tv BOS Land Use and Transportation Committee SFGTV November 13, 2021 12:00am-3:01am PST
a rear yard set back of 30 feet which provides significant improvement of light and air. >> i'm sorry. i'm going to interrupt you briefly. your computer microphone is what's picking you up. i would suggest hanging up because it's causing an echo. >> thank you. can you proceed to the next slide, please.
different number. >> the problem is i can't hear you. i'm hanging up the phone. >> okay. thank you very much. sorry for the delay. 1320 washington street will meet the city's urgent goals for housing and keep with the neighborhood's oldest neighborhood. >> architectural we took cues from the neighborhood. structures, materials and pallets and textures from
surrounding neighborhoods. we took the relationship of our neighbors and took a set back of 25 percent. we create a set back along washington street which is consistent with our neighbors. we set the parking garage back 15 feet to comply with the planning code. a natural grade sloping to the north which is why we're asking for a variance. we were able to lower the height and create a rear yard and the garage also below the window adjacent to it 1441 jones. this mains the 21 percent year
yard exposure. to maintaining light and air we created a easement on the east side of the property. our ground floor is composed of a central lobby. on the north side we've placed two large units ideal for families. second floor is composed of six units. all the units have significant light and air to the north and south as well as to the east and west. floors three and four are similar to floor two with the exception that these have balconies overlooking the rear yard. the fifth yard is where we created private terraces an
as you can see it steps down to your right which is a 17 story. >> thank you. that is your time. >> we've demonstrated. >> the commissioners may have additional questions for you but we should take public comment at this time. members of the public this is your opportunity to provide two minutes of public comment. when you hear that your line has been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> i own 1340 washing street which is directly adjacent. i'm calling to voice my support of the project. the garage that currently
occupies the land -- [indiscernible]. the thoughtfully designed roof top will be a nice addition as well. i think the project does a good job paying attention to the character of the neighborhood. the bay windows on washington street. i appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions on the project. given the thoughtfulness of the project, i support it as proposed. thank you.
>> hi. i'm president of the san francisco entertainment commission. today i'm calling as a small business owner. we're very much in support of this project. our small business has suffered a lot. bringing more neighbors can help businesses. bringing housing can allow people to live nearby. they've done extensive community out reach. i've been impressed with how many stake holders they've involved in their process. i'm thrilled to support this project as are my business
will have to use onstreet parking. there's not a lot of onstreet parking available. with the crime wave we've been experiencing there will be more break ins of cars. it's much higher than the buildings adjacent to it. two stories of living space plus the roof deck. the building being approved was consistent. we would like for the commission to not approve the height and reduce it to be consistent with
the buildings that are on either side of it. we were promised perspectives of what the building would look like from our viewpoint. we never received that. the drawings provided to the hoa showing the new project appear it indicate there's only one story above the other buildings. in reality there's at least three stories. thank you for your time. >> my husband and i oppose the height of this project. not the building itself. we ask that the san francisco planning department hold on approving this today and revisit the building height. thank you.
>> i live at 1441 jones street. i want to speak on behalf of our hoa board in support of the project. it makes great use of the under utilized space. it it will compliment the neighborhood nicely. we appreciated working withing the project sponsor. they have addressed some of our feedback. we suggest that you support the proposed project. thank you. >> i'm a resident of 1441 jones street. i live adjacent to the current
garage, i'm looking at the concrete walls that is 14 inches from my living room. the new development will increase that set back and improve quality of life for our building. i'm excited with the prospect of new family homes next to us. i'm very happy with the idea with the garage where we won't have to hear cars and such. our quality of life will improve with this development. we're really happy with it. i would urge the commission to support this project. thank you.
>> hi. i'm not really close to that building. i have talked to a lot of people who want to move into that area. having that building adds a lot of value to that space. i'm a proponent if you have new development you should maximize that space and in order to do that, you have to go high. thank you. >> hi. we live a across the street.
both our bedrooms outlook onto the new proposed project. we're in support of the project. we think it's going to be a positive improvement on the neighborhood. the garage has been a noise issue and attracted a lot of people into the neighborhood late at night. the project is extremely handsome with landscaping in front and the roof top landscaping. it's going to provide needed housing for san francisco. the lot is very under utilized. urban land development reached out to neighbors. they had a community meeting to give everybody an opportunity to meet with the architect and the developer. it was extremely informative.
they've done a fine job. we strongly support the project. thank you very much. >> hello, everyone and commissioners. we are the incoming new residents at 1174 pacific avenue. just half a block away. we just purchased a three unit apartment building. we're certainly excited about a decisional residentials coming to this neighborhood. i think as a lot of the supporters stated. san francisco needs additional housing and maximize the under utilized lots. certainly this is the neighborhood for residentials and create a more family
i think it's a win win for everybody. thank you. >> thank you. last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no further public comment on this item. public comment is closed. commissioners there is a late request to speak, shall we take that caller? >> yes, go ahead. >> i'm a resident and former
owner lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years. i'm in support of the project. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. that will conclude public comment and it's now before you. >> i'm in support of the project and recommend this application. >> i'm am in full support of the project. i'm asking for the commission to consider one thing. just a few minutes ago we looked at a project that had similar characters in a different neighborhood to the one that we're looking at.
setting a larger previous industrial building replacing it with a residential building. the surrounding context to other buildings. what struck me was how it delineated the roof of that open space. i question that this particular project, the current delineation on page 22 does exactly what we normally expect. i ask that we apply the same principles that we see on the project here. that is that the open space does not really extend to the property line neither in the front nor in the back or on the sides. that indeed the open space as to whether or not portions of it are assigned as a private terrace or not that is organized
for a building to function on its own. it's consistently held back from all sides. east, west, north, south by at least 5 feet. that is consistent to the policy that we use everywhere else. i would like to see it here too. this would still leave the calculated square footage way within what is needed and i think it will create a better project. otherwise, i'm in support and if the commission agrees, i would like to make a motion to accept the project except for the modifications that i'm
should hang up your phone. >> it seems like the sound engineer will be looking to see about the soundproofing and that satisfies my questions. >> i too am in support of the project. i believe the increase in density an height is necessary to accomplish that. it's appropriate. i favor housing over parking. we as a commission don't protect views. i think this is a very beautifully designed project. i was happy to see the preservation of the backyard and the balconies to the rear. i did have a couple questions. the first is for the project
sponsor. the depth of the balconies is only two foot nine. is that the most under the code. it would be nice to accommodate a chair or two. what we learned during covid is that access to open space is very important where we can provide it. i was wondering if you could address that? >> yes. that is the maximum that we can do there. >> is there a way to design the doors to that so that it functions more like a balcony. is that something that you can work on with staff during the design refinement process. >> yes. we're using french doors.
