Participate in that bond. I think by agreement san mateo will not and santa clara has contributed on a different basis so the 3 county for this bond as i understand. I understand on a more curious question in general how many counties can participate in a bond measure like that. The bart is formed as the 3 sdriblthsd could be as many as the bart district but maybe another regional measure for the bridge tolls all the county in the area. And were trying to get to a press conference downstairs so if we can do a quick response. We need the state legislation like the gas tax theyll put it up on the smaller sunset. Ill ask enjoy realize were on a time issue. Thank you very much we can open up for Public Comment any member of the public seeing none, Public Comment is closed. This will be same house, same call . Colleagues. Yes. That motion passes. Next item, please. Item 4 recommended an award of a two Year Contract to the services in the amount of 4 hundred thousands for the San Francisco freeway Corridor Management study for the executive director to negotiate the contract terms and conditions this is an action item. Good morning with the Transportation Authority theyve seeking the cms for manage the increase of the liability on the freeway corridors in San Francisco from phase one and two of the cms study are from the caltrain grandparent and appropriated for cal grant this subject is the phase two and the Transportation Authority board approved the cms phase the report set the foundation for the took analysis in phase two by developing an evaluation frame goals moving more people and increasing the triple liability and increasing the neighborhoods adjacent to the freeway corridors this contract was waterway for a procurement process on may 8th for a request for the scope is in our packet the preproposal conference was held and 4 proposals by the dew date met the dba goal and the sfmta and caltrain interviewed the banks on june 3rd and unanimously recommended the firm the team has been experience in planning in the region in east bay and south bay and the objectives and the limits of the environment in San Francisco and the development and screening of a analysis of like scenarios the a team that is here today will address the additional questions the c h s team and the solutions this is an action stem were seeking to award this contract im available to answer any questions. Supervisor kim. I have a particular interest this is ann has an interest in the downtown area im interested in some of the difference Management Concepts and curious it in the background and work im not sure how many containments have been working im not familiar beyond la what other adjudicators have taken on the program and maybe there isnt a lot of persistence. A lot in the persistence in the la area and the alameda couldnt and currently seeking a plan for the entire region but the point to be aware of many of the efforts so for in the region either new h o v or a conversion in San Francisco it is a bit of a challenge in that the constraint maybe to alternatives that dont necessarily relate to the capacity. Supervisor kim we can absolutely have another meeting the state of california has been sort of a forer of the state weve seen a lot more implementation of those things and there is substantial experience in south bay as mentioned and east bay and lomdz has in place a grade of 5 corridors 101 is currently under study in san mateo and wanted to continue to look at San Francisco the conversion and potential others Management Studies for 101 and 280. Their exercise. They have exercise locally and mta form m t c staff around the other h o v. Thank you for your presentation and well open up for Public Comment any member of the public want to comment none well close Public Comment and colleagues, same house, same call . It passes next item, please. Item 5 introduction of new items this is an informational item. Colleagues, any new items for introduction seeing none, well go to Public Comment on this item Public Comment is now open no increments well close Public Comment. Item 6 Public Comment. General Public Comment is open and seeing none, e seeing no member of the public well close Public Comment and before we adjourn id like to thank sophisticating staff jim and others mr. Clerk. Item 78 adjournment. Colleagues, were adjourned good morning and welcome to actually the very first subcommittee of the Transportation Authority for timma, the Treasure IslandMobility Management Agency for today, thursday, july 30th. My name is jane kim, im chairing this committee. Im joined by committee members, supervisor christensen, who serves as vicechair, and supervisor wiener. Mr. Clerk, may we take roll call, please. Roll call, commissioner christensen. Here. Commissioner kim . Here. Kim, present commissioner wiener. Present. Wiener present and we have a quorum. I want to recognize sfgovtv that make pos all of our meetings available online, as well as a transcript please call item no. 2. Progress update on the Treasure Island transportation Implementation Plan information item. This is our only item of substance. Its an information item and we have some residents here from the island as well, who will be speaking at Public Comment. Thank you. Good morning, rachel hyatt, principal Transportation Planner. I have an update on the Transportation Planning for the island, and please do ask me clarifying questions as we go along. The Transportation Planning work for the redevelopment of yerba buena and Treasure Island has been going on for over ten years now. The first Transportation Plan was adopted in 2006 as part of the Development Term sheet between the master developer and set out the needs for Treasure Island and yerba buena and some strategis to meet the Transportation Needs as the island is developed. The Transportation Management act, California State Assembly bill 981 was adopted in 2008, which authorized the program and most recently the Development Agreement adopted in 2011, included the latest version of the Treasure Island transportation Implementation Plan, which echoed the goals and strategies that were authorized in ab 981. We started our work following the development the Treasure IslandMobility Management Agency and we have been working in partnership with them to craft a plan for implementing the strategies that were called for in the Development Agreement and the ceqa work. The key challenges to improving Treasure Island transportation are mainly threefold and these have been recognized since the start of the planning. First is how to minimize new congestion on the bay bridge . When the island grows to 20,000 residents, managing the effective potential new tract on the bridge was seen as a key challenge. Then in addition, how to provide new Transit Services . Serving the island and provide a level of Transit Service that will really provide a feasible option for people to get on and off the island, both to and from San Francisco and the east bay and how to pay for that new transit, particularly the ac and Ferry Service. There needs to be a dedicated, but committed source of operating funds. The original 2006 plan, the 2008 Assembly Bill and the 2011 titip identified these four key goals with corresponding