all along, i'm thinking about the disabled here, i'm thinking about the
seniors, i'm thinking about low-income people that have families, and we have asked rachel to kind of help us here look at a case study, and i think that's what commissioner lai was even alluding to. let's break it down to the user. i want to see the exceptions. what do the exceptions look like? because at the end of the day, we have those that can afford the market rate, and those are the ones that are going to be taken care of. but those exceptions, the seniors, disabled, and low-income, what is in the plan? can we really focus on them so that we might be able to put them in a special category and offer some services, but their transportation experience must be such that we should not be all that complicated. it will be complicated if we don't really think about that
because if you have children and you're trying to take them to school in san francisco, or you're a senior, and you have an appointment, your navigation through the transportation should be simplified. so at the end of the day, before i sign off on anything, i'm going toic ma sure those provisions are there. even we're looking at the infrastructure of the transportation itself, the transportation for the disabled itself, the accounting, we have from this commission as the san francisco county transportation to look at the technology so that the visually impaired, the visually impaired, how did they get from the ferry to treasure island? when they get to treasure island, how do they navigate their way through those parks, through those services that we provided? we know even with good intentions in san francisco, that is not happening now. we also know because there are all kinds of accidents. we are thinking at la level.
we are not just developing this huge island, which we know we have the expertise, but we are looking to make sure the transportation experience, the affordability and the technology are all in place by the time you -- you know, we roll out this plan. specifically again back to ferry, again, the ferry, to me, should come out as a central transportation mode. ferry should come out, what are transportation. and the subsidy is what i real -- because talking with the experience i have a couple of months ago at the port of san francisco, halg from these ferry services, especially somebody that taxes some of the small operators, what they say is hey, this can be a little bit very expensive, so what kind of subsidies would be great to know? what are the costs that we are talking about here? if the cost is coming from
tolling, and this is supposed to subsidize the ferry, we might not be able to do that. i also do not want to create a disincentive to prevent that. because even though we may not have the ridership the first few years, the first few years also guarantee us some opportunity then to put this infrastructure place. it's like the chicken and the egg thing, what comes first. so if we're waiting for the tolling to maximize before we maximize the ferry. that's not going to be great for me. at the same time, we might be able to decide subsidies, you know, start the overall planning. so help us to figure this out. help us to figure this out because if that disincentive is not there because of the tolling above, we might not some of these operators not interested
or maybe not even have the funds to do the plan accordingly for the operation, of course, so let's figure that out from day one, day two, and then, year three is going to be like. i want to foresee what year three is going to be like in this entire plan, and then, we'll be able to deduce, you know, how we go from here. so that's in the retroexpect. i think that this kind of -- by you bringing out this background, it is extremely important because we can go back to the d.d.a. provisions specifically what the obligations are for the private developer and then for the city, and then, we can go back and see how we can begin the discussions. and then, lastly, let people know that the development is a public private partnership.
we are representing the city side, but we also need to be cognizant of the development side. this is one of the finest public private partnership that is a model, and everyone is watching that because the city by itself cannot right lane treasure island. all the infrastructure are very expensive, whether we've talking about the marina, it's not free. it's extremely varied, and so we need to -- as we throw all the dollars around, we need to be very cognizant of the city obligations, as well. and we do know that transportation -- public transportation is subsidized. it is true, whether you're talking about the state and the federal, and we expect the city and county of san francisco, for us to benefit from some subsidies at treasure island because our residents vote, and they're also san francisco residents, so let's front them that end into that. and we are paying muni for
1.8 million here. that's fine, but muni's also getting subsidy. mupy is getting something here, but we also want muni to give us something else back. again, we are san francisco residents here, so whatever is being done on the main land, i'm sure that he can also extend that to, you know, san francisco treasure island, you know, residents. so on that note, commissioner lai, anymore further questions you may want to ask or directives that you might want to state at this point? >> thank you. i do have one question at this point. i think your last question is a good one about the actual percentage of citywide subsidy. can you remind me, at least for the ferry, what percentage are we seeing is from fare box recovery, what percentage is
from the toll subsidy, and what percentage is from other means? >> the preliminary projections projected that the operating cost of the ferry would be -- and what -- the subsidy requirement -- i'm sorry, for the -- yeah, the cost to subsidize the a.c. transit and ferry services would be 27 million, and that the fare box recovery from those services would be 8 million, so there's a net $19 million a year operating subsidy to the two services. >> what about just the ferry? >> i don't have that number off the top of my head. i was looking at the total program, but i -- again, my recollection is that the a.c. transit was -- was mostly fare
box recovery, so out of that $20 million -- $27 million, i think we're talking of a net of perhaps 2 or at least 3 million that was attributable to a.c. transit, that the bulk of it was attributable to the -- the ferry subsidy. >> yeah -- >> and that's if whole buildout. >> yeah. maybe you can circle back with us with the breakdown. yeah. i think we should have this discussion again at a future meeting to talk about, you know, as a policy how we feel as a city or as the board on whether or not a larger percentage of the cost should really come from
a different source. it's not something that we can solve right now, but between the three of us, it's something we should talk about at a policy level before we give the direction on how to execute it. >> yeah. and i think the -- you know, the -- rachel has heard the same thing from the tima board. and you know, they are pursuing those conversations with m.t.c. and others, so yeah, we will take that to heart. i also just wanted to add, director richardson had brought up east bay ferry service and other potential destinations. while the ridership modelling has not indicated a high level of demand for some of these other locations, the -- the --
the thought has been that with -- with water taxi service and private operators like tidelines being out there that there's the potential for us to -- that the -- well, the private sector will demonstrate the viability of some of these services and the actual demand as development moves forward. and if there is sufficient demand to justify a routine -- regularly scheduled service, then that's an exploration as we go forward. but there are, as i said, private operators today that can fill that gap and demonstrate beyond computational model fill the demand for what that service will be. >> thank you very much.