>> okay. my additional question is for commissioner. commissioner moore on her set back. were you looking for a five foot set back on all four sides. >> if you're asking me, commissioner diamond, the answer is yes. it's basically holding the roof deck back from all edges. it does not diminish. there's plenty of roof there. it just allows for that deck to be less intrusive or visible from all sides. >> thank you for that clarification. a follow-up question for staff. i know that the deck was
providing -- all to go it was providing more open space than was required, does the reduction of five feet on all sides still keep it within the minimum requirements of the code. >> i believe it does. >> did you make a motion? >> i was floating the idea asking everybody to reflect on that. >> would you like to make that motion. >> i'll be happy to make the motion to support the project with the modification as i just explained to commissioner die mon. diamond. >> second. >> i just wanted to quickly
address the variance just to clarify that it's somewhat a technicality. the building that is proposed that the deck does not go deeper than what is permitted. the code deck allowed for the low grade garages for extend within 15 feet of the property line. it's because of the historic nature of the development of this site. it doesn't exactly fit the requirement to be below grade. i wanted to be clear on the specifics. it's not technically a code compliant in the rear yard.
>> i often experience that to be a complicated intersection. you have considered that when you have cars coming in and out of your building. >> we're adding much less cars. >> so you are have considered that. obviously a garage which is primarily overnight parking. if you have thought about it, i'm comfortable. i'm bringing your attention that
it's not a completely problem free intersection. >> i'm also acceptive of the concept of the project, it's scale and it's overall design. i did have a question on the proposed amendment by one of the other commissioners related to the five foot set back. they currently have planters on the east and west property lines which has no dimension but based upon a visual look at it, they appear to be about four feet. i'm assuming that the amendment then is looking at a reduction of the roof deck at five freet t
from the property line. if that's the case, i would be receptive of that. >> if we could get clarity of that. my understanding is five feet of all sides. >> from the current property line. if you look at drawing 22, it shows clearly that the planters sit at the edge of the property line. they need to be set back five feet. >> five feet from the existing location not five feet from the property line. >> yes. that's inclusive of the landscaping. >> that's correct. >> landscaping and roof deck to
be pulled in five feet on all sides. >> very good. >> if that's the case, i don't see how that conform it what we've done in the past. >> you could clearly see that on the project where basically a non occupied roof outlined the edge of where the usable surface of the roof deck can be. >> yes, i've seen that. i'm talking about the general policy that we have imposed on other projects. if the planter is there and that prevents people from going next to it, i don't see the purpose
of the five feet. >> there's basically no edge. the planter itself does not delineate the edge. it's a furnishing of the roof deck. we want to hold the furnishing of the roof deck five feet a from the edge. >> question to the project sponsor. there's no details at this point. what is the intent with those planters? >> not at this point.
it was too soon. we haven't gotten to that level of detail on the design. >> okay. >> what is in front of me is drawing 22 of the roof deck. that particular drawing does not show any planters. the planters to be introduced need to be held back five feet from the edge of the roof. >> drawing 22 shows planters. >> it's shown in the wrong spot.
it doesn't show anything on the front side or in the rear where the private terrace comes all the way to the north side and south side. >> the question was on the east and west side. >> i think we have explained what the intent is here. >> if i could just intervene here, if i may. i think it is -- >> can you pull a diagram up so that the non architects on the commission can be looking at this and understanding what you're talking about. we can visually see how this is being resolved.
i think it is consistent to say the set back is five feet. that's how staff has been interpreting things. they may or may not be planters there. those are not things that are necessarily permanent with the building. >> if i may, my understanding of the motion is simply to take all the edges of the roof deck inclusive of the planters and set them back five feet. that's from the east, west, north, and south side of the roof deck of the terrace.
>> yes. >> commissioner diamond does that satisfy your question or clarify -- >> it's very helpful to have the diagram. even though it shows planters on the east and west side. if we bring it in five feet. >> they may not have planters within -- >> i know. they could choose to have the planters or not have the planters. nothing is going to be developed, plants or anything without five feet all around the edge. do i understand that correctly? >> : yes. >> just so we're abundantly
clear. you're not effecting the edge of the light well. >> no i'm not effecting the edge of the light well -- >> just from the property edge. >> from the light well as well. that's correct. because that is what we consistently do. >> okay, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the motion that the roof deck be pull back five feet from all edges including the light well. on that motion. (roll call).
that motion passes six to one. >> i will close the public hearing on the variance. >> thank you. commissioners that will place us on item 14. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am, thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. you have before you a request to amend the conditions of approval proposing the demolition of a
two story unit composing of one dwelling an construction of a new four story building with nine dwelling units above a child care facility. the project itself remains unchanged however it proposes to satisfy the inclusionary low housing rate. the project proposed to satisfy the inclusionary affordable housing program. however, the plans and transportation management plan provided low market rate units. it wasn't until shortly after the hearing that the disemploy y
was noticed. the revised plans that no longer indicate the units. based on the scare footage the project will be required to pay a fee of approximately 371,000 in accordance with the 2021 impact fee schedule. the department has received one letter in support and one letter in opposition. in order for the project to proceed it must modify the planning code. the proposed changes to the conditions of approval do not effect the conditions an
i mistakenly did not submit updated drawings to include that however that was our intent back in may. the actual problem here is that the affordable housing code that's minimum size units or market rate units and we're just shy of meeting compliance with that. with this design as is, we do not meet the code for the unit. in some cases we're as short as 12 square feet. in other cases it's 40 or 50 square feet. we believe this layout is the most efficient we can do with the project. we want to go forward with this lay outand do the in lieu method
of compliance. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to provide two minutes of public comment. >> i'm addressing the fact that without accepting public comment on the previous item, it does concern me, how can you be conducting lawful proceedings when the system doesn't work, when star three doesn't respond. that concludes my remark. i don't want to interrupt this item. i live half a century near that project, i'm not opposing the project, there are things i think you need to know in order to make good projects and not have negative impacts cumulatively on the project -- on the neighborhood. thank you.
>> thanks for opening u public comment. i want to state that i understand the plan for this property was approved in september. i did not receive notice of that meeting nor the meeting today. i discovered them out of curiosity. i wanted to voice a few concerns that i would have shared if i had known about the meeting in september. the project has two floors of child care. it's a frequent source of commuting downtown. for those of us who bicycle or drive, it's a busy stretch. for two floors of child care with what is currently available in front of the property is essentially four spots where
somebody could park without double parking. there's constant double parking on the street. this can directly effect all of us. my concerns is as a commuter. the noise pollution it will create as a result. i was told there's a plan for pick up an drop offs of child care. given the limited parking capacity, i don't see it's a feasible option. i understand the square footage issue and suggest that it's redesigned to observe that. i don't believe it serves the residents of san francisco.
it disadvantages residents of san francisco who have already been pushed out of the city now. you truly cannot separate rates from class. i'm curious what will happen to the cannabis dispensary across the street. >> members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak, the public comment portion of this item is now closed and the item is now before you. >> thank you. i have concerns about this
project and what comes before us. it looks like supervisor preston's office expressed concerns on this. it's important to address the discrepancy. i'm really curious how did this discrepancy happen. the commission hearing voted yes on this project rk the, the impn is that it's on site, code compliant and within the inclusionary compliant. i would like to understand how did this -- especially on staff on our side.
they were proposing to do bmr units on site. i'm not sure if you can provide anymore insight on that. >> my curiosity is -- one is the inclusionary packet or application included off side. the tdm said something onsite. i just feel like, whether the mapping was submitted, i believe it looks like it was submitted in may -- i'm really concerned in terms of the information being provided to us an the commission whether correction or
lack of accuracy. the accuracy of the information being provided to us. in my -- it was something that voted that this will provide onsite because it's maximizing the density. there's nine principally permitted units. it will allow for inclusionary. i'm not in support of the transferring to the off site. i believe that our department needs to do more looking into the information being provided to the commission an also within the department itself in terms of looking into the maps or information being sent. i don't know what else to say but at this point i will not support of this. thank you.