strategis to address those three challenges. The first is the design of the development itself. The vision is for real complete neighborhood on Treasure Island. Right now folks dont have sort of grocery options, for instance, on the island. But to be well, the vision for when Treasure Island is redeveloped is to have all of these services that a San Francisco neighborhood has, and a Street Network that is complete. So complete network of sidewalks. All of the new homes will be 15minute walking distance from a transportation hub, where the regional Transit Services and the localisland serving Shuttle Services will meet. Highquality transit on and off the island. The commitment is to provide new regional Transit Services between San Francisco and the east bay, using ac transit direct between Treasure Island and downtown oakland. A Ferry Service supplementing muni between San Franciscos Ferry Terminal and Treasure Island and transportation service. Minimizing traffic impacts from the development. There is a number of Strategies Incorporated in the plan. There is a parking maximum of 8,000 parking spaces, residential parking spaces. All of the parking will be managed by price. And the costs of parking will be unbundled from the lease or purchase of homes. So people who want to live on the island without owning a car will not have to pay for that cost as part of their renter, or mortgage payments. And finally a congestion toll on and off the island to encourage folks who are driving on and off to do so during offpeak times, and then finally to be an antitransit and finally to provide a Revenue Source, combined with the transit pass purchases and parking fees to fund the Regional Transit operations. This map depicts the transit that services that are planned. The new Transit Service between the east bay and Treasure Island, the Ferry Service between the Ferry Terminal and the island, and new muni service. The level that is called here is really excellentlevel of Transit Service. Its many times more than what Treasure Island is served by today, and it is the level that San Francisco is most transitaccessible neighborhoods enjoy. And so that is the commitment to provide that level of Transit Service to make this system work. Where we have started is by looking at what it would take to enable this program to be successful over the longrun. So as buildout, after all of new residents are on the island, 2030, what sort of policies do we expect that need to be in place to ensure that the program meets its transportation goals and its revenue goals . We need to achieve a 50 transit mode share for trips on and off the island and we need to make sure that the costs are covered, particularly the costs of the new Regional Transit. So with the work that were presenting today is our sense of what it will take to make sure that the program is successful. Then going forward, there is a number of other areas that we need to work on next. They include how the program is phased in . So development will be phased in through at least 2030. How do we approach that . How do we phasein in the various pieces the program, aligning the need for toll revenue and parking revenue with the need for new Transit Service and making sure that is scaled to the new needs of new residents as they come in. Designing other benefits, such as the transit pass. All households in the marketrate units will be required to purchase a transit pass monthly as part of their homeowner dues, as part of think their rent. We can design a number of benefits into that and that is something that we want to work on over the next few years. Working with bay bridge toll policy and i will talk about that in the presentation, another next step making sure that the bay bridge policy and Treasure Island policy are compatible. We have been doing outreach. We did one round of outreach last fall, mainly using a survey to try to get the word out about who we are, and let people know that we are here and raise awareness of the project. We reached about 15 of the residents, pretty good Response Rate for outreach survey. We are really in[tkebts ]ed to indebted to some of the Housing Partners on Treasure Island, who helped to offer and distribute the survey for us. It is still online, if folks watching are interested in taking it at timma. Org. Some of the things that we have learned from that that there is a great deal of interest in improved transit, particularly east bay transit and ferry transit. At the same time, there is concern and frustrations with traffic issues. So there is a much higher rate of auto ownership on Treasure Island and yerba buena today than in San Francisco on average; which reflects the fact that in part that its hard to live on Treasure Island today without a car. Its not a complete neighborhood. There is not a highlevel of Transit Service. Frustrations or concerns around driving include congestion, costs of owning and maintaining a car, and finding parking. On the question well, so something that we observed there is that higherrate of auto ownership on Treasure Island. And folks on Treasure Island today spend higher share of their income on transportation than the average san franciscan. And we do think those two things are related; the higher auto ownership and the higher spending, or expenses on transportation. We do know that in california, lowincome households, who rely on driving are autodependent end up spending a lot more of their income on transportation than households that are able to use transit as their primary mode of transportation. We see one of the best, most effective ways to support a ffordability on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island is to support the ability for households to choose not to own a car, to carshed a second car or use carshare for their vehicle access. That would be a change from how it is today, there is no carsharing on Treasure Island today. This table shows the policies that we think are what it will take to make the Program Successful over the longrun. And what we recommend is a toll program that has a broadbase, but low tolllevel. We expect that before Ferry Service begins, there will be a period of time as development is being phasedin, where there is not a demand for ferry. And so the need for revenue is to support the onisland, the Shuttle Services, and the ac transit, the east bay service. At that point, the level of revenue that we would need is about a 3 peakperiod toll and something lower offpeak such as 1 each direction. We recommend that this toll be in place when there is a core during transit core hours of operation. When there is a transit option available. We want to credit folks driving from the east bay on to Treasure Island for what they have already paid at the bay bridge toll plaza and those drivers would not pay twice. Shuttles, transit, vanpools would be exempt. And we also recommend a Discount Program for lowincome households on the island. We want to craft or we sought out to craft a program that we could extend to all households in the lowmarket rate units or who qualify for belowmarket rate units and this would support travelers who are lowincome regardless of what mode they are taking. These graphs illustrate the tolllevel. In