and for the county of san francisco transportation authority and also for tida, i think also now is the time for us to begin the marketing, the public relations to start educating the public -- i mean, can you imagine standing at the ferry or public service commercial or something like that to say treasure island is coming, and water transportation -- these kind of things are basically, what, if you build them, they will come, and this is going to be a place of destination to where millions will be coming to treasure island when it's fully built. it's a given, given the beauty and the strategic location of this place to the bay area, to the region. and so we must, then, try to let people know, again, what we've been doing here. we've been saying this a long time, and generating the public transportation of the water
transportation and begin the public relations. and i think at some time, we would like to invite -- let's bring everybody in, m.t.c. i would love to know the plan for the m.t.c. for the region in terms of transportation. this should include treasure island, and maybe we can get them know -- they already know what we are doing here, and adopt some of the policies and some of the great ideas from tida, and we can help them again to rethink implementing once and for all the regional transportation that is on the drawing board that efrk talks about, but as so far, it's been this peace meal approach, but we are helping them to tie it together. those are some of the comments. are there any public comments? there are no public comments. again, thank you, bob for bringing this and for rachel, also. >>clerk: item five,
transitional housing rules and regulations and implementation. >> this is just -- be a quick update on some of the items that we discussed previously as we are working with the relocation advisors and the city attorney's office to plan for the implement indication of the transitional housing rules and regulations. so tida staff and i have been consulting with the city attorney's office on a number of topics. one of the areas of discussions have been how to best formalize implementations and recommendations for the thr and
-- thrnr. we're preparing draft memoranda on a few initial topics that i thought i'd discuss here today. the first is -- is to define a group of what we are calling benefit eligible residents, so that the transitional housing rules and regulations define that the transitioning household of transitioning residents who lawfully -- residents that were here in 2011. and then, it further defines what it calls post d.d.a. tenants, which are, again, those that move to the island after the d.d.a. effective day. but it excludes certain individuals from the definition of post d.d.a. tenants,
including someone who became a spouse or registered domestic partner of a pre-d.d.a. household member, a new minor child of a pre-d.d.a. household member or living caregivers to a post-d.d.a. care member. these three groups are people are not technically defined as part of the transitioning household, but they're also not post d.d.a. members. so we -- we needed to come up with a name for -- for this group of individuals and so we're proposing to define benefit eligible residents as residents that were lawfully occupying a unit on the effective date of the d.d.a. who meet one or more of the
exclusions under the definition of post-d.d.a. tenants. and it's important to not just just call these individuals pre-d.d.a. tenants because their benefit eligibility is tied to their relationship to a pre-d.d.a. household member. and so they -- they don't have independent benefit rights under the d.d.a. but only have these benefit rights -- i mean, under the transitional housing rules and regulations, but only have these because of their relationship to a household member. their final eligibility will be determined at the date of transition, so that, you know, if someone is a caregiver to a pre-d.d.a. household member today, but is not a caregiver to that person at the time of the transition, then, they have no
benefit rights under the thrr. this is first to create this definition for the purposes of being able to accurately describe household members and their status. the -- the second one that we are proposing to address is just to prepare a memoranda that calls out the authority to provide an early in lieu under the thrr. the early in lieu option is described in several locations in the thrr. specifically, section 3-f-1, subparagraph a, provides that tida may provide a written notice of offering an early in lieu payment prior to issuing a
long-term move and providing that those benefits will be calculated just as the in lieu payments are calculated at the time of a interim or long-term move, and that the effect of choosing to take the early in lieu payment has the same effects as making that decision at a different time. specifically that the household would no longer be eligible for the other transition benefits, transition unit or transition benefits assistance and would not receive additional moving assistance beyond the in lieu payment and would be required to vacate the unit by a specified date, but that they would continue to have the option of
being on the pre-marketing list. the third question that we're currently looking at, and again, this comes partially out of questions raised by household members in the advisory consultations is can households split? and specifically as i mentioned there are the three transition benefits available to household, a transition benefit option, an in lieu payment option, and assistance option. and household is eligible for only one of those options but what we're specifically looking at is if a household wants to split into one or two more households for the purposes of electing to transition to affordable units, is that something that would be