>> did you want to hear from me. this is the architect. our design was more or less finalized back in january. that was the dates chris was reviewing. we got delayed bit environmental review. on another project we had in front of you on third street last may, we did end up needing to redesign that project. it's something we're capable of doing. we're missing the unit number
eight. they are missing the target by 16 square feet. it's possible to redo. we didn't want to redo the facade again. we were thinking this method would be easier. i forgot to update the cover sheet so that's entirely my fault. >> i don't know if i'm going to accept that apology but i appreciate your explanation. >> i appreciate certainly there are some concerns regarding reporting. one thing i think the communication to us that we
received this afternoon pointed out is the amount of the fee that would be paid is fairly low. perhaps they hadn't paid attention to the sale in part because we see larger fees because there are more units being paid out. this was a smaller amount for a smaller project. it struck me that there's a policy issue here which is the amount is far below the cost of building a new housing unit. i don't know if there's anyone on the line today who can address the fees and if there are any possibilities of the board resetting those fees so they are more aligned with actual construction costs. building one unit of housing is seven hundred, eight hundred, a
million dollars worth of cost. that's just to pay for labor and materials. i'm supportive of the project. i wish we didn't have to make a change. i'm concerned more about what the fee is right now and that we may be seeing more folks have use of fee instead of building the bmr. we need a balance between fees an folks actually building onsite units. maybe the scale is tipping very far towards the fee at the moment and wondering if staff can speak to that.
. >> there's nothing requiring one or the other at this point. >> commissioner diamond: and does the code say anything about changes that have been after the project was approved? i thought we had some legislation or proposed legislation in front of us not too long ago trying to clarify some of these measures.
>> it's my understanding after consulting with our housing advisory team that this particular request wouldn't trigger any of those denial findings, but again, this is just proposed legislation but not adopted. >> commissioner diamond: i, too, would prefer to see the b.m.r.s on-site. on the other hand, our code did give them some of the choice. i also want to point out this project is providing much needed child care, and i feel
like i would support staff's position and would move to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: if there is no further deliberation, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-2, with commissioners moore and imperial voting against. >> vice president moore: president koppel was left out. >> clerk: i'm sorry. commission president koppel, did you vote no? >> president koppel: i did not vote. you did not ask me. >> clerk: oh .
[roll call] >> clerk: i apologize. then, again, staff, the motion passes 5-2, with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us, as 2040 chestnut has been continued, under your discretionary review calendar, on item 16, 2018-007339-drp-02, at 619 22 avenue. mr. winslow, you found your office. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is a discretionary review for the construction of a rear
horizontal addition at the first and second stories totaling 266 square feet, and a two story vertical addition, totaling 1,974 square feet, to create a new second unit to the existing single-family home. roof decks are also proposed at the rear of the two-story addition. the existing building is a category c, no historic resource present, built in 1922. there are two d.r. requesters, first, adam schnall, resident of the adjacent property, and james chu, resident of the adjacent property to the south of the proposed project. mr. schnall is concerned that
the project does not meet the standards of the proposed architects, that the architects are not state licensed, and that a potentially previously construction [indiscernible] that was not previously reviewed in this project, and because of the deficiencies cited above, this violates proposed due process. his proposal is from two additional stories to one additional single story with a deck. mr. yu is concerned because it will block light into his kitchen and air into his living
room. to date, the department has received no letters in support and no letters in opposition of the project. planning department's review of this proposal confirms support as it conforms to the planning code and residential design guidelines. roberta wall is a licensed firm of principal architects. firms are not required to be licensed, only individuals are. there are other homes on this blocks with setbacks similar to this one. an environmental review has been conducted and it met the categorical exempt. planning staff couldn't find any previous records of permits for construction, and until now, no complaints have been
made for the construction or demolition of this structure in the past. this garage could accommodate up to four cars by my estimation in tandem. information on the drawings that were sent out for neighborhood notification were complete per department standards, so we deemed that that had been done. the department carefully measures light and air to adjacent properties. the anticipated setbacks to the proposed building were to respond to the condition.
the third story also reciprocates the existing neighbor's light well, and with the side spaces filled in to align with that neighbor's rear building wall. the residential design guidelines consider the height of surrounding buildings as they define a scale at the street and rear yard. in this case, because the adjacent corner building is three stories at the street face, a three-story building is acceptable with the accept back. therefore, staff deems there are no extraordinary circumstances and recommends approval. that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer questions.
thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. did i miss that mr. yu withdrew his application for d.r.? >> i am not aware of anybody having withdrawn d.r. >> clerk: okay. i don't see him here, so mr. schnull, you have three minutes. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> excellent. it's schnell, but if you would, please call me adam. >> clerk: okay. >> thank you. thank you very much for allowing me to speak. i'm a neighbor located at 629 22 avenue. please note that i don't see any of my supplemental photos and materials and diagrams in the packet, even though they were required to be submitted three weeks ago, which we did, and so i'd request that these materials be made part of the
packet and -- and reviewed. so i'd like to clarify some of the initial comments if we could turn to the second page. and i apologize. with three minutes, i'm going to rush a little bit through here. skyline. i believe the pattern in the central richmond district has created a unique skyline and also a clear policy of preserving that skyline in the character of the richmond. i did an informal survey of the numbered avenues over a 14 block neighborhood between cabrillo and fulton. many of the blocks in the central richmond and indeed the richmond at large are framed by very large multilot three and four-story structures at the
corner, so our building is one of those. these corner structures tend to be the largest and the tallest. historically, these structures have been protected by the planning department. i was unable to find any four story structures adjacent to these structures, and i was unable to find any five-story building adjacent to a four-story project, and this would do just that. not only aren't there any four-story buildings next to a three-story building in the neighborhood, but there aren't any at all. none of the structures were downgrade and built to be
taller, as this project will do. so what we see in the pattern of building over many decades is a pattern to create a very specific skyline and protect that skyline by protecting the integrity of these very large corner buildings. the current project will deviate from that policy by dominating over the neighbor at the corner, which is us. if we could turn the slide again. so the question is, if -- if the skyline's going to be changed against current policy and 100-year precedence, what are the criteria for that? there haven't been any criteria stated other than height and zoning, and i don't see any discussion on skyline. and so without any existing clear criteria, any approvals either currently for this project or in the future, which you will need to issue because you've issued this one, and you want to be a -- you want to be
repeatable in the process -- >> clerk: that is your time. >> okay. >> clerk: you will have a one-minute rebuttal, and the commissioners can ask further clarifying questions. i don't see -- well, let me check one more time. i don't see mr. yu's e-mail and i don't see his phone number. mr. yu, if you are in attendance, you can press star, three and i will see your hand raised. i see a couple of calls -- let me just see if you are mr. yu. >> hello. >> clerk: is this mr. yu? >> yes, it is. >> clerk: okay. mr. yu, if you would mute your television or phone, that would be great. thank you. >> first of all, i want to thank the commission for
hearing my cases, and the main concern for me is the light wells. if that building is allowed to proceed, my living rooms and my kitchens, it will be really dark for 24 hours. that's one thing. and needless to say, it wasn't due to your mental state of health. and the second thing is then that allowed the building to build the sidewall of the rest of the natural building, where i live, we can't do any maintenance or painting over. and third, if you look at the current property where they tried to build, they've had an illegal unit for almost 40 years, and now, the planning department is reviewing that, and they want a set back even
more in the front. if you look at ours, we have a set back in the front and the back. and the final thing is they never looked from day one. there's no one there. they're trying to flip the property for making profits, and we've been living there for almost 30 years. if you consider that, with no lighting, with no set back, with all that, and if you look to the final drawings, which mr. adams submitted, that building is taller than a telephone and a utility pole. that's how tall that is, and that's never this tall on this block or in the richmond districts. my final question is, if the
commission is allowed to continue, what is the next step? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes d.r., we should hear from the project sponsor. given that there were two requesters, ms. wall, you have six minutes. >> hello, commissioners. roberta wall here. so we started the process by having our preapp meeting, and mr. yu was present at that meeting. mr. schnall was not. on that meeting, we did light studies for the project. we also heard what the neighbors were saying, and we did, in fact, set the building back at the third story, 5'1" on the northside and 4'4" on
the southside of the building. so not only did we match the light well, but we also just extended the pull back so more light could go in. i will identify that mr. yu has the privilege of adding a third story, and so his complaint that this property is also adding a third story, which would block his light, so we could continue this all right. you're the one who moved this forward. could you move forward, please. thank you. okay. yeah, so this is a previous thing. here's the profile and the yard from the back.
the whole thing is quite modest, as you'll see. that is showing the difference of what it first was and then the second view of it, and again, we can move forward through these. keep going, keep going, keep going. i want to get to the -- okay. so this is -- sorry, yes. thank you very much. this is the immediate block of the 619, where we're going to add the two stories, hopefully, and then, the blue are all the four stories on this block, as well, so there is precedent within the block that this has happened, and i would also say that this project is -- has
been more sensitive than many of them and doesn't max out the square footage on the lot and has setbacks on the lot. if we could move forward, please. this was the e-mail about the -- the e-mail that i sent to all the neighbors from our preapp meeting, kind of speaking about the character and the sun study that we've done. and what i've said here, sun study, which was attached -- i gave them that, so we wanted to know how things work, and taken from july 21 to december 24 [indiscernible] respectively, during the summer months, there's no different with the four-story building than what is currently projected by the
facade. that was the light study done, and i think i can stop here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three to be added to the queue. mr. yu, you don't need to press star, three. you've already spoken, and we will get to you when we call up rebuttal in just one moment. given that there are no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, public comment is closed, and we can move onto rebuttals. adam, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. so the fact that there are a few four-story buildings at a
much, much lower grade than this building really doesn't give any precedent. this is a building that is at least one half story or greater in height due to the elevation of the land than any other building on the street. in addition, no other building sits a full story that's adjacent to one of these large corner buildings -- there's no other building that i can find in the entire richmond district in our subdivision that does that. there are a few that are a few feet taller. i only found two or three of those, but there is really a push to protect the height of these corner buildings that frame the entire block and give the skyline the nature that we have currently. if there's going to be changes, i'm all for it, but let's have a process and talk about what the criteria are. i've made out in my slides what
some of this could do, and even more variance in a back to get to do a horizontal addition, and then, they can get all the -- >> clerk: mr. yu, you have a one-minute rebuttal. mr. yu? you have a one minute rebuttal if you care to use it. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. >> am i on or no? >> clerk: yes, sir. your time is running. >> again, i'm concerned about the air flow and light into my
living space. and if you haven't walked into my house, you don't know what it would look like. and also, for your information, i also personally went to the planning department and had submitted with all the photos in there. did anyone review those photos that i submitted or they're lost in the mail somewhere? would anyone like to answer those, any commissioner, or mr. winslow? i have a hand stamped envelope that i submitted or were they thrown in a garbage can? >> clerk: sir, this is not a question-and-answer session, but this is your time to present your rebuttal. that concludes your time. members of the commission, that concludes the public comment portion of this hearing, and so
this matter is now before you. >> commissioner diamond: doesn't the project sponsor get a chance to do the rebuttal? >> clerk: thank you. and i apologize, ms. wall. you do get a one minute rebuttal. >> oh, hi there. i'm back now, unmuted. i think i've kind of addressed the point that there is precedent for four-story buildings in the neighborhood and it is to code. the owners have, in fact, made concessions to the neighbors and this is a fairly modest project. that's my point. sorry.
>> clerk: now that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing, and it is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i looked very carefully at what's in front of us, and mr. yu, all the photos that you submitted are in the package and as well as your concerns, and i've taken those concerns very seriously, but in a broader view, i did not find anything exceptional or extraordinary about what is proposed in this particular project expansion. i found it very good shaped in the back, and i think the department has done a good job guiding the owners through the project and i am in support of it. i'm curious to hear what other commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: i'm also
in support and leaning towards staff's recommendation. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. thank you to those who are participating. there has been a question from one of the d.r. filers, i think it is mr. yu, around if you have any other options. if you are not happy with the results, you can take it to the board of appeals, so you can do if you feel that's what you need to do. i would move to not take d.r. and approve staff's recommendation as proposed. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: i heard a motion. i didn't heard a second. >> president koppel: second. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to not take d.r.
and approve the project as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously 7-0 and concludes your hearing today, and i onlyask that we conclude in the honor of buster posey's career. he brought us three world titles, and he will be missed. >> president koppel: i agree. we are adjourned.
415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. number is 2492-945-6836, then press pound and pound again. when your item is call, press star, three to lineup to speak. you will be afforded three minutes to make public comment. item 1, roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: you have a quorum. >> thank you so much. so just welcome to everybody. i am so looking forward to seeing all of you in person in time. we're getting there since our
vaccinations and boosters are available for our children now. good to see you all, and let's begin the meeting. >> clerk: item number 2, general public comment. this item is to allow members of the public to address the treasure island development authority board on matters that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the authority board and that do not appear on the agenda. in addition to general public comment, public comment will be held after each item on the agenda. >> is there anyone that would like to make public comment? >> clerk: there is no one on the comment line. >> okay. let's go to item 3. >> clerk: resolution making findings to allow teleconferenced meetings under california government code section 54953-e. >> can i have a motion and a
second? >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. all those in favor say aye -- sorry. this has to be a roll call. >> clerk: yes, i'll take roll. [roll call] >> clerk: and there are four ayes. >> great, so the ayes have it. >> clerk: item 4, report by treasure island director. >> go ahead. >> thank you, director tsen and members of the board. i want to begin my comments by recognizing that our chair, director batesenand hill top park were recognized yesterday at the spurs silver spur award ceremony. it was a virtual event, but wanted to begin by recognizing
their accomplishments and that recognize from spur. local board and committee meetings are still not expected to begin to return to in-person meetings until the new year. we'll continue to follow guidance from the mayor's office and the health officer. certainly, our december meetings and i expect our january meetings will continue to be virtual. the heavy rains over the weekend of october 23 and 24 presented some operational challenges on the island as we had some localized ponding and flooding roadways. it was also a factor on power outages on yerba buena island and treasure island on the 24 . at a little bit after noon,
there was an outage on yerba buena island attributed to downed tree branches contacting power lines. that was on the 23. on the 24, a separate power outage occurred on treasure island at 9:35 p.m., and service was restored at 3:05 a.m. the response time in that instance was impacted as sfpuc crews were deployed in other areas of the city when power first went out on yerba buena island -- i mean treasure island. flooding in electrical room one was the cause of the outage and the part had to be flown in
from los angeles. power was restored on the 29. we also had two outages from vandalism. wednesday, october 27, at approximately 7:11 a.m., treasure island and yerba buena island experienced an outage. power was restored on yerba buena island at 7:37 and on treasure island at 8:30. on sunday, october 31, there was an outage limited to yerba buena island. power was put on the generator
at 7:30 that morning and kept on generating until the following day. in this case, the cause was identified as vandalism to the line. there were also power outages on october 29 limited to bayside drive, november 1 limited to two residential buildings, and also this a.m. affecting a single residential building. other work are being planned with the p.u.c. and asked p.u.c. to provide an update at
the december t.d.c. we have an item on our consent agenda file for continuing support from -- authorizing support to round out the financial picture from that with the hopes of closing financing on that and beginning construction in march. the premarketing window for the 14 inclusionary units in the bristol has been extended. a door hanger is being distributed to village residents today to let them know the additional time. the new deadline is january 18, with the lottery expected to be held on february 8.
mayor's office of housing reports that they have received nine applications from current residents, so the prospects of many of those existing units going to residents looks promising. other island work, the developer ticd is planning to do some work to refresh the outside of building one as well as the chapel, working on retrofits with our leasing staff and also some possible activations for the ground floor of building one. treasure island building development also demolished building 34, which was the former golden gate rugby clubhouse, and this next week, we expect that the project team
from the san francisco glenns will begin the process of demolishing buildings 261 a and b across the street from the gymnasium. wes is also working with s.f. little league to find a new home for one of the two fields, tepper field, on the island. the pg&e anticipates beginning work in the spring that would affect that field site, so we're trying to find an alternate location for that field two. the department of public health is preparing to roll out vaccine distribution for treasure island residents between the ages of five and 11. parental permission will be required, and we'll be sending out additional information as the details are solidified. also, the california academy of
cancelled with the judge ruling that oral arguments were not needed. finally, last week, several departments came over on muni. the group visited yerba buena island and treasure island recovery zones and was widely reported by the chronicle and several t.v. stations, and that concludes my report. >> thank you, bob. are there any questions from the directors or comments? >> yes, yes, director tsen.
>> director richardson? >> thank you, director. i was honored to be part yesterday, and i saw that, and i just kind of wish that everyone had the opportunity to look at the accomplishments and contributions of one of our commissioners, commissioner chair of sustainability, and it's a testament why she's highly regarded, not just in the san francisco region but across the country, so it was an honor for this commission, and it's, again, letting the public know that we have what it takes, more than what it
takes to guide this development, and it is an icon to the entire country, to the entire world. commissioners, i talk to you, but my colleagues on the outside, they are the one pulling me. they are the one telling me about your work, and every time i get the opportunity, i say it loud, so thank you and keep up the excellent work. >> thank you so much, linda. thank you so much for your support and for the rest of the board. we have the chance to really shape the future of this island, and i am glad to be
here with all of you. i have been many years, over four and a half decades, in the public sphere, and treasure island may be in fact my last. i don't know, but it's certainly one which i think we can bring experience and [indiscernible] together and really shape this incredible neighborhood and incredible district. but so glad to be here working with the rest of you on the board and the rest of the staff, because it's not ever one of us, it's all of us
working toward [indiscernible]. >> i just wanted to say, director tsen, that it's been a pleasure working with you. bob, thank you for your update, and i look forward to the p.u.c. coming to speak with us in december, and i would like to work with you on a list of questions that i would ask them before they present. it's a long list, and i also want to raise some concerns that were just brought up. the security, how many times there were security on the island. i think that's really important. there were a lot of consequences there. with all the construction and so much development going on, we just need to kind of look at that again because i think as we have more buildings going up and more and more people going on, we need to make sure we're coordinated, and safety concerns, too. so i just want to say, i heard
you on that, and i support you on that. the flooding component worries me a little bit. we haven't talked about the infrastructures, and i just want to put a place holder on that. as we have to decarbonize our environment, how are these new buildings and existing buildings being [indiscernible] to address flooding, energy efficiency and the elements, so i don't want to miss the opportunity to address all of these different attributes and flooding again. when you mentioned the back up generator, was that a diesel generator or natural gas? >> we have two diesel back up generators, one on yerba buena island and one on treasure island. between them, they're capable of handling the existing load
on the island, but really, they're primarily useful, the one on yerba buena island, when there is an interruption on the service from refresh island to yerba buena island or the one on tresh island when there's an interruption in the service from oakland to treasure island. when the fault of the outage is in the current network on treasure island, we're not able to switch to generator because the distribution is in fault, so it's primarily when we have a distribution failure as opposed to a transmission. >> and one thing i'd like to
flag, too, is how many communities in california -- particularly there's a lot of disadvantaged and frontline communities that have back up generators in their backyard, and i'd look to look at other options as what we're planning for going forward because we need to get off diesel, and not just have it better coordinated, but a different grid. and the other also i want to raise and talking with the p.u.c., too. there's many options here. i want to see where we stand in buying the batteries and coordinating them with neighbors that need them the most right now? >> and thank you, director. that reminds me, i failed to
ask nella to give an update on that report. >> nella, go ahead. >> sure. hello, directors. nella gonzales, director for one treasure island, and i'll give you an update on batteries. i'll start with covid-19 development and coordination. we had vaxers on treasure island last week to give people information about getting the vaccine. as mentioned, vaccines for five to 11-year-olds is now available, and when i left today, we were just beginning
to have conversations around that. as more information is available, we'll share it. around one treasure island programming, we're very excited to announce one treasure island's new employment director, jamie brewster. he's joined us today. jamie has over 20 years of social services and workforce development experience in the bay area. we're really excited to have jamie join our team. i look forward to having him meet some of the partners and players on the island soon. so jamie, i don't know if you want to say a really quick hello. >> yeah, absolutely. a really quick introduction. i had the pleasure of meeting some of you at the event, but for those of you i haven't met, i'm jamie brewster. i have about 20 years in social development. i look forward to work on this
team, and i look forward to getting to know each and every one of you better so we can continue this work in a forward manner. so thank you so much, and i look forward at seeing you guys at our annual pot luck on december 10. you should have received an e-mail today, and i look forward to seeing you there. >> thank you. and then, the one treasure island connector newsletter was there, and it was attached to the report. we have begun some construction readiness workshop as an outreach tool to our construction workshop, and we're looking to start at least two more prior to our construction training in february. very excited to let you know we had our halloween trunk or
treat, and i included pictures, so i hope you had an opportunity to look at it, and the parent council created an absolutely awesome haunted maze. thank you so much to director preston price because she was absolutely essential in making that happen. we had over 100 attendees and 50 families attend the event. d.p.h. came out to the event and gave out vaccine shots that day, so we're chipping at it little by little. we also had an october fair and featured a food truck called soul on the road, which is women who were formerly
incarcerated, and they provided some great sandwiches and also [indiscernible] gave out free vegetables, and island makers came. again, we could tell that the community is really clamoring for some interaction after being locked up two years. as the holidays approach, we're going to be winding down and helping smaller tiffs with the bakery. -- smaller activities with the bakery. one treasure island will be distributing, as we do every one, canned goods and turkeys.
we had our first sandwich saturday last saturday. it was a great success. i just want to give a big shoutout to our partner [indiscernible] market. residents were able to get sandwiches, drinks, and chips. and we have rolled out a survey for nourish treasure island, and to date, we have 45 responses, which for those of you who, well, work on treasure island know we're doing really good with that so far. it's been out just over a week, and overwhelmingly, the response has been great. it's been really nice. residents have reported it's been assisting them financially without having to pay for five meals a week, and lots of moms
have said that they enjoy not having to cook every night, so we're really excited about that, and we're going to have the survey roll out through the end of this month, and we'll look at the results and adjust any parts of the program. last but not least, back up batteries. there was a delay because we realized that our battery does not work on oxygen concentrators, and we have quite a few residents who have oxygen concentrators. when we reached out to the company, they had a lot of questions and cautioned us
against buying the batteries without having them tested. i have received the order form. i have completed the order form. it will go out and friday, and with [indiscernible] and to date, we have had 11 residents fill out the q.r. form and request a medical device, so we're continuing to outreach it, and whatever devices we don't give out, we will save for our emergency medical prep workshop and any other residents who need devices. we're getting there, julia. it's been a long time coming, but we wanted to make sure that we were purchasing the correct battery and not wasting money or disappointing folks. i did get a call at the last outage particularly around cpap
machines. >> just appreciate that. thank you so much, and shoutout to barkley for him taking time out of his work schedule. thank you so much, again, for pushing this forward. >> absolutely. absolutely. last thing, we're developing some procedures around handing out the batteries. i'll send you a message, and we'll get them sent out next month, and that concludes my report. >> thank you. thank you for all the events at one treasure island. bob, did do you have any other -- bob, do you have any other items on your director's report? >> yes, that was everything i had. >> great.
were there any other comments or questions from the board? i'd like to move on. we've got closed session today, as well. >> just real quick, is there any other type of equipment we should be concerned about when it comes to the batteries? i don't know, pacemakers or things of that nature? is that something we should check into also? >> so we've done all of that already. we checked on based on what people told us they had. pacemakers don't -- because they're in your body, they don't require -- it's an internal battery, but we looked at electric wheelchairs and
you. >> shout out to you working with the kids. >> yeah, shout out to the council. they got it on, really working with the kids. >> okay. any other remarks or questions or comments from the board? >> clerk: we have no public comment. >> okay. so we can go to the next section, please. >> clerk: item 5, communications from and received by tida. >> okay. are there any comments or questions from the board? hearing none, is there comments or questions from the public? >> clerk: there is not. >> next item. >> clerk: item number 6, on going business by board of directors. >> okay. any questions, comments from the board? yes, julia.
>> yes, i did want to ask, we were asking about the items to review, is that at the end again or are we going to move it up to the front? >> right now, i believe it's set to the end. looking at my agenda, and where do we have -- >> bob, you're muted. it looks like you might -- >> item 6, there's on going business by board of directors. >> yeah, that is still part of the discussion at the end of future agenda topics. i apologize. i did not understand there was a request to move that to the top of the agenda. >> i think -- julia, i think having it at the end does make sense because we get to the end of today's agenda, then we can get to those items that we need
to review for the future, but we do have it then, and we should discuss it for the future. okay. any other questions, comments? okay. hearing none, next item, please. >> clerk: item number 7, consent agenda. 7-a, approving the minutes of the october 13, 2021 meeting. item 7-b, resolution of the treasure island development authority board of directors authorizing the execution of the california housing accelerator documents including the standard agreement and any amendments or modifications thereto, authorizing the authority to accept and expend a loan of not to exceed $65 million approved by the housing community development and authorizing the director of the treasure island development authorized to execute such documents. >> okay.
is there a motion? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. is there any public comment before we approve the consent agenda? >> clerk: there is no public comment, and i will call roll. >> okay. [roll call] >> okay. so the ayes have it, and let me just point out that 7-b is incredibly wonderful because this is for our second affordable housing project, and this $65 million which comes from the department of housing and community development from the state is important as we get funding for the project. it means that we are able to go forward with the catholic charities project hopefully by the middle of next year, so
it's private consent agenda, but it is an important part, and i'm so glad that we got it financed. next item, please. >> clerk: item 8, resolution establishing an ad hoc nominating committee, consisting of three members of the treasure island development authority board of directors to nominate officers to serve one year term. >> so this is an annual thing that we do every year, to get an ad hoc committee so that we can get members and committee members to form those committees. and for the nominations committee, i would like to have linda richardson, ike kwon, and myself on that nominations committee, and we will forward recommendations to the board as a whole as, i believe, the december meeting. so i think that this is a
resolution to establish that nominating committee. may i have a -- >> yes, i would -- thank you, commissioner tsen, for nominating me to this committee. i accept, and i would like to make a resolution to endorse this. >> so we have a motion. do we have a second? >> this is ike. i'll second it. >> so the motion has been moved and seconded. if we could have a roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: there are five ayes. >> the ayes have it. next item, please. >> clerk: item 9, presentation of draft tida collections
management policy. >> this is an informational item, and who will be presenting? >> peter somerville from our staff will be presenting. >> good morning -- good afternoon, excuse me, president tsen and staff. i have a couple of slides that i want to share to give you an overview of the basic document you have in front of you, and then, i'm going to turn it over to treasure island museum and debbie kahn to provide you a little bit more. can i just go ahead with the slide show? >> clerk: yes, you should share your screen. great. >> okay. so the collections management policy, what is the collections management policy? for those on the board that may
not be aware, generally, tida has [indiscernible] accepted by deeded gift from the authority and the city within the last decade, [indiscernible] six of which are in front of treasure island administration building today out of a total of about 13. so it's not a large collection, but tida does have a lot of locally valuable items, unique items that it has an obligation to steward appropriately for the public. the transparency, it's a written document to act according to the standards set by both the city and county of
san francisco as well as the museum profession. draft c.m.p. presentation that indicates that the general scope of tidas collection, provides standard for overall collection and care collection access, and a code of ethics for collections management. and all the elements of this document are consistent with the administrative code and the city's larger purchasing and property disposal requirements imposed under the administrative codes.
staff. with that, i am going to introduce mike from treasure island museum who will speak to their role and introduce debbie who will be speaking about the contents of the documents. i will return for a slide of next steps, and we are open to comments, suggestions, revisions that the board may have. mike? >> thanks, peter. >> i'm going to keep this brief in the interests of time. we have one of the biggest collection of artifacts around, but it's largely unknown, and we're excited to laying this foundation. this is an incredible first step, and we're excited about it. debbie kahn is the person who
started the work, and i'm going to turn it over to here. why don't you go ahead and take it away. >> thank you, peter. i am debbie kahn, and along with the work that i've been doing with the museum and tida, my original background is in library and archives, but i'm equally now, if not more, involved with the museum side. so i've been with them during seven years, and much of that time, i've been involved in writing policies and
procedures. in addition, i've written sections of the department's ever evolving cataloging ma'am manual, so i've had some experience documenting policies and procedures prior to this work. when i was hired to create the c.m.p., the scope of work included three main tasks. creating the c.m.p., which is comprised of the nine parts that are in the document that was distributed to you, a set of procedures involved in cataloging and preparing the collection, and software with recommendations. i am focusing on the c.m.p. and its associated documents today. so elaborate you further on what peter said on the c.m.p., it's to elaborate on the parties that are responsible for the care of the collection throughout the life of its
objects. the policy also governs how incoming and outgoing loans are handled as well as any other regulations with regards to all of these areas, and every c.m.p. is tailored to its collection and to its governing body. so prior to beginning this work, i read through our c.m.p. to make sure that i understood what was being stated and why. i did this because it's the closest example of a document to emulate given that it is a historic collection owned by the city and county of san
francisco. after that, i stepped away so i could refrain from simply recreating the current document. these documents drove some of my early research and i then reviewed the c.m.p.s of other museums with similar scope and structures, so i looked at municipal run state collections and museums as well as military
collections owned by nonprofits. after the research phase began to wind down, the writing began. i was working on several documents as once, depending on where my attention was needed. but then, i met with pete and walt with several rounds of review and rewriting. and after one of the rounds, i decided -- i looked more closely at the documentation from the fine arresteds -- fine arts museum.
in addition to some of the resources mentioned earlier, i also referred to a.a.m.s, museum registration methods, which is the bible of registration as well as the national parks services museum handbooks part one through three. the collection inventory list was critical to the development of the care manual since it provided an overview of the material and material types as well as care for them.
once we gathered all of the comments from various parties, we were able to produce this document today. in conconclusion, i want to thank both the tida and the treasure island museum as well as peter and mike. it's my hope that this document will help guide tida in its stewardship of this unique historical collection. thank you. >> thank you. is that the end of the report, mike? >> director, i have one final slide, if you don't mind? >> go ahead. >> thank you. just so we can discuss this with the board, obviously, incorporating feedback from today's meeting, understanding that it is a very complicated document, we'll certainly be open to receiving feedback from
tida staff for the next couple of weeks, so certainly after you've had a chance to read through it after whatever discussion happens today, feel free to submit further discussion through kate. city attorney and the risk manager is going to look @it -- look at it in its current form before we present the final to you at the december 8 meeting. this is just a foundational document to help us then continue next steps with inventory. this certainly gives us the foundation, but just because we have all the tools in the
toolkit, that we're going to be going crazy with the management and changing all of that. and finally, i just want to acknowledge, and debbie brought it up, the additional resources that were created as part of this product. overall, we're extremely impressed at the staff level with the quality of the delivery with the amount of information that was generated, the amount of documents and forms that are going to help tida. it's not tidas mission, but it's a unique role that needs to be filled, and certainly, the cmp and debbie have ensured that we're getting off on the right foot, and also, s.f.o. museum's debbie callum was very generous with her time. and with that, i'll complete my presentation, and myself, mike, and debbie are available for any questions.
>> thank you. thank you so much, peter. i almost didn't recognize you with your covid beard, but i also wanted to say, peter, that we -- the board as a whole did want to extend our condolences with what was noted at the last meeting. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> and glad that you're back. >> nice to be back. thank you. >> and debbie, thank you for that presentation on the c.m.p. nice to have you on board. i think we do have valuable items that are so important to the history of the treasure island and to have it be done in a rigorous way and to be able to keep track of those items is important, so thank you for that. and who -- who -- where are the items being stored and handled right now? is it through the treasure
island museum? no, it's at tida. >> the items that are considered under this collection management policy are the tida items. the vast majority of those save for the ggig culture and navy items are contracted at an art handling and storage facility. there is not much handling of the items right now. the statues that are on display are on display, the ones that are not on display are in storage on the island and the collective boxed up museum items are all stored on shelves. >> wonderful, and we have an item which is on loan to mexico city, is that right, to the museum in mexico? >> currently on loan, you're correct. there is a request of a loan
for a couple of exhibits in mexico city in 2023. we're negotiating that with the parties down there. we have loaned them before, but that will be brought to the board closer to the time the negotiations will be in place. >> and i think it's great that you're starting the oral art history project. >> and remember, one treasure island is about the current
last 20 years on the island, so we want to make sure that we're all part of the same family. peter, you did a how -- it's important to us at the museum, but i'm glad to see it's kind of coming back around a little bit in support of this group. and again, it's not your first priority right now, but i'm just so glad that we're doing that. >> yeah. so i'm going to open it up to the board for any comments or questions? >> yes. >> yes, linda, go ahead. >> yes. thank you, peter. i didn't almost recognize you, as well, and i want to convey condolences to you and your family. this is an exciting project, and debbie, i'm very familiar with your work in the city.
this is again very exciting. the questions, i'm going to go back to revisit your document and, like peter says, be passing out my comments later on, and one of the -- linking the questions with some of the connections that we have on treasure island. what about those pieces that are missing? are we still holding out? shouldn't that be reflected in the c.m.p. to say hey, anybody out there, if they have any of
the historical artifacts, i remember with the treasure island historical museum, we touched on that, that maybe one or two pieces are still out there, and we should never give up, and maybe in a c.m.p., you should reflect it, that we are still on the lookout, you know, for those historical objects. and what about the [indiscernible] i don't know about the conditions of some of them, but this is for the preservation or care of some of these artifacts. lastly, i know that peter
mepgsed the next step, regarding the cataloging of those artifacts. i think that would be a major project to know what we have in house so we can make policies and provisions to preserve those while we are open to making accusations because at the end of the day, the goal is to make the public appreciate what we have in our collections. treasure island is going to be a destination, and going to be, at some point, somewhere where we have to invite the rest of the world to come on. lastly, with our history project, i would like at some point for commissioner breston, yeah, it's a great idea. we just want to make sure that we kind of cast out the net so we're able to get as many of
the residents and, you know, points of view as possible, so again, thank you, debbie and thank you -- >> we're taking nominations for the current world history, so if you have nominations to make, you can make them on the website and the treasure island usium and members of the community are on the committee, citing who is going to be on the exhibit. >> director tsen? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> i can speak to the question quickly about missing items and item handling. i think certainly, director richardson is talking -- we were talking about the murals earlier, one of the murals from the original ggig set, long
1,382 with treasure island series 2, l lc, a delaware limited liability company, for the use of the ferry terminal located on treasure island, san francisco, california. >> so we had mentioned that we will be initiating or the developer will be initiating ferry service in january, so this license is meant to facilitate that, and rich will present that. >> thank you. rich [indiscernible] for use of the ferry terminal located on treasure island. in 2003, ticd was selected as developer for treasure and yerba buena island.
facility. >> okay. i'll bring that up again. thank you. >> any other questions or comments? are there any comments from the public? >> i have a question. when you say just for use, rich, so will people be actually using the ferry? >> there will be an initial service from prop s.f. that will provide the service. again, it's a limited service, ferry service, that'll come from san francisco from the ferry building to treasure island. >> okay. so will we the one
>> i want to say, in the next six months -- and bob might have more information on this than i, but in the next six months, there might be a little different [indiscernible] to be able to get into different areas of the island, but right now, i think things are mainly going to be staying the way they are. >> and do you have any idea of when it's going to open up, the cars to the island? >> yeah. i think the ferry service might reduce the number of cars coming out because i think folks will hop on the ferry to come out. >> i'm kind of thinking about the folks coming from the east bay. >> okay. that's a good point. >> okay.
thank you, rich. >> thank you. >> want to build on that quickly. >> yes. >> is there going to be a bus stop at the ferry terminal? >> yeah, i believe there's a bus stop adjacent to the ferry terminal now. >> there's currently bus service to building one, which is directly across from the ferry terminal, so that will continue. >> well, i'm sorry, bob. we'll continue to have the bus stop right where it is now because that seems like it's right there or the shelter, at least? >> right now, it's going to continue to be a bus stop. eventually, there will be a full shelter constructed. as rich mentioned, there's work
going on at the front of the island to reconstruct a causeway. there will be some traffic changes to -- the permanent causeway will be coming next year, and it will be realigned in front of building one, as well, but the intention is to have a stop today just as it is to the north. >> excuse me, bob. i would like to [indiscernible] discussions to have the [indiscernible] definitely would be dealing in debt with the construction infrastructure and at some point, so we can
put weda out there. they need to be [indiscernible], you know, comprehensively with transportation [indiscernible]. >> okay. thank you, linda. so this motion -- there's a motion and a second. there's no public comment. we will take a vote now. roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: there are five ayes. >> thank you. the ayes have it. next item, please. >> clerk: item number 11, timma update on toll and discount policy draft recommendations. >> so is it rachel that will be
presenting? hello, rachel. >> yes, rachel will be presenting. >> go ahead. >> good afternoon, directors. rachel hyatt for sfcta or treasure island mobility management. i do have a colleague with me, connie cho, who is a consulting project manager with us, in case there are questions that she might be in a good position to answer. so my update for you today is the same content we just gave to the timma committee yesterday also an an informational update, and don't want to cover the grounds that rich just covered in the previous item. you know we have two performance goals for the
transportation program and all of the traffic congestion management revenues will be devoted to that end and it identifies the service levels of transit that need to be in place to enable them to be self-sufficient and that would be dedicated to funding transportation as well as the means to manage the traffic impact of the development on the bay bridge.
they're slated to be occupied in 2022, so want to be able to provide information to purchasers or prospective purchasers of new homes about what the program looks like. the transportation program itself, as rich was just describing, will be operational in its full capacity in 2024. so rich described this interim program in 2022-2024 that will be provided by tidc, the developer, paid for and operated by tidc. the permanent program, so that included the weda, ferry service overseen by timma, the new east bay bus service and
sfcta/timma is not just responsible for the transportation program launch, we are also responsible for infrastructure on y.b.i., and those milestones are also converging on a 2024 completion and open for use, so the south bay project is expected to be complete next year. west side bridges here at 100% design and what's shown here is the bike path is in environmental review, ready for design. treasure island is, of course, an equity priority community, and for that reason, the timma board and this board has also voiced these principles for supporting the current residents as well as future residents and workers, so a
number of resolutions have been adopted protecting them. earlier this year, timma adopted a policy to provide a transit pass for anyone in low market rate housing as well as workers, people working on treasure island. the full price version of this pass would be purchased by folks living in market rate housing with their homeowner dues. this will allow for unlimited access to all of the transit service as well as the muni services touches treasure island. and then, most recently, timma adopted a program to support adoptability of subsidies for
nonprofits as well as a cash stipend that employers can use to offset any additional transportation costs that they face, whether they're employees or additional costs such as for deliveries. what i have today is a proposal for glooifrltsd be eligible for, so looking ahead to -- as the land use buildout expands and there are more travelers on and off the island in the future, supporting affordability for those residents who might move into below market rate housing in the future or workers who are part of employers who may not be receiving the business subsidy. the base toll policy we're
proposing is broadly consistent with the past direction and we've also kept in mind the existing policies on the bay bridge as well as other work that the bay area toll authority is doing to increase affordability and accessibility for the bridge toll payers in the bay area so that we can minimize confusion and take advantage of existing or, you know, imminent administrative processes where possible. [please stand by]
discount program than the bay-area authority is contemplating right now for express lanes. but what it does allow is for anybody in the below-market rate housing to be eligible for a discount. and there's one thing just to clarify is that this discount would be available to anyone who has a fast track account, you know, regardless whether they're a resident. so this may be a future worker who is a low based worker and would be eligible or the family and friends of current or future residents who live elsewhere in the bay area but would qualify based on being moderate or below income. we are documenting all of these proposals in a revised version of the 2021 version. which we plan to make available
very soon within the next -- within the next 10 days we anticipate. and we're holding a virtual open house to answer questions and hear any feedback on november 17th. and folks who are interested in that can go to our website sfgov.org/timma to get a look at it after the 17th if they're not able to join on that day. thank you very much for your interest and we look forward to your feedback. >> president tsen: thank you. rachel. and this is not an action item. it's good to get an update. i'm going to open it up to the board for any questions or comments.
yes, linda. >> thank you so much, rachel. and it seems that you have made tremendous movement. and i watched the board of supervisors and it was very impressive, the outreach that san francisco transportation authority has been conducting. and the questions that i have and a lot of the questions that we posed, due to covid, and talking about having answered any just for the public record, i want to you reiterate that to your presentation. there are so many things, but for specifics. i was concerned about seniors, low income and disabled and very
low income, and coming to your program with the ability to have answered that. it is important for you to reiterate that so that people can hear that those people that are low income actually are going to have those discounts for that. that is very significant. and i want to make sure that everybody understands that. and people with low income are going to get a discount and there is also a depreciation between the period when everybody has to go out. so you are low income and you have to take your child to school on the island and this is already -- you're not going to be [indiscernible] according to the schedule. and also great to see that during the weekend that at
certain hours regardless of low income or whatever, this provision to have it free so that people on the island that were low income san franciscans that want to come to the island to visit their family or just to recreate or to just . that has to be taken into the situation. rachel, if i am a worker and i'm working in a restaurant and i am low income, could you reiterate what this means for them? i know that you say they are also -- because you are low income regardless where you are, it is already taken care of. but i wanted you to reiterate that so people can hear that. especially for the restaurants and some of the workers. >> yes. thank you so much, director
richardson. you are correct. a worker working in a restaurant or any other business on the island who may live in antioch, for instance, or elsewhere in the bay area -- that worker is still eligible for a discount or an exemption based on their income. so if that worker is very low income they would be exempt. and if that worker is at 100% -- 120% or below of area-median income, so moderate, and they would need to have a fast track account to get that (please stand by)